[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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]
This is why you’ve ignored my lawsuit question then?
[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]
Dude, you are out of your mind. I walked past the cookie isle yesterday at the store and didn’t buy anything nor did I have the impulse to. I’ll pass by a KFC on my way home from work, guess what, I won’t stop nor will I be forced to buy their food EVER.
A crack head does not pass up crack. Even the Cookie Monster eats cookies in moderation…
Edit:
I even quoted the question…
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[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.[/quote]
lol, thank you.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[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[/quote]
What do the conclusions of the studies indicate? And do corporations spend millions of dollars to not come up with effective results? Why would a corporation spend money to mix the ingredients in a particular ratio?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[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[/quote]
What do the conclusions of the studies indicate? And do corporations spend millions of dollars to not come up with effective results? Why would a corporation spend money to mix the ingredients in a particular ratio?
[/quote]
First of all, you used the word “if.”
Secondly, to answer your question, to make their products taste as good as possible in order to gain repeat customers. That is not the same things as creating products that are addictive.
Again, Econ 101.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[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.[/quote]
He doesn’t really believe that the mixture of ingredients have no effect but has to say those things so he doesn’t have to re-examine his position and thusly his desiccated ideology.
In addition he has shown no evidence that the addictive properties of the ratio of ingredients don’t have addictive qualities except to say they don’t.
Plus he keeps bringing up the argument that the ingredients are already listed, which is not the point. So he is either really stupid and doesn’t comprehend English or he is just trying to keep his ideology alive by bringing in straw man arguments because he has no real argument against the original point.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[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[/quote]
What do the conclusions of the studies indicate? And do corporations spend millions of dollars to not come up with effective results? Why would a corporation spend money to mix the ingredients in a particular ratio?
[/quote]
First of all, you used the word “if.”
Secondly, to answer your question, to make their products taste as good as possible in order to gain repeat customers. That is not the same things as creating products that are addictive.
Again, Econ 101. [/quote]
But they are creating products that have addictive qualities. This goes far beyond taste and you know it.
See Greed 101
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[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[/quote]
What do the conclusions of the studies indicate? And do corporations spend millions of dollars to not come up with effective results? Why would a corporation spend money to mix the ingredients in a particular ratio?
[/quote]
First of all, you used the word “if.”
Secondly, to answer your question, to make their products taste as good as possible in order to gain repeat customers. That is not the same things as creating products that are addictive.
Again, Econ 101. [/quote]
But they are creating products that have addictive qualities. This goes far beyond taste and you know it.
See Greed 101
[/quote]
If you are so ignorant as to not eat yourself into an early grave,
See Natural Selection 101.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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]
This is why you’ve ignored my lawsuit question then?[/quote]
Don’t remember your lawsuit question. Can you repeat it?
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[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[/quote]
What do the conclusions of the studies indicate? And do corporations spend millions of dollars to not come up with effective results? Why would a corporation spend money to mix the ingredients in a particular ratio?
[/quote]
First of all, you used the word “if.”
Secondly, to answer your question, to make their products taste as good as possible in order to gain repeat customers. That is not the same things as creating products that are addictive.
Again, Econ 101. [/quote]
But they are creating products that have addictive qualities. This goes far beyond taste and you know it.
See Greed 101
[/quote]
If you are so ignorant as to not eat yourself into an early grave,
See Natural Selection 101.[/quote]
What does natural selection have to do with the point of this thread?
[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]
Come on man, you know Brazzers isn’t the real culprit. Pornhub is where the danger is at. Can you imagine if they were just giving away the Big Macs?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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]
This is why you’ve ignored my lawsuit question then?[/quote]
Don’t remember your lawsuit question. Can you repeat it?
[/quote]
It was on the previous page…
[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]
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[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[/quote]
What do the conclusions of the studies indicate? And do corporations spend millions of dollars to not come up with effective results? Why would a corporation spend money to mix the ingredients in a particular ratio?
[/quote]
First of all, you used the word “if.”
Secondly, to answer your question, to make their products taste as good as possible in order to gain repeat customers. That is not the same things as creating products that are addictive.
Again, Econ 101. [/quote]
But they are creating products that have addictive qualities. This goes far beyond taste and you know it.
See Greed 101
[/quote]
If you are so ignorant as to not eat yourself into an early grave,
See Natural Selection 101.[/quote]
What does natural selection have to do with the point of this thread?[/quote]
Doesn’t matter if there are additives to food to make them more addictive similar to cigarettes. Although I question whether or not it is an actual chemical addiction or more of a mental one, like porn. Fat kid eat cake, cake make fat kid happy, fat kid eat more cake. IF someone lacks the will power to not eat themselves to death, and also lacks the will power to work those calories off if they do indulge frequently, then they are part of the species that is weak of both mind and body. The strongest survive and thrive, natural selection at its purest.
[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]
Zoom right over your head…
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[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[/quote]
What do the conclusions of the studies indicate? And do corporations spend millions of dollars to not come up with effective results? Why would a corporation spend money to mix the ingredients in a particular ratio?
[/quote]
First of all, you used the word “if.”
Secondly, to answer your question, to make their products taste as good as possible in order to gain repeat customers. That is not the same things as creating products that are addictive.
Again, Econ 101. [/quote]
But they are creating products that have addictive qualities. This goes far beyond taste and you know it.
See Greed 101
[/quote]
If you are so ignorant as to not eat yourself into an early grave,
See Natural Selection 101.[/quote]
What does natural selection have to do with the point of this thread?[/quote]
Doesn’t matter if there are additives to food to make them more addictive similar to cigarettes. Although I question whether or not it is an actual chemical addiction or more of a mental one, like porn. Fat kid eat cake, cake make fat kid happy, fat kid eat more cake. IF someone lacks the will power to not eat themselves to death, and also lacks the will power to work those calories off if they do indulge frequently, then they are part of the species that is weak of both mind and body. The strongest survive and thrive, natural selection at its purest. [/quote]
Harder to say no when companies are purposefully trying to addict customers which studies prove so, eh?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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]
This is why you’ve ignored my lawsuit question then?[/quote]
Don’t remember your lawsuit question. Can you repeat it?
[/quote]
It was on the previous page…
[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]
[/quote]
If companies are purposefully manipulating food ingredients to spur on food addiction and do not inform consumers that this can happen according to studies then yes they can and should be sued.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[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[/quote]
What do the conclusions of the studies indicate? And do corporations spend millions of dollars to not come up with effective results? Why would a corporation spend money to mix the ingredients in a particular ratio?
[/quote]
First of all, you used the word “if.”
Secondly, to answer your question, to make their products taste as good as possible in order to gain repeat customers. That is not the same things as creating products that are addictive.
Again, Econ 101. [/quote]
But they are creating products that have addictive qualities. This goes far beyond taste and you know it.
See Greed 101
[/quote]
If you are so ignorant as to not eat yourself into an early grave,
See Natural Selection 101.[/quote]
What does natural selection have to do with the point of this thread?[/quote]
Doesn’t matter if there are additives to food to make them more addictive similar to cigarettes. Although I question whether or not it is an actual chemical addiction or more of a mental one, like porn. Fat kid eat cake, cake make fat kid happy, fat kid eat more cake. IF someone lacks the will power to not eat themselves to death, and also lacks the will power to work those calories off if they do indulge frequently, then they are part of the species that is weak of both mind and body. The strongest survive and thrive, natural selection at its purest. [/quote]
Harder to say no when companies are purposefully trying to addict customers which studies prove so, eh?[/quote]
No, being addicted to something is a sign of weakness. If you cant put down something that is obviously bad for you, even if it is very to extremely addictive like crack or cigarettes then that is just undesirable human traits being weeded out. If you eat yourself to death, even if they were putting nicotine in the burgers and you didn’t know it, still all on you and your lack of self control.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If companies are purposefully manipulating food ingredients to spur on food addiction and do not inform consumers that this can happen according to studies then yes they can and should be sued.
[/quote]
What will be the burden of proof?
Please specifically define what a food addiction is.
Then please tell me why someone can sue for being addicted to Granola Bars, but the same isn’t allowed for someone addicted to say, beer or wine?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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]
This is why you’ve ignored my lawsuit question then?[/quote]
Don’t remember your lawsuit question. Can you repeat it?
[/quote]
It was on the previous page…
[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]
[/quote]
If companies are purposefully manipulating food ingredients to spur on food addiction and do not inform consumers that this can happen according to studies then yes they can and should be sued.
[/quote]
Look at what happened with tobacco. Shyster lawyers made billions suing big tobacco, the government taxed the crap out of it and as smoking rates go down the consumers of tobacco are getting squeezed out of the market with exorbitant taxes and bombardment with anti-smoking propaganda. Is that what you want to start doing with food? Choke off our food supply? Is that where you’re going with this?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Look at what happened with tobacco. Shyster lawyers made billions suing big tobacco, the government taxed the crap out of it and as smoking rates go down the consumers of tobacco are getting squeezed out of the market with exorbitant taxes and bombardment with anti-smoking propaganda. Is that what you want to start doing with food? Choke off our food supply? Is that where you’re going with this?
[/quote]
You’re thinking along the same lines as I am, I just wanted him to walk through the steps on his own. Not that he would even understand the words that came out of his mouth, because once he hears “government” he’s done thinking, but it was worth a shot.
The fact is, those lawsuits would be tied to obesity, and then suddenly all those heffers on tumbldr talking about “thin privilege” would magically understand it isn’t healthy to be fat enough where you need two airline tickets and sue the shit out of EVERYONE!