On Food Purveyors

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Wow if you were only funny.[/quote]

When you open up (and continue) your rebuttal attacking me and not what I’ve said, you’ve already lost the debate.

Good showing.

So, what do you want the label to say then?

I’m not running away from anything. I’ve already told you: I assume crack feels awesome, and still don’t smoke it. Booze is addictive, and I have a history of alcoholics in my family, and get this, I still drink from time to time, and am not addicted.

There isn’t a warning label on my bottle of Jameson about being addicted to it, and yet I still am aware of all this stuff.

422

I can’t believe this thread is still going.

Poster 1: the ingredients are already listed! What more do you want?

Zep: so you admit it! You want to hide the truth from the people about the manipulation of ingredients to spur on addiction!

Poster 2: the ingredients are right fucking there on the package!

Zep: but it doesn’t describe how those ingredients are manipulated to spur on addiction.

Rinse, repeat.

423

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I can’t believe this thread is still going.

Poster 1: the ingredients are already listed! What more do you want?

Zep: so you admit it! You want to hide the truth from the people about the manipulation of ingredients to spur on addiction!

Poster 2: the ingredients are right fucking there on the package!

Zep: but it doesn’t describe how those ingredients are manipulated to spur on addiction.

Rinse, repeat.[/quote]

Throw in the word “subterfuge” and you got it.

424

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
In light of the recent mess with VA I still believe it is run better than our for profit system.
[/quote]

I have never read such a ridiculous claim on PWI.

[/quote]

What do the majority of the VA members have to say about their care?
[/quote]
I don’t know what the majority of veterans think about the VA, however, I have never met a veteran that thought VA care was even okay let alone good. From personal experience I can tell you the VA sucks at everything they do including healthcare.[/quote]

Thoughts on VA care in N.C.

An argument for VA healthcare.

http://www.veterans.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/NAF%20Longman%20Testimony%2005.15.14.pdf

Another article on the benefits and problems of the VA.

http://www.healthcareitnews.com/blog/va-waitlist-fiasco-vista-should-not-be-thrown-out-bathwater[/quote]

I know several veterans that have had shitty care through the VA. I have had shitty care through the VA. Have you ever dealt with the VA?[/quote]

#1-What is going on with the VA happens following every significant engagement we have ever been involved in. Although it is to be expected, it is never budgeted for…who holds the purse strings?

The quality of VA care depends on location…equal to, or better than private care in my area.

425

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
The quality of VA care depends on location…equal to, or better than private care in my area. [/quote]

Well that’s good to hear because you are literally the only veteran I’ve talked to that has had good care.

The Baltimore office, closest one to me, is terrible and about an hour away.

426

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
What is the solution? At what point will you decide that enough information is available? Everyone knows that certain foods are bad for them, yet most continue to consume those foods. If warning labels, complete with grotesque pictures of problems possibly related to some product, are mandated, yet people continue to eat junk, what should be the next step? Will you only be satisfied when people are only allowed to consume certain foods? Maybe consumption of those foods should be a misdemeanor? What if the threat of up to a year in prison doesn’t completely eliminate consumption of those foods? Maybe five, ten, 20, 40 years? How long? [/quote]

Your reply indicates you have no real argument against disclosure as no one is suggesting prison sentences or making the products illegal. I’m only arguing the public has a right to know.

Does the public know what is being done behind the scenes?
[/quote]

If you’re not suggesting those things, then you are correct, and I have no argument with you. If you’re just arguing that it would be nice if food producers do the things you suggest, then that’s fine. I must have misunderstood, as I thought you were asking for government regulation, which is asking for prison sentences and prohibition.[/quote]

The only regulation here is that food producers MUST by law disclose pertinent information about the products they are marketing for sale.

427

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I can’t believe this thread is still going.

Poster 1: the ingredients are already listed! What more do you want?

Zep: so you admit it! You want to hide the truth from the people about the manipulation of ingredients to spur on addiction!

Poster 2: the ingredients are right fucking there on the package!

Zep: but it doesn’t describe how those ingredients are manipulated to spur on addiction.

Rinse, repeat.[/quote]

I agree. It is odd how your side still brings up the same old worn out arguments.

428

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Wow if you were only funny.[/quote]

When you open up (and continue) your rebuttal attacking me and not what I’ve said, you’ve already lost the debate.

Good showing.

So, what do you want the label to say then?

I’m not running away from anything. I’ve already told you: I assume crack feels awesome, and still don’t smoke it. Booze is addictive, and I have a history of alcoholics in my family, and get this, I still drink from time to time, and am not addicted.

There isn’t a warning label on my bottle of Jameson about being addicted to it, and yet I still am aware of all this stuff.
[/quote]
Your comparison to crack is weak as this is an illegal substance. Alcohol knowledge is readily available, do people know what is being done to their food products? No, but they should.

429

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
What is the solution? At what point will you decide that enough information is available? Everyone knows that certain foods are bad for them, yet most continue to consume those foods. If warning labels, complete with grotesque pictures of problems possibly related to some product, are mandated, yet people continue to eat junk, what should be the next step? Will you only be satisfied when people are only allowed to consume certain foods? Maybe consumption of those foods should be a misdemeanor? What if the threat of up to a year in prison doesn’t completely eliminate consumption of those foods? Maybe five, ten, 20, 40 years? How long? [/quote]

Your reply indicates you have no real argument against disclosure as no one is suggesting prison sentences or making the products illegal. I’m only arguing the public has a right to know.

Does the public know what is being done behind the scenes?
[/quote]

If you’re not suggesting those things, then you are correct, and I have no argument with you. If you’re just arguing that it would be nice if food producers do the things you suggest, then that’s fine. I must have misunderstood, as I thought you were asking for government regulation, which is asking for prison sentences and prohibition.[/quote]

The only regulation here is that food producers MUST by law disclose pertinent information about the products they are marketing for sale.[/quote]

Since you’re neither suggesting prison sentences nor making any product illegal, that “MUST by law” is really a “SHOULD,” right? Otherwise, you absolutely are suggesting either prison sentences, prohibition, or both.

I would also like to discuss the supposed right of people to know what is in their food. I agree that people have that right. However, if I’m at my grandmother’s house, ask her what is in the red velvet cake she is serving, and she refuses to tell me, then I have no right to not allow her to serve it to other guests. My right is to refuse to consume that cake. Others have the same right.

430

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Alcohol knowledge is readily available…[/quote]

So you admit it? You want to hide the truth from the people about the dangers of alcohol? Beer brewers manipulate yeast, sugar and hops to spur on alcoholism. And there’s nothing on my pint glass to warn about this manipulation.

431

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I can’t believe this thread is still going.

Poster 1: the ingredients are already listed! What more do you want?

Zep: so you admit it! You want to hide the truth from the people about the manipulation of ingredients to spur on addiction!

Poster 2: the ingredients are right fucking there on the package!

Zep: but it doesn’t describe how those ingredients are manipulated to spur on addiction.

Rinse, repeat.[/quote]

I agree. It is odd how your side still brings up the same old worn out arguments.[/quote]

This could easily be the most comical post in the history of PWI. The irony is killing me.

432

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I can’t believe this thread is still going.
[/quote]

poor you :slight_smile:

433

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
What is the solution? At what point will you decide that enough information is available? Everyone knows that certain foods are bad for them, yet most continue to consume those foods. If warning labels, complete with grotesque pictures of problems possibly related to some product, are mandated, yet people continue to eat junk, what should be the next step? Will you only be satisfied when people are only allowed to consume certain foods? Maybe consumption of those foods should be a misdemeanor? What if the threat of up to a year in prison doesn’t completely eliminate consumption of those foods? Maybe five, ten, 20, 40 years? How long? [/quote]

Your reply indicates you have no real argument against disclosure as no one is suggesting prison sentences or making the products illegal. I’m only arguing the public has a right to know.

Does the public know what is being done behind the scenes?
[/quote]

If you’re not suggesting those things, then you are correct, and I have no argument with you. If you’re just arguing that it would be nice if food producers do the things you suggest, then that’s fine. I must have misunderstood, as I thought you were asking for government regulation, which is asking for prison sentences and prohibition.[/quote]

The only regulation here is that food producers MUST by law disclose pertinent information about the products they are marketing for sale.[/quote]

Since you’re neither suggesting prison sentences nor making any product illegal, that “MUST by law” is really a “SHOULD,” right? Otherwise, you absolutely are suggesting either prison sentences, prohibition, or both.

I would also like to discuss the supposed right of people to know what is in their food. I agree that people have that right. However, if I’m at my grandmother’s house, ask her what is in the red velvet cake she is serving, and she refuses to tell me, then I have no right to not allow her to serve it to other guests. My right is to refuse to consume that cake. Others have the same right. [/quote]

A corporation should not be allowed to sell a product without disclosure of what they are doing to the product they are trying to market for sale. No prison sentence or fine unless the law has been broken.

Is your grandmother marketing her cake for resale to the public? If so, she would be bound by the law.

434

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Alcohol knowledge is readily available…[/quote]

So you admit it? You want to hide the truth from the people about the dangers of alcohol? Beer brewers manipulate yeast, sugar and hops to spur on alcoholism. And there’s nothing on my pint glass to warn about this manipulation.[/quote]

A warning on the label would not upset me. How is it that the vast majority of the population know of the addiction that can occur with alcohol but are unaware of how their food is being manipulated?

In addition, there is an age restriction for the purchase of alcohol not so with food products.

435

They should put a warning label on water, talk about addicting…

436

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
They should put a warning label on water, talk about addicting…[/quote]

What ingredients in water are being manipulated to spur on addiction and at the same time this info is being hidden from the public?

437

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
What ingredients in water are being manipulated to spur on addiction and at the same time this info is being hidden from the public?
[/quote]

Hydrogen and oxygen manipulated and combined in a unique two to one ratio designed to spur on hydromania.

438

There should be a warning label on zep’s avatar. It’s making me physically sick.

439

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
What ingredients in water are being manipulated to spur on addiction and at the same time this info is being hidden from the public?
[/quote]

Hydrogen and oxygen manipulated and combined in a unique two to one ratio designed to spur on hydromania. [/quote]

As usual you have no valid argument so your last resort is to try and be comical.

440

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
There should be a warning label on zep’s avatar. It’s making me physically sick.[/quote]

To each his own.