[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
They did. Which is why I find this thread so pointless. You don’t even understand the basic concepts of ethics. It would be a different matter if you understood the basic concepts of ethics and took a different position but you don’t. If you’re interested, the position that you are adopting falls vaguely into the “act utilitarian” camp of ethics.
It might be an interesting conversation if you actually had some knowledge of ethics.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
They did. Which is why I find this thread so pointless. You don’t even understand the basic concepts of ethics. It would be a different matter if you understood the basic concepts of ethics and took a different position but you don’t. If you’re interested, the position that you are adopting falls vaguely into the “act utilitarian” camp of ethics.
It might be an interesting conversation if you actually had some knowledge of ethics.[/quote]
If they required it then you must have failed or skipped it.
Anyone who absolves corporations of all responsibility to inform the potential consumer of what they are buying and it’s potential effects and then places the entire responsibility on the backs of consumers has no ethics or morals.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If they required it then you must have failed or skipped it.
[/quote]
No, I received a high distinction in philosophy.
How would you know? You clearly don’t know anything about ethics. You have failed to even attempt to address the concepts upon which you base your opinion: the legitimate functions of government, negative versus positive rights, individual liberty versus utilitarianism etc. if you can’t address any of these things and explain your reasoning then you are not expressing an argument based on ethics.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure you don’t have a clue what the “issue” is and your the one with the twisted world view.
All you’ve done, all you ever do, is post some link to some study that is usually garbage with zero input of substance from yourself. Lol, just read back through this thread. You’ve offer literally nothing.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Anyone who absolves corporations of all responsibility to inform the potential consumer of what they are buying and it’s potential effects and then places the entire responsibility on the backs of consumers has no ethics or morals.
[/quote]
You REALLY must hate all governments/states. Think about the last time you heard a politician(or one of their masters) tell those who “purchase” a government’s products:
“If you allow me to do X now, no matter how much sense you believe it makes, I will claim the right to do A, B, and C, no matter how little sense it makes for me to control those, in the future. I will teach children that anyone who opposes A, B, and C is a racist/sexist/bigot/bogeyman, in order to crush opposition to those plans.”
The difference is that when someone buys a shit product from Kroger, they buy it voluntarily-they WANT to buy that product. If someone DOES NOT want to buy the state’s products, it does not matter-they can either pay for the product or face penalties, jail, or death(should they resist the other options).
You are granting the guy with the most guns permission to take care of you, while expecting that those guns will only be used against your enemies.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
They did. Which is why I find this thread so pointless. You don’t even understand the basic concepts of ethics. It would be a different matter if you understood the basic concepts of ethics and took a different position but you don’t. If you’re interested, the position that you are adopting falls vaguely into the “act utilitarian” camp of ethics.
It might be an interesting conversation if you actually had some knowledge of ethics.[/quote]
If they required it then you must have failed or skipped it.
Anyone who absolves corporations of all responsibility to inform the potential consumer of what they are buying and it’s potential effects and then places the entire responsibility on the backs of consumers has no ethics or morals.
[/quote]
Wow, you’re an asshole.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure you don’t have a clue what the “issue” is and your the one with the twisted world view.
All you’ve done, all you ever do, is post some link to some study that is usually garbage with zero input of substance from yourself. Lol, just read back through this thread. You’ve offer literally nothing. [/quote]
I have linked to scientific studies that show evidence of the effects and claim that the manufactures owe it to the public to inform them of what is being done. Then the consumer makes the choice to buy the product or not.
What have you done but offer a simpletons view?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Anyone who absolves corporations of all responsibility to inform the potential consumer of what they are buying and it’s potential effects and then places the entire responsibility on the backs of consumers has no ethics or morals.
[/quote]
You REALLY must hate all governments/states. Think about the last time you heard a politician(or one of their masters) tell those who “purchase” a government’s products:
“If you allow me to do X now, no matter how much sense you believe it makes, I will claim the right to do A, B, and C, no matter how little sense it makes for me to control those, in the future. I will teach children that anyone who opposes A, B, and C is a racist/sexist/bigot/bogeyman, in order to crush opposition to those plans.”
The difference is that when someone buys a shit product from Kroger, they buy it voluntarily-they WANT to buy that product. If someone DOES NOT want to buy the state’s products, it does not matter-they can either pay for the product or face penalties, jail, or death(should they resist the other options).
You are granting the guy with the most guns permission to take care of you, while expecting that those guns will only be used against your enemies.
[/quote]
How does someone buy a product voluntarily when they do not know what is being done to the product? Please explain.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If they required it then you must have failed or skipped it.
[/quote]
No, I received a high distinction in philosophy.
How would you know? You clearly don’t know anything about ethics. You have failed to even attempt to address the concepts upon which you base your opinion: the legitimate functions of government, negative versus positive rights, individual liberty versus utilitarianism etc. if you can’t address any of these things and explain your reasoning then you are not expressing an argument based on ethics.[/quote]
I know it is dishonorable and unethical to try and keep info from the public as the fear of decreased sales may be the end result of your meddling with the product your trying to sell.
A letgitimate function of government is to regulate. I know it is the job of the corporate owned “free press” to guard the hen house. Why is it that most people do not know of the purposeful manipulation of ingredients to reach a “bliss point”? Is the “free press” doing their job? And why do corporations get a free pass on informing the public of the manipulations?
Your answer of the free press obviously fails.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I know it is dishonorable and unethical to try and keep info from the public as the fear of decreased sales may be the end result of your meddling with the product your trying to sell.
[/quote]
You are still ignoring my questions as to the ethical basis of your argument.
^^And there you have it folks. The twisted mentality of the statist. Protecting natural rights? No no no. The legitimate function of government is to “regulate.”
[quote]Zepaelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure you don’t have a clue what the “issue” is and your the one with the twisted world view.
All you’ve done, all you ever do, is post some link to some study that is usually garbage with zero input of substance from yourself. Lol, just read back through this thread. You’ve offer literally nothing. [/quote]
I have linked to scientific studies that show evidence of the effects and claim that the manufactures owe it to the public to inform them of what is being done. Then the consumer makes the choice to buy the product or not.
What have you done but offer a simpletons view?
[/quote]
Ah, no you didn’t. You linked an opinion piece from some guy I’ve never even heard of.
Simpleton view? Hilarious as usual. Did you even try to have an original thought today?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zepaelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure you don’t have a clue what the “issue” is and your the one with the twisted world view.
All you’ve done, all you ever do, is post some link to some study that is usually garbage with zero input of substance from yourself. Lol, just read back through this thread. You’ve offer literally nothing. [/quote]
I have linked to scientific studies that show evidence of the effects and claim that the manufactures owe it to the public to inform them of what is being done. Then the consumer makes the choice to buy the product or not.
What have you done but offer a simpletons view?
[/quote]
Ah, no you didn’t. You linked an opinion piece from some guy I’ve never even heard of.
Simpleton view? Hilarious as usual. Did you even try to have an original thought today? [/quote]
Jesus what a kook! Take a look at this fucking guy:
George P Dvorsky “is the founder and chair of the IEET’s Rights of Non-Human Persons Program”
His interests include:
“the speculative scientific study of extraterrestrial civilizations”
“Postgenderism…which seeks the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species”
“Techlepathy, neurotechnologically-assisted telepathy.”
Zep’s “source” is guy who claims ants are “non-human persons” with rights to “self determination.” He wants the human race to become hermaphrodites and he believes in telepathy. This is the guy that the government should take advice from? Holy shit! Talk about the patients running the asylum. This guy should be in a padded room not dictating government policy.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Anyone who absolves corporations of all responsibility to inform the potential consumer of what they are buying and it’s potential effects and then places the entire responsibility on the backs of consumers has no ethics or morals.
[/quote]
You REALLY must hate all governments/states. Think about the last time you heard a politician(or one of their masters) tell those who “purchase” a government’s products:
“If you allow me to do X now, no matter how much sense you believe it makes, I will claim the right to do A, B, and C, no matter how little sense it makes for me to control those, in the future. I will teach children that anyone who opposes A, B, and C is a racist/sexist/bigot/bogeyman, in order to crush opposition to those plans.”
The difference is that when someone buys a shit product from Kroger, they buy it voluntarily-they WANT to buy that product. If someone DOES NOT want to buy the state’s products, it does not matter-they can either pay for the product or face penalties, jail, or death(should they resist the other options).
You are granting the guy with the most guns permission to take care of you, while expecting that those guns will only be used against your enemies.
[/quote]
How does someone buy a product voluntarily when they do not know what is being done to the product? Please explain.[/quote]
I think the question you meant to ask was, “WHY does someone voluntarily buy a product when he does not know what is being done to the product?” The answer to HOW one does so is, by paying for a good that is sold without the use of coercion.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I have linked to scientific studies that show evidence of the effects and claim that the manufactures owe it to the public to inform them of what is being done. Then the consumer makes the choice to buy the product or not.
What have you done but offer a simpletons view?
[/quote]
1.) I linked to a survey that shows the vast majority of consumers are well aware the fast food they love to consumer is not healthy, yet they eat it anyway.
2.) I posted a link to FDA label requirements, which you out right dismissed even though that is what the government requires. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM265446.pdf
Your response:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Who really cares what the food labeling guide currently says. It is besides the point. Why can’t you understand that? Just because something is the law does not make it right. Blacks were slaves once and it was within the law, did that make it right? Women were not allowed to vote according to law, did that make it right? [/quote]
“Just because something is the law does not make it right.” Yet you want the government, by law, to force companies to provide even more information than they already do… Of course you bring up slavery, lol. Can’t miss an opportunity to throw that BS in the thread.
3.) I posted a link to the Choose my Plate http://www.choosemyplate.gov/ a government program, supported by tax dollars, to help people make better dietary choices. Obviously the program is a failure.
4.) I’ve offered a myriad of examples of manufacturer labels as evidence that food manufactures literally provide consumers with every ingredient in the product, the nutritional breakdown, and how said values fit with the government’s suggested diet. The only thing missing is the recipe, which according to you is the key information consumers need to make informed decisions as to avoid food addiction. Utter nonsense.
5.) I’ve offered my opinion, that consumers in a free society should take responsibility for their choices.
You’ve been asked, by multiple posters, what else you want added to the label. What would be “enough.” You have not answered this very simple question.
Again, you’ve offered nothing, except:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Mega-retarded post.
[/quote]
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The only thing funny here is that you have no viable answers.[/quote]
Hilarious coming from Mr. Regurgitate what some fucking blog says.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
So you ignored my questions. Okay, I’m signing off now. Over and out.[/quote]
Answered them all. Look closer…[/quote]
“I’m not sure” and “a better question would be…” [/quote]
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
This is even more of a retarded post than Sex Machine’s.[/quote]
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The studies and science is there. Resort to name calling and fun making because you have no refutation.
[/quote]
Probably my favorite post…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Sad and poor understanding of the argument. You may even be borderline retarded so I just feel sorry for you.
[/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 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]
[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. [/quote]
How inconsistent can you be Zep?
The follow up:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You have little to no understanding of the issue.
[/quote]
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The government has to force companies to do this because they can’t be trusted to police themselves. [/quote]
And the government can be trusted to police themselves? Should I bother to list the hundreds of reasons why that’s absurd? The FDA doesn’t require GMO products be labeled as such, so shouldn’t your beef be with them?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The government has to force companies to do this because they can’t be trusted [/quote]
What, specifically, do you want on the food label that isn’t already there as it pertains to your original post. Was it ever answered, lol, of course not!
If all you want is “this product contains GMO” labeling, fine, let’s do that. But you have to clarify what it is you want on the damn label. [/quote]
Oh look another person asked you this question.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
However the public has the right to know.[/quote]
What do you want, specifically, on the fucking label?[/quote]
For fuck sake…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Have already answered this.
[/quote]
Lol, no you didn’t.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Look harder derelict.
[/quote]
Another insult, still no answer.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[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?
[/quote]
It’s that Hyro-7 process bro. Makes me want water ALL DAY![/quote]
Is that Hydro-7 process activating the reward centers of the brain, making it addictive bro?[/quote]
Not sure how much more addicting water can be bro. I pray the government forces Pepsi to tell me though…[/quote]
Another incredibly weak point.
[/quote]
The point went sailing right over your head.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You can’t refute the argument so you rely on sophomoric rederick. Please just go away you offer nothing of substance.
[/quote]
I think this quote was covered in enough detail…
[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]
An insult, no freakin way.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Just like no corporation has there agenda. Ha Ha hahahaha
[/quote]
Comprehension fail…
[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]
Comprehension fail…
[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]
Comprehension fail…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Comprehension fail…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Insults and BS, Hilarious! “I posted data from studies,” No you didn’t.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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]
I’m at a loss for words here…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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]
What an asshole statement.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zepaelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure you don’t have a clue what the “issue” is and your the one with the twisted world view.
All you’ve done, all you ever do, is post some link to some study that is usually garbage with zero input of substance from yourself. Lol, just read back through this thread. You’ve offer literally nothing. [/quote]
I have linked to scientific studies that show evidence of the effects and claim that the manufactures owe it to the public to inform them of what is being done. Then the consumer makes the choice to buy the product or not.
What have you done but offer a simpletons view?
[/quote]
Ah, no you didn’t. You linked an opinion piece from some guy I’ve never even heard of.
Simpleton view? Hilarious as usual. Did you even try to have an original thought today? [/quote]
Jesus what a kook! Take a look at this fucking guy:
George P Dvorsky “is the founder and chair of the IEET’s Rights of Non-Human Persons Program”
His interests include:
“the speculative scientific study of extraterrestrial civilizations”
“Postgenderism…which seeks the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species”
“Techlepathy, neurotechnologically-assisted telepathy.”
Zep’s “source” is guy who claims ants are “non-human persons” with rights to “self determination.” He wants the human race to become hermaphrodites and he believes in telepathy. This is the guy that the government should take advice from? Holy shit! Talk about the patients running the asylum. This guy should be in a padded room not dictating government policy.[/quote]
Solid source…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If I wanted to use the word rhetoric I would have.[/quote]
No. You misspelled a word. It’s okay and certainly not a damnation of your point. However to sit here and say that wasn’t a typo is, in fact, clearly a down pull on your creditability.
Is it possible for you to have a discussion without personal insults? I doubt it, but really, is it possible?
As for your studies. I don’t care to refute them, that isn’t my point here. I’ll assume they are 100% spot on and you and you’re rambling about them are based on solid logic and reasoning. So that leaves me with the question you’ve been asked but won’t answer:
What, specifically, do you want the government to do? Please note the word specifically here.
DO you want an expanded food label? If so, what do you want it to say?
Do you want a law written? If so, what do you want it to specifically require?
What do you want to happen? And by whom?
Did you watch a lot of PeeWee’s Playhouse as a kid or something?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I have linked to scientific studies that show evidence of the effects and claim that the manufactures owe it to the public to inform them of what is being done. Then the consumer makes the choice to buy the product or not.
What have you done but offer a simpletons view?
[/quote]
1.) I linked to a survey that shows the vast majority of consumers are well aware the fast food they love to consumer is not healthy, yet they eat it anyway.
2.) I posted a link to FDA label requirements, which you out right dismissed even though that is what the government requires. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM265446.pdf
Your response:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Who really cares what the food labeling guide currently says. It is besides the point. Why can’t you understand that? Just because something is the law does not make it right. Blacks were slaves once and it was within the law, did that make it right? Women were not allowed to vote according to law, did that make it right? [/quote]
“Just because something is the law does not make it right.” Yet you want the government, by law, to force companies to provide even more information than they already do… Of course you bring up slavery, lol. Can’t miss an opportunity to throw that BS in the thread.
3.) I posted a link to the Choose my Plate http://www.choosemyplate.gov/ a government program, supported by tax dollars, to help people make better dietary choices. Obviously the program is a failure.
4.) I’ve offered a myriad of examples of manufacturer labels as evidence that food manufactures literally provide consumers with every ingredient in the product, the nutritional breakdown, and how said values fit with the government’s suggested diet. The only thing missing is the recipe, which according to you is the key information consumers need to make informed decisions as to avoid food addiction. Utter nonsense.
5.) I’ve offered my opinion, that consumers in a free society should take responsibility for their choices.
You’ve been asked, by multiple posters, what else you want added to the label. What would be “enough.” You have not answered this very simple question.
Again, you’ve offered nothing, except:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Mega-retarded post.
[/quote]
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The only thing funny here is that you have no viable answers.[/quote]
Hilarious coming from Mr. Regurgitate what some fucking blog says.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
So you ignored my questions. Okay, I’m signing off now. Over and out.[/quote]
Answered them all. Look closer…[/quote]
“I’m not sure” and “a better question would be…” [/quote]
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
This is even more of a retarded post than Sex Machine’s.[/quote]
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The studies and science is there. Resort to name calling and fun making because you have no refutation.
[/quote]
Probably my favorite post…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Sad and poor understanding of the argument. You may even be borderline retarded so I just feel sorry for you.
[/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 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]
[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. [/quote]
How inconsistent can you be Zep?
The follow up:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You have little to no understanding of the issue.
[/quote]
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The government has to force companies to do this because they can’t be trusted to police themselves. [/quote]
And the government can be trusted to police themselves? Should I bother to list the hundreds of reasons why that’s absurd? The FDA doesn’t require GMO products be labeled as such, so shouldn’t your beef be with them?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The government has to force companies to do this because they can’t be trusted [/quote]
What, specifically, do you want on the food label that isn’t already there as it pertains to your original post. Was it ever answered, lol, of course not!
If all you want is “this product contains GMO” labeling, fine, let’s do that. But you have to clarify what it is you want on the damn label. [/quote]
Oh look another person asked you this question.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
However the public has the right to know.[/quote]
What do you want, specifically, on the fucking label?[/quote]
For fuck sake…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Have already answered this.
[/quote]
Lol, no you didn’t.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Look harder derelict.
[/quote]
Another insult, still no answer.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[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?
[/quote]
It’s that Hyro-7 process bro. Makes me want water ALL DAY![/quote]
Is that Hydro-7 process activating the reward centers of the brain, making it addictive bro?[/quote]
Not sure how much more addicting water can be bro. I pray the government forces Pepsi to tell me though…[/quote]
Another incredibly weak point.
[/quote]
The point went sailing right over your head.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You can’t refute the argument so you rely on sophomoric rederick. Please just go away you offer nothing of substance.
[/quote]
I think this quote was covered in enough detail…
[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]
An insult, no freakin way.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Just like no corporation has there agenda. Ha Ha hahahaha
[/quote]
Comprehension fail…
[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]
Comprehension fail…
[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]
Comprehension fail…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Comprehension fail…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Insults and BS, Hilarious! “I posted data from studies,” No you didn’t.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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]
I’m at a loss for words here…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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]
What an asshole statement.
[/quote]
Might be the longest post ever
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Might be the longest post ever[/quote]
Zep has posted a lot of bull shit in this thread. 
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I know it is dishonorable and unethical to try and keep info from the public as the fear of decreased sales may be the end result of your meddling with the product your trying to sell.
[/quote]
You are still ignoring my questions as to the ethical basis of your argument.
^^And there you have it folks. The twisted mentality of the statist. Protecting natural rights? No no no. The legitimate function of government is to “regulate.”
[/quote]
Why is it so difficult for you to admit that corporations are doing things on the down-low and they do not want the consumer to find out?
And the “free press” is obviously not the answer. So who takes on the responsibility?
The ethical basis of my argument is prima facie. You don’t want to admit to it because it flies in your ideological face of the God you worship “profit motive”.