On Food Purveyors

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
541

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[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]

I have answered this question a long time ago.

An expanded food label could read something like this: Studies have shown that when these ingredients are mixed together in a particular ratio they can have addictive qualities and these ingredients have been manipulated as such.

If the company does not comply they can be sued or shut down.

542

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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]
Don’t remember linking to this guy whom I’ve never heard of I only remember linking to the studies which you can’t refute to hold up your silly argument.

543

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[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]

I have answered this question a long time ago.

An expanded food label could read something like this: Studies have shown that when these ingredients are mixed together in a particular ratio they can have addictive qualities and these ingredients have been manipulated as such.

If the company does not comply they can be sued or shut down.[/quote]

And why stop there? Here’s a “study” that shows fluoridated water is a massive mind control psychological warfare program:

http://www.rense.com/general79/hd3.htm

Should we put a warning label on food about the studies that prove this mind control program? If not, why not? Who decides which studies have a basis in fact and which studies don’t?

544

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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]
Yeah to expect corporations to inform consumers of their product especially when it has negative effects on their health, how dare I. What kind of asshole would do such a thing?

545

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[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]

I have answered this question a long time ago.

An expanded food label could read something like this: Studies have shown that when these ingredients are mixed together in a particular ratio they can have addictive qualities and these ingredients have been manipulated as such.

If the company does not comply they can be sued or shut down.[/quote]

And why stop there? Here’s a “study” that shows fluoridated water is a massive mind control psychological warfare program:

http://www.rense.com/general79/hd3.htm

Should we put a warning label on food about the studies that prove this mind control program? If not, why not? Who decides which studies have a basis in fact and which studies don’t?[/quote]

Again it relies on the preponderance of evidence, not 1 study. Can the results be duplicated again and again ad nauseam, if so the theory is probably correct.

Are the studies wrong? Do the ingredients when manipulated in a particular ratio have similar effects on the brain as drugs spurring on food addiction?

546

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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]
Yeah to expect corporations to inform consumers of their product especially when it has negative effects on their health, how dare I. What kind of asshole would do such a thing?[/quote]

Zoooooooom right over your head, shocking.

547

[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]

1.)Do they know that the ingredients are being manipulated to spur on food addiction as a way to increase sales?

2.) Don’t know how many times I’ve told you this but the question isn’t about the ingredients being listed. Do the studies have anything to do with your argument?

Yes, so the law changes for the better. Blacks are no longer slaves and women can now vote. See how simple it is:)

3.) Has little if anything to do with the original post.

4.) Do consumers know about the ingredient manipulation done to spur on food addiction? I wonder who even made the food manufacture’s list the ingredients in the first place?

5.) Is it really a free choice when the consumer has no idea what is being done to their food?

When have I compared an illegal substance with some thing legal anyone at any age can buy in a store?

The points go sailing over your head as you continually post things that have nothing to do with the argument.

It’s like talking to a rock.

548

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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]
Don’t remember linking to this guy whom I’ve never heard of I only remember linking to the studies which you can’t refute to hold up your silly argument.

[/quote]

…

He wrote the blog post in your op…

Smh, you can’t be a real person.

549

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
It’s like talking to a rock.
[/quote]

Look at that we agree on something.

550

It’s not my fault! Pizza Hut got me fat. How the hell was I supposed to know pizza isn’t healthy!

And where is my trophy!

551


Fuck you Cheetos! If I had just been warned my life would be different!

552

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Again it relies on the preponderance of evidence, not 1 study. Can the results be duplicated again and again ad nauseam, if so the theory is probably correct.

[/quote]

Again, you are failing to address a fundamental problem - namely, what constitutes a “preponderance of evidence?” As can be seen from the climate change debate, this issue is highly disputed. Additionally, a “preponderance of evidence” was claimed for adopting the food pyramid scheme.

This is a separate question that you have also failed to address - namely, interpreting the results of these studies. It can be shown that listening to music also activates the same reward centres as does drinking water when you’re thirsty. Do you deny this? Should warnings also be placed on water and CDs?

Two questions to address:

  1. What constitutes a preponderance of evidence and who decides?

  2. Who decides how to interpret the results of these studies?

Additionally, you might like to address:

  1. Why should liberty be curtailed for some abstract and unquantifiable reason such as reducing obesity? On what principle are you basing your argument?
553

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
An expanded food label could read something like this: Studies have shown that when these ingredients are mixed together in a particular ratio they can have addictive qualities and these ingredients have been manipulated as such.

[/quote]

Okay…

What about the lawsuits? Any limit on those?

Can people now sue Frito’s for making such a desirous chip?

554

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
An expanded food label could read something like this: Studies have shown that when these ingredients are mixed together in a particular ratio they can have addictive qualities and these ingredients have been manipulated as such.

[/quote]

Okay…

What about the lawsuits? Any limit on those?

Can people now sue Frito’s for making such a desirous chip?[/quote]

Yes please show us the light
South Park - Hippies on corporations: South Park - Hippies on corporations - YouTube

555

Let’s just put a warning label on everything and be done with it. People are apparently too stupid to think for themselves.

556

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
1.)Do they know that the ingredients are being manipulated to spur on food addiction as a way to increase sales? [/quote]

No one knows this. As SM has pointed out the research is both inconclusive and highly debatable.

[quote]
2.) Don’t know how many times I’ve told you this but the question isn’t about the ingredients being listed. Do the studies have anything to do with your argument? [/quote]

Of course the ingredients themselves matter… What studies? I read an article written by some hippie.

Two things:
1.) Comparing slavery to consumers freely buying and consuming McDonald’s is laughable.

2.) THE LAW protected slave owners allowing for slavery to occur legally. Now you want THE LAW, scratch that, you trust the law to force a certain demographic to do what you want. Do yo not see how you are being inconsistent when it comes to THE LAW?

[quote]
3.) Has little if anything to do with the original post. [/quote]

I have no idea what you are addressing here. I’m just going to assume you are ignoring a question you don’t want to answer.

[quote]
4.) Do consumers know about the ingredient manipulation done to spur on food addiction? [/quote]
Probably not because there isn’t a consensus this even occurs.

The same people that okay’d slavery…

Yes, 100% yes.

Insults, what a twist!

557

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
2.) THE LAW protected slave owners allowing for slavery to occur legally. Now you want THE LAW, scratch that, you trust the law to force a certain demographic to do what you want. Do yo not see how you are being inconsistent when it comes to THE LAW?

[/quote]

That’s really the hilarity of all statists. They use examples of government oppression and abuse or power as examples when it suits them, but totally ignore the past and inevitable future repetitions of said past when calling to give the very same government more power.

I just don’t get it, but it happens all the time.

558

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
2.) THE LAW protected slave owners allowing for slavery to occur legally. Now you want THE LAW, scratch that, you trust the law to force a certain demographic to do what you want. Do yo not see how you are being inconsistent when it comes to THE LAW?

[/quote]

That’s really the hilarity of all statists. They use examples of government oppression and abuse or power as examples when it suits them, but totally ignore the past and inevitable future repetitions of said past when calling to give the very same government more power.

I just don’t get it, but it happens all the time. [/quote]

Ya, I can’t seem to wrap my brain around it.

I’m just a simpleton though…

559

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
When have I compared an illegal substance with some thing legal anyone at any age can buy in a store?
[/quote]

You’re inconsistent, which is what I was pointing out.

[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]

560

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
When have I compared an illegal substance with some thing legal anyone at any age can buy in a store?
[/quote]

You’re inconsistent, which is what I was pointing out.

[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] [/quote]

Please point out where I have been inconsistent on this subject.