On Food Purveyors

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
561

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[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?[/quote]

What about the word preponderance don’t you understand? It is self-evident by the definition.

Reward centers of the brain are stimulated in much the same way that addictive drugs do. What is there to interpret?

Why should food purveyors be allowed to spur on food addiction without acknowledging they are doing this to the public? is it true liberty to choose when you don’t know that this is being done to some of your food? Why should corps be allowed to get away with this?

Please post evidence that music and water do something similar to spur on addiction. Along with the negative side effects. In addition do music and water vendors manipulate certain things to spur on addiction?

And as far as climate change is concerned the debate has shifted mostly to what can be done about it not that it or is not happening. The overwhelming majority of scientists believe it is occurring. The ones who do not are most likely on the fossil fuel industry payroll.

562

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Let’s just put a warning label on everything and be done with it. People are apparently too stupid to think for themselves. [/quote]

How can someone think for themselves when they don’t have all the pertinent information?

563

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Let’s just put a warning label on everything and be done with it. People are apparently too stupid to think for themselves. [/quote]

How can someone think for themselves when they don’t have all the pertinent information?
[/quote]

Eating is a biolocal imperative. Much like sex. It’s Brazzers fault that I’m a porn addict. If only they had led their MFFF videos with a warning of potential harmful effects of the product I voluntarily consumed.

564

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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.

Just because SM says it’s highly debatable doesn’t mean it is. Where are the studies showing this doesn’t happen? Just what I thought.

So the studies were done by hippies? And a study is far different than an article.

Because the founding fathers did not recognize or did not want to recognize the absolute that all men should be born free is a dereliction of morals and it’s premise was wrong so it made bad law, which was eventually overturned. If warning people of what is purposefully being done to their food in order to boost sales is such a bad law we can overturn that as well.

If it really is free choice that consumers choose to eat food that can stimulate addictive qualities please explain how?

Since you don’t or can’t believe the conclusions of the studies what would it take for you to see and believe the evidence?

565

[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]

Mandating the food purveyors warn what is being done to the food that they are trying to sell is so oppressive. Wow, GET BACK!

566

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Let’s just put a warning label on everything and be done with it. People are apparently too stupid to think for themselves. [/quote]

How can someone think for themselves when they don’t have all the pertinent information?
[/quote]

Eating is a biolocal imperative. Much like sex. It’s Brazzers fault that I’m a porn addict. If only they had led their MFFF videos with a warning of potential harmful effects of the product I voluntarily consumed. [/quote]

If food purveyors are trying to manipulate food ingredients to spur on food addiction to increase sales which in turn has negative side effects it ought to be disclosed.

567

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Where?

568

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[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]

Mandating the food purveyors warn what is being done to the food that they are trying to sell is so oppressive. Wow, GET BACK!
[/quote]

You’re purposely ignoring the point I made, making believe this is the first (or last) centrally planned government intervention you’ve called for on this board.

Anyway, please answer the law suit question.

569

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Let’s just put a warning label on everything and be done with it. People are apparently too stupid to think for themselves. [/quote]

How can someone think for themselves when they don’t have all the pertinent information?
[/quote]

Eating is a biolocal imperative. Much like sex. It’s Brazzers fault that I’m a porn addict. If only they had led their MFFF videos with a warning of potential harmful effects of the product I voluntarily consumed. [/quote]

I thought they did do that? I always just fast forward past that crap at the beginning so I can get to the reason I am there. Voluntary ignorance, sorta like the people that eat “ingredients.”

570

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Mandating the food purveyors warn what is being done to the food that they are trying to sell is so oppressive. Wow, GET BACK!
[/quote]

What form should that warning take? Would a single video on Youtube be sufficient? What information should be included in the video? Would a representative have to be present to provide information on each product purchased, to each customer, at every store in which the product is sold? If only a label is required, how can we ensure that the illiterate(plenty of illiterate adults still exist: I used to work with a man-at a previous job-who was not only illiterate but had to pay for groceries by handing the cashier a wad of cash and trusting that the cashier would give him back the appropriate amount) are “free?”

571

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Where?
[/quote]
Lol, what??? In your first fucking post…

572

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[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?[/quote]

What about the word preponderance don’t you understand? It is self-evident by the definition.

Reward centers of the brain are stimulated in much the same way that addictive drugs do. What is there to interpret?

Why should food purveyors be allowed to spur on food addiction without acknowledging they are doing this to the public? is it true liberty to choose when you don’t know that this is being done to some of your food? Why should corps be allowed to get away with this?

Please post evidence that music and water do something similar to spur on addiction. Along with the negative side effects. In addition do music and water vendors manipulate certain things to spur on addiction?

And as far as climate change is concerned the debate has shifted mostly to what can be done about it not that it or is not happening. The overwhelming majority of scientists believe it is occurring. The ones who do not are most likely on the fossil fuel industry payroll.
[/quote]

Sorry, but I’m going to get off the merry-go-round here. I’m starting to feel dizzy. Nice talking to you.

573

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

I already have.

574

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Mandating the food purveyors warn what is being done to the food that they are trying to sell is so oppressive. Wow, GET BACK!
[/quote]

What form should that warning take? Would a single video on Youtube be sufficient? What information should be included in the video? Would a representative have to be present to provide information on each product purchased, to each customer, at every store in which the product is sold? If only a label is required, how can we ensure that the illiterate(plenty of illiterate adults still exist: I used to work with a man-at a previous job-who was not only illiterate but had to pay for groceries by handing the cashier a wad of cash and trusting that the cashier would give him back the appropriate amount) are “free?”
[/quote]

We can only pray our superior leaders save us.
Rep. Henry Waxman clueless in Bigger Stronger Fasâ?¦: Rep. Henry Waxman clueless in Bigger Stronger Faster - YouTube

575

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Let’s just put a warning label on everything and be done with it. People are apparently too stupid to think for themselves. [/quote]

How can someone think for themselves when they don’t have all the pertinent information?
[/quote]

Eating is a biolocal imperative. Much like sex. It’s Brazzers fault that I’m a porn addict. If only they had led their MFFF videos with a warning of potential harmful effects of the product I voluntarily consumed. [/quote]

If food purveyors are trying to manipulate food ingredients to spur on food addiction to increase sales which in turn has negative side effects it ought to be disclosed.
[/quote]
Operative word: if

576

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If it really is free choice that consumers choose to eat food that can stimulate addictive qualities please explain how?
[/quote]
I’m done. I can’t take you seriously.

Not one single time in my adult life have I eaten anything because of force or the threat of force. Neither has any other free person.

What planet do you live on?

577

This thread is comic gold. Anyone who wants to observe the statist’s frayed ends of sanity unravelling should bookmark. It demonstrates the urgent need to get these Marcusian crackpots out of government, out of academia, out of social policy and relegate them to the fringes where they belong.

578

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
This thread is comic gold. Anyone who wants to observe the statist’s frayed ends of sanity unravelling should bookmark. It demonstrates the urgent need to get these Marcusian crackpots out of government, out of academia, out of social policy and relegate them to the fringes where they belong.[/quote]

But still can’t refute conclusions of the study or why the American public have to be fooled by corporations except his bogeyman government argument. Exposure is sheading a light on this fool.

579

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If it really is free choice that consumers choose to eat food that can stimulate addictive qualities please explain how?
[/quote]
I’m done. I can’t take you seriously.

Not one single time in my adult life have I eaten anything because of force or the threat of force. Neither has any other free person.

What planet do you live on?
[/quote]

The better question is why you have to deflect the argument? Both of us know that is not question at hand. But since you don’t have a viable answer you must create a different argument to save face.

580

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If it really is free choice that consumers choose to eat food that can stimulate addictive qualities please explain how?
[/quote]
I’m done. I can’t take you seriously.

Not one single time in my adult life have I eaten anything because of force or the threat of force. Neither has any other free person.

What planet do you live on?
[/quote]

The better question is why you have to deflect the argument? Both of us know that is not question at hand. But since you don’t have a viable answer you must create a different argument to save face.
[/quote]

Are you saying that usmc’s “What planet do you live on?” is not the question at hand? He already answered the question you asked about free choice, addictive qualities, etc.