SF can add this one to the bottled water ban, soda sales ban, dealings with AZ ban, transfat ban, Segway ban (it's healthier to walk) and proposed sodium regulation.
The end result? Kids lost their toys but will still get the Happy Meal with it's evil fries. Hey, happy meals in SF will probably be sold at a discount,...they don't have to include the toy.
Government good intentions vs individual freedom. Thank God Pelosi from SF is no longer the Speaker and they lost control. Happy meal bans would've been a national law by 2012.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The end result? Kids lost their toys but will still get the Happy Meal with it's evil fries.
Nope. Read your own link. Goodness gracious.
I would support a ban on meals for children that came with a cigarette. Or alcohol. Or poison. And 600+ calorie high-fat happy meals are not really all that different. Obesity is become ludicrously bad in this country. It's affecting lives, happiness, the economy, and our national image. If corporations are so willing to provide easy, cheap, obviously damaging food to children, wrapped up in pretty colors and with toys, I'm not upset if some people say "This is ridiculous. It shouldn't be allowed to happen."
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
You believe the government can regulate what we choose to eat? No they can't...that's why they outlawed the toy. I thought poor people in America were obese because they could only afford to eat things like McDonalds. I know poor kids that only have a few toys....many of them happy meal toys. In SF, they'll still be fat but they can't have a toy if they choose the fries.
Inuit eat blubber.....are they unhealthy? Would you argue blubber is better than a frech fry? Everything in moderation. I'm not poor and McDonalds is rare splurge for my kids. The liberal would rather ban whale hunting because blubber eating unhealthy for people that've eaten blubber for thousands of years. Sending them a welfare check is better than allowing them to support themselves, as they have for millenia.
My kids don't care about the toy....I buy them better toys to play with. They love the food though. This law took toys away from kids...they'll still eat happy meals. It isn't a happy meal anymore, without the toy. The only toys some kids own are happy meal toys. Now it's just an unhealthy meal.
Is a 600+ calorie meal bad, when it's the only meal you get for the day?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I'm sorry I responded. I don't even follow my own advice.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My daughter's happy meal is only 390 calories. The apples and milk seem like healthy calories to me (she doesn't eat the caramel dip so the calorie count is a bit higher than what she actually eats). Chicken nuggets aren't really that bad either (though there are healthier ones than McD's). I suppose if I let my daughter order french fries and soda I might be a bit more negative regarding the health.
However, to be honest, we do get McD's a lot for the toy. We tend to go a lot more when they have certain toys than other toys. When they had strawberry shortcake dolls my daughter wanted to go every night (we didn't but she asked). With the halloween bucket, she had no interest in McD.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: My daughter's happy meal is only 390 calories. The apples and milk seem like healthy calories to me (she doesn't eat the caramel dip so the calorie count is a bit higher than what she actually eats). Chicken nuggets aren't really that bad either (though there are healthier ones than McD's). I suppose if I let my daughter order french fries and soda I might be a bit more negative regarding the health.
However, to be honest, we do get McD's a lot for the toy. We tend to go a lot more when they have certain toys than other toys. When they had strawberry shortcake dolls my daughter wanted to go every night (we didn't but she asked). With the halloween bucket, she had no interest in McD.
You are looking at facts and reality over political correctness. In fact, the Happy Meal isn't that bad but it is demonized like WalMart.
SF also outlawed plastic bags in grocery stores. Fact...paper bags are worse for the environment in terms of pollution, tree harvest and energy required to produce. Plastics are a byproduct of oil production. Demonize oil and plastics are evil by default. Plastic is sooooo un-PC.
By the way, my family uses cotton reusable bags. SF can ban the toy with good intentions but the result might be cheaper "kids meals". McD's doesn't have to include a toy, SF might end up with discounted happy meals. More people will buy them when they cost 50 cents less. The good intention was a reduction....the opposite is likely to happen.
How many 10 year olds go to McD's on their own to purchase that toddler toy. Past 10 years old...the toy doesn't matter. Parents will still take their kids there.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Here's the conversation between a parent and child that will result from this law...
"Son, if you want the fries you can't have a toy. If you get the carrot sticks you can have the toy"
Why not, the government uses the tax code to regulate behavior. Are we free? Social Security is a "choice" as well. Unfortunately, if "choose" not to participate you can't get a job or go to school.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I like it when you provide links that disprove your own claims? It is really nice of you.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I like it when you provide links that disprove your own claims? It is really nice of you.
Please provide the link and quotes you say, I provided. The link I provided spelled out the law. Use my own links and words to disprove me, rather than make simple assertions. Use my words to disprove my assertion.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Do you promise not to run away from it like you always do?
Like with the part where socialized medicine means a burger from mcdonalds costs twice as much?
Do you prooooomise???
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Check your OWN link. No others are necessary to refute you.
Honestly, sometimes I wonder if you can read. I wouldn't be surprised if your "daughter" typed your dictation.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I promise...
Thanks for the inspiration with the burger comment. If a town can outlaw a toy with a burger, whats to stop them from taxing the burger for the same reason....it's bad for you. Of course, we need government provided healthcare to come first. Once government provided healthcare is law, your fry consumption and exercise habits are subject to law. Burger tax, like cigarette tax or soda tax. Cigarette taxes and soda taxes are already happening, even in places with private healthcare.
Some day, you'll have a pedometer installed on your ass and you'll be subject to a fine for being lazy. The less you walk, the more it costs society. It's better for society for you to eat carrot sticks instead of fries and use the stairs instead of the elevator. I'm suprised San Fransisco hasn't outlawed elevators. I care less about society than the individual.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Check your OWN link. No others are necessary to refute you.
Honestly, sometimes I wonder if you can read. I wouldn't be surprised if your "daughter" typed your dictation.
I did check my own link... My question remains. My link was only a paragraph about the law. Please, stop making assertions. You all keep asserting that it disproves me. Hell, you could paste the contents of the link and it would take less words than this post. Something substantive, please. Meals over 600 calories can't have a toy.
How many calories per day does a person require? How many meals per day should you consume? If it's 3 meals, I guess the government has decided that 1800 is the maximum you deserve.
600 sounds like a big number but last time I checked....2000 was normal. According to SF...anything over 1800 is evil.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For a toddler?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For a toddler?
And toddlers are spending their own money to get the toy? Will outlawing the toy change anything? If it changes anything, it'll be the price of the meal. Outlawing the toy will make the meal cheaper. Parents will be more likely to visit McD's.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Please, stop making assertions.
oh
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For a toddler?
And toddlers are spending their own money to get the toy? Will outlawing the toy change anything? If it changes anything, it'll be the price of the meal. Outlawing the toy will make the meal cheaper. Parents will be more likely to visit McD's.
I'm pretty sure that part of the reasoning is that some significant amount of the draw in happy meals is because of the toy. Either McDonald's will start offering healthier options with their happy meals and kids will continue to get their toys, or they'll remove the toy from it. This removal would in theory lesson the amount of kids that eat those happy meals (even if the price is cheaper) because they won't be pestering their parents for the meal with the toy, and parents will have less incentive to purchase this meal because they know they won't receive a toy to give to their children.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For a toddler?
And toddlers are spending their own money to get the toy? Will outlawing the toy change anything? If it changes anything, it'll be the price of the meal. Outlawing the toy will make the meal cheaper. Parents will be more likely to visit McD's.
I readily admit that a lot of this results from lazy parenting, though, your assertion seems to be some sort of claim that only poor people who are forced to eat at McDonald's because it's the cheapest option are really affected.
Anyway, I think that screaming kids demanding McDonald's because they want a toy is the reason behind this, because parents are incapable of telling their unruly children no. Now, they could just solve this by having responsible parents who discipline their children, and feed them right more often, to say nothing of sending them outside and away from their computers, but, we seem to be losing that battle as a whole. And you know, I actually do think this will cut down on a lot of visits to McDonalds. They won't be able to advertise the toys they are giving away with their awful meals, which kids see while watching Dora the Explorer or Miley Cyrus, or whatever the heck they watch these days, so kids won't clamor for it anymore. Or, they will be forced to put toys with healthier meals and thus keep the cycle going, but with the nutritional argument removed, which is really the biggest problem people have anyway.
It's not my preferred solution, but fine I guess. If the people of that city choose to reelect those councilmen in the next election year, we'll know if it's the will of the people or not. I threw that last little bit in there because I know how much mal loves democracy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I thought poor people in America were obese because they could only afford to eat things like McDonalds.
That's because you never bothered to read the, as I recall, painstakingly clear explanation I gave you the last time you made these half-baked claims about poor people and fast food. The fast food companies (and big food) target areas rich in commuters and full of working poor, move in, purposefully and willfully destroy whatever local economy exists, and employ locals at low wages in very insecure positions. They feed off of poverty by enthusiastically promoting it with low wages, lobbying against proper food education and safety regulations, as well as wage increases, and feeding these underpaid overworked undereducated people, whom they have helped to make this way, more of the dogshit food they can afford to offer so cheaply by exploiting those same people and their neighbors.
These are not my politics. This is the grim reality of this situation. Now if you like that, and I know that you do like it, admit it. Be a man and admit that you don't give two craps about poor people because you hate them, because they remind you of what you could be, if you were in their position. And you hate that feeling because you want so very badly to believe that you "made it on your own," and you're far too much of a narcissist to conceive of everything outside yourself that helped put you where you are. It's really a hateful thing to be this way, Mal.
I know you don't understand this, or rather that you are willfully ignorant of even the basics of this point of view (I know because you misrepresent it time after time after time), but perhaps you ought to do us all a favor and, for once, talk about something you haven't been corrected on a dozen times already. You really are not good at this.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: [QUOTE] Use my words to disprove my assertion.
Oooohhh... I see why you're so bad at this. You think it works this way?? Wow! And you finished high school?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: My daughter's happy meal is only 390 calories. The apples and milk seem like healthy calories to me (she doesn't eat the caramel dip so the calorie count is a bit higher than what she actually eats). Chicken nuggets aren't really that bad either (though there are healthier ones than McD's). I suppose if I let my daughter order french fries and soda I might be a bit more negative regarding the health.
However, to be honest, we do get McD's a lot for the toy. We tend to go a lot more when they have certain toys than other toys. When they had strawberry shortcake dolls my daughter wanted to go every night (we didn't but she asked). With the halloween bucket, she had no interest in McD.
As I understand it, this type of Happy Meal would be fine. It's not the packaging of any meal with a toy that SF, just the ones that are ridiculously unhealthy.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I was under the impression that it wouldn't pass
quote:In response to the pressure from CSPI and Santa Clara, McDonald’s has begun providing healthier options, like apple slices with caramel sauce (called “Apple Dippers”) and low-fat milk. Today, the most nutritious Happy Meal, with chicken nuggets, apple slices, and milk, has 390 calories, 15 grams of fat, and 560 milligrams of sodium, according to the published nutritional information. Even that option flunks the San Francisco test, though, because 37 percent of the calories come from fat.
This won't hold anyways. SF can regulate all they want, but you know McDonalds is going to find a way around it. All they have to do is drop the price of their Happy Meal by 50 cents, then add the toy to their menu with a 50 cent price tag. Problem solved.
Orincoro, I see one problem with your view, and that is regarding wages. Perhaps you can explain what a fair wage is for someone working at McDonalds. Is it $10 an hour? Or $20 an hour? How much should they be paid?
If wages across the board are raised, the company has to come up with that extra money. Goods and services become more expensive. The dollar buys less. And what do ya know, the people making $10 or $20 an hour working at McDonalds are still poor.
Kind of sad how raising the minimum wage has never lifted one person out of poverty.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Malanthrop, advertising works. Children like toys. If you include toys in things, children will generally want that thing more than they did before the toy was included.
And the amusing thing is, of course you know this. You're just transparently pretending not to to vent your spleen about a supposed outrage against individual liberty, though of course the people of San Francisco elected the representatives who took this action in the first place.
But by all means, pretend there's no impact to taking the toy out of the Happy Meal. I'm certain McDonalds just added the toys for the hell of it. And of course Happy Meals as they're most commonly ordered in McDonalds are a safe, healthy way to get calories in a child's diet too, right, so they really ought to be left alone as well.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:All they have to do is drop the price of their Happy Meal by 50 cents, then add the toy to their menu with a 50 cent price tag. Problem solved.
I don't think that would actually work as well. There's a psychological difference in paying extra for a toy and getting a toy for free. Also, McDonalds HAS been attempting to fix their image as the "fat person restaurant," without any government interference at all. Deliberately circumventing the ruling (which would be incredibly obvious if you were forced to buy a toy seperately) would effectively say "we care more about your money than your child's health."
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The toy can already be purchased separately and with no other food item. The cost is more than fifty cents at every place I have been- usually $1, sometime $1.50 and at overpriced places like airports can be $2. Though a lot of times, if you ask to pay for a toy, they will just toss it in for free. The fact that I know this I think says I have a very spoiled preschooler.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I would support a ban on meals for children that came with a cigarette. Or alcohol. Or poison. And 600+ calorie high-fat happy meals are not really all that different.
They really are quite different. If you take the meal issue out of the equation, most people would still ban selling cigarettes, alcohol, and poison to children. However, I'm not sure that most people would support an outright ban on selling 600 calorie meals to children. I certainly wouldn't.
quote:Obesity is become ludicrously bad in this country. It's affecting lives, happiness, the economy, and our national image. If corporations are so willing to provide easy, cheap, obviously damaging food to children, wrapped up in pretty colors and with toys, I'm not upset if some people say "This is ridiculous. It shouldn't be allowed to happen."
Do you really think this one law by itself is going to change the eating habits of the nation? Do you think obesity rates are going to decrease as a result of this? If not, how many laws do you think we will need?
Personally, I think it would be more useful to regulate the information that is provided to the consumer rather than merely regulating specific combinations of otherwise legal products.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Meh. It's just one city and I'm sure it's not that hard to go across city lines to get a Happy Meal. Shame it's SF, they're all into good eating there to begin with, probably a parental conspiracy to have law on their side (sorry kids, no toys -haha whoops- eat your hummus and carrot sticks now). It would be interesting if this happened in a less-blue area.
Let's see what happens.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by shadowland: Personally, I think it would be more useful to regulate the information that is provided to the consumer rather than merely regulating specific combinations of otherwise legal products.
Except that doesn't work at all. I've been in a restaurant just recently that listed the calorie content right next to the food on the behind-the-counter menu. "Cheeseburger - 1500 calories. Double Cheeseburger 2,300 calories. Fish Fry 2,600 calories." And on the wall next to the line were pictures of people happily completing the quadruple-cheeseburger challenge.
quote:However, I'm not sure that most people would support an outright ban on selling 600 calorie meals to children. I certainly wouldn't.
And I never said this. When a obviously unhealthy package (i.e. Happy Meal) is advertised to susceptible, malleable, naive children, that's when I have a problem.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Except that doesn't work at all. I've been in a restaurant just recently that listed the calorie content right next to the food on the behind-the-counter menu. "Cheeseburger - 1500 calories. Double Cheeseburger 2,300 calories. Fish Fry 2,600 calories." And on the wall next to the line were pictures of people happily completing the quadruple-cheeseburger challenge.
It doesn't work at all? I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that it is not in any way helpful. But yes, for many people it would probably not help them out, but then, I'm not sure that those same people will benefit much by this law either.
quote:When a obviously unhealthy package (i.e. Happy Meal) is advertised to susceptible, malleable, naive children, that's when I have a problem.
I have a problem with it too. But I don't feel it's the government's job to ban it, in the same way that I wouldn't be in favor of the government banning a restaurant giving a discount for value meals containing more than some arbitrarily decided number of calories, or the government banning potentially 'harmful' entertainment being sold to children.
Of note, I would be more accepting of the government regulating how and where the advertisements are displayed, but I'm not too fond of outright bans.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by shadowland: I have a problem with it too. But I don't feel it's the government's job to ban it, in the same way that I wouldn't be in favor of the government banning a restaurant giving a discount for value meals containing more than some arbitrarily decided number of calories, or the government banning potentially 'harmful' entertainment being sold to children.
When does is stop becoming "the people" or "our community" and start becoming "the government" that's doing the banning?
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:When does is stop becoming "the people" or "our community" and start becoming "the government" that's doing the banning?
I tend to view bans as being a sort of last resort method. When I feel there are more productive actions that can be taken, then I favor those actions over instituting a ban on one very specific and limited behavior that may or may not have any effect on the goal that the ban is intended to achieve. The fact that the majority of a community may support the ban does not change my views on bans in general.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: And I never said this. When a obviously unhealthy package (i.e. Happy Meal) is advertised to susceptible, malleable, naive children, that's when I have a problem.
Oh come on WW. Your statement makes it seem like just because something is advertised kids are going to be able to go right out and get it. The fact is the parent has the choice whether to buy that happy meal for the child, and what food is included in that happy meal. Scholarette said she chooses milk and apple slices for her child. That is her choice, and I think she is a good parent for doing so.
I haven't seen one McDonald's commercial in the past decade that has advertised the actual food contained in the Happy Meal. They may advertise the toy, but I've never seen the actual food.
What is to stop other parents from choosing the apple slices or milk for their children? Nothing. It is posted on the menu in a prominant place. They don't make any effort to hide the choices.
This ban is simply an attempt to remove personal responsibility from an individual. It isn't the parent's fault they choose unhealthy food for their children, it HAS to be McDonald's!
That evil yellow and red clown is out to get your kids!
Now I think there does come a time where someone should step in. If a parent overfeeds their children and the kid starts looking like Violet Beauregarde after chewing on a stick of Wonka's experimental gum, then I think someone needs to either talk to those parents or remove the child from the household.
I do understand that this ban was placed because people care about kids and want to prevent harm from coming to them. This is where awareness and education help.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale:
quote:Originally posted by shadowland: I have a problem with it too. But I don't feel it's the government's job to ban it, in the same way that I wouldn't be in favor of the government banning a restaurant giving a discount for value meals containing more than some arbitrarily decided number of calories, or the government banning potentially 'harmful' entertainment being sold to children.
When does is stop becoming "the people" or "our community" and start becoming "the government" that's doing the banning?
This.
My parents were talking about how at the financial town meeting, it goes late, so most decisions get passed by "special interest" groups who stay until the end. My dad interjected and pointed out that these people's special interest, whatever it was, was still "town resident".
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I haven't seen one McDonald's commercial in the past decade that has advertised the actual food contained in the Happy Meal. They may advertise the toy, but I've never seen the actual food.
quote:Oh come on WW. Your statement makes it seem like just because something is advertised kids are going to be able to go right out and get it. The fact is the parent has the choice whether to buy that happy meal for the child, and what food is included in that happy meal. Scholarette said she chooses milk and apple slices for her child. That is her choice, and I think she is a good parent for doing so.
Food companies spend billions on advertising, and a lot of them advertise to children. They don't spend the money if they don't see results. Sometimes the parent is the final arbiter (kudos, Scholarette, btw), but not always.
Where I grew up, the only fast food chain in the town was a Wendys. You saw primarily grade school and high school kids there for dinner. Some of them might have had jobs, but many of them (and I know this because I knew many of them and their families) were just given money by their parents, told to take their younger siblings with them, and told to go feed themselves. Surely my town wasn't the only one like this.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Happy meal advertisements never advertising the food would be a surprise? I am pretty sure they do.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by shadowland:
quote:When does is stop becoming "the people" or "our community" and start becoming "the government" that's doing the banning?
I tend to view bans as being a sort of last resort method. When I feel there are more productive actions that can be taken, then I favor those actions over instituting a ban on one very specific and limited behavior that may or may not have any effect on the goal that the ban is intended to achieve. The fact that the majority of a community may support the ban does not change my views on bans in general.
This law didn't "ban" the toy. It set certain requirements to get a toy. Include fruits and veggies or be under X amount of calories. This law set out to control the behavior of the people. Using the tax code to manipulate the population is wrong. Manipulating adults is one thing, pitting parents against children is another. In SF, the parent will have to explain to the child, they didn't get a toy for choosing the fries.
Every time I go to McD's, I have the conversation with my small children about what they want. "Do you want the apples or fries? Nuggets or burger? 4 piece or 6 piece? Milk, Chocolate Milk, Juice or Soda?" They pick their food and I comply. How the hell does a city counsel think it can interject itself into this conversation? I order my kids what they want. The city wants to deny my child the toy for ordering what they want to eat.
Limited government anyone? Of course, liberals believe that people are too stupid to know what is good for them. We need government to control our lives and force us to do what is best for us.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Of note, I would be more accepting of the government regulating how and where the advertisements are displayed, but I'm not too fond of outright bans.
That's pretty much what this is: you can include your toy with a meal so long as the location is next to some fruit, not a bunch of fried salted starch. Rather like not having a billboard of a leather wearing tobacco smoking camel up next to a school, to be honest.
quote:This ban is simply an attempt to remove personal responsibility from an individual. It isn't the parent's fault they choose unhealthy food for their children, it HAS to be McDonald's!
I'm afraid you'll have to explain this statement, because it doesn't make sense. In way way does this ban 'remove personal responsibility'? That's just some nice conservative buzz-word usage so far as I can tell.
quote:
Now I think there does come a time where someone should step in. If a parent overfeeds their children and the kid starts looking like Violet Beauregarde after chewing on a stick of Wonka's experimental gum, then I think someone needs to either talk to those parents or remove the child from the household.
Isn't the time to intervene some point before the child is horrendously obese? Speaking as a kid who was morbidly obese as a child myself, actually, and not someone who would have wanted government intervention either. I'm not saying I want the government stopping parents from being permitted to feed their kids fast food, but fortunately, that's not what's being done here. What is being done here is government in one city saying, "You can't market your very unhealthy food explicitly for children in our city." Small government, mind.
Of course it's San Francisco so the fact that it's small, local government somehow gets left by the wayside in venting of conservative spleen.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: That evil yellow and red clown is out to get your kids!
Ok. You do understand that McDonald's is engaged in an ongoing and highly calculated campaign to imprint as many children in the world as possible with brand loyalty that can be used to the company's advantage throughout their entire lives, right? Again, this is not politics or conspiracy, this is a well established fact about McDonald's advertising strategies and long term goals. The company advertises to children, associates toys and play structures with the taste of their food, and jams their food as full of unhealthy and highly pleasing substances as possible in order, very purposefully, to hook children into become brand loyal to McDonald's.
Whatever you want to say about personal responsibility or whatever other schlock you've been told to throw out when somebody talks about any kind of regulation, even of the most dangerous and socially harmful practices, do not claim that McDonald's is not involved in a balls-out campaign to ensnare children into a lifestyle of unhealthy eating. That is their express goal, as a business.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: That evil yellow and red clown is out to get your kids!
Ok. You do understand that McDonald's is engaged in an ongoing and highly calculated campaign to imprint as many children in the world as possible with brand loyalty that can be used to the company's advantage throughout their entire lives, right?
Do you understand that the government is doing the very same thing via public education? My kids go to McD's when I, as a parent, choose to take them. My kids go to school, several hours per day. My 6th grader is yet to learn about the constitution but she has nightmares about global warming.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Using the tax code to manipulate the population is wrong. Manipulating adults is one thing, pitting parents against children is another. In SF, the parent will have to explain to the child, they didn't get a toy for choosing the fries.
It is? You'll certainly want to scrap all sorts of tax incentives and rules for having children, marriage, starting businesses, going to school, so on and so forth. I thought you were some sort of man experienced in business, malanthrop, making lots of money a year. That's an incredibly foolish thing for such a man to say, 'using the tax code to manipulate the population is wrong'.
As for pitting parents against children, yes, heaven forbid children not have easy access to incredibly fatty calorie rich food with cheap, short-lasting toys that they're taught by advertising to like. The horror! If this action had been taken in, say, Omaha instead of San Francisco your reaction would be much different, and of course most folks know it. The big grab for you wasn't 'government ban', it was 'San Francisco'.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Limited government anyone? Of course, liberals believe that people are too stupid to know what is good for them. We need government to control our lives and force us to do what is best for us.
Demonstrably, many people are too stupid to know what is best for them, or their children. You take your children to McDonald's, for instance. This is a very stupid thing to do.
But no, liberals want the government to protect people from the designs of corporations to manipulate and take advantage of them, and society at large, most especially when those corporations do so in ways that ensnare even non-brainless people. A lot of smart people take their children to McDonald's. They remain unaware that this act is part of a very complex and very purposeful design of McDonald's, to fool parents into believing that they, and their families, are not affected by the billions of dollars in advertising money and political lobbies which help McDonald's pursue its interest: making money.
You would object, I am quite sure, to a toy cigarette or bottle of toy alcohol contained in a happy meal. Why? It's a toy- and you can exercise your individual ability not to buy it. No, you would favor it being banned because it represents a *very* clearly bad message- smoking and drinking is good, and no big deal.
What you don't realize is that the happy meal *already* contains those toy cigarettes, in the form of a small processed, freeze dried, reconstituted, artificially died and flavored and deep fried portion of meat and potato.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Yes, scrap all tax incentives. I don't believe the government should "incentivise" (control) behavior.
Where do you draw the line? When will the tax laws impose themselves into the grocery store?
Punish parents that feed their children badly,...even if they cook at home.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Do you understand that the government is doing the very same thing via public education?
Yeah, of course. I'm ok with it. I wouldn't be ok with it if the government didn't have a very good and noble reason for doing it. You're a nihilist, insofar as you have no real beliefs, so I don't expect you to understand the difference.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Where do you draw the line? When will the tax laws impose themselves into the grocery store?
They already do. You pay high taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. Again, I'm okay with it. You draw the line when it is reasonable to draw the line. It is unreasonable to allow McDonald's to continue actively ravaging the health of the American public in pursuit of profits. And again, you're a nihilist, so it's hard for you to understand that others believe in the ability of a society to form reasonable policies- and hard for you to see why you're always part of the problem, simply because to you, there will never be a solution, because you don't care about anyone but yourself.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Limited government anyone? Of course, liberals believe that people are too stupid to know what is good for them. We need government to control our lives and force us to do what is best for us.
Demonstrably, many people are too stupid to know what is best for them, or their children. You take your children to McDonald's, for instance. This is a very stupid thing to do.
But no, liberals want the government to protect people from the designs of corporations to manipulate and take advantage of them, and society at large, most especially when those corporations do so in ways that ensnare even non-brainless people. A lot of smart people take their children to McDonald's. They remain unaware that this act is part of a very complex and very purposeful design of McDonald's, to fool parents into believing that they, and their families, are not affected by the billions of dollars in advertising money and political lobbies which help McDonald's pursue its interest: making money.
You would object, I am quite sure, to a toy cigarette or bottle of toy alcohol contained in a happy meal. Why? It's a toy- and you can exercise your individual ability not to buy it. No, you would favor it being banned because it represents a *very* clearly bad message- smoking and drinking is good, and no big deal.
What you don't realize is that the happy meal *already* contains those toy cigarettes, in the form of a small processed, freeze dried, reconstituted, artificially died and flavored and deep fried portion of meat and potato.
I take my children to McD's about once per month. Is this "demonsterably stupid"? I suppose you consider salt to be a poison. SF wants to limit sodium as well. Without sodium, you'll die. Is sodium bad for you? Is fat bad for you? We crave it for it's efficiency. Fat and sugar provides the calories we need. We naturally crave them for their efficient delivery.
Solar power is evil....too much power for nothing...like eating fat. What gives a city the right to determine what you can eat or feed your children? Inuit eating blubber should be charged with child abuse for feeding blubber to their kids. Reality, they, like native Americans, didn't get obese until whitey forced their "better judgement" and compassion upon them. The party of "good intentions" needs to learn not to feed the animals. The animals know how to take care of themselves.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From Geraine That evil yellow and red clown is out to get your kids!
Not funny.
I used to have this recurring nightmare when I was a teenager about Ronald McDonald. There's a McDonalds by my mom's house that has a playplace, and in the playplace is a statue of Ronald sitting on a bench.
I used to have a dream that I was stopped at the red light right outside the McDonalds late at night. The street light would go out, and I'd look over at Ronald, but he wouldn't be at his bench. I'd look forward, and then back again, and this time he'd be at the glass wall with his face pressed against it staring at me. I'd look back at the light nervously, and then back at the playplace, only now he's outside the playplace standing in front of the newspaper racks.
Finally I start to consider just running the red light, but I look back at the playplace and now he's standing right next to my car with his face pressed up against the car window. As I floor it to run the endless red light, I see that he's sitting in the passenger seat next to me.
That's normally when I wake up.
Ronald is no laughing matter.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Maybe Ronald's true intent it to scare children to eat bad food.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: Using the tax code to manipulate the population is wrong. Manipulating adults is one thing, pitting parents against children is another. In SF, the parent will have to explain to the child, they didn't get a toy for choosing the fries.
It is? You'll certainly want to scrap all sorts of tax incentives and rules for having children, marriage, starting businesses, going to school, so on and so forth. I thought you were some sort of man experienced in business, malanthrop, making lots of money a year. That's an incredibly foolish thing for such a man to say, 'using the tax code to manipulate the population is wrong'.
As for pitting parents against children, yes, heaven forbid children not have easy access to incredibly fatty calorie rich food with cheap, short-lasting toys that they're taught by advertising to like. The horror! If this action had been taken in, say, Omaha instead of San Francisco your reaction would be much different, and of course most folks know it. The big grab for you wasn't 'government ban', it was 'San Francisco'.
Just for the record, I think this legislature is completely absurd and not because it happened in San Francisco. I think it's a great example of the sort of nanny state crap that I'm adamantly opposed to.
I also hate pretty much any form of tax incentives.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:I take my children to McD's about once per month. Is this "demonsterably stupid"?
Might be. Are your kids obese?
quote:I suppose you consider salt to be a poison. SF wants to limit sodium as well. Without sodium, you'll die. Is sodium bad for you?
Poison is in the dose. I'm terrified of the amount of sodium my grandmother takes in when she heats up one of her frozen chicken pot pies.
quote:Is fat bad for you? We crave it for it's efficiency. Fat and sugar provides the calories we need. We naturally crave them for their efficient delivery.
This is true. Yes. And now, since many of us in the US are no longer facing daily starvation and instead are facing an excess of fat and sweets, our instincts are cravings trick us. They no longer serve our best purposes. Hence (in part) the obesity epidemic.
quote:Solar power is evil....too much power for nothing...like eating fat.
This isn't even coherent.
quote:What gives a city the right to determine what you can eat or feed your children?
Elected officials, elected by the people of the city, to fight against larger forces influencing their children.
quote:Inuit eating blubber should be charged with child abuse for feeding blubber to their kids.
Unless, as it was in the past, it was one of the primary sources of nutrition.
quote:Reality, they, like native Americans, didn't get obese until whitey forced their "better judgement" and compassion upon them. The party of "good intentions" needs to learn not to feed the animals. The animals know how to take care of themselves.
You...just...equated Inuits and Native Americans with animals.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
No, I didn't equate them with animals...I equated them with man's natural instinct. Man is an animal and parents teach their children. All mankind is an animal. Feeding the ducks in your backyard pond might feel good but prevent them from flying south....they freeze to death. Parents teach their children how to survive. Some parents in the animal kingdom, show them where to graze, some show them which garbage cans to topple, some show them where wait for the human to throw a scrap.
I'm teaching my children to study and learn. Some of their classmates are disrespectful to the teachers and have learned to live on welfare. I tell my children the percentage of my income the government confiscates. Is this wrong? Others live on confiscated income.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That's pretty much what this is: you can include your toy with a meal so long as the location is next to some fruit, not a bunch of fried salted starch. Rather like not having a billboard of a leather wearing tobacco smoking camel up next to a school, to be honest.
Well, I don't quite agree with that. I draw a very specific distinction between the advertising of a product and the ability to sell that product, ie., I'm okay with limiting the scope of certain types of advertisements, but I'm not in favor of limiting the ability to sell products that are perfectly legal when sold individually. I can also completely understand if you don't make that same distinction in this situation.
The problem with the comparisons to cigarettes or alcohol or poison is that all of those things are illegal to sell to children on their own, so the idea of marketing those things to children is irrelevant because selling them to children is already illegal. Hamburgers, fries, and a soda is not illegal to sell to children.
Quite frankly, this whole issue seems like a case of addressing a symptom while ignoring the actual problem. I really don't see this as being much different than saying that a store can't sell a 'harmful' video game or movie to a child despite parental consent. What's next, the city is going to come up with a list of acceptable Halloween treats that people can hand out?
[edit] Can't we just ignore Malanthrop's arguments? I mean, they really don't make sense anyway and addressing them is not productive.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by shadowland: [edit] Can't we just ignore Malanthrop's arguments? I mean, they really don't make sense anyway and addressing them is not productive.
But they're kind of fun as a sort of looking glass experiment. They're nonsensical, and when you prod at certain parts of them, they blossom into entire whole new fields of hazy conceptualizations.
But if you're actually trying to inform him or change his habits, then yes. Abandon all hope. It's only if you intend to be entertained by his tomfoolery.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
mal, yes....fat is bad for you. Yes...salt is bad for you.
In excess. You need water to live, but there is such a thing as eater poisoning, and yes....it can kill you.
Lots of things are OK in moderation, but not in excess. As a matter of fact, very few, if any, things are good or have no impact in excess.
Once again, you show you lack a basic understanding of reality. YOU show a basic lack of compassion, intelligence, and understand of how things work that is staggering. On a post by post basis, even.
You are disrespectful, regardless of who's income you live on. You showed your real agenda clearly with that comment, BTW....
Thank you....not every people gets to be their own straw man.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I take my children to McD's about once per month. Is this "demonstrably stupid"?
Yes. It is an awful thing to do to your children to expose them to the clutches of McDonald's, most especially if you do it knowing what a terrible company it is- not to mention what kinds of things the foods contain that you should never, ever be eating.
quote: I suppose you consider salt to be a poison. SF wants to limit sodium as well. Without sodium, you'll die. Is sodium bad for you?
Typically a diet of processed foods will deliver to a human being a dose of salt per day which is in the range of tens of thousands of percent more than their metabolism requires. At these levels, yes, most definitely salt is bad for you. It has been a proven cause of hypertension, kidney and liver disease, and heart disease. It also has addictive properties, as do certain fats. It is absolutely one of the *more* dangerous things in our society.
quote: Lots of things are OK in moderation, but not in excess. As a matter of fact, very few, if any, things are good or have no impact in excess.
QFT. Even an occassional trip to McDonald's with the kids is one of the worst things a parent can do regarding their children's health. Not only is the food, even in those amounts, very unhealthy, but the purpose of happy meals and trips to McD's from the company's perspective is to hook children for life. They do it too- McDonald's serves over 50 million meals a day.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
malanthrop,
Ugh. Your inability to plumb the depths even of the arguments you bring to the table is nothing if not consistent.
quote:Yes, scrap all tax incentives. I don't believe the government should "incentivise" (control) behavior.
Why on Earth not? This is just a silly position. Of course government should do this. The obvious question is how much and when. You don't actually believe it shouldn't do it ever and to no extent at all, because even the kind of flat tax some conservatives call 'fair' would be a control on behavior.
quote:Where do you draw the line? When will the tax laws impose themselves into the grocery store?
For someone so hooked in with what everyday Americans think, it's once again surprising how little you understand about what everyday American life brings to the table-pun intended. Oricincoro addressed part of this already, but let me mention another part of it: over half the nation already incentivizes tax activity at the grocery store, malanthrop. Perhaps if you lived up more to the things you claimed about yourself and less to the literal meaning of your user name you would know things like that.
quote:Punish parents that feed their children badly,...even if they cook at home.
I wouldn't call stopping a company from marketing incredibly fatty, obesity-causing foods to children a punishment. And honestly I'm having a hard time entertaining the notion that a rational person would. How is this decision actually on the table - not the slippery slope nonsense you're engaging in - a punishment? McDonald's isn't permitted in one city to market their obesity-making food to children. Most people would call that a reward-less mordibly obese children.
quote:I take my children to McD's about once per month. Is this "demonsterably stupid"? I suppose you consider salt to be a poison. SF wants to limit sodium as well. Without sodium, you'll die. Is sodium bad for you? Is fat bad for you? We crave it for it's efficiency. Fat and sugar provides the calories we need. We naturally crave them for their efficient delivery.
And here's another heroically stupid argument. Sodium is bad for you. SF wants to limit sodium. Without it you'll die. That's just ridiculous, malanthrop. San Francisco doesn't want to eliminate sodium. Though for the record, I don't consider ever going to McDonalds or taking one's child there stupid, that's going pretty over-the-top too, Orincoro.
quote:What gives a city the right to determine what you can eat or feed your children?
The people, obviously. And no, the city has not determined what parents can feed their children, but that's a transparently poor attempt to change the argument again, malanthrop. You're once more a liar. San Francisco has not said, "Parents shall not feed their children the contents of a Happy Meal." They've said 'McDonalds cannot serve them under these conditions." Parents are perfectly free to buy exactly the same foods as before, and you know it. You've read the article. You're lying.
quote:Reality, they, like native Americans, didn't get obese until whitey forced their "better judgement" and compassion upon them. The party of "good intentions" needs to learn not to feed the animals. The animals know how to take care of themselves.
Another subject change. What on Earth does whitey have to do with anything? As usual, you're getting your backside handed to you in another silly argument, so quick! Time to start throwing out as many buzzwords as possible. Bring out the chalkboard, start waving your hands and throwing out jargon.
-------
quote:Just for the record, I think this legislature is completely absurd and not because it happened in San Francisco. I think it's a great example of the sort of nanny state crap that I'm adamantly opposed to.
I also hate pretty much any form of tax incentives.
I'll entertain that statement from you, Dan, because I believe you're sincere, however much I disagree with you. Malanthrop, on the other hand, is frequently a liar, almost never a participant in good faith, and just as often a hack, and from him I'm quite happy to believe the big bell for him here was San Francisco.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dan, If you could go into why you don't like nanny state policies and tax incentives, this strikes me as a potentially useful and interesting conversation.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Somehow, this doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It wouldn't kill McDonald's to add a bag of carrots or something or give an apple with the meal. They can still hand out toys if they did that. They already started adding healthier stuff before that documentary even came out.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
But Syn, they do already give the choice of an apple versus fries. I am assuming that other parents are just not choosing that option.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I reckon, but it's more like apples dipped in caramel or something? Parents probably should set a better example when it comes to health food, but I'm making brownies tonight, so I can't really talk. BUT, I do not have kids yet.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
There is an apple dip that comes with it (kinda like the ketchup packet) and we just take that part away. Though to be honest, that isn't so much the health thing as caramel makes a sticky mess.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: mal, yes....fat is bad for you. Yes...salt is bad for you.
In excess. You need water to live, but there is such a thing as eater poisoning, and yes....it can kill you.
Lots of things are OK in moderation, but not in excess. As a matter of fact, very few, if any, things are good or have no impact in excess.
Once again, you show you lack a basic understanding of reality. YOU show a basic lack of compassion, intelligence, and understand of how things work that is staggering. On a post by post basis, even.
You are disrespectful, regardless of who's income you live on. You showed your real agenda clearly with that comment, BTW....
Thank you....not every people gets to be their own straw man.
You can die from drinking too much water....in fact it does happen with drug users.
Burgers are bad for you but where do you draw the line? Will the grocery store need to tax ice cream more than milk? Where do you draw the line with government intervention into our diets?
I would argue the government crossed the line by getting involved in our diets. Of course, it's just a crack in the door. The crack in the door of your grandparents has now become a chasm...you don't realize it. The next generation will be brought up in a society where illegal happy meal toys is normal. Maybe the next generation will argue about whether the government should have the right to regulate apple juice for having a higher sugar content than milk. Once soda is singled out, they'll need to further classify what is the next "bad for you" beverage subject to law. Once they have a "juice tax", they'll attack milk for it's fat content.
Water is the only drink you "need". Orange juice companies might put a cartoon on the juice box to entice children to drink something better tasting than water. We all know, water is better than juice.
You can live on beans, rice and water. Everthing else should have a special tax.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I know I haven't been joining these conversations lately, but mal? What you said is kind of a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy.
You do know this, right?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: You do know this, right?
Again, the answer is pretty much no in all cases. It saves time to remember three things.
1. He doesn't understand what is wrong with the arguments that he is making. 2. No, he also doesn't understand the corrections. 3. No, he won't stop relying on them, even if you pin what's wrong with them solidly.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yet another straw man argument. Mal, you ARE the spambot of Hatrack, aren't you?
ANYONE can die from drinking too much water, mal. Not just drug users. And the fact that YOU thin you can tell me ANYTHING about the habits and risks drug users face is a riot. I work a large number of hours as a nurse in a Crisis Stabilization Unit for my area. I am far too familiar with all of the symptoms of addiction and the stages of recovery, as well as the risks each stage holds.
Yet another example of you going off half cocked, spouting idiotic stuff to people far better educated than you on the subject.
BTW....I dislike the law too. But other than that, we have nothing else in common. Hell....if you dislike it, maybe it isn't all that bad after all.....
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Burgers are bad for you but where do you draw the line? Will the grocery store need to tax ice cream more than milk? Where do you draw the line with government intervention into our diets?
A true conservative, as opposed to a hack such as yourself, might say that the people ought to decide. As they're in the process of doing in San Francisco.
quote: I would argue the government crossed the line by getting involved in our diets. Of course, it's just a crack in the door. The crack in the door of your grandparents has now become a chasm...you don't realize it. The next generation will be brought up in a society where illegal happy meal toys is normal. Maybe the next generation will argue about whether the government should have the right to regulate apple juice for having a higher sugar content than milk. Once soda is singled out, they'll need to further classify what is the next "bad for you" beverage subject to law. Once they have a "juice tax", they'll attack milk for it's fat content.
Because, of course, two generations ago (which is inaccurate - government was already neck deep in our food back then, you need to go quite a bit further, say, five or six generations ago) - food was safer, cleaner, cheaper, healthier, etc. Wait a minute, malanthrop. None of that is true at all. By almost every possible measure, in fact. So...again you're grossly, unmistakably wrong by every empirical measure on a political argument. Stunning.
If only you would be decent at least at trolling, and make your argument something like, "Government goes too far, instead of 'government shouldn't be involved in food at all', which is plainly ridiculous." It's an easy argument to make, too, which is one of many reasons you're such a hoot.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
We do fast food far too often simply because it's convenient. If I have to work even half an hour late, it's hard enough to get in eating, homework, and a bath without throwing cooking into the mix. If I'm good, I'll cook enough on the weekends to have some leftovers I can just heat up, but if not...
I'm pretty lucky though. My son HATES fries - really, truly hates them! I'm not really sure why, but he does, and it's not something I've ever tried to change. So, for all of his meals, we get the fruit option. Honestly, milk, a burger, and apples isn't really that terrible of a meal. It's not great, I'll grant you, but it's not really awful either.
The toy rarely even figures into the mix. The ONLY time I get meals for the toy is when Wendy's is putting audiobooks in the meals. In fact, I actually toss alot of our toys strait into the give-away box because our playroom is cluttered enough as it is!
I do have to ask one question though... why does McDonald's insist on serving skinless apples? I don't get it. It's gotta cost more to peel them, and it hurts the nutritional value. I just wish they'd stop doing it!
Btw, at least around here, you only actually get the caramel dip with the apples about 25% of the time. The usually forget to put it in the bag. I don't mind though, since, as Scholarette said, it makes a horrid sticky mess!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: I know I haven't been joining these conversations lately, but mal? What you said is kind of a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy.
Ask your grandmother, or great grandmother before she dies if she would agree.
What the hell kind of link was that? Did you create that website yourself to prove your own point? It looks like an advertisement for the University of Phoenix to me. What a great and highly respected institution.... Are they still accredited? My wife is building a website as a grad school project. I think yours was created by a U of P online learner, and it was his personal blog.
Don't believe everything you read.....certainly, don't use ANYTHING you've read to prove a point.
Slippery slope isn't "six degrees of Kevin Bacon"
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: We do fast food far too often simply because it's convenient. If I have to work even half an hour late, it's hard enough to get in eating, homework, and a bath without throwing cooking into the mix. If I'm good, I'll cook enough on the weekends to have some leftovers I can just heat up, but if not...
I'm pretty lucky though. My son HATES fries - really, truly hates them! I'm not really sure why, but he does, and it's not something I've ever tried to change. So, for all of his meals, we get the fruit option. Honestly, milk, a burger, and apples isn't really that terrible of a meal. It's not great, I'll grant you, but it's not really awful either.
The toy rarely even figures into the mix. The ONLY time I get meals for the toy is when Wendy's is putting audiobooks in the meals. In fact, I actually toss alot of our toys strait into the give-away box because our playroom is cluttered enough as it is!
I do have to ask one question though... why does McDonald's insist on serving skinless apples? I don't get it. It's gotta cost more to peel them, and it hurts the nutritional value. I just wish they'd stop doing it!
Btw, at least around here, you only actually get the caramel dip with the apples about 25% of the time. The usually forget to put it in the bag. I don't mind though, since, as Scholarette said, it makes a horrid sticky mess!
I'll only comment on the apples. I think they fooled you about the skinless part. Perhaps, like the chicken...they are mechanically separated and then formed into nice little apple slice shapes, glued together with ? and treated with ? to keep them from browning.
The FDA has a purpose....we shoundn't have "?"'s. If I know it's pig fat fried in penut oil, I should have a right to eat it and liking pork rinds is none of the governments business. McD's even makes me wonder, with their perfect apple slices. McRib anyone?
[ November 08, 2010, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think they fooled you about the skinless part. Perhaps, like the chicken...they are mechanically separated and then formed into nice little apple slice shapes, glued together with ? and treated with ? to keep them from browning.
McDonald's actually contracts for some very specific varieties (primarily Empire, Pink Lady, and Cameo) of apples, which are peeled and sliced by robots but not "mechanically separated," and which sell in enough quantities to make McDonald's one of the biggest apple suppliers in the world.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
malanthrop, what a transparent way to attempt to deflect multiple people pointing out, "Hey, he's making a slippery slope argument-again!" But just to give you less room for your typical gutless weaseling, here ya go, you hack.
quote:The FDA has a purpose....we shoundn't have "?"'s. If I know it's pig fat fried in penut oil, I should have a right to eat it and liking pork rinds is none of the governments business. McD's even makes me wonder, with their perfect apple slices. McRib anyone?
You've got the right to eat it. There is nothing the city of San Francisco is doing that challenges any of these rights you're claiming or, for that matter, that anyone else is challenging either. San Francisco hasn't said, "You can't give your kids fries," however hysterically you rant otherwise. What they have said is you can't, within our jurisdiction, market your nutritionally very harmful food specifically to children. They have to be adults before they make the decision to start going in for risky behavior.
OMG! Sound the alarm! Liburals comin' ta take mah babies!
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
McDonalds is not the only fast food business that places toys in their kids meals. I don't know if the ban specifically names McDonalds or not though.
I really believe that obesity education would be more effective than a ban in all cases.
Actually, the ban might be pretty effective...I'm going to start stockpiling McDonalds toys for the black market. I'll make a killing!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I really believe that obesity education would be more effective than a ban in all cases.
I will definitely agree that more obesity education is needed, though of course talking to a Republican will get you the expectation that this will magically come from...somewhere. Anyway, though, that's not an argument at all against a specific local government restricting advertisement against a known harmful product being marketed specifically towards children, when we know that a) the product is harmful - fast food in the quantities this ban targets is bad for children, and child obesity is quite bad - and b) McDonald's advertising is very effective.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: McDonalds is not the only fast food business that places toys in their kids meals. I don't know if the ban specifically names McDonalds or not though.
I don't have sourced figures handy, but McDonald's has something like an 8% US market share in fast food with a higher share of children (figures are higher internationally as well). That's something like 3 or 4 times the nearest competitor (Burger King)- and McDonald's also spends several times over what the nearest competitors spend on advertising, much of that money spent advertising to children as well. Certainly such a measure is aimed at McDonald's, but it's also generally aimed at a notably effective and socially detrimental marketing strategy.
What interests me in this case actually might be a matter of first ammendment rights. I don't know that predatory advertising and promotions are necessarily protected as would be, say, the sale of toys to children on their own.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm personally a bit uncomfortable with the way that certain advertisements are banned. I don't think it's inherently wrong to ban, say, smoking ads on television, but I'm concerned that ultimately what decides we ban those things is public whim.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I have to agree with that Raymond. It's a slippery slope, but luckily we haven't started sliding yet. I can't even really remember smoking ads on TV (when were they banned) and everyone might even think that, in the long run, this no-toy advertising for bad food this is ok. Certainly I wouldn't mind seeing a few less beer or viagra commercials, but... where does it stop.
What if the far right, for instance, decides to take Abstinence Only all the way to TV ads? While I can't say I actually enjoy Trojan commercials, isn't it important for people to know the product is out there?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think that would work. That labors under the assumption that Trojan ads are marketed only at young unmarried people. Besides, I wonder if someone challenging the principle behind that law could call it a violation of the establishment clause.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
banning fast food is the stupid way to handle issues of obesity. This despite the fact that obesity, as an issue, ends up managed one way or another; we only have the choice of managing it the expensive, terrible, delayed way through inaction or useless action (spoiler: banning the happy meal won't fix anything). Or, possibly, coming up with workable policy of managing it that doesn't step on too many toes. Oh, and we're right on the cusp of needing to do that, too! Observe how fast people are growing fat in the typical post-WWII diet environment, in this actually interesting animation.. The better way would involve much less individual revocation of right 'for the greater good' but would involve too much of a level of social planning for most urban regions to be comfortable with. You have to isolate and remove 'food deserts' or 'nutritional deserts.'
DEFINITION
quote:A nutritional desert is an area where people have difficulty accessing diverse, healthy foods. As a result, residents of a nutritional desert often eat poorly balanced diets, potentially creating health problems for themselves. Nutritional deserts are also sometimes referred to as “food deserts,” and they are especially common in inner cities, where citizens may more generally lack access to basic goods and services.
In a typical nutritional desert, citizens have access to some food, but not a diverse and balanced selection of food. It is also common to have especially limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and for food to be comparatively very expensive in a nutritional desert. For example, residents of a neighborhood might only be able to shop at a corner store, where there is an abundance of expensive and heavily processed food, and a dearth of things like salad greens and fruit.
Classically, nutritional deserts may also have a high concentration of fast food restaurants, and their residents are often poor. It is also common for the people who live in a nutritional desert to rely heavily on public transit, lacking private vehicles or the ability to use them, and as a result, they are heavily dependent on the offerings in their surrounding neighborhood. When faced with a choice between fast food down the street, or a long bus ride out of the neighborhood for fresh ingredients, it is perhaps not surprising that some people opt for the fast food, especially if they have to cope with caring for related dependents or grueling work schedules.
There are a number of reasons for a nutritional desert to form. Many such regions are in minority neighborhoods, suggesting that a certain amount of redlining may be occurring. Redlining is a practice in which banks and other lenders refuse to invest in a specific area, making it hard to open a new supermarket or any other sort of business; commonly when a district is redlined, loans are also denied to the residents. Although this practice is explicitly illegal in most countries, it is unfortunately still common in some regions, because it can be difficult to prove that a bank is practicing redlining.
Residents of a nutritional desert may also lack the education to seek out healthier food choices, and their lack of education may also prevent them from agitating for change in their neighborhoods. Educational differences can also mean that people cannot get high-paying jobs, and as a result, they are financially restricted as well.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I have to agree with that Raymond. It's a slippery slope, but luckily we haven't started sliding yet. I can't even really remember smoking ads on TV (when were they banned) and everyone might even think that, in the long run, this no-toy advertising for bad food this is ok. Certainly I wouldn't mind seeing a few less beer or viagra commercials, but... where does it stop.
What if the far right, for instance, decides to take Abstinence Only all the way to TV ads? While I can't say I actually enjoy Trojan commercials, isn't it important for people to know the product is out there?
I can't tell if you mean to say this in a positive or a negative light...
I don't think they should show Tabacco products, Alcohol products, or Sex related products... since all those things are lumped into one this..
As for condoms being a good thing... that's what sex ed/health class is for in school .-. ----- As for banning toys in McD's food, perfectly acceptable (expecially if you ban all other children luring toys with food from other fast food places)
Some one said McD's was the only meal some kids have and the only toys too, this is skewed though, buying fast food is only convienient not economical and will cost you more if it's all you're buying. More important than any toy is being healthy, and you get nothing of that from McD's or many other Fast Food places.
I say pass it, this slippery slope only has positive effects once you start to slide.
(Yes I am aware how terrible I am as a writter)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:this slippery slope only has positive effects once you start to slide
At the end of that slope is government-supplied food pills containing all the nutrition you need in a day, plus some helpful drugs and other supplements.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
As long as I am alive and well; getting all my nutrition and living life I could care less; hell with my metabolism I could probably eat normal food* along with all them food pills
Though what you said is so far the most unlikely thing I've ever heard; considering how much the economy runs off the food industry, though even then the economy won't matter if we are all healthy and fit, now would it ^-^
Hurray for slippery slope!
( Honestly, no one sees the world the way I do; as long as the government stays out of education (lol) and doesn't try to control my free will I am perfectly happy .-. , of course I am not happy so these rules are being broken /: )
Edit- I mispelled food as ford ;o
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:as long as the government stays out of education (lol) and doesn't try to control my free will I am perfectly happy
What if you desire, of your own free will, to eat badly?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:banning fast food is the stupid way to handle issues of obesity. This despite the fact that obesity, as an issue, ends up managed one way or another; we only have the choice of managing it the expensive, terrible, delayed way through inaction or useless action (spoiler: banning the happy meal won't fix anything). Or, possibly, coming up with workable policy of managing it that doesn't step on too many toes. Oh, and we're right on the cusp of needing to do that, too! Observe how fast people are growing fat in the typical post-WWII diet environment, in this actually interesting animation.. The better way would involve much less individual revocation of right 'for the greater good' but would involve too much of a level of social planning for most urban regions to be comfortable with. You have to isolate and remove 'food deserts' or 'nutritional deserts.'
I don't think this ought to be a tool for managing obesity, obviously. I just don't have a problem with restricting advertising of harmful products specifically towards children, that's all.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:as long as the government stays out of education (lol) and doesn't try to control my free will I am perfectly happy
What if you desire, of your own free will, to eat badly?
Good to have me thinking My conclusion:
I do on occasion want to indulge myself in a heap of chocolate, but thinking more into it, if I never had chocolate... would I want to have it .-.
This can be said the same for many things; would a child born in a place where food-pills where the only food offered want chocolate; No, unless someone else tells the how great it is, and ect.
This is like alcohol really; if it was banned entirely the only people effected would be those dependant on the alcohol and those who worry only about all their rights being taken away because one bad thing was removed, why not remove them all (as a form of entertainment or to treat their already bad depression) but if no one had alcohol would anyone want it, even if they read all the facts about what it does to the body ....
I never drink, I never smoke, I rarely eat fast food, and I am incredibly poor. ( Not even sure if this is relivent or I even spelled that word correctly /
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I don't think this ought to be a tool for managing obesity, obviously. I just don't have a problem with restricting advertising of harmful products specifically towards children, that's all.
Which leads to massive taxes and demonization of businesses who do not serve the ideals of the government du jour
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Monies value is imaginary; whereas health is more important in all aspects.....
Remember happy (healthy) cows make the best cheese and are given no money only food! But a sick cow costs money and makes terrible cheese.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
which would work out if we were cows... but we're not
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
It's a metaphor ): of course we are not cows, but like cows if we are healthy we will do better and if unhealthy are a burden and do terribly.... pointing out we aren't cows was pointless and some of us ARE COWS in terms of weight.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The government should not tell us what we should or shouldn't eat. I mean, if they want to sell candy that might have some lead in it, that is for the buyer to be ware. We should have the right to buy our eggs with the thrilling opportunity for bachelism....baccel...food poisoning. The government should never force food services to make sure their food is taint free. What if I like eating taint. And if I want a big slice of human brains--well any law that would disallow cannibalism is out right prejudice against Zombie-Americans.
Wow--no wonder Mal likes these extreme attacks. Taking it all out of context and too bizarre extremes is fun.
Try this for an argument for the ban.
If Joey gets diabetes he goes to the hospital for a cure. If Joey's family can't afford the cure we have two choices. We can let Joey die or we can as a society pay for that cure. For some reason this country doesn't believe that poverty should be terminal.
We pay for limited health-care of the poor by legally requiring that now hospital can turn down a patient even if they can not pay. Who pays? The rest of us when we get medical care--or the state.
If the state pays, or if the state represents the people who are paying, then the state has the responsibility to its tax payers to make sure that a minimum effort is made to keep Joey healthy before he needs expensive medical treatments.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: If Joey gets diabetes he goes to the hospital for a cure.
What if the cure for his diabetes is to drop the weight? Should the all caring state then force him on a restricted calorie diet?
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Yes, because obviously his family isn't supporting him enough to have him stop eating tweenkies so the government has to.
In the end Joey loses the weight, and lives a longer healthier life OR he can't handle his tweenkieless life and he kills himself, either way the world is now a better place..... :D
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Yes, because obviously his family isn't supporting him enough to have him stop eating tweenkies so the government has to.
Would you support the government limiting your caloric intake to match the diet that would be required for Joey to be healthier?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Which leads to massive taxes and demonization of businesses who do not serve the ideals of the government du jour
Hey, you're right, what a fool I w-hey, wait a minute! That's a slippery slope again!
Your penetrating analysis of the dangers of preventing harmful products from being marketed specifically towards children notwithstanding, DarkKnight, nothing you've said at all is an argument for why local governments limiting advertising such products to children means businesses will be demonized, taxes will be raised, or government will be whimsical.
And just for the record? 'Government du jour' is conservative-speak for 'they're doing things I don't want them to do'. When small government does things like say 'gays can't get married', that of course ain't an idea of the day but an ironclad social institution that's always been unchanging (despite the fact that it's not. When small government attempts to limit really fattening bad nutrition foods from being marketed - not sold - to children, though, well, that's 'government du jour'.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In the end Joey loses the weight, and lives a longer healthier life OR he can't handle his tweenkieless life and he kills himself, either way the world is now a better place.....
Speaking as a fat guy with diabetes, I'm not particularly thrilled by jokes that suggest that, were I to kill myself over the government's decision to restrict what I choose to eat, the world would be improved.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Your penetrating analysis of the dangers of preventing harmful products from being marketed specifically towards children notwithstanding, DarkKnight, nothing you've said at all is an argument for why local governments limiting advertising such products to children means businesses will be demonized, taxes will be raised, or government will be whimsical.
But if you are banning products from being sold, it must be because it is bad. Why would you ban something good for kids? How can you not be demonizing the business if the local government is saying the product is banned. Is the happy meal more or less unhealthy than Aussie Cheese fries from the Outback? Is a happy meal more or less healthy than Apple Jacks? Chocolate milk?
quote: And just for the record? 'Government du jour' is conservative-speak for 'they're doing things I don't want them to do'.
Wrong. I mean this for both sides of the aisle. Liberals and Conservatives. Local governments who ban gay marriage are also wrong. It's a little tougher when the state votes and outlaws gay marriage. I would just keep bringing it up every single election cycle and it will pass. I was going to say pass soon enough but we are well past time to pass allowing gay marriage
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Interesting article..
My caloric intake would be entirely different from Joey, as I have a high metabolism and considering Joey was tubby his was probably slow.
I wouldn't mind my caloric intake to be limited if it were the proper amount for each day; however I would need more calories depending on how active I am that day, so it changes... -----
But this isn't about calories this is about removing bad food (this arguement not the topic)which is better for us all.
-----
As for this article using toys to entice children to buy McD's is just sick, if McD's wants to sell toys then it should be a toy store, not using toys to make children become addicted to "crappy meals"
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:In the end Joey loses the weight, and lives a longer healthier life OR he can't handle his tweenkieless life and he kills himself, either way the world is now a better place..... :D
Speaking as a fat guy with diabetes, I'm not particularly thrilled by jokes that suggest that, were I to kill myself over the government's decision to restrict what I choose to eat, the world would be improved.
I don't refraise what I say to make anyone happy.
And for what reason are you "fat"?
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: I wouldn't mind my caloric intake to be limited if it were the proper amount for each day; however I would need more calories depending on how active I am that day, so it changes...
Who gets to decide what the proper amount is for you on any given day? Is there someone else other than you that would be in a better position to have that type of information available?
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I myself don't even have the information available, and if I get hungry enough I go eat some acorns >_> tanis acid is gross tasting though /:
The government limiting caloric intake would be rediculous that's why I said "But this isn't about calories this is about removing bad food"
moo
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: not using toys to make children become addicted to "crappy meals"
Do you honestly believe that a Batman toy will cause a child to be addicted to crappy meals?
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
How would you define 'bad food' in a way that would be applicable to everyone? [edit] For example, do you think the 599 calorie happy meal that is legally sold to a three year old is healthier than the 601 calorie happy meal that cannot be sold to the ten year old?
[edit] I also wonder how you define a world that would be a 'better place,' but I don't think I really want to know the answer to that.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: not using toys to make children become addicted to "crappy meals"
Do you honestly believe that a Batman toy will cause a child to be addicted to crappy meals?
Yes my cousin only gets the food for the toys but since the food comes with the toy he eats it too, and he is far from healthy no matter how skinny he is.(My aunts fault really bad raising, but nonetheless McD's toys do attract many little kids just to have the toy) ----
Bad food would be; anything that has negative effect per certain amount of food...
I for one think sugar and salt should not be added to food by anyone other than the person eating so they don't eat too much (more specifically sugar, we can only eat so much salt before we throw up... XD )
Red 40 is an example of something that shouldn't be present in anyfood as it is associated with bring along the ADHD disorder /:
(Im leaving school now so I can't answer anything 'til tomorrow)
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Bad food would be; anything that has negative effect per certain amount of food...
And do you have a definition for negative, or is it just anything that's bad for you?
quote: I for one think sugar and salt should not be added to food by anyone other than the person eating so they don't eat too much...
In other words, it should up to the individual to decide.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But if you are banning products from being sold, it must be because it is bad.
The proposal under discussion doesn't ban products from being sold, DarkKnight. It's looking like you don't actually have an idea what this ban would do. You can still buy the small hamburgers, the small fries, the small drinks, and even the small toys and give `em to your kids to your heart's content at a McDonald's.
quote:Wrong. I mean this for both sides of the aisle.
Tough talk, but of course follow through so often is lacking. Again, this is small government in action here. City government in fact. It doesn't get much smaller. ETA: That is, it is largely conservatives who are the ones driving things like prohibiting gay marriage, and I think you know it, DarkKnight. It's one of the reasons I so mistrust the 'small government!' complaint whenever I hear it, because it's so frequently as in this case a smokescreen for something else.
[ November 09, 2010, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't refraise what I say to make anyone happy.
Are you proud of that?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: not using toys to make children become addicted to "crappy meals"
Do you honestly believe that a Batman toy will cause a child to be addicted to crappy meals?
For my part, I think the toy will certainly lure the child to a food that, on its own, would not really hold the kind of appeal it does for kids. You're thinking from a bit too much of an adult perspective to remember just how plastic your tastes are as a child- you can be raised on any sort of diet. My child students (seven years old) in this country, for instance, were accustomed to and enjoyed eating cucumbers, raw tomatoes, fresh mozzarella, and whole grain breads on a daily basis. They didn't carry or enjoy eating candy because it was not part of their routine, and because their parents did not expose them to it or show them the example of eating it themselves. Not one of those children at the entire school was obese, and the one that was overweight was one who lived between two households and was fed fast food.
A Czech village is one thing- there hasn't been fast food of the like in this country for all that long, so older people simply don't have a taste for it. But that ought to tell you something about it as well, I think. That early childhood training to enjoy this kind of food pays enormous dividends to the companies who sell it. And they will do everything they can do to appeal to children.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by shadowland:
quote: I for one think sugar and salt should not be added to food by anyone other than the person eating so they don't eat too much...
In other words, it should up to the individual to decide.
Sure. The issue here has been, for a very long time, that food producers and purveyors will do whatever they can to make sure that customers choose to consume the foods with the highest amounts of sugar and salt in them- by fighting nutritional education, labeling regulation, advertising regulation, and by appealing to consumers with advertising that makes food to appear healthier and more nutritious than it is. They do this by infiltrating school systems and selling sugared sodas and even whole meals, many containing orders of magnitude more fats and salts than are needed in any given day- and they trade on the umbrella of the school as a "safe place" to do this dirty business.
This goes way beyond choice. We don't allow cigarettes and alcohol to be sold to kids because it is their choice whether to smoke or drink, or not to. And we have laws against illicit drugs because we feel ultimately that the choice to take them legally ought not to exist if the risk is too high to society. The risk of these foods to society is very, very high. Higher than most people are prepared to accept.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: We don't allow cigarettes and alcohol to be sold to kids because it is their choice whether to smoke or drink, or not to. And we have laws against illicit drugs because we feel ultimately that the choice to take them legally ought not to exist if the risk is too high to society. The risk of these foods to society is very, very high. Higher than most people are prepared to accept.
So are you in favor of making it illegal for many of these fast food and grocery store items to be sold to children, or are you just mentioning cigarettes and alcohol for dramatic effect?
ETA: To be clear, I'm actually in favor of additional regulations for labeling, definitions and standards, and truthful marketing practices. I do not feel that the happy meal toy, however, falls under these categories. In fact, I don't really think it will accomplish anything other than deceive some parents into thinking that their children are suddenly going to live healthier lifestyles now.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The issue is not banning the food itself, merely the aggressive marketing behind it. Advertising persuades people more than they'd like to admit, and this is doubly true for children, who literally lack the mental faculties to realize that the ad is exaggerating or outright lying about things.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: malanthrop, what a transparent way to attempt to deflect multiple people pointing out, "Hey, he's making a slippery slope argument-again!" But just to give you less room for your typical gutless weaseling, here ya go, you hack.
quote:The FDA has a purpose....we shoundn't have "?"'s. If I know it's pig fat fried in penut oil, I should have a right to eat it and liking pork rinds is none of the governments business. McD's even makes me wonder, with their perfect apple slices. McRib anyone?
You've got the right to eat it. There is nothing the city of San Francisco is doing that challenges any of these rights you're claiming or, for that matter, that anyone else is challenging either. San Francisco hasn't said, "You can't give your kids fries," however hysterically you rant otherwise. What they have said is you can't, within our jurisdiction, market your nutritionally very harmful food specifically to children. They have to be adults before they make the decision to start going in for risky behavior.
OMG! Sound the alarm! Liburals comin' ta take mah babies!
Your "slippery slope" link that refutes A leading to B. I agree with this..hense my six degrees of Kevin Bacon comment. "A" is food and "B" is not edible. You think attacking soda for its sugar content is a completely separate issue from attacking milk for its fat content? I'll take it back another level of this "slippery slope". It's about what people choose to consume. Some people like to consume cigarettes. Cigarettes have been suffiently demonized, soda is on it's way and milk is next.
It's illegal to sell soda on government property,...in San Fran. It's also illegal for San Fran funds to purchase bottled water. It's the evil oil based container rather than the contents that lead to this law. What's the city's aim? Dehydrate city employeees.
I wish the vegans of the world would realize that plants have feelings too, and starve themselves to death. Lets ban oil, coal and nuclear power.....we'll freeze. Poor liberal with good intentions, committing economic and individual rights suicide.
Only the municipal water supply is good. Only that which the goverment provides is good.
[ November 10, 2010, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Your "slippery slope" link that refutes A leading to B. I agree with this..hense my six degrees of Kevin Bacon comment. "A" is food and "B" is not edible.
Describe for us, in your own words, what you think a slippery slope is.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Your "slippery slope" link that refutes A leading to B. I agree with this..hense my six degrees of Kevin Bacon comment. "A" is food and "B" is not edible.
Describe for us, in your own words, what you think a slippery slope is.
How can I? Slippery slope to me is foot in the door. A federal income tax that barely passed at 1% is now.... That's a slippery slope.
The people vote to pass a law for something minor, once the law is passed, the bureaucacy expands it exponentially. Whith the government, slippery slope is: the people voted in the 1M dollar bridge project..it turns into a 10M project with indefinite tolls.
Slippery slope for me is letting the government have a foot in the door. Once they're in, year after year, a "1 cent" tax increase is reasonable. Before you know it, after a 100 years, that 1% turns into 25%. The voters in my county are figuring this out. Every election we have a "1 cent" tax proposal. One percent is minor. They call it a "1 cent tax", which implies only a spinster would be opposed. Unfortunately, the "penny" taxes have added up. The little people are figuring out the idea of compounding interest. 1% a year is an awful lot. Ask an investor.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I just realized that my dad argues exactly like malanthrop, only for leftist ideals.
The "ask an investor" line really clinched it for me.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I don't refraise what I say to make anyone happy.
Are you proud of that?
Yes, sugar coating only makes things seem better than they are even if they aren't .-.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. So you're no older than 21. Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Ah. So you're no older than 21. :)
Brutal honesty is, well part of me, white lies or sugar coating isn't my thing, so people who ask questions to me always get exactly what I think as well as I can articulate for them.
Do you ever expect to improve if everyone told you that you are fine the way you are, that your weight and diabetes are terrible things, but to not worry about them.. HOW-NOW get your ass in shape for all of those you know and want you to live, they may or may not have the balls to say it, but if you don't have enough strength to live right then you might as well leave now because all you're doing is waiting.
It's up to you and those around you, to tell you how serious life is YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You'll get older. Don't worry about it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Ah. So you're no older than 21.
Brutal honesty is, well part of me, white lies or sugar coating isn't my thing, so people who ask questions to me always get exactly what I think as well as I can articulate for them.
I doubt this "attribute" of yours has mattered enough yet to really start screwing you up. This brand of selfishness, and it is selfishness, does often go away as you start to realize that what you say to people and how you say it have manifold and unpredictable effects. You don't have to cope with any of that yet, but you will.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Ignorance is to assume age matters.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Your words speak to your maturity, and what you know about being ignorant.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Ignorance is to assume age matters.
Of course age matters. That's a given. It's not even up for discussion among rational people, Rawrain.
Is it always a decisive factor in all situations, though? Well, of course not. And your no-sugarcoating policy is pretty silly. It's full of drawing false distinctions, too. You present the choice between full-time brutal honesty and never telling someone what they need to hear even about important things. Bad logic, man. There appears to be more vanity than helping-people in your policy.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
No matter what I am it doesn't change the fact I tell the truth and trying to make me feel anything other than dignity is near impossible.
Though guys and gals lets get this topic back on topic; I don't wanna feel bad for stearing this thing into a flamming ditch, because 'someone' cares about who says what, and not that it is being said at all.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I just realized that my dad argues exactly like malanthrop, only for leftist ideals. ...
malanthrop is dan's "mirror dad" complete with goatee Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
The evil one is supposed be the one with the goatee.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Or maybe we're just in a parallel universe where TomD and Orincoro really care about sugar-coating things
(j/k I appreciate your straightforward posting styles)
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
rereading this article, I actually disagree with the law because it accomplishes very little and I think it needs to include a wider range of fast food places, why just McD's why not Burger King... the law as it stands is a little rediculous ~-~
As for the white lies Im'a start an epic topic about it :D
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Rawrain, I think you misunderstood the report. The law applies to all restaurants not just McDonalds.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Oh come on WW. Your statement makes it seem like just because something is advertised kids are going to be able to go right out and get it. The fact is the parent has the choice whether to buy that happy meal for the child, and what food is included in that happy meal.
While this is true, its also true that advertising to children is extremely effective. That's why businesses do it.
Children are extremely susceptible to advertising and children are very adept at manipulating their parents. It's all fine and good to say parents should just say no, but it isn't going to work that way, at least not all the time. We humans are biologically programmed to respond to what our children want and children are biologically programmed to know how to push those buttons.
I challenge you to find me even one parent who has never given in to their child against their better judgement. Even the very best parents do at least occasionally.
That's why I believe a responsible community should regulate advertising to children. Companies should not be allowed to manipulate our children into demanding stuff that's harmful to themselves or others.
McDonald's unarguably targets children in much of its advertising. Their entire buildings are designed as an advertisement to small children. My friends with little kids say the kids beg to go to McDonald's every time they can see the playroom from the road. McDonald's hosts children's birthday parties, some restaurants even have a special building for those parties. At those parties they give the kids vouchers for a free for the next time they come. McDonald's understands that appealing to kids is the best way to get families to come in. Toys in the happy meals are part of how they attract children.
To me, the only real question left is whether McDonald's high calorie happy meals are really bad enough for kids to warrant intervention. Certainly a happy meal every once in a while after a active day isn't what leads to obesity.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Rabbit thanks for the correct and putting everything in understandable terms, I agree with your double post. Though I am not sure how much my opinion weighs compared to others I assure it worth at least some XD
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Message to This Thread:
As a veteran who fought for our freedom following 9/11, I would just like to say that this is the dumbest discussion I've seen today . . . or at least one of the dumbest. At least in the top ten.
Why do we want to restrict people's freedom to buy a food product just because it includes a free toy? Have we suddenly become a bunch of communists?
For that matter, what happened to the toys in cereal boxes? I want a baking soda submarine, gosh dang it! Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Ignorance is to assume age matters.
AS well as to assume it has no effect whatsoever.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Your "slippery slope" link that refutes A leading to B. I agree with this..hense my six degrees of Kevin Bacon comment. "A" is food and "B" is not edible.
Describe for us, in your own words, what you think a slippery slope is.
How can I? Slippery slope to me is foot in the door.
let's try this again. I'm asking you to describe, in your own words, what you think slippery slope is. What is the definition of the fallacy known as slippery slope. What does it mean to you. I ask because you've had two attempts to display this to you in this thread alone, you frequently make slippery slope arguments, and I severely doubt you've bothered to try to figure out what people mean when they point out what you are doing.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I just realized that my dad argues exactly like malanthrop, only for leftist ideals. ...
malanthrop is dan's "mirror dad" complete with goatee
Did they ever explain how the mirror world double looks if the original person has a full beard?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I just realized that my dad argues exactly like malanthrop, only for leftist ideals.
The "ask an investor" line really clinched it for me.
You're absolutely correct. I'm glad I lead you to this epiphany. I'm proud of my right wing extremism. Your left extremist father is just like me.
Politicians run primaries for the extreme and general elections to the middle. Your father and I are not in the middle but elections depend on the middle. I have much more respect for your father, than a liberal who pretends to be moderate.
One difference,....extreme right wing still enjoy John Stewart. Is it possible to be a: pro choice, pro gay marriage Christian? Many leftist politicians are. Is it possible to be a pro choice, pro gay marriage Christian Reverend? Liberals care most about labels and ignore content of character.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Did they ever explain how the mirror world double looks if the original person has a full beard?
I don't recall what Mirror Riker looked like.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mostly the same, but scruffier, iirc.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Google reminds me that he had a significant facial scar and an eye-patch.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
That wasn't mirror Riker was it? I think it was just a parallel Riker of many.
Off the top of my head, of the three casts which did proper Mirror Universe episodes, the only one main cast member which had a beard at the same time as an episode would be Worf I think (and Regent Worf basically looked the same).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The reason none of us can remember is there was no STTNG mirror episode.
Just books, comic books, and fanfic. Oh, and board games and computer/video games.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh yeah, the Riker I'm thinking of was Thomas, who went over to help the mirror universe resistance in DS9.
edit: wait, no, he went to the Maquis. Who am I thinking of who went to the mirror universe permanently in DS9?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The reason none of us can remember is there was no STTNG mirror episode.
Indeed
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Who am I thinking of who went to the mirror universe permanently in DS9?
Heck if I know.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: How can I? Slippery slope to me is foot in the door.
let's try this again. I'm asking you to describe, in your own words, what you think slippery slope is. What is the definition of the fallacy known as slippery slope. What does it mean to you. I ask because you've had two attempts to display this to you in this thread alone, you frequently make slippery slope arguments, and I severely doubt you've bothered to try to figure out what people mean when they point out what you are doing.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I just realized that my dad argues exactly like malanthrop, only for leftist ideals.
The "ask an investor" line really clinched it for me.
You're absolutely correct. I'm glad I lead you to this epiphany. I'm proud of my right wing extremism. Your left extremist father is just like me.
Politicians run primaries for the extreme and general elections to the middle. Your father and I are not in the middle but elections depend on the middle. I have much more respect for your father, than a liberal who pretends to be moderate.
One difference,....extreme right wing still enjoy John Stewart. Is it possible to be a: pro choice, pro gay marriage Christian? Many leftist politicians are. Is it possible to be a pro choice, pro gay marriage Christian Reverend? Liberals care most about labels and ignore content of character.
I can't tell if you're offended or not, but I actually wasn't trying to offend you. I mean, yes, my dad is kind of annoying to argue with, but that wasn't what I was getting at. It was really just a random thing I realized and wanted to share.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: How can I? Slippery slope to me is foot in the door.
let's try this again. I'm asking you to describe, in your own words, what you think slippery slope is. What is the definition of the fallacy known as slippery slope. What does it mean to you. I ask because you've had two attempts to display this to you in this thread alone, you frequently make slippery slope arguments, and I severely doubt you've bothered to try to figure out what people mean when they point out what you are doing.
Are you coming from the position that slippery slope arguments are automatically discounted? Slippery slope is relative. I'm attempting to define the relativity. If soda can be regulated for it's sugar content, why can't milk for its fat content? What's worse for you, fat or sugar? The "slippery slope" is contained to a certain hill. In this case, it's consumption. The hill of what people choose to consume....the same slope. Cigarettes and soda or milk...same hill, same slope...consumption choices.
Liberals like to segregate people into categories, why not food? The items that people choose to consume are more diverse than the people....we are all human. Can an apple cross pollinate with an orange? Why is "Bizarre Foods" so popular? Can a cow breed with a sugar beet? Fat content vs sugar content is more disparate than "income levels". Conservatives view all people as equal. Conservatives want equal opportunity and liberals want guaranteed equal outcome. Liberals work in the gray area but define every shade of gray.
Regulating sugar isn't a "slippery slope" to regulating fat. Fat was regulated before sugar....milk is still PC. Of course, fat free, sugar free water is great, unless it comes in a plastic bottle.....in San Fransisco.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Slippery slope fallacies are particularly dangerous for you, mal, because of the way your brain operates.
In that post above, for example, you basically did this:
1) If A, then B. 2) If B, possibly C. 3) If C, then D.
...for a situation in which A is false.
This means that in order to argue with you, someone first has to point out that the very first step of your argument -- which often happened paragraphs ago, and may have been simply tossed out there casually as if it weren't the foundation of your logic -- is baseless. And they haven't even gotten into the odds of B producing C yet.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Are you coming from the position that slippery slope arguments are automatically discounted?
I'm coming from a position where I am asking you to tell us how you define the slippery slope fallacy. Right now you're unintentionally just responding with the fallacy itself, not an explanation. Unless this is a clever sort of performance theater based explanation, just either define it or admit you can not.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Slippery slope fallacies are particularly dangerous for you, mal, because of the way your brain operates.
In that post above, for example, you basically did this:
1) If A, then B. 2) If B, possibly C. 3) If C, then D.
...for a situation in which A is false.
This means that in order to argue with you, someone first has to point out that the very first step of your argument -- which often happened paragraphs ago, and may have been simply tossed out there casually as if it weren't the foundation of your logic -- is baseless. And they haven't even gotten into the odds of B producing C yet.
Before you can make this argument,...define A. What is A?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*facepalm* You are resolutely missing the point.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Are you coming from the position that slippery slope arguments are automatically discounted?
I'm coming from a position where I am asking you to tell us how you define the slippery slope fallacy. Right now you're unintentionally just responding with the fallacy itself, not an explanation. Unless this is a clever sort of performance theater based explanation, just either define it or admit you can not.
Of all the responders, I respect you the most..you are asking me to define the indefinable. I attempted to answer you last time. I deal in black and white. Some people understand shades of gray. Black and white has clearly defined boundaries, shades of gray is a slippery slope. The slippery slope is the realm of the liberal. Intolerant conservatives think black or white.
Black and white thinkers like me, are opposed to illegal immigration, support the constitution and believe write in candidate spelling should be accurate....the law said so. Gray area folks, want to interpret the "intent" of the law.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Of all the responders, I respect you the most..you are asking me to define the indefinable.
No. It's not indefinable. It's not even that hard. You have two links in this thread alone that define it really, painfully clearly. Are you admitting you don't understand what a slippery slope fallacy is?
quote:The slippery slope is the realm of the liberal. Intolerant conservatives think black or white.
"If we let gays marry today, tomorrow people will be marrying their dogs!"
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Ask your grandmother, or great grandmother before she dies if she would agree.
What the hell kind of link was that? Did you create that website yourself to prove your own point? It looks like an advertisement for the University of Phoenix to me. What a great and highly respected institution.... Are they still accredited? My wife is building a website as a grad school project. I think yours was created by a U of P online learner, and it was his personal blog.
Don't believe everything you read.....certainly, don't use ANYTHING you've read to prove a point.
Slippery slope isn't "six degrees of Kevin Bacon"
Are... are you serious? I must have missed this, because I didn't see it earlier. But seriously?
You respond to a simplistic but textbook example of a well-known and real logical fallacy with open mockery, followed by a lame attempt to deflect and a complete non-sequitor? (The six degrees of kevin bacon thing. That makes no sense, man.)
Oh, and about my grandmother? My grandmother isn't so stupid as you think, I'd appreciate it if you take back your insult. Thinking she wouldn't understand a slippery slope argument... geez.
Let's be clear. Here's a slippery slope argument:
A.) If mal isn't forced to shut up, he'll keep talking.
B.) If mal keeps talking, he'll just keep lying.
C.) If mal keeps lying, someone might believe him.
D.) If someone believes him, they might become paranoid.
E.) If the person becomes paranoid, they might end up getting even crazier beliefs, like wanting to kill the president.
F.) They might act on this, ala John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald.
G.) So, to protect the president, let's force mal to shut up.
Do you still embrace the slippery slope as... whatever insane thing you were saying it was? Conservative? Whatever?
Oh, yeah! The indefinable! Right above! It isn't so hard to define if I can come up with an example so easily, don't you think?
No, no. You'll just continue with the Orwellian doublethink.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
People who think in just Black & White don't just miss the shades of gray. They miss the blues, greens, reds, silvers, and all the other colors.
Still, Mal, you claim to think in just Black and White--but you condemn this law because its a shade of gray. Its a white law--being legal and trying to do good, but you condemn it not because of what it does, but because of what in may lead to.
The law bans giving away a toy with unhealthy meals to discourage companies from bribing kids into eating badly.
It does not ban the toys or the food.
But because it "May" lead to more absurd laws, you are against it. "May" is about the grayest word out there.
See, if you deny the city the right to regulate advertisements and food then there "May" be many other dire results. Then there "May" be painful disturbing deaths as food becomes totally deregulated and poisonous cheap foods are sold. Then there "May" be toys and who knows--baseball cards--given away with every carton of cigarettes you buy. Sure its illegal to sell them to kids, but I'm sure the parents are buying them and giving them to the kids. I can produce 20 more "may" and Gray things that might happen if the government were not allowed to regulate advertising and food.
Oh, and Megabyte--I said earlier that arguing extremes and Mal-like is fun. Was I right?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
The government has no business regulating what we choose to eat. Trans-fats, soda.... the specific items. Water can't be attacked for its content, but it can for its container. The slippery slope is allowing the government control of the hill, if only a small portion. The Court's use of precedence, is in itself,...slippery slope. Once the precedence is set, it's cited to establish a new one.
Now it's considered right wing and extreme to believe in the constitution. Now, our founders would be considered Tea Baggers.
Now, the American flag is considered to "Incite Racial Tensions". No one would've thought that the attack on the Confederate flag would lead to this..... A flag is a flag and you should have the right to wave a black power flag. Of course, community organizers and our apolagizer in chief, view the American Flag to represent evil.
Man. It's like your brain is just shotgunning random pellets of Fox News.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The government absolutely has business regulating some of what is fed to children, but that's not what it's doing in this case, malanthrop. Not that I expect you to acknowledge that with your usual spineless dishonest discussion methods.
They're regulating what can be advertised and marketed specifically towards children and packaged as part of a meal for free to them, not what can be fed to them. The products being regulated in this way are quite bad nutritionally speaking, and childhood obesity as well as adult obesity are both very serious problems in this country. You can choose to acknowledge all of these things, which are facts, or continue to make a fool out of yourself for the entertainment of all and the mockery of your own political slant. Up to you!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'll acknowledge that obesity is a problem and glad to live in a country where the poor aren't starving, they're fat. You right, they're regulating marketing, they're regulating speech to influence eating.
Parents should be able to decide and businesses should be able to give away free toys. Stop by the ghetto some time, those fat little poor kids are playing with McD Toys. Take away the toy, the parents will still take them to McD's...and the meal will likely be cheaper for lack of a toy. You'll end up with even fatter poor kids with less to play with. The toys are junk, my kids throw them away, right away. Believe me, my kids aren't influenced by a crappy toy.
Social security is also optional. They aren't forcing you to contribute, they're regulating benefits. You don't have to participate, it's your choice...if you choose not to, you can't work or go to school. Taxing a cheese burger 500% isn't regulating food, it's taxing a product,...according to your logic. The ends justify the means. Too bad American parents are considered too stupid to feed their own children. We need the government to manipulate our behavior.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You think it's the poor that are fat, and that's it? Then you're as ignorant about the obesity problem in this country as you've been about slippery slopes in this thread, malanthrop.
I looked at the numbers, and with the exception of a handful of states there wasn't one that wasn't badly past the poverty rate in its obesity rate. And whereas people tend to improve their financial health after their teens and early 20s, the same cannot be said of their physical health, so this statistic is even more critical of your 'point'.
quote: Parents should be able to decide and businesses should be able to give away free toys. Stop by the ghetto some time, those fat little poor kids are playing with McD Toys. Take away the toy, the parents will still take them to McD's...and the meal will likely be cheaper for lack of a toy. You'll end up with even fatter poor kids with less to play with. The toys are junk, my kids throw them away, right away. Believe me, my kids aren't influenced by a crappy toy.
You're right, malanthrop. Children aren't influenced by the toy. The reason McDonald's is fighting this decision is because of a virtuous defense of the First Amendment. The reason they take such care to market to children is just because they love children so much, not because it's good business or anything. Listen to yourself. Advertising works. You know it. You're lying. Normally I wouldn't be so free to throw that accusation out there on a political discussion, but this is such an incredibly obvious point and your participation on this subject is so dishonest I feel pretty comfortable making that accusation.
quote:Social security is also optional. They aren't forcing you to contribute, they're regulating benefits. You don't have to participate, it's your choice...if you choose not to, you can't work or go to school. Taxing a cheese burger 500% isn't regulating food, it's taxing a product,...according to your logic. The ends justify the means. Too bad American parents are considered too stupid to feed their own children. We need the government to manipulate our behavior.
This is a great big subject change, because once again you lack the wit to defend your original argument and the courage to admit when you've been proven repeatedly to have been mistaken.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
All Americans are fat. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to be fat.
Advertising does work and I am not lying. Who drives the child to McD's and pays for the meal? Parents. I guess the assumption here is, parents are controlled by their children and children are controlled by marketing from an evil corporation. We need government intervention.
Didn't intend to "change the subject". Just pointing out the "slippery slope" of things like.....offering federal dollars to states for highway funds, then demanding a 55 mph speed limit, drinking ages, seat belt laws and dui limits. Of course, the states are the ultimate legal authority according to the constitution for these matters. They can CHOOSE to keep a 75 speed limit, no seat belt law, 19 year old consumption of alcohol, etc. Once they depend on those federal dollars, they give up their sovereignty.
Parents are the ultimate legal authority over how to feed their children. Restaurant portions are too large. Some restaurants actually market their portion sizes to entice people to spend their money there. We need a law limiting portion size. Know what I do? I order two Chinese meals for take out and feed a family of four. Of course, some people just cant help themselves...there needs to be a law. I should be forced to buy 4 meals to feed 4 people.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Mal's gone off into full-out batsh*t random shotgunning mode. I would like to offer a hearty congratulations to all involved.
quote:All Americans are fat. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to be fat.
ergo being poor raises your chances of being fat from 100% to 100%
BRILL
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also I think this is the sort of threshold I always observe to finally throw a forum off and as a result expect the forum to slow waaaay dooowwwnnn
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm not the one to introduce "slippery slope" into this thread.
Individual freedom or the greater good? Who decides what the greater good is? Ban bottled water and tax soda. In my family, soda is a special occasion treat. Of course, the greater good is best served by a federal law controlling (directing) irresponsible parents. Some parents might put soda in a baby bottle and a certain demographic in our population has an 80% illegitimacy rate. We need laws and government to take care of the individuals that are too stupid to take care of themselves...at the expense of the ones that can take care of themselves.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm not the one to introduce "slippery slope" into this thread.
You were. Several people noted that you had made a slippery slope argument. You then proceeded to show us that you are incapable or unwilling to understand what's wrong with that, all the while just firing off a slew of half-baked points unrelated to what people are trying to get you to understand about the classic mistakes of your theory. And you still are now.
Congratulations.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm not the one to introduce "slippery slope" into this thread.
You were. Several people noted that you had made a slippery slope argument. You then proceeded to show us that you are incapable or unwilling to understand what's wrong with that, all the while just firing off a slew of half-baked points unrelated to what people are trying to get you to understand about the classic mistakes of your theory. And you still are now.
Congratulations.
I made an argument and was accused of "making a slippery slope argument". Is this an automatic trump card, like accusing Obama opposition of being racist. The Tea Party is racist, right?
Current events illustrate the slippery slope. The slippery slope has been accellerated so much that soda in a plastic bottle is attacked for it's sugar content....at the same time, water in the same container, is attacked for the container. Why not attack soda for the container and the content? Slippery slope, sugar free soda will be attacked for the container, water already is. The same reason I consider MLK to be a great man. Content of character and individual rights are my foundation.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
This calls for some Obamao. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: People who think in just Black & White don't just miss the shades of gray. They miss the blues, greens, reds, silvers, and all the other colors.
Still, Mal, you claim to think in just Black and White--but you condemn this law because its a shade of gray. Its a white law--being legal and trying to do good, but you condemn it not because of what it does, but because of what in may lead to.
The law bans giving away a toy with unhealthy meals to discourage companies from bribing kids into eating badly.
It does not ban the toys or the food.
But because it "May" lead to more absurd laws, you are against it. "May" is about the grayest word out there.
See, if you deny the city the right to regulate advertisements and food then there "May" be many other dire results. Then there "May" be painful disturbing deaths as food becomes totally deregulated and poisonous cheap foods are sold. Then there "May" be toys and who knows--baseball cards--given away with every carton of cigarettes you buy. Sure its illegal to sell them to kids, but I'm sure the parents are buying them and giving them to the kids. I can produce 20 more "may" and Gray things that might happen if the government were not allowed to regulate advertising and food.
Oh, and Megabyte--I said earlier that arguing extremes and Mal-like is fun. Was I right?
I believe a city has the right to ban toys. Power should be local. We have dry towns. In a way, San Fran is following the view of our founding fathers. San Fran trump federal power with their sanctuary city, marijuana and gay marriage laws. San Fran ignores federal marijuana laws, marriage laws and immigration laws. What if a town in Texas decided to allow automatic machine guns and slavery? Would you be so tolerant of the local blind eye to federal law? What if a Texas town decided not to enforce federal gun laws? In this town, the local police wont arrest you for having a machine gun.
Who's blurred the lines? Who controls the slippery slope?
[ November 13, 2010, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I made an argument and was accused of "making a slippery slope argument". Is this an automatic trump card, like accusing Obama opposition of being racist. The Tea Party is racist, right?
You made a fallacious slippery slope argument and had it pointed out to you that you were making a fallacious slippery slope argument. It's not an 'automatic trump card,' its an attempt to inform you what makes your position nonsensical and/or fallacious, in the hopes that you stop making bad arguments.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"I made an argument and was accused of "making a slippery slope argument". Is this an automatic trump card, like accusing Obama opposition of being racist. The Tea Party is racist, right?"
So is that an Alien or a Predator?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
It's Picard. Face-palming.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Caught that. So is Picard an Alien or a Predator?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
You do know that the premise of this thread is WRONG, don't you? The SF Board of Supervisors passed a law which forbids giving away toys with "meals exceeding 650calories, 35% coming from fat/oils, and [some set number] of milligrams of salt". McDonalds HappyMeals come in under those limits.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Caught that. So is Picard an Alien or a Predator?
...what?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Self control. He kept his calorie intake within normal limits and evil food benefited his health. Some people lack self control and need government intervention....slippery, slippery slope. Are twinkies good for you? He got healthier eating them...he must've been really hungry, limiting his calories and controlling his behavior, while eating twinkies and doritoes - resulting in better health.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
You know, I've been on 4chan enough to know a troll when I see one. I could be wrong of course, but better safe than sorry. I won't respond to mal again in this thread, it's just too painful.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Did you even bother to check the troll's link?,,,,CNN.
Of course, being called a "troll" might be your last resort. When Obama supporters have no logical argument left, they call his opposition "racist". Go ahead...give up...you're pulling the "troll card".
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Are twinkies good for you? He got healthier eating them
Several points that (surprise) add the nuance missing from your point: * He only ate five Twinkies a day, for a total of 750 calories and 25 grams of fat. Both well below the USRDA. * Twinkies aren't actually *that* bad for you. They are mostly flour and sugar. * The "scary" stuff like saturated fats cause long-term health issues, nothing that would show up in a short-term experiment like this. * He ate more than just Twinkies. He also ate protein shakes, vegetables, and multivitamins. The Twinkies provided most of his calories, but the other stuff provided his nutrition. * He lost weight because he kept his calories down, not because he ate junk food.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Hamburgers contain all the food groups. Are they bad for you? What did he consume to provide his "nutrition" that lowered his bad cholesterol and raised his good cholesterol? Protein, vitamins don't contain either.
Self control...he must've been starving. Twinkies aren't filling and I order 2 chinese dinners and feed a family of four. Most people don't have the discipline of this man. He tested the bad foods, and proved it's calories that matter. We naturally crave sugar and fat for their efficiency. Strange, on one hand the liberal wants efficient energy and inefficient food. Sugar and fat are solar power....we need the government to limit???? Efficient fuels for cars and inefficient fuels for humans.
[ November 14, 2010, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
While 'the liberal' wants efficient energy but inefficient food, 'the conservative' confines his contradictions to preaching smug superiority while refusing to address posts containing multiple clearly listed damning criticisms of his arguments while pretending they never happened.
Even though it's perfectly clear they did, and the only person he makes look foolish is himself. 'The conservative', folks! Well, this conservative anyway. Well done!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Please stay on topic. Sugar and fat are the most efficient fuels for human existence. Go green,...eat fat and sugar. Go green, find the most efficient fuel for your car. The only difference, cars don't have cravings, they only run more efficiently on the fuel people put in them. Parents feed their kids happy meals and outlawing a toy isn't going to change it. My car's engine might prefer Techron but I decide the station to stop at. I decide whether or not my kids get a happy meal.
The government has no more constitutional authority to dictate my car get 10% ethanol than it does to outlaw happy meal toys.
Efficiency is best...capitalist, free market, constitutionally defined limited government is best.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Please stay on topic.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Sugar and fat are the most efficient fuels for human existence.
Not processed forms, definitely not.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Why do we need the government to protect us from fat and sugar content? We naturally crave things like salt, sugar and fat. We have salt mines, so salt is easy....too much of a good thing. Why do animals eat organs first, yet we waste them? The internal organs of an animal are the most nutritional bits. Eating liver is a dying art. We're so nutritionally spoiled, we've lost the craving for liver.
In thousands of years we might lose the cravings for salt, fat and sugar. Nothing better for you than a liver. Liver and kindey were, and stil are in some counties, the prime cuts.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
This is funnier than xkcd. And that is saying something. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Please stay on topic.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Sugar and fat are the most efficient fuels for human existence.
Not processed forms, definitely not.
What is a processed form? To me, a processed form is Al Sharpton living in a rich white neighborhood or an America hater being president.
threw you a bone.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
What are you ON?
And why aren't you sharing?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: What is a processed form? To me, a processed form is Al Sharpton living in a rich white neighborhood or an America hater being president.
threw you a bone.
Something is seriously broken in your head. Oh well, the forum is defenseless to waves of nonsense, so have at it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Hamburgers contain all the food groups. Are they bad for you?
...
Yes. Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Malanthrop: At this point, you are not even attempting to be coherent. You are not discussing anything specific, so much as using just about any topic as a lead-in to things you have said many times. Pet topics if you will.
If you want to discuss the constitutionality of the government mandating what we can and cannot eat, that is fine. If you want to just take pot shots at people and concepts unrelated to it, read Al Sharpton, and President Obama, that's unacceptable, and is by no stretch discussing in good faith.
This isn't the first time you've done this, so I'm not feeling particularly inclined to just say "Here's a warning." You need to stop doing this immediately, if you wish to continue posting here in the future.
I would be more than happy to talk over email with you, if you wish to discuss this without anybody from the peanut gallery jumping in.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Orin, wouldn't that depend? I'd agree that a McD's burger is unlikely to be all that healthy, but a burger I make at home, with lots of tomato and lettuce, on a whole wheat bun, has a rather different nutritional profile, neh?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Now San Francisco is weighing banning circumcision, with no exceptions for religious groups. Link.
Slippery slope is slippery.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It hasn't even successfully made it on the ballot. I find the fact that it is being pushed disturbing, but let's not make more of it than it is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
"People can practice whatever religion they want, but your religious practice ends with someone else's body,"
I can't imagine this passing, let alone not being challenged in the courts and struck down.
edit: I agree with rivka, its kinda disturbing, but to be honest if you saw all the legislation citizens submit to congress for ratification, you'd wonder just how on earth we don't all kill each other in this country.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Now San Francisco is weighing banning circumcision, with no exceptions for religious groups. Link.
Slippery slope is slippery.
And the Czech Republic is "weighing" expelling all Gypsies from the land. If your definition of "weighing" is broad enough.
Straw man is straw-ey.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Orin, wouldn't that depend? I'd agree that a McD's burger is unlikely to be all that healthy, but a burger I make at home, with lots of tomato and lettuce, on a whole wheat bun, has a rather different nutritional profile, neh?
Sure, especially if you're using lean beef or ostrich. But I mean, for practical purposes of this discussion, that's not so important. It's useful to take any comment such as mine with the understanding that I'm speaking to the overwhelmingly common experience, which is a burger on white bread, with fatty beef, covered in sauces high in fat and cholesterol as well as sugar- and that experience taken beyond moderation, which in the case of your typical burger is eating one anything more than very occasionally. You can take most any food available in a restaurant and offer something in a similar form factor to fit a healthy diet. But again, overwhelmingly these are not the foods offered, nor the foods bought or served, particularly in restaurants, but also in the home.
Sort of like if I said: "Ice cream is bad for you." You'd have to assume I wasn't talking about a sugar-reduced, low fat scoop of vanilla once a year.
Burgers, in reasonable and practical terms, are bad for you.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
And the French are expelling their Gypsies. In keeping with the EuropeanUnion exemplar, the Brits should expel their Angles, their Saxons, their Celts, and their Picts along with other similarly late arrivals. Britannia for the LittleFolk and the Fey!!!
[ November 15, 2010, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: And the French are expelling their Gypsies.
Meh, not really. They're following the terms of the Schengen agreement and deporting (for free) immigrants who enter France without the means to support themselves, and who plan on taking unlawful advantage of national social programs. They are not expelling *their* Gypsies- they are expelling some of *Romania's* Gypsies, and they are well within their rights to do so. That such actions are called racism is a bit of a Samaritan snare- the Gypsy problem is highly visible and consequently a lot simpler to address than more minor abuses of the Schengen Agreement. The French recognize the problem because it is highly visible, but understand too that those with jobs and accommodation are not being deported. France is deporting people who are violating the terms of the Agreement- Gypsies, nor any other national or ethnic group has an express right to settlement in France under Schengen law.
And lest you throw illegal Mexican immigration in my face- the dynamics of this situation are very different. These people have rights, but they also have responsibilities- and those who don't play by the rules are sent home. I can't say I blame France for that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Sort of like if I said: "Ice cream is bad for you." You'd have to assume I wasn't talking about a sugar-reduced, low fat scoop of vanilla once a year.
Burgers, in reasonable and practical terms, are bad for you.
Nope, then I'm going to disagree. Just as one shouldn't assume we are talking about the healthiest interpretation, neither do I see any reason to assume we are talking about the worst. Anything in excess is bad.
Living on ice cream or burgers would be bad. But even full-fat ice cream once a week isn't all that terrible. Same with the burger.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.
His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.
But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.
Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.
"That's where the head scratching comes," Haub said. "What does that mean? Does that mean I'm healthier? Or does it mean how we define health from a biology standpoint, that we're missing something?"
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Just as one shouldn't assume we are talking about the healthiest interpretation, neither do I see any reason to assume we are talking about the worst. Anything in excess is bad.
Well sure, but then there is virtually no "food" short of non-dilute poisons that is "bad for you".
I think the only meaningful way that "bad for you" makes sense when applied to food is when we assume the common nutritional profile of that food (i.e. a fast food burger) and a lack of moderation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
DK, that article was brought up a page ago. See this response, among others.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
and the guy was drinking special shakes and vitamins there's more to this than there looks .-.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I think the only meaningful way that "bad for you" makes sense when applied to food is when we assume the common nutritional profile of that food (i.e. a fast food burger) and a lack of moderation.
Or, you know, we could use moderation in language as well and avoid "bad for you" as a fairly useless label.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I think the only meaningful way that "bad for you" makes sense when applied to food is when we assume the common nutritional profile of that food (i.e. a fast food burger) and a lack of moderation.
Or, you know, we could use moderation in language as well and avoid "bad for you" as a fairly useless label.
Right, using that label is bad for discussion. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I don't think it's all that useless of a label. When I say "burgers are bad for you", you could probably write a list of reasons why I'm saying that which would match the list I'd provide if asked to clarify.
At the same time you might be grumbling about how a Venn diagram containing "all types of burgers" and "healthy food" might have some overlap. But you'd still understand me.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
There are things that are bad for you only when not moderated, and there are things that are bad for you regardless of moderation. Distinguishing the two seems to be fairly important to me.
There's also an important distinction between "not healthy" and "bad for you."
[edit] In other words, the 'bad for you' label only becomes useful when it includes the point at which it becomes bad for you. The label by itself doesn't seem to offer much in the way of useful information. Eg., at what point does red meat, bacon, or alcohol become 'bad for you?'
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
What foods are bad for you regardless of moderation?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: What foods are bad for you regardless of moderation?
Many species of wild berries? Also, about 90% of mushrooms are poisonous. This is of course ignoring the sheer numbers of foods that are bad for you if they are spoiled. Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: What foods are bad for you regardless of moderation?
Anything sweetened with lead?
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: What foods are bad for you regardless of moderation?
Several within this thread have compared happy meals with cigarettes and various types of drugs. I think there is a notable distinction between those types of things.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by shadowland:
quote:Originally posted by MattP: What foods are bad for you regardless of moderation?
Several within this thread have compared happy meals with cigarettes and various types of drugs. I think there is a notable distinction between those types of things.
This is precisely why I think it is misleading to label any food as "bad". There is no level of cigarette smoking that's safe. Smoking even one cigarette is bad for you. Unless you suffer from a severe allergy or intolerance, that isn't true for any food. All foods have can be beneficial if consumed in the right amounts as part of a healthy diet. Healthy eating is about proper balance and even things like hot fudge sundaes can be part of a healthy diet.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Just as one shouldn't assume we are talking about the healthiest interpretation, neither do I see any reason to assume we are talking about the worst. Anything in excess is bad.
Look at what I was referring to, please:
quote:It's useful to take any comment such as mine with the understanding that I'm speaking to the overwhelmingly common experience , which is a burger on white bread, with fatty beef, covered in sauces high in fat and cholesterol as well as sugar- and that experience taken beyond moderation, which in the case of your typical burger is eating one anything more than very occasionally.
I don't describe the worst here- I describe the most common. You have some room to argue about how much people actually eat these things, but again, I think you could have reasonably assumed I meant burgers were bad for you in excess, or that at the very least it only *mattered* if you ate them in excess. To be perfectly clear though- I still think the average burger is definitely bad for you, even if you only have one. Just not *that bad*. Bad is not an absolute statement. Why does it have to be a black and white thing? Some stuff is bad- just *not that bad!*
If you don't agree that this is the case, fine, but there's no point arguing against something I didn't say.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Healthy eating is about proper balance and even things like hot fudge sundaes can be part of a healthy diet.
And a cigarette a day can be part of a healthy lifestyle. The odds of contracting cancer at that rate are pretty low- about as low as to make no odds. And if you support this one cigarette a day habit with 3 hours of yoga and a vegan diet, or whatever suits your fancy health-wise, I don't think a right minded person would call your lifestyle unhealthy. The cigarette itself is bad for you- but when did that become such a necessarily absolute statement? Some stuff is just bad for you- not *that* bad, but still bad. Negligibly bad, even, but still not good. I feel like you're all being trained in rhetoric by the GOP these days.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by shadowland:
quote:Originally posted by MattP: What foods are bad for you regardless of moderation?
Several within this thread have compared happy meals with cigarettes and various types of drugs. I think there is a notable distinction between those types of things.
Why? Can you back up that statement with some kind of reasoning? Because a happy meal a month is not going to noticeably affect your health, and a cigarette a month is not going to make a tiny bit of difference either. In fact, I would put odds on the cigarette being healthier than the happy meal at that rate.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Can someone actually have one cigarette a day? I seem to recall the addiction rate of cigarettes as being freakishly high and a fairly quick rate of resistance (in order to get the same affect on the 10th dose as the first you need twice the dose). So the willpower to limit yourself to one cigarette a day becomes astronomical very quickly.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Can someone actually have one cigarette a day? I seem to recall the addiction rate of cigarettes as being freakishly high and a fairly quick rate of resistance (in order to get the same affect on the 10th dose as the first you need twice the dose). So the willpower to limit yourself to one cigarette a day becomes astronomical very quickly.
I don't have any data on that. I do know several people who smoke about that much- I think it does happen.
But I don't really care about that, its not to my point. I'm not talking addiction anyway- for that matter, having a meal at McDonald's once a week could lead you to crave more. Giving a meal to your children there once a month is exactly what the company *wants* to get the kids hooked on the brand. But anyway, I'm just saying- if you did somehow manage to have one cigarette a day, it wouldn't have any real effect on your health.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Can someone actually have one cigarette a day? I seem to recall the addiction rate of cigarettes as being freakishly high and a fairly quick rate of resistance (in order to get the same affect on the 10th dose as the first you need twice the dose). So the willpower to limit yourself to one cigarette a day becomes astronomical very quickly.
Yup. Right now I'm averaging about one a day.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: But anyway, I'm just saying- if you did somehow manage to have one cigarette a day, it wouldn't have any real effect on your health.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Healthy eating is about proper balance and even things like hot fudge sundaes can be part of a healthy diet.
And a cigarette a day can be part of a healthy lifestyle.
I am fairly certain that only a current or former smoker would claim this.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Well, and even if my lifestyle is pretty healthy overall, I don't think I'd say that's a healthy part of it. *shrug*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Right. I would definitely agree that someone who smokes one cigarette a day might have any overall healthy lifestyle. But claiming that is part of said healthy lifestyle -- rather than the exception to it -- seems a stretch.
I don't think the same distinction need be made about the occasional burger or sundae. Those have a place in a healthy lifestyle.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
If you would be willing to ban a government controlled rationed one cigarette per day, you'ld be willing to ban a cheaseburger.
Of course, you can feed your kids macaroni and cheese with sliced hot dogs, on your own and prepared in a government rent provided apartment, purchased with food stamps.
It should be illegal for me to cook a cheaseburger for my kids, on the backyard grill. I own a Fry Daddy too, I must be a child abuser. I break out that Fry Daddy a few times a year.
What happens to a parent that violates alcohol laws? A burger is a burger, a fry is a fry. Slippery slope,....home fries and home prepared burgers are fine. A parent can feed their children Top Ramen 7 days a week. We need the government to...
If you want to go down this road,.... Food stamp credit cards shouldn't be allowed to puchase hamburger and frozen french fries from a grocery store.....cheese is the worst food. Food stamp credit cards should forbid cheese purchases. Wait,...when I was a kid, the governemt gave away free cheese to the poor. There's no worse food for you, than cheese.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Right. I would definitely agree that someone who smokes one cigarette a day might have any overall healthy lifestyle. But claiming that is part of said healthy lifestyle -- rather than the exception to it -- seems a stretch.
I don't think the same distinction need be made about the occasional burger or sundae. Those have a place in a healthy lifestyle.
I think this depends on the food in question. If the only issue with a particular food is EXCESSIVE amounts of things (fat, sugar, salt, etc) then yes, you can conceivably say the food is merely part of a "healthy diet." But my understanding is that a lot of foods contain various things that are genuinely bad for you. I'm not educated enough in this matter to argue intelligently. But I'm pretty sure there's more too it than "some foods have lots of fat."
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
When I was a kid, the government provided cheese and peanut butter to the poor. Cheese and peanut butter are very efficient in their delivery of calories and protein. Today, the government provides a credit card and cheese and peanut butter are considered evil foods. If you're hungry and can't afford food,..cheese and peanut butter is a good idea. Fat govt credit card holders are told to limit the cheeseburgers.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
When I was a kid, the government provided cheese and peanut butter to the poor. Cheese and peanut butter are very efficient in their delivery of calories and protein. Today, the government provides a credit card and cheese and peanut butter are considered evil foods. If you're hungry and can't afford food,..cheese and peanut butter is a good idea. Fat govt credit card holders are told to limit the cheeseburgers. McD's is evil...you can feed your kids with frozen microwave food, purchased with a federal food card, in a microwave running on welfare electricity, in a government provided house.
McD's doesn't accept the food stamp card.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Right. I would definitely agree that someone who smokes one cigarette a day might have any overall healthy lifestyle. But claiming that is part of said healthy lifestyle -- rather than the exception to it -- seems a stretch.
I don't think the same distinction need be made about the occasional burger or sundae. Those have a place in a healthy lifestyle.
I think this depends on the food in question. If the only issue with a particular food is EXCESSIVE amounts of things (fat, sugar, salt, etc) then yes, you can conceivably say the food is merely part of a "healthy diet." But my understanding is that a lot of foods contain various things that are genuinely bad for you. I'm not educated enough in this matter to argue intelligently. But I'm pretty sure there's more too it than "some foods have lots of fat."
I'd nominate high-fructose corn syrup. Fructose seriously messes with your body's ability to feel satiated.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Right. I would definitely agree that someone who smokes one cigarette a day might have any overall healthy lifestyle. But claiming that is part of said healthy lifestyle -- rather than the exception to it -- seems a stretch.
I don't think the same distinction need be made about the occasional burger or sundae. Those have a place in a healthy lifestyle.
I think this depends on the food in question. If the only issue with a particular food is EXCESSIVE amounts of things (fat, sugar, salt, etc) then yes, you can conceivably say the food is merely part of a "healthy diet." But my understanding is that a lot of foods contain various things that are genuinely bad for you. I'm not educated enough in this matter to argue intelligently. But I'm pretty sure there's more too it than "some foods have lots of fat."
I'd nominate high-fructose corn syrup. Fructose seriously messes with your body's ability to feel satiated.
My kids absolutely love the limited distribution sodas that contain real sugar. My children want the real deal more than the corn syrup kind. Coke distributed drinks with sugar instead of corn syrup. Americans love their coffee but it took Starbucks to teach them what decent coffee taste's like. In the end, crappy coffee and corn syrup are no worse for you than sugar and good coffee. My kids didn't care about soda before...they love the real sugar soda....is it an evil marketing scheme?
Government cheese was amazing and government peanut butter was awesome.....natural. Green peanut butter, natural peanut butter, requires you to mix the oil into the butter. Green cheese, natural cheese, is clumpy.
Government cheese and government peanut butter was as natural as you could get. The more natural it is, the cheaper is is. The grower didn't have to purchase pesticides or homoginize his product. Today, you pay more for "organic" peanut butter and cheese, when it used to be welfare food. Kinda like ribs, crabs and lobster....the food of the poor.
[ November 16, 2010, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: But I'm pretty sure there's more too it than "some foods have lots of fat."
Granted. But the number of genuinely "bad" ingredients is much smaller than the average diet-fad-of-the-week book would have you believe. And I suspect most, maybe all, are highly processed. Like HFCS.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Healthy eating is about proper balance and even things like hot fudge sundaes can be part of a healthy diet.
And a cigarette a day can be part of a healthy lifestyle.
I am fairly certain that only a current or former smoker would claim this.
Sure- it's not something you'd normally have occasion to say. It's also not *generally* true, which was the point. It *could* be true, but with some major qualifiers.
I'd argue it's equally true that only those who eat at McD's or used to eat there claim that it can be a part of a healthy diet. Again, not because it isn't so, but because there'd be little reason to make such a point.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: In the end, crappy coffee and corn syrup are no worse for you than sugar and good coffee.
:snort: What??
Bad coffee doesn't have any more effect on your health than good coffee. It's just- one tastes good and is prepared properly. And who flavors coffee with corn syrup? Honestly... what??
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
._. I did a health project on tea and coffee, they are both good for you, the only real negatives are caffeine and sugar and small amounts of either have no seemingly bad effect on overall health unleass you're diabetic.... -Probably the smartest thing I've said on this forum other than my discussion about Path...
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
My understanding is that the evidence for caffeine being harmful is mixed, at best.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Ya the main thing here is. QUANTITY, this whole thing is nothing but quantity... everything is okay for you at one point and bad for you at another even dihydrogen monoxide ._.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
What tastes good, is good. Maybe too good, too efficient. Fat and sugar, we naturally crave. They are the most efficient delivery system of what the human body needs. Unfortunately, they aren't filling. You're still hungry due to the quantity in your stomach. Naturally we crave these things for their efficiency of caloric delivery. Can laws overcome human nature? Can a law overcome your urge to sleep?
You're free to speak, but not to sleep. Outlawing sleeping in public isn't going give a home to homeless people, it'll deprive them of rest. Deprive children of happy meal toys, they'll still eat happy meals.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Really? A town of 13 thousand in NJ with a quesstionable ordinance? Is that really the best you got?
And yeah, laws can overcome human nature. It happens all the time. If you actually stop and think about it you'll realize what a silly question that was.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
This thread is about a San Fransisco law. One city to another, legally equal-despite their population. If one city can ban toys the other can ban sleeping. Neither city will reduce their homeless population or obese children. Both cities are punishing children and homeless and neither law will reduce homeless or obese children.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Can you elaborate what "legally equal" means in this context, and why it should matter for the purposes of this discussion?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Juxtapose: Really? A town of 13 thousand in NJ with a quesstionable ordinance? Is that really the best you got?
And yeah, laws can overcome human nature. It happens all the time. If you actually stop and think about it you'll realize what a silly question that was.
A city in NJ has a 13k population a city in California (San Fran) has a population of 815k. Legally, what's the difference? Does law depend on population? The 815k city has a local law to ignore federal law...sanctuary city for illegal immegrants. This 815k has a local law that that deviates from federal marriage law...gay marriage. This 815k city has a drug law opposing federal drug laws, medical marijuana.
The 815k city and the 13k city are equal under the law. They are cities. PC is in the way. A town is a town, a county is a county and a state is a state, under the law. State's rights have nothing to do with population.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
yawn
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
sanctuary city for illegal immigrants you say.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: But my understanding is that a lot of foods contain various things that are genuinely bad for you.
To the best of my knowledge, this is not true, or at a minimum there is no scientific evidence to support that it is true. Misconceptions like Ray's are why I think it is confusing to call any food "bad for you". Nearly everything found in our foods can be beneficial for most people when consumed in moderation as part of an overall balanced diet but at the same time harmful if consumed in excess. I don't know of any established exceptions to that. It is certainly not true for things like high fructose corn syrup, cholesterol, or trans-fats.
If you are interested, read this this abstract from a recent review on health effects of fructose.
The key conclusion is
quote:The issue of dietary fructose and health is linked to the quantity consumed, which is the same issue for any macro- or micro nutrients. It has been considered that moderate fructose consumption of [less than or equal to]50g/day or ~10% of energy has no deleterious effect on lipid and glucose control and of [less than or equal to]100g/day does not influence body weight. No fully relevant data account for a direct link between moderate dietary fructose intake and health risk markers.
The bad health effects of fructose are categorically different from cigarette smoking. It is well established scientifically that smoking even one cigarette is bad for you. The same can not be said for any food or food additive (at least not for the vast majority of people).
[ November 17, 2010, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: This is in fact very different from cigarette smoking. It is well established scientifically that smoking even one cigarette is bad for you. The same can not be said for any food or food additive.
What about things like whiskey?
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Alcohol should be illegal as it doesn't only typically effect the person drinking but the people around that person, not to mention how it effects society, being used as an excuse for kids doing stupid things even though they shouldn't even be able to get ahold of it.
Also, what about caffeine which is considered a drug and it has addictive properties, also sure it's considered an additive aswell.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Diet also can be different at different times of life and for different people. For a while, we had three different types of milk- lactose free milk for my husband (and 2% because at the time he had trouble keeping his weight up), regular whole milk for my daughter (2 year old) and skim milk for me (I'm the overweight one). So yeah, fat may be bad for you, but all three of us had different optimal levels. I have a feeling my daughter will be allowed a lot more carbs and fat in general than I get since she is super active and seems to have her daddy's metabolism.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Even though I am lactose-intolerant, I prefer whole milk ._. all the others taste funny to me.
Yo prefiero café con leche
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Lets see if I can be fair to Mal's arguments.
I mean, when he exaggerates the degree that this law will slippery slide slope us into--his arrest for poisoning his children via Fry Daddy and a cheeseburger, that is fine. When the opponents exaggerate by bringing in Cigarettes or Alcohol--well that has nothing to do with food.
Mal's argument seems to have little to do with this law per se. It isn't that advertising food via free kids toys is the topic. (And yes, free Toys do increase the sales of Happy Meals, and can lead to a pattern of fast-food eating later in life. The proof--Its something McDonalds spends millions of dollars doing. If it didn't increase their sales they wouldn't be doing it because poor little children need cheap little toys.)
Mal's real topic is that the government should not control our diet.
Mal doesn't seem to care that this law isn't really an attempt to control our diet. Mal fears that it may lead others into creating laws that will begin eating away at our right to eat what we wish.
The point Mal wants to make is not "where should we draw the line at the Government's intrusion in our kitchen". It seems to be "any thing the government does that even hints at intrusion in our kitchen should be stopped, removed, revoked, and ridiculed."
However, Mal is a "Black and white--no Grey" kind of person. Either its an attack on all of our right to eat whatever we want, or its total freedom of the stomach.
I'm more of a spectrum kind of guy. There are two poles that his options represent, and I think the line should be drawn somewhere in the middle.
Where would you draw the line:
Government Allows Anything to be sold as food.(buyer beware) Government Allows Food that May be Poisonous Government Allows Food that Food Producers Say Is Not Poisonous. Government Determines Foods That Are Not Poisonous and Disallows All Others. Government Government Determines Which Foods Are Poisonous, allows all others, but promotes with advertisement foods that the producers say are healthy. "" foods that the Government says are healthy. Government limits foods to those that are healthy according to the Producers. Government limits foods to those that they determine are healthy.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:What about things like whiskey?
Whiskey in moderation has health benefits, not negative effects.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Until she shoots Bennett
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:The bad health effects of fructose are categorically different from cigarette smoking. It is well established scientifically that smoking even one cigarette is bad for you.
I find this surprising. Can you cite this?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Even though I am lactose-intolerant, I prefer whole milk ._. all the others taste funny to me.
Yo prefiero café con leche
You're lactose intolerant, the government needs to make a law to protect you from your urges to drink real milk. Real milk is worse for you. We need the government to be your sense of self control. My diabetic neighbor loves my wife's chocolate chip cookies. We need a law..those chocolate chip cookies are bad for her. My wife should be a criminal for giving her cookies to a diabetic.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rawrain: [qb] Even though I am lactose-intolerant, I prefer whole milk ._. all the others taste funny to me.
Yo prefiero café con leche
You're lactose intolerant, the government needs to make a law to protect you from your urges to drink real milk. Real milk is worse for you. We need the government to be your sense of self control. My diabetic neighbor loves my wife's chocolate chip cookies. We need a law..those chocolate chip cookies are bad for her. My wife should be a criminal for giving her cookies to a diabetic. Why not, the federal government can regulate yard sales.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Man, I would love to see you play Mad Libs, mal. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The year is Racist, and South Side Chicago`s Sentence with Ayers is History.
In his continued efforts to outdo the Death Panel of Ayers, His Majesty, King Obama VIII, has invited some of the country`s most Socialist ACORN to create for him a Affirmative Action fit for the most real american of all Jamaican Neighbors: himself.
r.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Even though I am lactose-intolerant, I prefer whole milk ._. all the others taste funny to me.
Yo prefiero café con leche
You're lactose intolerant, the government needs to make a law to protect you from your urges to drink real milk. Real milk is worse for you. We need the government to be your sense of self control. My diabetic neighbor loves my wife's chocolate chip cookies. We need a law..those chocolate chip cookies are bad for her. My wife should be a criminal for giving her cookies to a diabetic.
lactose intolerance, is relative to the bacterium in your gut that help digest lactose; I can simply take a supplement of the bacterium and drink as much milk I want without causing great stomach pain ._.
A lot of people are lactose intolerant to a degree, mine comes from getting the stomach flu many years back.
And once again why does everyone assume slippery slope is to happen... I still think this toy ban was a good thing, little kids are easily persuaded by little bits of plastic or shiny things, maybe from curiousity... but these toys are also a waste of limit resources aswell.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The year is Racist, and South Side Chicago`s Sentence with Ayers is History.
In his continued efforts to outdo the Death Panel of Ayers, His Majesty, King Obama VIII, has invited some of the country`s most Socialist ACORN to create for him a Affirmative Action fit for the most real american of all Jamaican Neighbors: himself.
r.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Once upon a time, Big Government covered all the Ghetto as far as the eye could see. One day, Obama and the Black Nationalists arrived in the NAFTA. They carried Obamacare, and along with them rode seven Jamaican Neighbors. We promise to Raise Taxes, they cried, and Piss on the Constitution. They proceeded to Gerrymander, and Tax and Spend, until Midterm.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
What I really would want to make, if this forum didn't use hard to navigate abandonware, is a random malanthrop quote generator.
[premise][random connection to conservative talking point][assertion of self-goodness][strawman about liberal intent][nonsequitorial conclusion about liberals][jamaican neighbors comment][last-minute political inclusion][ostensibly related capping query]
for bonus points, you can put in [constant reference to something that was brought up in response to his posting, in order to make people think he understands it] — the example in this thread is 'slippery slope'
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
There also needs to be a [random post edit 20 minutes later].
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm going to get hell from my wife in the morning for posting this on her FB account, where all her liberal teacher friends can see it:
"Think of how many man hours (sorry-person hours) you took off of the cumulative hours of hundreds of lives. Statistically speaking, you might've shortened each consumers life by a minute. We need a law banning donut sales at elementary schools, it promotes obesity."....malanthrop
My wife is the Vice President of the PTA. The teachers and PTA were congratulating themselves on her Face Book account for: "sold 100 dozen donuts today - well, with some help - TTE you are the best!!!!!"
The "E" on TTE is Elementary...... I'm intellectually honest, so is my wife. Tomorrow, she'll laugh while being angry with me, for my intellectual honesty. She won't be angry for "what" I said, she'll be pissed that I was insensitive enough to say it. I'm insensitive, but enlightening to her.
Is selling 1200 donuts at the door to the elementary school ok, even if the profit goes to the school? Being generous, 1300 for a "baker's dozen". What's worse for you, a cheese burger or a donut at a school that has already banned soft drink sales.
Of course, "slippery slope" is a fallacy. Two years ago, taking off your shoes was controversial, today it's accepted. Today, having a federal employee feel your child's private parts in an airport is controversial and it's standard procedure to take off your shoes.
[ November 20, 2010, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'll bet anyone of you "slippery slope" deniers,.... Body scanners aren't going to stop at the air port. Body scanners and pat downs at the mall, subways, buses and sports games are our future. All it takes is an attack on a mall, subway, bus or or sports arena.
If 911 had happened at malls across the nation instead of airlines, you would be going through scanners to enter the mall and airport security would be unchanged. You'd be taking off your shoes and having your children frisked, entering a mall.
We need to profile. They hate our freedom. They win with ineffective attacks. A failed shoe bomber makes all Americans take their shoes off. Failed attempts will turn us into a police state.
My 10 year old daughter doesn't want go on vacation to visit her grandparents. She doesn't want someone looking at her naked body or touching her. I'm her father, and she hides her body from me and I would be arrested for looking or touching.
Slippery slope is getting steeper. When I was 10, I didn't see something on TV that made me afraid to fly. When I was a kid there were 3 stations, my kid has access to 100. My daughter doesn't want to fly. She came to this conclusion on her own.
My 10 ear old is a radical right, tea party member. She understands working for what you get,...allowance...she understands what I've always taught her..."no one touches your private parts"...a right to privacy. My kids understand individual property rights....her room, his room and their right to privacy. I'm a parent who knocks on the door of his 5 year old child's bedroom when he has the door closed. I give them the right to privacy. Some parents don't trust their children and forbid them from closing their doors. Trust builds responsibility.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
lol.......your daughter, a right winger? Who would have guessed.
I've said it before.....I am glad I don't have to live in your world, mal. It's a pretty depressing place.
Any world you are celebrated for anything intellectual, let alone "intellectual honesty", is a horrible place for an actual person (as opposed you one of your many straw men) to live.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Why do you lol at my daughter? What's your position on nature vs nurture? I'm married to an intellectually honest person with liberal tendancies. I infuriate her...but she loves me for bringing her to the light. I think my son is a natural liberal....too sensitive of other's feelings. I love him just as much as my naturally liberal wife. Had she not been adopted by a Christian Pastor, I don't know what she would be. She refuses to cook any flesh other than chicken, at least she respects my taste for pork and beef. My daughter and I grill it up.... My son is like my wife...chicken, beans and rice.
Being intellectually honest, is being rude. The child who speaks the truth is intillectually honest. My wife hates my candid behavior but she never attacks me personally for my opinion. My wife believes I have Asberger's syndrome...she may be right. Stating the truth on your wife's FB account, while embarrassing her, might be indicative of this. I am completely insensitive to political correctness and social sensitivity. I say the most inappropriate things. Appropriateness is censorship of one's self.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Stating the truth on your wife's FB account, while embarrassing her, might be indicative of this.
I don't know. I'd say it was indicative of being a total jerk. Especially when you then come here and brag about it.
But that's just my opinion. I wasn't going to say anything but I'm against censorship...
And I'm glad you took JBs post about you not discussing in good faith to heart.
Oh wait, you didn't... (how surprising)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Man, I would love to see you play Mad Libs, mal. [Smile]
We all have, frequently, of course.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
"Is selling 1200 donuts at the door to the elementary school ok, even if the profit goes to the school?"
No, it's not okay. The school board should know better.
It's not illegal, it's just not something the school board ought to be doing if they really care about the health and education of their students.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:My 10 year old daughter doesn't want go on vacation to visit her grandparents. She doesn't want someone looking at her naked body or touching her. I'm her father, and she hides her body from me and I would be arrested for looking or touching.
Just drawing y'all's attention to this amazing quote.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
This is a really good post.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Lets see if I can be fair to Mal's arguments.
I mean, when he exaggerates the degree that this law will slippery slide slope us into--his arrest for poisoning his children via Fry Daddy and a cheeseburger, that is fine. When the opponents exaggerate by bringing in Cigarettes or Alcohol--well that has nothing to do with food.
Mal's argument seems to have little to do with this law per se. It isn't that advertising food via free kids toys is the topic. (And yes, free Toys do increase the sales of Happy Meals, and can lead to a pattern of fast-food eating later in life. The proof--Its something McDonalds spends millions of dollars doing. If it didn't increase their sales they wouldn't be doing it because poor little children need cheap little toys.)
Mal's real topic is that the government should not control our diet.
Mal doesn't seem to care that this law isn't really an attempt to control our diet. Mal fears that it may lead others into creating laws that will begin eating away at our right to eat what we wish.
The point Mal wants to make is not "where should we draw the line at the Government's intrusion in our kitchen". It seems to be "any thing the government does that even hints at intrusion in our kitchen should be stopped, removed, revoked, and ridiculed."
However, Mal is a "Black and white--no Grey" kind of person. Either its an attack on all of our right to eat whatever we want, or its total freedom of the stomach.
I'm more of a spectrum kind of guy. There are two poles that his options represent, and I think the line should be drawn somewhere in the middle.
Where would you draw the line:
Government Allows Anything to be sold as food.(buyer beware) Government Allows Food that May be Poisonous Government Allows Food that Food Producers Say Is Not Poisonous. Government Determines Foods That Are Not Poisonous and Disallows All Others. Government Government Determines Which Foods Are Poisonous, allows all others, but promotes with advertisement foods that the producers say are healthy. "" foods that the Government says are healthy. Government limits foods to those that are healthy according to the Producers. Government limits foods to those that they determine are healthy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Why do you lol at my daughter? What's your position on nature vs nurture? I'm married to an intellectually honest person with liberal tendancies. I infuriate her...but she loves me for bringing her to the light. I think my son is a natural liberal....too sensitive of other's feelings. I love him just as much as my naturally liberal wife. Had she not been adopted by a Christian Pastor, I don't know what she would be. She refuses to cook any flesh other than chicken, at least she respects my taste for pork and beef. My daughter and I grill it up.... My son is like my wife...chicken, beans and rice.
Being intellectually honest, is being rude. The child who speaks the truth is intillectually honest. My wife hates my candid behavior but she never attacks me personally for my opinion. My wife believes I have Asberger's syndrome...she may be right. Stating the truth on your wife's FB account, while embarrassing her, might be indicative of this. I am completely insensitive to political correctness and social sensitivity. I say the most inappropriate things. Appropriateness is censorship of one's self.
You're right. Which is why it is not always wise to say every single thing that comes into your head. It's also why political correctness isn't a completely bogus concept. Certain ideas and phrases are hurtful, and the more people, who say them and the more often they are said, the more damage they can do because they create an environment.
Liberals calling tea parties "tea baggers" over and over reinforces the idea that tea partiers should be mocked and insulted. But its idiocy to take pride in hiding behind "I'm just being honest" when you say whatever you want however you want.
I'm not a huge fan (I'm saying this as BB not JB) of the abject lack of respect that exists in either direction right now. There's no meaningful conversation going on. There's laugh at the last thing this poster said, wait for his response, laugh even harder while tearing it apart yet again, and lets all see which side breaks the TOS first. It's a waste of time.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: "Is selling 1200 donuts at the door to the elementary school ok, even if the profit goes to the school?"
No, it's not okay. The school board should know better.
It's not illegal, it's just not something the school board ought to be doing if they really care about the health and education of their students.
err...why not?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, donuts are an unhealthy food that I, were I a school administrator or school board member, would not choose to sell to students because it sends a rather poor message to them about nutrition and healthy eating habits. The excess of sugar is also not good for discipline in schools- and I know this from my experiences as a teacher. Here is all that I know, and it's nothing but conjecture based on my personal anecdotal experiences: I did an internship in a school in California where there were several obese 3rd graders, perhaps 5 out of a group of 25. Their school offered them sweets, and they packed them from home as well. I worked in a school in the Czech Republic where sweets were not offered, and where they were not packed from home. None of the children were obese, in a school of over 50 kids. It's not causation, but it's a very obvious correlation. I think if we cut out the sweets from schools, we will see a change in the overall culture to the better- making schools a safe zone for children's diets would place parents and communities in much better positions to encourage healthy eating at other times.
The school board ought to sell healthy foods. And yes, *yes* I understand completely that students are not going to buy those healthy foods in great numbers. That's why food based promotions rely on sweets so heavily. And that's a rather bad thing, in my view. To me it mainly says that schools should not be raising money by selling foods, if selling healthful foods doesn't work.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: for bonus points, you can put in [constant reference to something that was brought up in response to his posting, in order to make people think he understands it] — the example in this thread is 'slippery slope'
Even after I wrote this. Even after. I tried my hardest to press this issue and get him to get the point and I got it stuck in his head in his own little dysfunctional way.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: This is a really good post.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: ... I'm more of a spectrum kind of guy. There are two poles that his options represent, and I think the line should be drawn somewhere in the middle.
Where would you draw the line:
Government Allows Anything to be sold as food.(buyer beware) Government Allows Food that May be Poisonous Government Allows Food that Food Producers Say Is Not Poisonous. Government Determines Foods That Are Not Poisonous and Disallows All Others. Government Government Determines Which Foods Are Poisonous, allows all others, but promotes with advertisement foods that the producers say are healthy. "" foods that the Government says are healthy. Government limits foods to those that are healthy according to the Producers. Government limits foods to those that they determine are healthy.
I agree. This example you've created is interesting, and it's genuinely making me think about where I would draw that line. Almost undoubtedly further up the list than most of you guys, but... where?
Yeah, a post on this topic that actually encourages people to critically analyze their own ideas is something admirable. So, thank you!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Post Removed by Janitor Blade.
[ November 21, 2010, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, donuts are an unhealthy food that I, were I a school administrator or school board member, would not choose to sell to students because it sends a rather poor message to them about nutrition and healthy eating habits. The excess of sugar is also not good for discipline in schools- and I know this from my experiences as a teacher. Here is all that I know, and it's nothing but conjecture based on my personal anecdotal experiences: I did an internship in a school in California where there were several obese 3rd graders, perhaps 5 out of a group of 25. Their school offered them sweets, and they packed them from home as well. I worked in a school in the Czech Republic where sweets were not offered, and where they were not packed from home. None of the children were obese, in a school of over 50 kids. It's not causation, but it's a very obvious correlation. I think if we cut out the sweets from schools, we will see a change in the overall culture to the better- making schools a safe zone for children's diets would place parents and communities in much better positions to encourage healthy eating at other times.
The school board ought to sell healthy foods. And yes, *yes* I understand completely that students are not going to buy those healthy foods in great numbers. That's why food based promotions rely on sweets so heavily. And that's a rather bad thing, in my view. To me it mainly says that schools should not be raising money by selling foods, if selling healthful foods doesn't work.
Unless I misunderstood it, the PTA had a bake sale. They weren't selling it to the kids at school.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
that last post of mal's was the closest he's ever come to just admitting he's a racist. now, there was a lot of talk about race in it, which happens to be one of his little pet issues. and, oh, how he does enjoy to shift discussion to it. even in cases like this where it has nothing to do with the topic at hand! why, I almost believe I think I heard something to the extent of him being told to stop that!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Being intellectually honest is being rude.
I just want to point out that I categorically reject this argument.
I am occasionally rude. Sometimes I'm rude because I'm lazy. Sometimes I'm rude because I think it'll be more effective than being polite. Sometimes I'm rude because I'm unobservant, or because I've misjudged the situation or my own tone.
I am occasionally intellectually dishonest -- although I believe this is far rarer. Sometimes I'm dishonest because I'm lazy. Sometimes I'm dishonest because I think it's more effective than being exhaustively correct. Sometimes I'm accidentally dishonest because I haven't actually examined my own processes enough to realize the corruption at the center.
But you know what? Never am I intellectually dishonest in an attempt to avoid being rude. And those times when I am being thoroughly intellectually honest, almost never am I rude.
In my experience, true intellectual honesty generally does not permit the surety of speech that rudeness demands.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: that last post of mal's was the closest he's ever come to just admitting he's a racist. now, there was a lot of talk about race in it, which happens to be one of his little pet issues. and, oh, how he does enjoy to shift discussion to it. even in cases like this where it has nothing to do with the topic at hand! why, I almost believe I think I heard something to the extent of him being told to stop that!
Well, I just reported the post to notify JB that mal is ignoring his instructions to either debate in good faith or shut up (obviously my interpretation of the directions and not JBs actual words)
So I guess we'll see what happens now.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, donuts are an unhealthy food that I, were I a school administrator or school board member, would not choose to sell to students because it sends a rather poor message to them about nutrition and healthy eating habits. The excess of sugar is also not good for discipline in schools- and I know this from my experiences as a teacher. Here is all that I know, and it's nothing but conjecture based on my personal anecdotal experiences: I did an internship in a school in California where there were several obese 3rd graders, perhaps 5 out of a group of 25. Their school offered them sweets, and they packed them from home as well. I worked in a school in the Czech Republic where sweets were not offered, and where they were not packed from home. None of the children were obese, in a school of over 50 kids. It's not causation, but it's a very obvious correlation. I think if we cut out the sweets from schools, we will see a change in the overall culture to the better- making schools a safe zone for children's diets would place parents and communities in much better positions to encourage healthy eating at other times.
The school board ought to sell healthy foods. And yes, *yes* I understand completely that students are not going to buy those healthy foods in great numbers. That's why food based promotions rely on sweets so heavily. And that's a rather bad thing, in my view. To me it mainly says that schools should not be raising money by selling foods, if selling healthful foods doesn't work.
Unless I misunderstood it, the PTA had a bake sale. They weren't selling it to the kids at school.
They were selling to anyone at the door to the school. The elementary school students didn't buy these donuts, just like they can't afford a happy meal....about the same price. Their parents bought them. Very few student's could afford a dozen....mine might. My kids have over $100 in their pockets...from their earned allowance. They've learned to earn their money, at an early age.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
malanthrop: Please refrain from posting on Hatrack for the time being. Expect an email from me.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: malanthrop: Please refrain from posting on Hatrack for the time being. Expect an email from me.
Ok. I hope I didn't offend. Either way, this will be my last post, until I hear from you. You're keeping it clean, it's your job. I realize I violated by posting this...I assure...nothing will follow...I would never pretend to be someone else under a new account.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Not like we wouldn't know
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Not like we wouldn't know
I lied, I violated the suspension...for good reason. I will never post under a pseudonym. I'm only violating att to defend those who follow. Three years ago, I joined Hatrack and I spent my first three months trying to prove I wasn't someone else who had been either excommunicated or pretending to be a different poster in the same thread....got your back.
I find it hilarious that I've been suspended for "deviating from topic" on a thread I started. I started the thread with the intention of making a point. The right to buy a happy meal, the right to drive an suv, the right to make over 250k per year and the right to..... all are connected.
No one complains about taking their shoes off anymore. Most people started to complain about the scanners, until faced with the "choice" of a pat down. Slippery slope. Scanners are the new norm. Illegal toys will be the new norm. Yes, I'm a rambler who goes off topic to people who ignore the constitution, individual rights and freedom of choice without punitive action from the government.
This is my last post. I'm posting against the rules to prove that someone else, like me, isn't me. Treat them better,.... I'm not PC. My wife and kids never accuse me of denying a fart.... the stinkier it is, the prouder I claim it. (off topic once again)
[ November 24, 2010, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Three years ago, I joined Hatrack and I spent my first three months trying to prove I wasn't someone else...
You realize, do you not, that we can see at the bottom of every one of your posts that you registered in March 2009?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Three years ago, I joined Hatrack and I spent my first three months trying to prove I wasn't someone else...
You realize, do you not, that we can see at the bottom of every one of your posts that you registered in March 2009?
Yes, you're right. It feels like three years. My father was the one who invited me to join, when he was in Iraq. Somehow, I remembered joining the last time I was in Iraq. Thank you. He's one of the three, at the the time, I was accused of being. He (Shinob) makes fun of me for hanging with you this long.
When I joined, I was consistently accused of being either: Thor, Beleaguered or Shinob.
Congratulations. It only took a year and a half to drive away the multiple personality imposter of Thor, Beleaguered, Shinob and Malanthrop.
The trend continues...I'm out the door, but I've been here long enough to see, Hatrack is far less "progressive" than it use to be. I'll admit, I'm probably the most right-wing left standing. Shave from the edges....it's too late, the middle is growing too fast. The Tea Party is not extreme and Tea Party members are in your midst. Banish me.... I leave with a smile. I joined when there were only a few and we were all accused of being the same person.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
mal -
"screw you, I'm outta here" only works if you actually leave!
In other words... goodbye... and STOP POSTING ALREADY!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
bye....I'll be watching....you'll miss me...you love to hate me...the threads I'm involved in have dominated the top of the list of frequent posts. Enjoy debating Mayo vs Salad dressing and Margarine vs Butter.
Mal has owned the top Hatrack posts. I understand where liberals come from. Liberal's can't help themselves...they need a law to control behavior. Any post Mal is involved in, dominates the top of the list at Hatrack. Ban Mal, outlaw french fries....bad.
Goodbye....I'm leaving already. You can't help yourself. Long ago I said, "If you want to get rid of me, stop responding"...... to POSTS I START.
[ November 24, 2010, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'll admit, I'm probably the most right-wing left standing.
You're certainly the most bat屎t insane left standing anyways. Although I do concede entertainment value.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I started this thread.... Legal loophole,....It's mine. Liberal's love legal loopholes and a living breathing constitution. I'll accept my banishment from Hatrack like a sanctuary city. This thread is my sanctuary city. I was here first, I created it....like California to a Mexican. I enjoy the benefits of Hatrack just as illegal aliens enjoy the benefits of America via a sanctuary city.
If it's ok with Janitor, I'll remain inside this thread. The majority of conversations I've been involved in were threads of my creation,...promises of non-involvement would be insufficient. I'll promise not to create another thread to dominate Hatrack but leave me to this sanctuary city.
You want to talk to mal or debate mal...if mal has a random idea to post...why not post in the thread that he started and deviated from, resulting in his expulsion for deviating from the thread of his own creation?
I disagree with most of you....I look forward to interacting with you....let me have a sanctuary city.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
You will honor the conditions we discussed by email, which by posting you have disregarded.
Again, if you have a problem with how I moderate you, email me, I'm not interested in discussing it here. Please adhere to the decisions I make, I don't wish to reevaluate the terms of your posting.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
finale.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I wouldn't have guessed malanthrop's weird entertainment factor would go up, but it certainly has! Sanctuary city, hehe. Goodness, where on Earth does all that fine conservative political ideology of ownership go now? Fine fellow that he is, he just gets to declare 'sanctuary city'. Goodness gracious, I've never had the urge to scarf some popcorn or wished someone would defy the moderator quite so much.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The majority of conversations I've been involved in were threads of my creation,...
Threads participated in: 185 Threads created: 26
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Mal has owned the top Hatrack posts.
That honor has already been claimed by Clive. You're going to have to have it out with him for that belt.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Enjoy debating Mayo vs Salad dressing and Margarine vs Butter.
You're going to have to be much more specific about what kind of salad dressing you're talking about.
But I'll have to go with the Balsamic Vinaigrette from the Town Center Pub, and the full-fat Ranch from Jason's Deli.
And Butter.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Clive WAS mal. We caught him admitting it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Er, I don't think we did. They were pretty different, Kwea. You sure about that?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"this is my last post. liberals can't control themselves, like me."
"okay this is my last post. Goodbye I mean it this time, congratulations, you drove me off. Slippery slope, blah blah blah. I leave here proudly knowing I am better than all of you."
"Okay wait. Hey give me a sanctuary city, I should hang around in this thread alone."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Clive WAS mal. We caught him admitting it.
I'm clive, mal, and parkour.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Er, I don't think we did. They were pretty different, Kwea. You sure about that?
I think maybe Kwea was just trying to get mal to post one more time. Which is evil. I'm kind of disappointed it didn't work.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
But we got several consecutive classic rambling malanthrop posts with the added sublime benefit of them each being a 'last post'
and then we got one saying that Mal wants to be treated like an illegal immigrant oh please oh please just let me keep posting in this thread
i'd say it was a pretty good haul.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: Originally posted by Kwea: Clive WAS mal. We caught him admitting it.
I'm clive, mal, and parkour.
Oh. That explains it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm spartacus.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm clive, mal, and parkour.
Well, I'M Tom Davidson, AJ, and Katie. So there!
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I'm not malanthrop. I'm you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You're christene o'donnell
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm Samp, Samp is Mal, but I am not Mal. Can you deal with THAT?
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
Wow, mal actually flounced? Wasn't expecting that but it sure was fun to watch.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
If there were ever a time when I suspected someone of drunk posting, this would be one of those times. But then again, I have often suspected that Mal was trashed on a bottle of sour mash when he settled down behind his keyboard to compose his screeds.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Misha McBride: Wow, mal actually flounced? Wasn't expecting that but it sure was fun to watch.
I commented that I was expecting it after he made sure to comment like three times in a row oh man i'm going for sure won't be too long now yeah i'll totally peace out for sure
and by that he obviously meant he was going to make 4 last-posts-foreva in a row then sue for having his own probation thread
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Three years ago, I joined Hatrack and I spent my first three months trying to prove I wasn't someone else who had been either excommunicated or pretending to be a different poster in the same thread....got your back...
...When I joined, I was consistently accused of being either: Thor, Beleaguered or Shinob.
Ok, I had some free time today. Since we have shown your '3 years' claim was BS, I though I'd take a crack at the '3 months' claim.
First, I can find no record of anyone named 'Shinob' ever being registered on hatrack. The closest I can find is a user named 'celticshinobi', who joined a couple months after you, and made one post about the EG movie.
Then, I decided to actually go through your posting history for your first three months, and log if you actually defended yourself against the accusation of posting under an alt. Where you did, I paraphrased what you said. Where you didn't, I said 'nope'.
Then it started to get tedious. Going through these posts was unpleasant. It felt like swimming through a long ditch filled with cold pea soup. After about 50, I said, "I'll just stop at the next one I find." At 100, I said, "I can't take this anymore." So I stopped there.
As you can see, there is only one post where you addressed it at all, and you were not even very serious about defending yourself against the accusation.
I didn't even get to the end of the first month. There are some possibilities we can speculate on here:
1) As with the '3 years' claim, it is possible you have a problem with numbers / measuring things. 2) All of your defensive posts occured within the 2nd and 3rd months of your membership here, which I didn't get to. 3) You're confusing this forum with another forum. 4) You're lying, in order to play the victim. 5) You're not lying, you really believe this happened.
In any case, here is a record of your 1st 100 posts here (Note: I'm in the Pacific time zone, so all time stamps are Pacific time):
quote: Is everyone the product of their Age 3/17/09 9:24pm nope 3/20/09 10:45pm nope 3/20/09 11:10pm nope 3/20/09 11:22pm nope 3/21/09 12:15am jokingly admits to being Beleaguered
I would really appreciate it if folks wouldn't keep posting about malanthrop in this thread. It's essentially an ongoing invitation/temptation for him to continue posting, regardless of whether he can or cannot.
When a poster is being disciplined I'd appreciate it if the board could assist me in that endeavor rather than hindering me.
edit: Pursuant to that endeavor, I am locking this thread. The idea that that is like putting up a metaphorical wall so as to keep illegal immigrants out was not lost on me.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Maybe Ronald's true intent it to scare children to eat bad food.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)