What if government treated eating the way it treats sex?

[Quantum Windbag]

Ever wonder who the real hypocrites are?

It’s a useful distinction to consider. A particular moral idea governs left-wing views on social and health matters, and the left’s purpose with political advocacy is to put the power of government behind that view. By examining the left’s very different policy approaches to eating and sex, we can discern the features of the morality at work. The left’s governmental approach to sex today involves, among other things, the following:


What if government treated eating the way it treats sex? « The Greenroom



The suite of policies advocated by the left is designed to encourage sex but limit procreation and STDs. The social “good,” therefore, is deemed to be unfettered sex, while the social “ills” are the birth of children and the suffering (and infectiousness) incident to STDs.
Let’s compare this moral view and its program construct to the left’s policy attitude toward eating. In this latter realm, the social “ills” are thought to be obesity and the medical problems that come with it. But what is the social “good”? Is there one? It’s hard to say, because eating – which can be a most enjoyable activity, and far less avoidable than sex – is not, in the left’s moral view, considered a “good” to be promoted on whatever terms the individual prefers.
The left’s governmental treatment of eating is very different from its treatment of sex. It runs on these lines:



What if government treated eating the way it treats sex? « The Greenroom

 

[J.E.D]

To sum it up: The OP suggests that the prevention of venereal diseases and obesity is bad.

 

[Syphon]

To sum it up: The OP suggests that the prevention of venereal diseases and obesity is bad.

its very apt that his name contains the word windbag...

 

[Two Thumbs]

The left wants to force people to stop eating certain things.

in other words

Government in our houses.

morans

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To sum it up: The OP suggests that the prevention of venereal diseases and obesity is bad.

To sum it up, the first response to the thread totally misses the point. If the government actually wanted to prevent VD it would treat sex the same way it treats food, by pointing out that over indulging in sex leads to VD just like over indulging in food leads to obesity, and how some type of sex is worse than others because it is more likely to result in the very things you dismiss as unimportant.

Thanks for helping me prove who the real hypocrites are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To sum it up: The OP suggests that the prevention of venereal diseases and obesity is bad.

its very apt that his name contains the word windbag...

I think the fact that your name is a homonym for a ward that implies sucking. Did anyone teach you basic grammar and punctuation in school?

 

[HomeInspect]

Your U.S. Government Irony for Sunday February 28th, 2012.
The SNAP/Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed The Animals." This is because the animals may grow dependent on handouts and not learn to take care of themselves.

Thus endeth today’s lesson in Government Irony.

 

[editec]

Quant, when you're writing to people who think like most here don't, subtle POVs like yours tend to get lost in translation.

Perhaps if you had written it IDIOT, they could have decoded it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If the government treated food like it treats sex we would be arrested for paying to eat.

 

[LoneLaugher]

To sum it up: The OP suggests that the prevention of venereal diseases and obesity is bad.

its very apt that his name contains the word windbag...

I think the fact that your name is a homonym for a ward that implies sucking. Did anyone teach you basic grammar and punctuation in school?

Is it important to produce complete sentences and spell correctly when pointing out the mistakes of others?

You are too good to be true, QW.

 

[manifold]

Ever wonder who the real hypocrites are?

It’s a useful distinction to consider. A particular moral idea governs left-wing views on social and health matters, and the left’s purpose with political advocacy is to put the power of government behind that view. By examining the left’s very different policy approaches to eating and sex, we can discern the features of the morality at work. The left’s governmental approach to sex today involves, among other things, the following:


What if government treated eating the way it treats sex? « The Greenroom



The suite of policies advocated by the left is designed to encourage sex but limit procreation and STDs. The social “good,” therefore, is deemed to be unfettered sex, while the social “ills” are the birth of children and the suffering (and infectiousness) incident to STDs.
Let’s compare this moral view and its program construct to the left’s policy attitude toward eating. In this latter realm, the social “ills” are thought to be obesity and the medical problems that come with it. But what is the social “good”? Is there one? It’s hard to say, because eating – which can be a most enjoyable activity, and far less avoidable than sex – is not, in the left’s moral view, considered a “good” to be promoted on whatever terms the individual prefers.
The left’s governmental treatment of eating is very different from its treatment of sex. It runs on these lines:



What if government treated eating the way it treats sex? « The Greenroom

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

 

[T-Bor]

They all suck. They all paid for and owned by the corporations. None of them have the peoples interest at heart. Only what "God" tells them to do or what the owner of some corporation who contributed to their campaign tells them to do.

Folks, the game is rigged, all we have to vote for is a choice between two idiots. This two party system sucks. I don't have the answer. But I sure can complain about it. When some fatcat donates millions to a campaign he is going to get what HE wants out of it should that person become president.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. Will there ever be ANYONE worth leaving my house and going to vote for again? I doubt it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Has it not dawned on people yet that the left's job is to reduce the number of births in this country AND demand increased immigration because we don't produce enough people to sustain the nation.

 

[J.E.D]

To sum it up: The OP suggests that the prevention of venereal diseases and obesity is bad.

To sum it up, the first response to the thread totally misses the point. If the government actually wanted to prevent VD it would treat sex the same way it treats food, by pointing out that over indulging in sex leads to VD just like over indulging in food leads to obesity, and how some type of sex is worse than others because it is more likely to result in the very things you dismiss as unimportant.

Thanks for helping me prove who the real hypocrites are.

So, you WANT big gov't in your life. Yeah, thanks for showing me who the hypocrite is, indeed.

 

[Katzndogz]

The left who complains that they want government out of their bedrooms, (except for payment) has moved government into the kitchen, housed in the refrigerator.

 

[konradv]

To sum it up: The OP suggests that the prevention of venereal diseases and obesity is bad.

To sum it up, the first response to the thread totally misses the point. If the government actually wanted to prevent VD it would treat sex the same way it treats food, by pointing out that over indulging in sex leads to VD just like over indulging in food leads to obesity, and how some type of sex is worse than others because it is more likely to result in the very things you dismiss as unimportant.

Thanks for helping me prove who the real hypocrites are.

That presumes just one answer. The point is that people should have a choice. For VD that would mean unprotected sex, NOT sex in general is the problem. If you know a way we can get "protected eating", by all means, let us in on it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

To sum it up: The OP suggests that the prevention of venereal diseases and obesity is bad.

To sum it up, the first response to the thread totally misses the point. If the government actually wanted to prevent VD it would treat sex the same way it treats food, by pointing out that over indulging in sex leads to VD just like over indulging in food leads to obesity, and how some type of sex is worse than others because it is more likely to result in the very things you dismiss as unimportant.

Thanks for helping me prove who the real hypocrites are.

That presumes just one answer. The point is that people should have a choice. For VD that would mean unprotected sex, NOT sex in general is the problem. If you know a way we can get "protected eating", by all means, let us in on it.

The way to assure unprotected eating is to let the buyer of our food stuffs beware. Instead of signs at our grocery store or meat market designating a food organic, let's deregulate the food industry and simply require purveyors of food to post this sign above their door:

CAVEAT EMPTOR

It's all about personal responsibility, ain't it? We can all buy our own petri dishes and microscopes. Wouldn't that be cool.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ever wonder who the real hypocrites are?

It’s a useful distinction to consider. A particular moral idea governs left-wing views on social and health matters, and the left’s purpose with political advocacy is to put the power of government behind that view. By examining the left’s very different policy approaches to eating and sex, we can discern the features of the morality at work. The left’s governmental approach to sex today involves, among other things, the following:


What if government treated eating the way it treats sex? « The Greenroom



The suite of policies advocated by the left is designed to encourage sex but limit procreation and STDs. The social “good,” therefore, is deemed to be unfettered sex, while the social “ills” are the birth of children and the suffering (and infectiousness) incident to STDs.
Let’s compare this moral view and its program construct to the left’s policy attitude toward eating. In this latter realm, the social “ills” are thought to be obesity and the medical problems that come with it. But what is the social “good”? Is there one? It’s hard to say, because eating – which can be a most enjoyable activity, and far less avoidable than sex – is not, in the left’s moral view, considered a “good” to be promoted on whatever terms the individual prefers.
The left’s governmental treatment of eating is very different from its treatment of sex. It runs on these lines:



What if government treated eating the way it treats sex? « The Greenroom

I guess that depends on who is getting 'eaten' by whom

 

[FuelRod]

To sum it up: The OP suggests that the prevention of venereal diseases and obesity is bad.

Ummm.....Not sure how to address this.
You know only one type of birth control prevents venereal disease yes? And it isn't used by females or is it part of the current debate.

 

[FuelRod]

To sum it up: The OP suggests that the prevention of venereal diseases and obesity is bad.

To sum it up, the first response to the thread totally misses the point. If the government actually wanted to prevent VD it would treat sex the same way it treats food, by pointing out that over indulging in sex leads to VD just like over indulging in food leads to obesity, and how some type of sex is worse than others because it is more likely to result in the very things you dismiss as unimportant.

Thanks for helping me prove who the real hypocrites are.

Perhaps we should be implanted with some kind of microchip that would interact with others and update our sexual history everytime we have intercourse. Kind of like the calories shown on the menus in our more progressive states.