Healthy eating for kids

[frigidweirdo]

So what? It was higher in the 1950s than western Europe and it's higher now that Western Europe.

Yeah, why do you have to do anything? Why do you have to give a shit about other people? You don't. You can be as selfish as you like. But then again I'll fight for society to be a better place, and you'll fight for society to be a more selfish place.

Me letting people live their lives as they choose is not being selfish

But tell me what do you call a person who wants to tell everyone else how to live?

and we are not and never have been western Europe. I hope to god we never will be because those countries are all falling apart

But you're not into just letting them live their lives, are you? You seem to be in favor of sugary food companies being given a boost, that's fine, but giving healthy food companies a boost is some how not letting people live their lives. What they FUCK?

I'm not for any company getting any money from the government. You are though as long as you think it's the "good" kind of company

but government treatment of any company does not force people to buy their products

But yes it does because it pushes others out of business. And what makes you think you shouldn't dictate to others what they eat or do, when others already dictate to you that you are not allowed to walk or bus to work instead of fattening yourself by your car?

really?
Has there ever been a time where apples were unavailable because all the orchards were out of business?

if you choose to eat real food it doesn't matter how many companies that produce shit food go out of business

so now driving makes you fat? So those people that drive to a gym every morning are getting fatter? weight loss is 75% diet.

I stopped eating apples because of the wax. I switched to pears. However the cost of pairs can vary quite a lot and if they don't have cheaper pears then I won't buy them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, human behavior can possibly change. Some people find it hard to change. I have things about me I've tried to change and I struggle to change them, literally I can't change them.

But with food behavior can be changed, and I'm talking about making those changes, but you don't like the way they'd be implemented. You don't seem to have a problem with the govt making sugary products cheaper, but you have a problem with healthy products being made cheaper. Why is that?

As for people not changing unless they want to change them, I disagree. In fact the evidence is there that when govt changes things, some of those people will change. I showed you about products being taxed more in Hungary and other places and how this saw less people buying these products.

Some people don't want to change, and they don't have to. However some people DO want to change but struggle to do so, and the govt can have a positive impact.

Say, the US has an obesity rating of 30%+ and Germany has one of 12%. So there you have 18% of people who could be less fat, who want to be healthier, and yet struggle to do so, but given some help, they will be.

But hey. If you do this then A) sugary food companies will lose out and politicians will lose their kick backs and B) the health industry will make less money and the politicians will lose their kick backs.

We can't have politicians losing their kick backs just because some people want to be thinner, now can we?

Possibly?

Of course it can change and anyone can do it.

Now you're blaming politicians because some guy can't stop stuffing chips in his mouth.
As long as you keep blaming everyone else but the couch potato whose only exercise is walking to the fridge and lifting a spoonful of ice cream counts as weight lifting you will always be part of the problem and the fat slobs out there will always be victims in your eyes and by doing that you give them an excuse to get fat and stay fat because after all none of it is their fault and everyone else is to blame

The problem is that people DON'T.

How many people have I seen who wanted to give something up and didn't. Why didn't they manage it? Often it's a case of life gets in the way, or people just can't go through with it because temptation is just too great. Whatever it is. With sugary food you go to a supermarket and it's there, some people feel one way and then buy it. One of plenty of reasons.

The point is that as humans we often can't do something we could do for many reasons. One of those is eating healthily. In the US unhealthy food is promoted at every opportunity and is cheap because the companies who make them aren't pay much in tax, get subsidies and the like.

But your "you're blaming politicians", so, you think it's perfectly fair that politicians go and make sugary food much cheaper?

Seriously, why the hell do you think the US has a massive obesity level? Are you seriously suggesting it's because Americans are just weak assed fat bastards who couldn't do anything good for themselves? Are you suggesting that people in other countries are better than Americans?

Sounds like it.

Or perhaps there are other reasons why the US has the worst obesity problem in the world. But you can't really explain it, can you?

I can and did explain it.

We have become fat and lazy. Americans want everything the easy way. That's why any diet pill or exercise gizmo makes millions of dollars for the people selling them.

Everyone and I do mean everyone knows that you don't need a pill or some ridiculous piece of equipment to get into shape

You have to pit down the fucking pie, get up off your fat ass and move

People don't do it because they don't want to.

People can walk into any market and just as easily fill their carts with good wholesome real food for less than they can buy all the prepared shit and many do those that don't don't want to and they will give you every excuse in the book why thy don't want to only they like you will say "They can't"

the difference between you and me is that I will call them on their bullshit and you'll tell them it's not their fault they are fat slobs

So why have Americans become far fatter and lazier than other countries?

And the question is, if this is so, then how do you change this? Or you don't change it, you just watch your country disintegrate because, hey, fuck it, this country isn't my problem.

Actually no, you're wrong that you call them out on bullshit and I'll say it's not their fault. You don't seem to understand where I'm coming from.

My point is that there is a problem and the problem can be dealt with through education and through incentives for health food, rather than sugary food.

Your point seems to be, fuck it, there's a problem, but it ain't MY problem, so do nothing.

and my point is we don't need the fucking government telling us what to eat and using taxes for penalties and incentives.

And it isn't my problem. Really how does a fat guy who chooses to sit on the couch all day eating chips and ice cream affect my life?

and why do you insist on teaching people what they already know?

And my point is that we, as a mass of humans, clearly do need the govt to do something other than promoting sugary products. We see things differently.

As for teaching things people already know, they don't know it. So...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Possibly?

Of course it can change and anyone can do it.

Now you're blaming politicians because some guy can't stop stuffing chips in his mouth.
As long as you keep blaming everyone else but the couch potato whose only exercise is walking to the fridge and lifting a spoonful of ice cream counts as weight lifting you will always be part of the problem and the fat slobs out there will always be victims in your eyes and by doing that you give them an excuse to get fat and stay fat because after all none of it is their fault and everyone else is to blame

The problem is that people DON'T.

How many people have I seen who wanted to give something up and didn't. Why didn't they manage it? Often it's a case of life gets in the way, or people just can't go through with it because temptation is just too great. Whatever it is. With sugary food you go to a supermarket and it's there, some people feel one way and then buy it. One of plenty of reasons.

The point is that as humans we often can't do something we could do for many reasons. One of those is eating healthily. In the US unhealthy food is promoted at every opportunity and is cheap because the companies who make them aren't pay much in tax, get subsidies and the like.

But your "you're blaming politicians", so, you think it's perfectly fair that politicians go and make sugary food much cheaper?

Seriously, why the hell do you think the US has a massive obesity level? Are you seriously suggesting it's because Americans are just weak assed fat bastards who couldn't do anything good for themselves? Are you suggesting that people in other countries are better than Americans?

Sounds like it.

Or perhaps there are other reasons why the US has the worst obesity problem in the world. But you can't really explain it, can you?

I can and did explain it.

We have become fat and lazy. Americans want everything the easy way. That's why any diet pill or exercise gizmo makes millions of dollars for the people selling them.

Everyone and I do mean everyone knows that you don't need a pill or some ridiculous piece of equipment to get into shape

You have to pit down the fucking pie, get up off your fat ass and move

People don't do it because they don't want to.

People can walk into any market and just as easily fill their carts with good wholesome real food for less than they can buy all the prepared shit and many do those that don't don't want to and they will give you every excuse in the book why thy don't want to only they like you will say "They can't"

the difference between you and me is that I will call them on their bullshit and you'll tell them it's not their fault they are fat slobs

So why have Americans become far fatter and lazier than other countries?

And the question is, if this is so, then how do you change this? Or you don't change it, you just watch your country disintegrate because, hey, fuck it, this country isn't my problem.

Actually no, you're wrong that you call them out on bullshit and I'll say it's not their fault. You don't seem to understand where I'm coming from.

My point is that there is a problem and the problem can be dealt with through education and through incentives for health food, rather than sugary food.

Your point seems to be, fuck it, there's a problem, but it ain't MY problem, so do nothing.

and my point is we don't need the fucking government telling us what to eat and using taxes for penalties and incentives.

And it isn't my problem. Really how does a fat guy who chooses to sit on the couch all day eating chips and ice cream affect my life?

and why do you insist on teaching people what they already know?

The problem starts with thinking of society as yours - or anyone's - to control.

There are lots of societal problems that can be solved through "education and incentives". What we need to realize is that "education and incentives" imposed by the government are mandates, and every bit as coercive as other laws. They're not harmless merely because someone proposing them has good intentions.

The problem with this view is that control has to come from somewhere, or better said, it WILL come from somewhere.

The best example I can give for this, so you understand where I'm coming from, is Anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of power. It literally means "leaderless". But the problem is that when you don't have this leadership, someone will fill the vacuum it has created.

The problem is that we know anarchy more for what happens when there is an absence of power, rather than the theory. It's not good.

Now, saying that society isn't anyone's to control ignores the reality that people WILL control society.

Right now in the US the rich control society. Two of the top 5 food and drink companies are Pepsi and Coca-Cola and they have a lot of power, they control through govt and they control through advertising.

With the case of politics, is it better to have a govt which is designed to control in a manner which you are comfortable with, or better to have one which decides how it will control you.

The same in the US. The system has companies deciding how they will control you, rather than having govt control things so that it's more moderate and aimed at the people, rather than aimed at profits.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Me letting people live their lives as they choose is not being selfish

But tell me what do you call a person who wants to tell everyone else how to live?

and we are not and never have been western Europe. I hope to god we never will be because those countries are all falling apart

But you're not into just letting them live their lives, are you? You seem to be in favor of sugary food companies being given a boost, that's fine, but giving healthy food companies a boost is some how not letting people live their lives. What they FUCK?

I'm not for any company getting any money from the government. You are though as long as you think it's the "good" kind of company

but government treatment of any company does not force people to buy their products

No, it doesn't. But if a product is seen as affordable, more people are likely to buy it, aren't they?

only if they CHOOSE to buy it

No one has to buy anything they don't want to buy.
Just because Ramen noodles are 5 for a dollar doesn't mean anyone has to buy them.

You completely ignore the fact that every single person has a choice to buy and eat what they want
and you'd rather blame their choices on everything else but the person

Of course people have this choice.

But people make choices based on what is perceived as being affordable.

Health tax discourages sugar alternatives, says Hunbisco

This article said (it's copyright protected) that basically people would buy less sugary products and switch over to other products, like popcorn. So, why did people choose to change what they buy? Well, because of the price.

‘Fat taxes’ do work, EU report finds

"Specific taxes on sugar, salt or fat do cause reductions in consumption, the European Commission found in a new report. But higher taxes may also merely encourage consumers to go for cheaper products, it warned."

A lot of people who don't have too much money to throw around, will be looking for what they see as a bargain.

What is cheap in the US are sugary products from the big producers, for the simple reason that they almost certainly don't pay as much tax as other food items, especially healthy food. So the choice is there of spending more money for healthy food, or less for unhealthy food. What a choice, and some people will go for cheaper.

So what?

Why do you think you have the right to manipulate people into buying what you want them to buy? Don't you criticize food corporations fr doing the same ?
And I don't care how many times you say prepared food is cheap

it is never cheaper than real food but the fact is people don't want to buy rice, beans, flour, eggs and other staples that can be used to make healthy things for far less per serving than the prepared packaged plastic food that can be warmed up in a microwave.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Possibly?

Of course it can change and anyone can do it.

Now you're blaming politicians because some guy can't stop stuffing chips in his mouth.
As long as you keep blaming everyone else but the couch potato whose only exercise is walking to the fridge and lifting a spoonful of ice cream counts as weight lifting you will always be part of the problem and the fat slobs out there will always be victims in your eyes and by doing that you give them an excuse to get fat and stay fat because after all none of it is their fault and everyone else is to blame

The problem is that people DON'T.

How many people have I seen who wanted to give something up and didn't. Why didn't they manage it? Often it's a case of life gets in the way, or people just can't go through with it because temptation is just too great. Whatever it is. With sugary food you go to a supermarket and it's there, some people feel one way and then buy it. One of plenty of reasons.

The point is that as humans we often can't do something we could do for many reasons. One of those is eating healthily. In the US unhealthy food is promoted at every opportunity and is cheap because the companies who make them aren't pay much in tax, get subsidies and the like.

But your "you're blaming politicians", so, you think it's perfectly fair that politicians go and make sugary food much cheaper?

Seriously, why the hell do you think the US has a massive obesity level? Are you seriously suggesting it's because Americans are just weak assed fat bastards who couldn't do anything good for themselves? Are you suggesting that people in other countries are better than Americans?

Sounds like it.

Or perhaps there are other reasons why the US has the worst obesity problem in the world. But you can't really explain it, can you?

I can and did explain it.

We have become fat and lazy. Americans want everything the easy way. That's why any diet pill or exercise gizmo makes millions of dollars for the people selling them.

Everyone and I do mean everyone knows that you don't need a pill or some ridiculous piece of equipment to get into shape

You have to pit down the fucking pie, get up off your fat ass and move

People don't do it because they don't want to.

People can walk into any market and just as easily fill their carts with good wholesome real food for less than they can buy all the prepared shit and many do those that don't don't want to and they will give you every excuse in the book why thy don't want to only they like you will say "They can't"

the difference between you and me is that I will call them on their bullshit and you'll tell them it's not their fault they are fat slobs

So why have Americans become far fatter and lazier than other countries?

And the question is, if this is so, then how do you change this? Or you don't change it, you just watch your country disintegrate because, hey, fuck it, this country isn't my problem.

Actually no, you're wrong that you call them out on bullshit and I'll say it's not their fault. You don't seem to understand where I'm coming from.

My point is that there is a problem and the problem can be dealt with through education and through incentives for health food, rather than sugary food.

Your point seems to be, fuck it, there's a problem, but it ain't MY problem, so do nothing.

and my point is we don't need the fucking government telling us what to eat and using taxes for penalties and incentives.

And it isn't my problem. Really how does a fat guy who chooses to sit on the couch all day eating chips and ice cream affect my life?

and why do you insist on teaching people what they already know?

And my point is that we, as a mass of humans, clearly do need the govt to do something other than promoting sugary products. We see things differently.

As for teaching things people already know, they don't know it. So...

The government should not promote ANY products.

So now you don't think people know that a bowl of fruits and veggies is better for them than a bowl of ice cream and cake?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The problem is that people DON'T.

How many people have I seen who wanted to give something up and didn't. Why didn't they manage it? Often it's a case of life gets in the way, or people just can't go through with it because temptation is just too great. Whatever it is. With sugary food you go to a supermarket and it's there, some people feel one way and then buy it. One of plenty of reasons.

The point is that as humans we often can't do something we could do for many reasons. One of those is eating healthily. In the US unhealthy food is promoted at every opportunity and is cheap because the companies who make them aren't pay much in tax, get subsidies and the like.

But your "you're blaming politicians", so, you think it's perfectly fair that politicians go and make sugary food much cheaper?

Seriously, why the hell do you think the US has a massive obesity level? Are you seriously suggesting it's because Americans are just weak assed fat bastards who couldn't do anything good for themselves? Are you suggesting that people in other countries are better than Americans?

Sounds like it.

Or perhaps there are other reasons why the US has the worst obesity problem in the world. But you can't really explain it, can you?

I can and did explain it.

We have become fat and lazy. Americans want everything the easy way. That's why any diet pill or exercise gizmo makes millions of dollars for the people selling them.

Everyone and I do mean everyone knows that you don't need a pill or some ridiculous piece of equipment to get into shape

You have to pit down the fucking pie, get up off your fat ass and move

People don't do it because they don't want to.

People can walk into any market and just as easily fill their carts with good wholesome real food for less than they can buy all the prepared shit and many do those that don't don't want to and they will give you every excuse in the book why thy don't want to only they like you will say "They can't"

the difference between you and me is that I will call them on their bullshit and you'll tell them it's not their fault they are fat slobs

So why have Americans become far fatter and lazier than other countries?

And the question is, if this is so, then how do you change this? Or you don't change it, you just watch your country disintegrate because, hey, fuck it, this country isn't my problem.

Actually no, you're wrong that you call them out on bullshit and I'll say it's not their fault. You don't seem to understand where I'm coming from.

My point is that there is a problem and the problem can be dealt with through education and through incentives for health food, rather than sugary food.

Your point seems to be, fuck it, there's a problem, but it ain't MY problem, so do nothing.

and my point is we don't need the fucking government telling us what to eat and using taxes for penalties and incentives.

And it isn't my problem. Really how does a fat guy who chooses to sit on the couch all day eating chips and ice cream affect my life?

and why do you insist on teaching people what they already know?

The problem starts with thinking of society as yours - or anyone's - to control.

There are lots of societal problems that can be solved through "education and incentives". What we need to realize is that "education and incentives" imposed by the government are mandates, and every bit as coercive as other laws. They're not harmless merely because someone proposing them has good intentions.

The problem with this view is that control has to come from somewhere, or better said, it WILL come from somewhere.

The best example I can give for this, so you understand where I'm coming from, is Anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of power. It literally means "leaderless". But the problem is that when you don't have this leadership, someone will fill the vacuum it has created.

The problem is that we know anarchy more for what happens when there is an absence of power, rather than the theory. It's not good.

Now, saying that society isn't anyone's to control ignores the reality that people WILL control society.

Right now in the US the rich control society. Two of the top 5 food and drink companies are Pepsi and Coca-Cola and they have a lot of power, they control through govt and they control through advertising.

With the case of politics, is it better to have a govt which is designed to control in a manner which you are comfortable with, or better to have one which decides how it will control you.

The same in the US. The system has companies deciding how they will control you, rather than having govt control things so that it's more moderate and aimed at the people, rather than aimed at profits.

No one is controlled by any company if they don't want to be.

You do not have to buy everything advertised on TV
You do not have to eat shit food

 

[dblack]

The problem starts with thinking of society as yours - or anyone's - to control.

There are lots of societal problems that can be solved through "education and incentives". What we need to realize is that "education and incentives" imposed by the government are mandates, and every bit as coercive as other laws. They're not harmless merely because someone proposing them has good intentions.

The problem with this view is that control has to come from somewhere, or better said, it WILL come from somewhere.

The best example I can give for this, so you understand where I'm coming from, is Anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of power. It literally means "leaderless". But the problem is that when you don't have this leadership, someone will fill the vacuum it has created.

The problem is that we know anarchy more for what happens when there is an absence of power, rather than the theory. It's not good.

Now, saying that society isn't anyone's to control ignores the reality that people WILL control society.

Right now in the US the rich control society. Two of the top 5 food and drink companies are Pepsi and Coca-Cola and they have a lot of power, they control through govt and they control through advertising.

With the case of politics, is it better to have a govt which is designed to control in a manner which you are comfortable with, or better to have one which decides how it will control you.

The same in the US. The system has companies deciding how they will control you, rather than having govt control things so that it's more moderate and aimed at the people, rather than aimed at profits.

There are many different ways for individuals and groups to exert power in society. Wealth is a big one. But so is religion. The press also wields a lot of power. So does celebrity and recognized authority in various fields. And then there is state power. What distinguishes state power from the others is that is involuntary. We have to obey the law whether we agree with it or not.

All other forms of power in society are voluntary. The Pope can't have you arrested for commiting a (legal) sin. Rachel Maddow can't force you to associate with gays if you don't want to. And, no matter how much money he may have, Bill Gates can't force you to buy his software.

So, as far as I'm concerned, if you insist on framing the issue as a choice between government control and the power of wealth, I'll take the latter any day.

 

[anotherlife]

So what? It was higher in the 1950s than western Europe and it's higher now that Western Europe.

Yeah, why do you have to do anything? Why do you have to give a shit about other people? You don't. You can be as selfish as you like. But then again I'll fight for society to be a better place, and you'll fight for society to be a more selfish place.

Me letting people live their lives as they choose is not being selfish

But tell me what do you call a person who wants to tell everyone else how to live?

and we are not and never have been western Europe. I hope to god we never will be because those countries are all falling apart

But you're not into just letting them live their lives, are you? You seem to be in favor of sugary food companies being given a boost, that's fine, but giving healthy food companies a boost is some how not letting people live their lives. What they FUCK?

I'm not for any company getting any money from the government. You are though as long as you think it's the "good" kind of company

but government treatment of any company does not force people to buy their products

But yes it does because it pushes others out of business. And what makes you think you shouldn't dictate to others what they eat or do, when others already dictate to you that you are not allowed to walk or bus to work instead of fattening yourself by your car?

really?
Has there ever been a time where apples were unavailable because all the orchards were out of business?

if you choose to eat real food it doesn't matter how many companies that produce shit food go out of business

so now driving makes you fat? So those people that drive to a gym every morning are getting fatter? weight loss is 75% diet.

It is the companies that produce good food that go out of business, the ones that produce crap food grow and multiply. And where did you get that 75 % diet figure for the weight loss? I whish it was true.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Me letting people live their lives as they choose is not being selfish

But tell me what do you call a person who wants to tell everyone else how to live?

and we are not and never have been western Europe. I hope to god we never will be because those countries are all falling apart

But you're not into just letting them live their lives, are you? You seem to be in favor of sugary food companies being given a boost, that's fine, but giving healthy food companies a boost is some how not letting people live their lives. What they FUCK?

I'm not for any company getting any money from the government. You are though as long as you think it's the "good" kind of company

but government treatment of any company does not force people to buy their products

But yes it does because it pushes others out of business. And what makes you think you shouldn't dictate to others what they eat or do, when others already dictate to you that you are not allowed to walk or bus to work instead of fattening yourself by your car?

really?
Has there ever been a time where apples were unavailable because all the orchards were out of business?

if you choose to eat real food it doesn't matter how many companies that produce shit food go out of business

so now driving makes you fat? So those people that drive to a gym every morning are getting fatter? weight loss is 75% diet.

It is the companies that produce good food that go out of business, the ones that produce crap food grow and multiply. And where did you get that 75 % diet figure for the weight loss? I whish it was true.

So you think there will be a point in time where supermarkets don't carry fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables because all the shit food companies will run them out of business?

 

[anotherlife]

But you're not into just letting them live their lives, are you? You seem to be in favor of sugary food companies being given a boost, that's fine, but giving healthy food companies a boost is some how not letting people live their lives. What they FUCK?

I'm not for any company getting any money from the government. You are though as long as you think it's the "good" kind of company

but government treatment of any company does not force people to buy their products

But yes it does because it pushes others out of business. And what makes you think you shouldn't dictate to others what they eat or do, when others already dictate to you that you are not allowed to walk or bus to work instead of fattening yourself by your car?

really?
Has there ever been a time where apples were unavailable because all the orchards were out of business?

if you choose to eat real food it doesn't matter how many companies that produce shit food go out of business

so now driving makes you fat? So those people that drive to a gym every morning are getting fatter? weight loss is 75% diet.

It is the companies that produce good food that go out of business, the ones that produce crap food grow and multiply. And where did you get that 75 % diet figure for the weight loss? I whish it was true.

So you think there will be a point in time where supermarkets don't carry fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables because all the shit food companies will run them out of business?

This is already the case, when the usual American working poor does a price comparison in any supermarket, isn't it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem starts with thinking of society as yours - or anyone's - to control.

There are lots of societal problems that can be solved through "education and incentives". What we need to realize is that "education and incentives" imposed by the government are mandates, and every bit as coercive as other laws. They're not harmless merely because someone proposing them has good intentions.

The problem with this view is that control has to come from somewhere, or better said, it WILL come from somewhere.

The best example I can give for this, so you understand where I'm coming from, is Anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of power. It literally means "leaderless". But the problem is that when you don't have this leadership, someone will fill the vacuum it has created.

The problem is that we know anarchy more for what happens when there is an absence of power, rather than the theory. It's not good.

Now, saying that society isn't anyone's to control ignores the reality that people WILL control society.

Right now in the US the rich control society. Two of the top 5 food and drink companies are Pepsi and Coca-Cola and they have a lot of power, they control through govt and they control through advertising.

With the case of politics, is it better to have a govt which is designed to control in a manner which you are comfortable with, or better to have one which decides how it will control you.

The same in the US. The system has companies deciding how they will control you, rather than having govt control things so that it's more moderate and aimed at the people, rather than aimed at profits.

There are many different ways for individuals and groups to exert power in society. Wealth is a big one. But so is religion. The press also wields a lot of power. So does celebrity and recognized authority in various fields. And then there is state power. What distinguishes state power from the others is that is involuntary. We have to obey the law whether we agree with it or not.

All other forms of power in society are voluntary. The Pope can't have you arrested for commiting a (legal) sin. Rachel Maddow can't force you to associate with gays if you don't want to. And, no matter how much money he may have, Bill Gates can't force you to buy his software.

So, as far as I'm concerned, if you insist on framing the issue as a choice between government control and the power of wealth, I'll take the latter any day.

Which is fine, you can choose to be controlled by people whose only interest is making money, and they don't give a damn whether you live or die. I prefer to A) have govt that works by electing people who are sensible, and B) then giving them limited control with plenty of oversight. This is what the Founding Fathers tried to do. They did a pretty good job, especially for a first try, but after 200 something years it's creaking like a rotting ship. Change the system, make it more representative of the people and then govt will represent the people.

Right now govt is representing the wealth and therefore the people mistrust govt, therefore nothing works properly for the people, which leads to higher obesity, higher crime, lower education levels, more problems etc etc.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I can and did explain it.

We have become fat and lazy. Americans want everything the easy way. That's why any diet pill or exercise gizmo makes millions of dollars for the people selling them.

Everyone and I do mean everyone knows that you don't need a pill or some ridiculous piece of equipment to get into shape

You have to pit down the fucking pie, get up off your fat ass and move

People don't do it because they don't want to.

People can walk into any market and just as easily fill their carts with good wholesome real food for less than they can buy all the prepared shit and many do those that don't don't want to and they will give you every excuse in the book why thy don't want to only they like you will say "They can't"

the difference between you and me is that I will call them on their bullshit and you'll tell them it's not their fault they are fat slobs

So why have Americans become far fatter and lazier than other countries?

And the question is, if this is so, then how do you change this? Or you don't change it, you just watch your country disintegrate because, hey, fuck it, this country isn't my problem.

Actually no, you're wrong that you call them out on bullshit and I'll say it's not their fault. You don't seem to understand where I'm coming from.

My point is that there is a problem and the problem can be dealt with through education and through incentives for health food, rather than sugary food.

Your point seems to be, fuck it, there's a problem, but it ain't MY problem, so do nothing.

and my point is we don't need the fucking government telling us what to eat and using taxes for penalties and incentives.

And it isn't my problem. Really how does a fat guy who chooses to sit on the couch all day eating chips and ice cream affect my life?

and why do you insist on teaching people what they already know?

The problem starts with thinking of society as yours - or anyone's - to control.

There are lots of societal problems that can be solved through "education and incentives". What we need to realize is that "education and incentives" imposed by the government are mandates, and every bit as coercive as other laws. They're not harmless merely because someone proposing them has good intentions.

The problem with this view is that control has to come from somewhere, or better said, it WILL come from somewhere.

The best example I can give for this, so you understand where I'm coming from, is Anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of power. It literally means "leaderless". But the problem is that when you don't have this leadership, someone will fill the vacuum it has created.

The problem is that we know anarchy more for what happens when there is an absence of power, rather than the theory. It's not good.

Now, saying that society isn't anyone's to control ignores the reality that people WILL control society.

Right now in the US the rich control society. Two of the top 5 food and drink companies are Pepsi and Coca-Cola and they have a lot of power, they control through govt and they control through advertising.

With the case of politics, is it better to have a govt which is designed to control in a manner which you are comfortable with, or better to have one which decides how it will control you.

The same in the US. The system has companies deciding how they will control you, rather than having govt control things so that it's more moderate and aimed at the people, rather than aimed at profits.

No one is controlled by any company if they don't want to be.

You do not have to buy everything advertised on TV
You do not have to eat shit food

But how many people have the thought process not to be controlled by advertising? Not that many. That's the reason why advertising works. This is the problem. Advertising works and I'm acknowledging this, where you're saying it doesn't have to work. Fine, it doesn't have to, but it does. You're looking at theory, I'm looking at reality. You're looking at a system which leads to high levels obesity, I would like one that has less obesity. You want to keep things in a bad way, I want to make things better.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem is that people DON'T.

How many people have I seen who wanted to give something up and didn't. Why didn't they manage it? Often it's a case of life gets in the way, or people just can't go through with it because temptation is just too great. Whatever it is. With sugary food you go to a supermarket and it's there, some people feel one way and then buy it. One of plenty of reasons.

The point is that as humans we often can't do something we could do for many reasons. One of those is eating healthily. In the US unhealthy food is promoted at every opportunity and is cheap because the companies who make them aren't pay much in tax, get subsidies and the like.

But your "you're blaming politicians", so, you think it's perfectly fair that politicians go and make sugary food much cheaper?

Seriously, why the hell do you think the US has a massive obesity level? Are you seriously suggesting it's because Americans are just weak assed fat bastards who couldn't do anything good for themselves? Are you suggesting that people in other countries are better than Americans?

Sounds like it.

Or perhaps there are other reasons why the US has the worst obesity problem in the world. But you can't really explain it, can you?

I can and did explain it.

We have become fat and lazy. Americans want everything the easy way. That's why any diet pill or exercise gizmo makes millions of dollars for the people selling them.

Everyone and I do mean everyone knows that you don't need a pill or some ridiculous piece of equipment to get into shape

You have to pit down the fucking pie, get up off your fat ass and move

People don't do it because they don't want to.

People can walk into any market and just as easily fill their carts with good wholesome real food for less than they can buy all the prepared shit and many do those that don't don't want to and they will give you every excuse in the book why thy don't want to only they like you will say "They can't"

the difference between you and me is that I will call them on their bullshit and you'll tell them it's not their fault they are fat slobs

So why have Americans become far fatter and lazier than other countries?

And the question is, if this is so, then how do you change this? Or you don't change it, you just watch your country disintegrate because, hey, fuck it, this country isn't my problem.

Actually no, you're wrong that you call them out on bullshit and I'll say it's not their fault. You don't seem to understand where I'm coming from.

My point is that there is a problem and the problem can be dealt with through education and through incentives for health food, rather than sugary food.

Your point seems to be, fuck it, there's a problem, but it ain't MY problem, so do nothing.

and my point is we don't need the fucking government telling us what to eat and using taxes for penalties and incentives.

And it isn't my problem. Really how does a fat guy who chooses to sit on the couch all day eating chips and ice cream affect my life?

and why do you insist on teaching people what they already know?

And my point is that we, as a mass of humans, clearly do need the govt to do something other than promoting sugary products. We see things differently.

As for teaching things people already know, they don't know it. So...

The government should not promote ANY products.

So now you don't think people know that a bowl of fruits and veggies is better for them than a bowl of ice cream and cake?

But it does.

And you keep bringing up the same point over and over and I've spoken about it over and over, what's the point?

People will throw candy at their kids for a reason. Because their kids like candy. They go shopping they'll give their kid candy to shut them up, they stick them in front of the TV to shut them up, they don't let them play outside because it's dangerous, they don't do this and that and the other.

THIS IS THE FUCKING REALITY. No matter how many times you talk about choice, no matter how many times you don't give a shit, this is the REALITY. You deal with reality or you end up doing stupid shit, and the US govt, both parties, do a lot of shit, and people like you make sure it carries on happening day in, day out.

 

[dblack]

There are many different ways for individuals and groups to exert power in society. Wealth is a big one. But so is religion. The press also wields a lot of power. So does celebrity and recognized authority in various fields. And then there is state power. What distinguishes state power from the others is that is involuntary. We have to obey the law whether we agree with it or not.

All other forms of power in society are voluntary. The Pope can't have you arrested for commiting a (legal) sin. Rachel Maddow can't force you to associate with gays if you don't want to. And, no matter how much money he may have, Bill Gates can't force you to buy his software.

So, as far as I'm concerned, if you insist on framing the issue as a choice between government control and the power of wealth, I'll take the latter any day.

Which is fine, you can choose to be controlled by people whose only interest is making money, and they don't give a damn whether you live or die.

People whose only interest is making money can't control me. That's the point I'm making. Government controls people by force, wealth doesn't.

I prefer to A) have govt that works by electing people who are sensible, and B) then giving them limited control with plenty of oversight. This is what the Founding Fathers tried to do. They did a pretty good job, especially for a first try, but after 200 something years it's creaking like a rotting ship. Change the system, make it more representative of the people and then govt will represent the people.

Right now govt is representing the wealth and therefore the people mistrust govt, therefore nothing works properly for the people, which leads to higher obesity, higher crime, lower education levels, more problems etc etc.

The purpose of government isn't to represent the will of the people. Nor is it to keeps us fit, educated, or wealthy. It isn't the job of government to decide what the "good life" looks like, and push society toward that goal. Government should, instead, protect the freedom of individuals to decide for themselves what the good life looks like and pursue it as they see fit.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are many different ways for individuals and groups to exert power in society. Wealth is a big one. But so is religion. The press also wields a lot of power. So does celebrity and recognized authority in various fields. And then there is state power. What distinguishes state power from the others is that is involuntary. We have to obey the law whether we agree with it or not.

All other forms of power in society are voluntary. The Pope can't have you arrested for commiting a (legal) sin. Rachel Maddow can't force you to associate with gays if you don't want to. And, no matter how much money he may have, Bill Gates can't force you to buy his software.

So, as far as I'm concerned, if you insist on framing the issue as a choice between government control and the power of wealth, I'll take the latter any day.

Which is fine, you can choose to be controlled by people whose only interest is making money, and they don't give a damn whether you live or die.

People whose only interest is making money can't control me. That's the point I'm making. Government controls people by force, wealth doesn't.

I prefer to A) have govt that works by electing people who are sensible, and B) then giving them limited control with plenty of oversight. This is what the Founding Fathers tried to do. They did a pretty good job, especially for a first try, but after 200 something years it's creaking like a rotting ship. Change the system, make it more representative of the people and then govt will represent the people.

Right now govt is representing the wealth and therefore the people mistrust govt, therefore nothing works properly for the people, which leads to higher obesity, higher crime, lower education levels, more problems etc etc.

The purpose of government isn't to represent the will of the people. Nor is it to keeps us fit, educated, or wealthy. It isn't the job of government to decide what the "good life" looks like, and push society toward that goal. Government should, instead, protect the freedom of individuals to decide for themselves what the good life looks like and pursue it as they see fit.

Okay. But are you every single American? No, you're not.

The point I'm making is we know these companies DO CONTROL lots of people. Why? Because people are weak. We have laws against fraud. Fraud is to stop people who are at a disadvantage from being fucked over. And get the govt is making sure this happens with bad food. It's essentially fraud.

It would seem the purpose of govt is to give people a conspiracy so they can fight against it.

The problem in the US is that people A) vote badly and B) mistrust the people they voted for. Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

[dblack]

The point I'm making is we know these companies DO CONTROL lots of people.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that government power is radically different than economic power? You can equivocate on the meaning of 'control' all day long, but it won't change the fact that wealthy people don't have the power to arrest you if you defy them.

The problem in the US is that people A) vote badly and B) mistrust the people they voted for. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Yep. That's why I don't want a government preoccupied with the will of the people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The point I'm making is we know these companies DO CONTROL lots of people.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that government power is radically different than economic power? You can equivocate on the meaning of 'control' all day long, but it won't change the fact that wealthy people don't have the power to arrest you if you defy them.

The problem in the US is that people A) vote badly and B) mistrust the people they voted for. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Yep. That's why I don't want a government preoccupied with the will of the people.

Wait, why are you talking about arresting people? We're talking about HEALTHY EATING if you hadn't noticed.

Yes, you don't want govt to do anything because the people vote badly. The people vote badly because the political system is set up wrong, and people vote negatively, which means only two parties get in, and you don't want the system to change because the people with MONEY tell you that they like this system as it is, because they can bribe politicians left, right and center.

Isn't it nice to be told what to think?

 

[dblack]

The point I'm making is we know these companies DO CONTROL lots of people.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that government power is radically different than economic power? You can equivocate on the meaning of 'control' all day long, but it won't change the fact that wealthy people don't have the power to arrest you if you defy them.
.

The problem in the US is that people A) vote badly and B) mistrust the people they voted for. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Yep. That's why I don't want a government preoccupied with the will of the people.

Wait, why are you talking about arresting people? We're talking about HEALTHY EATING if you hadn't noticed.

You're talking about using government to impose your idea of a healthy diet on people who disagree with you. You'll get plenty of support from libertarians if you're proposing that we get rid of the policies and subsidies that have helped to cause the problems you cited in the OP. We don't think government should have the power to do those kinds of things in the first place. But keeping that power in place, and simply deciding to promote different kinds of food, is delusional and temporary. As soon as new leaders come along with different ideas about what our children should be eating, we're right back in the same mess.

, you don't want govt to do anything because the people vote badly. The people vote badly because the political system is set up wrong, and people vote negatively, which means only two parties get in, and you don't want the system to change because the people with MONEY tell you that they like this system as it is, because they can bribe politicians left, right and center.

Isn't it nice to be told what to think?

It is kind a funny. Go on... (you forgot to say 'Somalia')

 

[frigidweirdo]

The point I'm making is we know these companies DO CONTROL lots of people.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that government power is radically different than economic power? You can equivocate on the meaning of 'control' all day long, but it won't change the fact that wealthy people don't have the power to arrest you if you defy them.
.

The problem in the US is that people A) vote badly and B) mistrust the people they voted for. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Yep. That's why I don't want a government preoccupied with the will of the people.

Wait, why are you talking about arresting people? We're talking about HEALTHY EATING if you hadn't noticed.

You're talking about using government to impose your idea of a healthy diet on people who disagree with you. You'll get plenty of support from libertarians if you're proposing that we get rid of the policies and subsidies that have helped to cause the problems you cited in the OP. We don't think government should have the power to do those kinds of things in the first place. But keeping that power in place, and simply deciding to promote different kinds of food, is delusional and temporary. As soon as new leaders come along with different ideas about what our children should be eating, we're right back in the same mess.

, you don't want govt to do anything because the people vote badly. The people vote badly because the political system is set up wrong, and people vote negatively, which means only two parties get in, and you don't want the system to change because the people with MONEY tell you that they like this system as it is, because they can bribe politicians left, right and center.

Isn't it nice to be told what to think?

It is kind a funny. Go on... (you forgot to say 'Somalia')

And you're talking about just letting things rot. So... which is better?

The issue in the US is changing the mentality. The politics is fucked up because the mentality of the people is fucked up. You can't change the mentality until you change the politics, so you change the trust levels, the education levels and all of that. The US is either going to fall, or change, 95% it's the first one.

"It is kind a funny. Go on... (you forgot to say 'Somalia')"

Is just a fucking retarded answer that doesn't deserve a response.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm not for any company getting any money from the government. You are though as long as you think it's the "good" kind of company

but government treatment of any company does not force people to buy their products

But yes it does because it pushes others out of business. And what makes you think you shouldn't dictate to others what they eat or do, when others already dictate to you that you are not allowed to walk or bus to work instead of fattening yourself by your car?

really?
Has there ever been a time where apples were unavailable because all the orchards were out of business?

if you choose to eat real food it doesn't matter how many companies that produce shit food go out of business

so now driving makes you fat? So those people that drive to a gym every morning are getting fatter? weight loss is 75% diet.

It is the companies that produce good food that go out of business, the ones that produce crap food grow and multiply. And where did you get that 75 % diet figure for the weight loss? I whish it was true.

So you think there will be a point in time where supermarkets don't carry fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables because all the shit food companies will run them out of business?

This is already the case, when the usual American working poor does a price comparison in any supermarket, isn't it?

WHat?

I have yet to see a supermarket not carry fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables and only carry prepared food

Exercise Vs. Diet: The Truth About Weight Loss | HuffPost

“As a rule of thumb, weight loss is generally 75 percent diet and 25 percent exercise. An analysis of more than 700 weight loss studies found that people see the biggest short-term results when they eat smart. On average, people who dieted without exercising for 15 weeks lost 23 pounds; the exercisers lost only six over about 21 weeks. It’s much easier to cut calories than to burn them off. For example, if you eat a fast-food steak quesadilla, which can pack 500-plus calories, you need to run more than four miles to ‘undo’ it!