On Food Purveyors

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
What we really need are government warning labels on light bulbs exclaiming: “WARNING! Smoking meth is hazardous to your health!” My only lament is that the saddies who gorge on processed foods aren’t dying off quicker.[/quote]

So you claim the same position as countingbeans?
[/quote]

My position is thus: If you need a government warning label to tell you the processed food you are eating may not behave nutritionally or chemically the same way an all natural food may, the chances of such a person even understanding the ramifications of such a warning is slim to none. And slim left town. Saddies have about as much interest in the composition of the food they acquire during one of their gluttonous forays to Taco Bell as does a lion caring about the emotions of the antelope it is gorging upon.

More government intrusion and fiscal waste enforcing increasingly useless laws will not change a thing for the better. Information about nearly everything is a mere mouse click away, yet…
[/quote]

So the public should not be informed how the food, that is sold in stores, is manufactured? Because this would mean more government intrusion and YOU don’t think it would change a thing?

222

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
What we really need are government warning labels on light bulbs exclaiming: “WARNING! Smoking meth is hazardous to your health!” My only lament is that the saddies who gorge on processed foods aren’t dying off quicker.[/quote]

No, what we REALLY need is a warning label on meth that has the exact details on how said meth was combined/cooked because clearly meth labs everywhere are manipulating meth to increase the brains reward response and it is the governments responsibility to make the general public aware of said," manipulation by subterfuge."

[/quote]
This is a weak comparison as you are trying to equate the illegal with the legal.[/quote]

Lol, whatever…[/quote]

Again you can’t even back up your assertions with a well reasoned argument.

223

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So it is your position that it is okay for food purveyors to manipulate food ingredients for a desired response that acts on the same receptors as drugs to encourage more of that food item. This is okay even without public knowledge?
[/quote]

I thought drugs were a poor comparison…[/quote]

Sad and poor understanding of the argument. You may even be borderline retarded so I just feel sorry for you.

224

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So it is your position that it is okay for food purveyors to manipulate food ingredients for a desired response that acts on the same receptors as drugs to encourage more of that food item. This is okay even without public knowledge?
[/quote]

Is it your position that all of that is not public knowledge? [/quote]

Yes.

225

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
What we really need are government warning labels on light bulbs exclaiming: “WARNING! Smoking meth is hazardous to your health!” My only lament is that the saddies who gorge on processed foods aren’t dying off quicker.[/quote]

So you claim the same position as countingbeans?
[/quote]

My position is thus: If you need a government warning label to tell you the processed food you are eating may not behave nutritionally or chemically the same way an all natural food may, the chances of such a person even understanding the ramifications of such a warning is slim to none. And slim left town. Saddies have about as much interest in the composition of the food they acquire during one of their gluttonous forays to Taco Bell as does a lion caring about the emotions of the antelope it is gorging upon.

More government intrusion and fiscal waste enforcing increasingly useless laws will not change a thing for the better. Information about nearly everything is a mere mouse click away, yet…
[/quote]

So the public should not be informed how the food, that is sold in stores, is manufactured? Because this would mean more government intrusion and YOU don’t think it would change a thing?
[/quote]

If the public wanted to know they could simply look it up themselves. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

226

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So it is your position that it is okay for food purveyors to manipulate food ingredients for a desired response that acts on the same receptors as drugs to encourage more of that food item. This is okay even without public knowledge?
[/quote]

I thought drugs were a poor comparison…[/quote]

Sad and poor understanding of the argument. You may even be borderline retarded so I just feel sorry for you.
[/quote]

Don’t feel sorry for them . They are just trying to be consistent , to what I am not sure :slight_smile:

I just don’t get the part about how insisting a company properly inform an, albeit uneducated and maybe not so bright consumer ,How that translates into some one losing freedom

227

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is it your position that all of that is not public knowledge? [/quote]

Yes.
[/quote]

Then how is it that you, usmc, cwill, and I are all aware of it?

228

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
What we really need are government warning labels on light bulbs exclaiming: “WARNING! Smoking meth is hazardous to your health!” My only lament is that the saddies who gorge on processed foods aren’t dying off quicker.[/quote]

So you claim the same position as countingbeans?
[/quote]

My position is thus: If you need a government warning label to tell you the processed food you are eating may not behave nutritionally or chemically the same way an all natural food may, the chances of such a person even understanding the ramifications of such a warning is slim to none. And slim left town. Saddies have about as much interest in the composition of the food they acquire during one of their gluttonous forays to Taco Bell as does a lion caring about the emotions of the antelope it is gorging upon.

More government intrusion and fiscal waste enforcing increasingly useless laws will not change a thing for the better. Information about nearly everything is a mere mouse click away, yet…
[/quote]

So the public should not be informed how the food, that is sold in stores, is manufactured? Because this would mean more government intrusion and YOU don’t think it would change a thing?
[/quote]

If the public wanted to know they could simply look it up themselves. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
[/quote]

And you can develop a watering hole so that the horse would have to use a straw and the horse could die of thirst even though there is an ample amount of water for it to drink

229

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
What we really need are government warning labels on light bulbs exclaiming: “WARNING! Smoking meth is hazardous to your health!” My only lament is that the saddies who gorge on processed foods aren’t dying off quicker.[/quote]

No, what we REALLY need is a warning label on meth that has the exact details on how said meth was combined/cooked because clearly meth labs everywhere are manipulating meth to increase the brains reward response and it is the governments responsibility to make the general public aware of said," manipulation by subterfuge."

[/quote]
This is a weak comparison as you are trying to equate the illegal with the legal.[/quote]

Lol, whatever…[/quote]

Again you can’t even back up your assertions with a well reasoned argument.
[/quote]

Lol, I backed it up for pages and pages. Post after post. Do you even read the arguments present?

The answer is clearly no.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Sad and poor understanding of the argument. You may even be borderline retarded so I just feel sorry for you.
[/quote]

Oh no, my feelings are so hurt. Lol, not surprising that entire side conversation went zooming over your head.

230

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So it is your position that it is okay for food purveyors to manipulate food ingredients for a desired response that acts on the same receptors as drugs to encourage more of that food item. This is okay even without public knowledge?
[/quote]

I thought drugs were a poor comparison…[/quote]

Sad and poor understanding of the argument. You may even be borderline retarded so I just feel sorry for you.
[/quote]

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
What we really need are government warning labels on light bulbs exclaiming: “WARNING! Smoking meth is hazardous to your health!” My only lament is that the saddies who gorge on processed foods aren’t dying off quicker.[/quote]

No, what we REALLY need is a warning label on meth that has the exact details on how said meth was combined/cooked because clearly meth labs everywhere are manipulating meth to increase the brains reward response and it is the governments responsibility to make the general public aware of said," manipulation by subterfuge."

[/quote]
This is a weak comparison as you are trying to equate the illegal with the legal.[/quote]

It’s a weak comparison when I make it, but when you make it it’s genius…

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

If I’m a retard I’ve got bad news for you.

231

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So it is your position that it is okay for food purveyors to manipulate food ingredients for a desired response that acts on the same receptors as drugs to encourage more of that food item. This is okay even without public knowledge?
[/quote]

I thought drugs were a poor comparison…[/quote]

Sad and poor understanding of the argument. You may even be borderline retarded so I just feel sorry for you.
[/quote]

Don’t feel sorry for them . They are just trying to be consistent , to what I am not sure :slight_smile:

I just don’t get the part about how insisting a company properly inform an, albeit uneducated and maybe not so bright consumer ,How that translates into some one losing freedom
[/quote]

I asked it earlier and I’ll ask again, what more do you want on the package?

232

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is it your position that all of that is not public knowledge? [/quote]

Yes.
[/quote]

Then how is it that you, usmc, cwill, and I are all aware of it?[/quote]

Obviously we’re in the know because we read DaRealNewz.

233

Shit, I wonder how much salt is my corn flakes. If only those evil companies will tell me!

234

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Shit, I wonder how much salt is my corn flakes. If only those evil companies will tell me![/quote]

Just curious , would you eat this shit ?

235

I just figure out the problem. The government doesn’t issue measuring cups and/or spoons so there’s no way for anyone to know how much of x product they’re consuming and therefore the label is useless. I propose House Bill 4565-5 “Measurement For America”. The bill will introduce a 3% tax hike to pay for the dissemination of measuring utensils to underprivileged Americans so they can measure their Mt. Dew at McDonald’s or the amount of Cocoa Puffs they are actually eating for breakfast. 100% chance this will combat obesity in America.

236

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is it your position that all of that is not public knowledge? [/quote]

Yes.
[/quote]

Then how is it that you, usmc, cwill, and I are all aware of it?[/quote]

Obviously we’re in the know because we read DaRealNewz.[/quote]

237

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Shit, I wonder how much salt is my corn flakes. If only those evil companies will tell me![/quote]

Just curious , would you eat this shit ?[/quote]

Normally I wouldn’t. I do eat rice puffs (or whatever they’re called) from time to time.

238

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Shit, I wonder how much salt is my corn flakes. If only those evil companies will tell me![/quote]

Just curious , would you eat this shit ?[/quote]

Normally I wouldn’t. I do eat rice puffs (or whatever they’re called) from time to time. [/quote]

OK we will take rice puffs :slight_smile: I do not know you but unless you have the body of a God (ME:) you should not be eating rice puffs .

Now if you have the body of a god , put it down to Pitt:) but if you don’t , you are either uninformed or self destructive or just not too bright , no offense meant :slight_smile:

239

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
What we really need are government warning labels on light bulbs exclaiming: “WARNING! Smoking meth is hazardous to your health!” My only lament is that the saddies who gorge on processed foods aren’t dying off quicker.[/quote]

So you claim the same position as countingbeans?
[/quote]

My position is thus: If you need a government warning label to tell you the processed food you are eating may not behave nutritionally or chemically the same way an all natural food may, the chances of such a person even understanding the ramifications of such a warning is slim to none. And slim left town. Saddies have about as much interest in the composition of the food they acquire during one of their gluttonous forays to Taco Bell as does a lion caring about the emotions of the antelope it is gorging upon.

More government intrusion and fiscal waste enforcing increasingly useless laws will not change a thing for the better. Information about nearly everything is a mere mouse click away, yet…
[/quote]

So the public should not be informed how the food, that is sold in stores, is manufactured? Because this would mean more government intrusion and YOU don’t think it would change a thing?
[/quote]

If the public wanted to know they could simply look it up themselves. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
[/quote]

And you can develop a watering hole so that the horse would have to use a straw and the horse could die of thirst even though there is an ample amount of water for it to drink
[/quote]

You are insinuating consumers don’t have a choice as to the food they consume. They do. I can choose to eat several Big Macs tonight or I could choose to grill some elk steaks. I intuitively know which is better for me and I’m not even a Mensa member. I don’t even have to look up the nutritional panel of a Big Mac and I still know it’s not the most healthy choice. And any excuse that it is too expensive to eat healthy is garbage. I’m not sure when responsibility for one’s choices went out of vogue but I don’t much care for it.

What happens when some governmental health panel charged with making Americans healthier decrees all red meat is bad for you and levies a crippling tax on meat? Do you trust our government with the task of deciding what is healthy or not? If so, you are the biggest of fools.

240

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
What we really need are government warning labels on light bulbs exclaiming: “WARNING! Smoking meth is hazardous to your health!” My only lament is that the saddies who gorge on processed foods aren’t dying off quicker.[/quote]

So you claim the same position as countingbeans?
[/quote]

My position is thus: If you need a government warning label to tell you the processed food you are eating may not behave nutritionally or chemically the same way an all natural food may, the chances of such a person even understanding the ramifications of such a warning is slim to none. And slim left town. Saddies have about as much interest in the composition of the food they acquire during one of their gluttonous forays to Taco Bell as does a lion caring about the emotions of the antelope it is gorging upon.

More government intrusion and fiscal waste enforcing increasingly useless laws will not change a thing for the better. Information about nearly everything is a mere mouse click away, yet…
[/quote]

So the public should not be informed how the food, that is sold in stores, is manufactured? Because this would mean more government intrusion and YOU don’t think it would change a thing?
[/quote]

If the public wanted to know they could simply look it up themselves. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
[/quote]

And you can develop a watering hole so that the horse would have to use a straw and the horse could die of thirst even though there is an ample amount of water for it to drink
[/quote]

You are insinuating consumers don’t have a choice as to the food they consume. They do. I can choose to eat several Big Macs tonight or I could choose to grill some elk steaks. I intuitively know which is better for me and I’m not even a Mensa member. I don’t even have to look up the nutritional panel of a Big Mac and I still know it’s not the most healthy choice. And any excuse that it is too expensive to eat healthy is garbage. I’m not sure when responsibility for one’s choices went out of vogue but I don’t much care for it.

What happens when some governmental health panel charged with making Americans healthier decrees all red meat is bad for you and levies a crippling tax on meat? Do you trust our government with the task of deciding what is healthy or not? If so, you are the biggest of fools.
[/quote]

People do have a choice but I know from experience it is time consuming and work to eat right . Food prep and shopping for very perishable foods