On Food Purveyors

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
501

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This isn’t rocket science. Food is not addicting it is necessary for life people will instinctively go for the easiest source available. In 2014 that’s McDonalds.

The government sucks ass just as much if not more so than any corporation. At least with corps I still have freedom of choice. Oh and geez whizz I’ve chosen not to eat McDonald’s for like 15 year. How’d I manage to avoid addiction after that first processed nugget I wonder?[/quote]

So you have single-handedly refuted the studies by mere virtue of your sad ideological beliefs?

And at least with government you have the ability to vote out the bums.[/quote]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I can choose between McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, or cook healthy food myself TODAY. How often are elections again? How often do politicians get replaced?

I didn’t refute the studies, the data may very well be accurate. The idea of this nefarious manipulation to spur food addiction is SHIT.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I won’t bother as your last few statements are so ridiculous I feel like I’m talking to a 3rd grader.[/quote]

Hilarious coming from you. Try and have a single original thought today, please.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Just like no corporation has there agenda. Ha Ha hahahaha
[/quote]

Reading comprehension fail. Of course Corporations have an agenda…

Freedom of choice is the difference. Can you get that through your thick skull? [/quote]

If the food addiction theory is just conspiracy why do corporations do it in the first place? Why do corporations spend so much money on R&D to sell products?[/quote]

You serious?

Let me see if I can find my econ 101 textbook…

502

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Shocked you missed this post Zep.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

"AdAge recently reported on American per capita beverage consumption for 2010. Perhaps it comes as no surprise that carbonated soft drinks are the most-consumed beverages, with an average of 44.7 gallons consumed per person, per year. "

45 gallons of soda a year. That’s 5,760 oz = 720 servings of Pepsi = 19,440 grams of sugar from soda alone a year (assuming Pepsi is the drink of choice). That’s about 288 sodas a year. I mean my God.

“Fast Food Still Major Part of U.S. Diet
Most Americans believe fast food is not “good for you”
by Andrew Dugan
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Eight in 10 Americans report eating at fast-food restaurants at least monthly, with almost half saying they eat fast food at least weekly. Only 4% say they never eat at fast-food restaurants. But slightly fewer Americans eat fast food weekly now than did so in 2006, when Gallup last asked about it.”

80% eat fast food monthly with 76% responding that the food itself was not too good or not good at all for them. YET THEY EAT IT ANYWAY

How the fuck can you possibly sit here and say it’s Corporate Americas fault people are fat. They put out a product or products that people clearly want. [/quote]
[/quote]

This does absolutely nothing to refute the studies I’ve posted. If anything it only makes the point of the studies.
[/quote]
Jesus, nevermind.

503

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Shocked you missed this post Zep.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

"AdAge recently reported on American per capita beverage consumption for 2010. Perhaps it comes as no surprise that carbonated soft drinks are the most-consumed beverages, with an average of 44.7 gallons consumed per person, per year. "

45 gallons of soda a year. That’s 5,760 oz = 720 servings of Pepsi = 19,440 grams of sugar from soda alone a year (assuming Pepsi is the drink of choice). That’s about 288 sodas a year. I mean my God.

“Fast Food Still Major Part of U.S. Diet
Most Americans believe fast food is not “good for you”
by Andrew Dugan
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Eight in 10 Americans report eating at fast-food restaurants at least monthly, with almost half saying they eat fast food at least weekly. Only 4% say they never eat at fast-food restaurants. But slightly fewer Americans eat fast food weekly now than did so in 2006, when Gallup last asked about it.”

80% eat fast food monthly with 76% responding that the food itself was not too good or not good at all for them. YET THEY EAT IT ANYWAY

How the fuck can you possibly sit here and say it’s Corporate Americas fault people are fat. They put out a product or products that people clearly want. [/quote]
[/quote]

This does absolutely nothing to refute the studies I’ve posted. If anything it only makes the point of the studies.
[/quote]
Jesus, nevermind. [/quote]

Exactly.

504

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This isn’t rocket science. Food is not addicting it is necessary for life people will instinctively go for the easiest source available. In 2014 that’s McDonalds.

The government sucks ass just as much if not more so than any corporation. At least with corps I still have freedom of choice. Oh and geez whizz I’ve chosen not to eat McDonald’s for like 15 year. How’d I manage to avoid addiction after that first processed nugget I wonder?[/quote]

So you have single-handedly refuted the studies by mere virtue of your sad ideological beliefs?

And at least with government you have the ability to vote out the bums.[/quote]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I can choose between McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, or cook healthy food myself TODAY. How often are elections again? How often do politicians get replaced?

I didn’t refute the studies, the data may very well be accurate. The idea of this nefarious manipulation to spur food addiction is SHIT.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I won’t bother as your last few statements are so ridiculous I feel like I’m talking to a 3rd grader.[/quote]

Hilarious coming from you. Try and have a single original thought today, please.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Just like no corporation has there agenda. Ha Ha hahahaha
[/quote]

Reading comprehension fail. Of course Corporations have an agenda…

Freedom of choice is the difference. Can you get that through your thick skull? [/quote]

If the food addiction theory is just conspiracy why do corporations do it in the first place? Why do corporations spend so much money on R&D to sell products?[/quote]

You serious?

Let me see if I can find my econ 101 textbook…[/quote]

So finally you admit corporations spend immense amounts of money in order to sell products even formulating them to spur on addiction.

505

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So finally you admit corporations spend immense amounts of money in order to sell products even formulating them to spur on addiction.
[/quote]

Your ability to twist words into your absurd world view is almost impressive.

506

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

So finally you admit corporations spend immense amounts of money in order to sell products .
[/quote]

ummmm, I don’t think anyone, ever, argued that corporations don’t participate in that thing called “business”.

507

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

You can’t refute the argument so you rely on sophomoric rederick.[/quote]

It’s spelled rhetoric.

And please stop projecting what you do on others.

[quote] Please just go away you offer nothing of substance.
[/quote]

Says the statist who posts nothing but lefty talking points.

508

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

So finally you admit corporations spend immense amounts of money in order to sell products .
[/quote]

ummmm, I don’t think anyone, ever, argued that corporations don’t participate in that thing called “business”. [/quote]

I laughed for a solid 2 minutes when I read that post. It’s like conversing with a 7 year old.

509

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So finally you admit corporations spend immense amounts of money in order to sell products even formulating them to spur on addiction.
[/quote]

Your ability to twist words into your absurd world view is almost impressive. [/quote]

Your inability to understand the problem is beyond comprehension.

You admit that corps spend tons of money on R&D for basic economic reasons but deny the studies because the don’t conform to your twisted ideology.

510

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

You can’t refute the argument so you rely on sophomoric rederick.[/quote]

It’s spelled rhetoric.

And please stop projecting what you do on others.

[quote] Please just go away you offer nothing of substance.
[/quote]

Says the statist who posts nothing but lefty talking points.
[/quote]

If I wanted to use the word rhetoric I would have.

Refute the studies, derelict! I posted data from studies and all he has done is acted like a 5 yr. old. I’m sure you understand as you are on the same wavelength.

Talk about posting talking points, that is all you ever do. How are the conclusions of the studies lefty talking points? Please explain.

511

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

If I wanted to use the word rhetoric I would have.
[/quote]

Then what did you mean by “rederick?” There’s no such word.

Why do you keep calling people derelicts?

512

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Your inability to understand the problem is beyond comprehension.

[/quote]

Your misspelling of rhetoric is quite amusing considering your inability to use rhetoric is as a result of your language deficiencies. For thousands of years it has been recognised that the “trivium” is necessary to arrive at truth. The trivium is the three subjects: grammar, logic and rhetoric. They must be studied in that order. Firstly language, so you can define your terms and formulate ideas. Then logic, so you can actually think. And finally rhetoric, so you can actually persuade others. You haven’t mastered grammar yet let alone logic and “rederick.”

513

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

If I wanted to use the word rhetoric I would have.
[/quote]

Then what did you mean by “rederick?” There’s no such word.

Why do you keep calling people derelicts?
[/quote]

http://unasked.com/question/view/id/15588

514

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Your inability to understand the problem is beyond comprehension.

[/quote]

Your misspelling of rhetoric is quite amusing considering your inability to use rhetoric is as a result of your language deficiencies. For thousands of years it has been recognised that the “trivium” is necessary to arrive at truth. The trivium is the three subjects: grammar, logic and rhetoric. They must be studied in that order. Firstly language, so you can define your terms and formulate ideas. Then logic, so you can actually think. And finally rhetoric, so you can actually persuade others. You haven’t mastered grammar yet let alone logic and “rederick.”[/quote]

And you have?

515

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

If I wanted to use the word rhetoric I would have.
[/quote]

Then what did you mean by “rederick?” There’s no such word.

Why do you keep calling people derelicts?
[/quote]

http://unasked.com/question/view/id/15588[/quote]

Oh, I see. So when you accused another poster of using “Sophomoric rederick” what you really meant was they were using some guy whose name was “Roderick” and who is a Sophomore.

516

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Your inability to understand the problem is beyond comprehension.

[/quote]

Your misspelling of rhetoric is quite amusing considering your inability to use rhetoric is as a result of your language deficiencies. For thousands of years it has been recognised that the “trivium” is necessary to arrive at truth. The trivium is the three subjects: grammar, logic and rhetoric. They must be studied in that order. Firstly language, so you can define your terms and formulate ideas. Then logic, so you can actually think. And finally rhetoric, so you can actually persuade others. You haven’t mastered grammar yet let alone logic and “rederick.”[/quote]

And you have?
[/quote]

Yes. I’ve studied linguistics and philosophy(including logic) at university and I’ve studied rhetoric as an autodidact.

517

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

If I wanted to use the word rhetoric I would have.
[/quote]

Then what did you mean by “rederick?” There’s no such word.

Why do you keep calling people derelicts?
[/quote]

http://unasked.com/question/view/id/15588[/quote]

Oh, I see. So when you accused another poster of using “Sophomoric rederick” what you really meant was they were using some guy whose name was “Roderick” and who is a Sophomore.

[/quote]

Exactly!

518

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Your inability to understand the problem is beyond comprehension.

[/quote]

Your misspelling of rhetoric is quite amusing considering your inability to use rhetoric is as a result of your language deficiencies. For thousands of years it has been recognised that the “trivium” is necessary to arrive at truth. The trivium is the three subjects: grammar, logic and rhetoric. They must be studied in that order. Firstly language, so you can define your terms and formulate ideas. Then logic, so you can actually think. And finally rhetoric, so you can actually persuade others. You haven’t mastered grammar yet let alone logic and “rederick.”[/quote]

And you have?
[/quote]

Yes. I’ve studied linguistics and philosophy(including logic) at university and I’ve studied rhetoric as an autodidact.[/quote]

What ass-clown school was that?

519

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Your inability to understand the problem is beyond comprehension.

[/quote]

Your misspelling of rhetoric is quite amusing considering your inability to use rhetoric is as a result of your language deficiencies. For thousands of years it has been recognised that the “trivium” is necessary to arrive at truth. The trivium is the three subjects: grammar, logic and rhetoric. They must be studied in that order. Firstly language, so you can define your terms and formulate ideas. Then logic, so you can actually think. And finally rhetoric, so you can actually persuade others. You haven’t mastered grammar yet let alone logic and “rederick.”[/quote]

And you have?
[/quote]

Yes. I’ve studied linguistics and philosophy(including logic) at university and I’ve studied rhetoric as an autodidact.[/quote]

What ass-clown school was that?
[/quote]

“The University of Sydney (commonly referred to as Sydney University, Sydney Uni, USyd, or Sydney) is an Australian public university in Sydney. Founded in 1850, it is Australia’s first university and is regarded as one of its most prestigious, ranked as the world’s 27th most reputable university. In 2013, it was ranked 38th and in the top 0.3% in the QS World University Rankings.”

Not an “ass-clown school” but rather one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

520

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Your inability to understand the problem is beyond comprehension.

[/quote]

Your misspelling of rhetoric is quite amusing considering your inability to use rhetoric is as a result of your language deficiencies. For thousands of years it has been recognised that the “trivium” is necessary to arrive at truth. The trivium is the three subjects: grammar, logic and rhetoric. They must be studied in that order. Firstly language, so you can define your terms and formulate ideas. Then logic, so you can actually think. And finally rhetoric, so you can actually persuade others. You haven’t mastered grammar yet let alone logic and “rederick.”[/quote]

And you have?
[/quote]

Yes. I’ve studied linguistics and philosophy(including logic) at university and I’ve studied rhetoric as an autodidact.[/quote]

What ass-clown school was that?
[/quote]

“The University of Sydney (commonly referred to as Sydney University, Sydney Uni, USyd, or Sydney) is an Australian public university in Sydney. Founded in 1850, it is Australia’s first university and is regarded as one of its most prestigious, ranked as the world’s 27th most reputable university. In 2013, it was ranked 38th and in the top 0.3% in the QS World University Rankings.”

Not an “ass-clown school” but rather one of the most prestigious universities in the world.[/quote]

Too bad they didn’t require an ethics/morals class in your field of study unless you decided to skip that one.