What if government treated eating the way it treats sex?

[Douger]

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.

Elections became (s)elections in the mid sixties. You dancing around with a lapel pin and a flag and giving Chad a hand job has zero effect on who is pResident.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You got me. In my defense, I had insomnia, and ward is an actual word so my spell checker did not flag it.

 

[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

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

Have you ever read your posts?

 

[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.

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

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLADKnby3YM]Bored Now - YouTube[/ame]

 

[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.

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.

Any sex is potentially a problem. Taking precautions reduces the risk, it does not eliminate it. NASCAR is a lot safer now than it was when I was a kid, but people still get hurt, and die. The only way to be 100% sure you never catch a disease from sex is to never have sex.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Remember that scare a few years ago where people were getting sick from eating salad? Turns out I was one of the people who bought a bag of salad that was contaminated that year, but I did not get sick. The reason for that is quite simple, unlike people, like you, who think the government protects them from everything, I took and extra minute and washed the greens in that bag before I made a salad.

Personal responsibility works wonders.

 

[Syphon]

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.

You got me. In my defense, I had insomnia, and ward is an actual word so my spell checker did not flag it.

siphon actually means this...a tube or conduit bent into legs of unequal length, for use in drawing a liquid from one container into another on a lower level by placing the shorter leg into the container above and the longer leg into the one below, the liquid being forced up the shorter leg and into the longer one by the pressure of the atmosphere.

windbag - Slang A talkative person who communicates nothing of substance or interest.

Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary


very aptly chosen name for you

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You got me. In my defense, I had insomnia, and ward is an actual word so my spell checker did not flag it.

siphon actually means this...a tube or conduit bent into legs of unequal length, for use in drawing a liquid from one container into another on a lower level by placing the shorter leg into the container above and the longer leg into the one below, the liquid being forced up the shorter leg and into the longer one by the pressure of the atmosphere.

windbag - Slang A talkative person who communicates nothing of substance or interest.

Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary


very aptly chosen name for you

Tell me something, which part of the definition you posted for siphon contradicted my comment about the implied sucking?

 

[manifold]

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

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

Have you ever read your posts?

All the time. And my statement still stands. The comparison is fallaciously silly at best and completely disingenuous at worst.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

Rubbers do not prevent std's 100%, nor do they prevent pregnancy.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLADKnby3YM]Bored Now - YouTube[/ame]

I wanted to rep you for the dark Willow clip, but spread it around yadda yadda.

/very minor thread derailment off

 

[occupied]

If government treated food products as they treat sex as a product, anything you paid for would land you and the cook in jail and cooking shows would be 18+adults only.