Is it fair to blame junk food companies for people being overweight?

[airplanemechanic]

They eat the crap at McDonald's because that's what they can afford.

Right after buying their beer and cigarettes with money they say they don't have to buy food.

And don't forget the iPhone 6. Gotta have that. At the expense of nutritious food.

 

[Conservative65]

As long as we force people ton live on next to nothing, we will continue to have high rates of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, kidney and liver disease and cancer

Whose forcing people to live on next to nothing? If someone has low skills which translate into an equivalent low level wage, they aren't being forced to live at a low level. Their lack of skills cause them to do so.

 

[Conservative65]

They eat the crap at McDonald's because that's what they can afford.

Right after buying their beer and cigarettes with money they say they don't have to buy food.

And don't forget the iPhone 6. Gotta have that. At the expense of nutritious food.

Can't count the number of times I've seen someone at the grocery store use the EBT card to buy their food, meaning they've stated they can't afford to buy thier own, then use cash money to buy beer, cigarettes, and whatever other "needs" they have. I don't have a problem helping, voluntarily, someone that truly can't buy their own food, etc. However, I also don't have a problem with seeing someone that abuses the system go without because they choose to meet their wants before their needs.

 

[Conservative65]

It allows ignorant people to spend "food-stamp" money on damn near anything, and it gives the kids two free meals a day, 180 days a year, with summer feeding programs in many places too.

No one has been able to explain to me that if the amount of food stamps (EBT) is based on feeding someone 3 meal/day for 365 days/year (1095 meals) how other tax money is beingn used to feed them at school when those meals are already be accounted for with EBT.

It's not about feeding kids but redundancy.

 

[Conservative65]

But what you are denying is that people aren't responsible for what they eat. It's still calories in calories out. Whether you eat 2000 calories of salad or of pizza, if you stay around that number you won't gain weight. If you don't, you will get fat. And it's nobody's fault but your own.

I never said that but like most debates what I say and what you hear are two different things.

You want to make this all about personal responsibility ONLY and pretend that food available, for cheap has nothing to do with it.

Everyone agrees its each persons responsibility...not sure why you keep punching that strawman. But to say everyone has gotten less responsible (which cannot be measured) and not that the worst foods are cheaper and readily available all over (which can be measured) is simply silly

If it's each person's responsibility, saying they are worse and readily available means nothing. It's still the person that chooses whether to actually eat them. The product shouldn't be blamed because the person can't say no.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Absolutely right. If I put a candy bar in front of you and a banana and you chose the candy bar, it is you who is choosing your meal. Just because you don't know how to say no to the candy bar doesn't make it anyone elses fault but your own.

 

[ClosedCaption]

But what you are denying is that people aren't responsible for what they eat. It's still calories in calories out. Whether you eat 2000 calories of salad or of pizza, if you stay around that number you won't gain weight. If you don't, you will get fat. And it's nobody's fault but your own.

I never said that but like most debates what I say and what you hear are two different things.

You want to make this all about personal responsibility ONLY and pretend that food available, for cheap has nothing to do with it.

Everyone agrees its each persons responsibility...not sure why you keep punching that strawman. But to say everyone has gotten less responsible (which cannot be measured) and not that the worst foods are cheaper and readily available all over (which can be measured) is simply silly

If it's each person's responsibility, saying they are worse and readily available means nothing. It's still the person that chooses whether to actually eat them. The product shouldn't be blamed because the person can't say no.

Got it, access and availability means nothing. Fascinating

 

[ClosedCaption]

Absolutely right. If I put a candy bar in front of you and a banana you choose your meal. Just because you don't know how to say know to the candy bar doesn't make it anyone elses fault but your own.

What about you put a candy bar in front of them and leave them a banana at the store. Still the same? Or does accessibility mean nothing to you also?

 

[Conservative65]

But it doesn't matter, it's all an excuse. What do good excuses and bad excuses have in common? They are both excuses.

Just because bad food is cheap doesn't make people buy it. They still have to put it in the cart and then check out and then bring it home and put it in the pantry.

No its a semantics game. In order to avoid talking about the real issues with the food supply and availability in the US. You rather call everything dealing with that topic as an excuse to attempt to avoid it. Well just because you dont want to address it doesnt mean its not part of the problem.

Everything is an excuse to someone who doesnt want to see it as even POSSIBLY, PROBABLY any other factor.

But everything isnt black and white just because you say it is

It ultimately goes back to the person buying and eating it. That issue is black and white. If people don't buy those items, those making them will have no reason to do so. If demand goes down, so will the supply.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Absolutely right. If I put a candy bar in front of you and a banana you choose your meal. Just because you don't know how to say know to the candy bar doesn't make it anyone elses fault but your own.

What about you put a candy bar in front of them and leave them a banana at the store. Still the same? Or does accessibility mean nothing to you also?

The last time I checked, Wal Mart has both. Whether you take a right or a left in the food department is up to you.

 

[ClosedCaption]

But it doesn't matter, it's all an excuse. What do good excuses and bad excuses have in common? They are both excuses.

Just because bad food is cheap doesn't make people buy it. They still have to put it in the cart and then check out and then bring it home and put it in the pantry.

No its a semantics game. In order to avoid talking about the real issues with the food supply and availability in the US. You rather call everything dealing with that topic as an excuse to attempt to avoid it. Well just because you dont want to address it doesnt mean its not part of the problem.

Everything is an excuse to someone who doesnt want to see it as even POSSIBLY, PROBABLY any other factor.

But everything isnt black and white just because you say it is

It ultimately goes back to the person buying and eating it. That issue is black and white. If people don't buy those items, those making them will have no reason to do so. If demand goes down, so will the supply.

Whoa wait, I've never heard of this "supply and demand" before

 

[Conservative65]

But what you are denying is that people aren't responsible for what they eat. It's still calories in calories out. Whether you eat 2000 calories of salad or of pizza, if you stay around that number you won't gain weight. If you don't, you will get fat. And it's nobody's fault but your own.

I never said that but like most debates what I say and what you hear are two different things.

You want to make this all about personal responsibility ONLY and pretend that food available, for cheap has nothing to do with it.

Everyone agrees its each persons responsibility...not sure why you keep punching that strawman. But to say everyone has gotten less responsible (which cannot be measured) and not that the worst foods are cheaper and readily available all over (which can be measured) is simply silly

If it's each person's responsibility, saying they are worse and readily available means nothing. It's still the person that chooses whether to actually eat them. The product shouldn't be blamed because the person can't say no.

Got it, access and availability means nothing. Fascinating

There are lots of things to which people have access every day. Some choose to use them and some don't. In the end, whether or not they get used is based on the person choosing or not choosing to use them. If people didn't choose to do so there would be no need for them to exist.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Absolutely right. If I put a candy bar in front of you and a banana you choose your meal. Just because you don't know how to say know to the candy bar doesn't make it anyone elses fault but your own.

What about you put a candy bar in front of them and leave them a banana at the store. Still the same? Or does accessibility mean nothing to you also?

The last time I checked, Wal Mart has both. Whether you take a right or a left in the food department is up to you.

So you're not putting food in front of people anymore? Ok so now that you've established that Walmart has all kinds of foods are they also priced similar?

Or will you say that accessibility AND price doesnt mean anything?

 

[airplanemechanic]

I don't get why liberals don't hold people accountable for their actions. If they chose bad food, it's because it was closer. If they shoot someone, it's because they were abused as kids.

I mean, why don't liberals advocate personal responsibility? I've always wondered that.

You're right, good food is actually cheaper. I can buy 10lbs of chicken leg quarters for 5 dollars. I can buy 1lb of chicken fingers for 6.48. So you're right, if people choose the chicken fingers its because they want them.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I don't have time to read the entire thread, but to address the title only, my answer is yes and no. No, because your health is your own responsibility, and yes, due to misleading labels, or no labels at all.

 

[Conservative65]

But it doesn't matter, it's all an excuse. What do good excuses and bad excuses have in common? They are both excuses.

Just because bad food is cheap doesn't make people buy it. They still have to put it in the cart and then check out and then bring it home and put it in the pantry.

No its a semantics game. In order to avoid talking about the real issues with the food supply and availability in the US. You rather call everything dealing with that topic as an excuse to attempt to avoid it. Well just because you dont want to address it doesnt mean its not part of the problem.

Everything is an excuse to someone who doesnt want to see it as even POSSIBLY, PROBABLY any other factor.

But everything isnt black and white just because you say it is

It ultimately goes back to the person buying and eating it. That issue is black and white. If people don't buy those items, those making them will have no reason to do so. If demand goes down, so will the supply.

Whoa wait, I've never heard of this "supply and demand" before

Apparently, you don't understand the concept that if people no longer demand an item there is no need to supply it. While there are plenty of examples where a producer has introduced a product wanting people to buy it, whether or not people chose to buy it determined whether or not the producer continued to make it. Ultimately, the end result was based on the demand by the consumer not the producer. New Coke is a good example. Coke tried to change the formula but no one bought it. Guess what Coke did?

 

[ClosedCaption]

But what you are denying is that people aren't responsible for what they eat. It's still calories in calories out. Whether you eat 2000 calories of salad or of pizza, if you stay around that number you won't gain weight. If you don't, you will get fat. And it's nobody's fault but your own.

I never said that but like most debates what I say and what you hear are two different things.

You want to make this all about personal responsibility ONLY and pretend that food available, for cheap has nothing to do with it.

Everyone agrees its each persons responsibility...not sure why you keep punching that strawman. But to say everyone has gotten less responsible (which cannot be measured) and not that the worst foods are cheaper and readily available all over (which can be measured) is simply silly

If it's each person's responsibility, saying they are worse and readily available means nothing. It's still the person that chooses whether to actually eat them. The product shouldn't be blamed because the person can't say no.

Got it, access and availability means nothing. Fascinating

There are lots of things to which people have access every day. Some choose to use them and some don't. In the end, whether or not they get used is based on the person choosing or not choosing to use them. If people didn't choose to do so there would be no need for them to exist.

Could you please type out for me that something being accessible is no different than something that is not? I want a new signature and that would be perfect

 

[ClosedCaption]

But it doesn't matter, it's all an excuse. What do good excuses and bad excuses have in common? They are both excuses.

Just because bad food is cheap doesn't make people buy it. They still have to put it in the cart and then check out and then bring it home and put it in the pantry.

No its a semantics game. In order to avoid talking about the real issues with the food supply and availability in the US. You rather call everything dealing with that topic as an excuse to attempt to avoid it. Well just because you dont want to address it doesnt mean its not part of the problem.

Everything is an excuse to someone who doesnt want to see it as even POSSIBLY, PROBABLY any other factor.

But everything isnt black and white just because you say it is

It ultimately goes back to the person buying and eating it. That issue is black and white. If people don't buy those items, those making them will have no reason to do so. If demand goes down, so will the supply.

Whoa wait, I've never heard of this "supply and demand" before

Apparently, you don't understand the concept that if people no longer demand an item there is no need to supply it. While there are plenty of examples where a producer has introduced a product wanting people to buy it, whether or not people chose to buy it determined whether or not the producer continued to make it. Ultimately, the end result was based on the demand by the consumer not the producer. New Coke is a good example. Coke tried to change the formula but no one bought it. Guess what Coke did?

No you are opting to discuss something no one brought up because actually addressing what I say is hard for you. So you start talking about supply and demand and coca cola

 

[airplanemechanic]

I'm sorry, does Wal Mart not sell both? The only places I know of that sell only junk food are gas stations and if you're seeking those out for a source of real food that is your problem, not the food's problem.

 

[Conservative65]

But what you are denying is that people aren't responsible for what they eat. It's still calories in calories out. Whether you eat 2000 calories of salad or of pizza, if you stay around that number you won't gain weight. If you don't, you will get fat. And it's nobody's fault but your own.

I never said that but like most debates what I say and what you hear are two different things.

You want to make this all about personal responsibility ONLY and pretend that food available, for cheap has nothing to do with it.

Everyone agrees its each persons responsibility...not sure why you keep punching that strawman. But to say everyone has gotten less responsible (which cannot be measured) and not that the worst foods are cheaper and readily available all over (which can be measured) is simply silly

If it's each person's responsibility, saying they are worse and readily available means nothing. It's still the person that chooses whether to actually eat them. The product shouldn't be blamed because the person can't say no.

Got it, access and availability means nothing. Fascinating

There are lots of things to which people have access every day. Some choose to use them and some don't. In the end, whether or not they get used is based on the person choosing or not choosing to use them. If people didn't choose to do so there would be no need for them to exist.

Could you please type out for me that something being accessible is no different than something that is not? I want a new signature and that would be perfect

Availability does not equate to use. Something could be readily available but using it is based on a choice by the user. I don't drink but beer is readily available and only something I could drink if I chose to do so.

Do you have at least one of everything available to buy? If you don't, you've proven my claim and disproven yours that mere availability equals use. I completely agree that if something isn't available people can't use it. What you seem to be claiming is that because someone is, people using it is based solely on it's availability and nothing to do with their choice to do so.