[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Your solution assumes that corporations do not try and fool their customer base with manipulation. If they do, how is it an even playing field?[/quote]
It’s a level playing field in the same way I’m not a crack head.
I know crack is bad, so I don’t smoke it. I know the tobacco I smoke is bad, and blame NO ONE but myself for being an idiot.
It’s called common sense.
If what you are claiming was even remotely true, I would be addicted to crack and could blame other people for it.
[quote]Is/was there any regulation that was okay?
[/quote]
Sure. I’m not anti-regulation. But much like when I’m looking to buy sushi, I’m pretty selective as to where I get it from. Regulation is the same thing.
regulation isn’t always bad, but it certainly isn’t always good either. [/quote]
How can anyone make a valid decision if not all the information is at hand?
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The problem is not a poor diet. It’s lack of activity. [/quote]
I think it’s both, but I certainly don’t blame Pepsi because dumb ass’ drink 64oz’s 3 times a day.
Quick side story, I was on duty with a Sgt years ago on a 24 hour post. Dude drank three 2 liter bottles of Pepsi during that time. Not a drop of water or anything else for that matter. Unreal, but that’s Pepsi’s fault, right?[/quote]
If they are manipulating ingredients to reward the pleasure area of the brain so as to make you want more then yes, they are culpable.
[/quote]
I’d hate for people to have to take some personal responsibility for what they eat. That would be just awful.
[/quote]
And I would hate for companies to be forced to tell the consumer what is going on with their product. That would be just awful.
So let me see, it has to do with a smaller population.
[/quote]
Partly yes.
A number of reasons. Better economic management for starters. In the 80’s through to the early 90’s Australia had a Labor(left-wing) government. However although they were socially liberal Bob Hawke and Paul Keating introduced a number of economic reforms. Then John Howard(conservative) built up a large budget surplus.
No. In fact it doesn’t “work” here either. It just hasn’t affected the economy as much as it could have due to the reasons stated above.
Funny how conservative economists and politicians rarely if ever mention the reasons you believe other countries can pay a higher wage and not be effected negatively overall. It is always the argument if you raise wages the economy will shrink. Mr. Koch (doucebag extraordinaire) believes an elimination of the minimum wage will be the thing to spur on the economy and create more jobs.
Can you please show me where these corporations make the public aware of the manipulation of particular ingredients to reward the pleasure center of the brain to spur on food like addiction so they can sell more product?
[/quote]
They don’t do that. That’s just a fantasy of some tenured crackpot trying to publicise his work by being controversial. They don’t “manipulate” ingredients. When I add extra sugar to my coffee I’m not “manipulating” the ingredients. And food is not “addictive” in any meaningful sense. Sure, food can bring on a dopamine high but that’s just as true of food that hasn’t been “manipulated” - ie steak, potato etc. I certainly prefer that to a load of sugary cookies. However I’m not a steak and potato “addict.” You can only get away with such a bullshit claim if you suggest that ingredients have been sinisterly “manipulated” by nefarious scientists.
[/quote]
Where is the proof that companies do not manipulate ingredients. There are plenty of studies that show that they do. In fact they have a term for it in the industry which is called “bliss point”.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Your solution assumes that corporations do not try and fool their customer base with manipulation. If they do, how is it an even playing field?[/quote]
It’s a level playing field in the same way I’m not a crack head.
I know crack is bad, so I don’t smoke it. I know the tobacco I smoke is bad, and blame NO ONE but myself for being an idiot.
It’s called common sense.
If what you are claiming was even remotely true, I would be addicted to crack and could blame other people for it.
What corporation sells crack?
[quote]Is/was there any regulation that was okay?
[/quote]
Sure. I’m not anti-regulation. But much like when I’m looking to buy sushi, I’m pretty selective as to where I get it from. Regulation is the same thing.
regulation isn’t always bad, but it certainly isn’t always good either. [/quote]
Where is the proof that companies do not manipulate ingredients.
[/quote]
Where is the proof that Obama is not a reptilian shapeshifter from the planet Niribu?
It is plausible deniability that you hang on to in order to keep your beliefs alive. If you had to weigh the overwhelming evidence it might make you re-examine your ideology and that would be just too painful for you so you continue to reach further and further into fantasyland so you can feel all smug in your thoughts instead of admitting that the corporations are indeed wrong and they need to be reigned in.
In your mind these people are just cogs of the statist mentality and the research evidence means nothing. But you are a supreme ideologue and truth and evidence mean nothing to you. What matters is whose side is winning.
“…you are a supreme ideologue and truth and evidence mean nothing to you. What matters is whose side is winning.”
Coming from someone who describes Noam Chomsky as “the world’s leading intellectual” and continually posts articles from the hard left of the hard left.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“…you are a supreme ideologue and truth and evidence mean nothing to you. What matters is whose side is winning.”
Coming from someone who describes Noam Chomsky as “the world’s leading intellectual” and continually posts articles from the hard left of the hard left.[/quote]
Does nothing to refute the evidence.
It is YOU whose defense lies in name-calling because you have no defense so you hang on to ideology because it is all you have.
I have posted a myriad of scientific articles which shows evidence of companies manipulating sugar, fat and salt to illict a response to fatten their bottom line while at the same time helping to destroy the publics health. Is that automatically leftist because it flies in the face of your “free market God”. Could it actually be that this economic system has some serious faults?
Ah, I didn’t call you any name. You called me a “supreme ideologue” remember? And I’m not a proponent of zero market regulation. I was against the repeal of the uptick rule and Glass-Steagall. I’m also against the legalisation of marijuana. However I draw the line at regulation of cookies and soda.
BTW, you claim I’m only interested in my “side” winning. Whose “side” do you think I’m on?
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The problem is not a poor diet. It’s lack of activity. [/quote]
I think it’s both, but I certainly don’t blame Pepsi because dumb ass’ drink 64oz’s 3 times a day.
Quick side story, I was on duty with a Sgt years ago on a 24 hour post. Dude drank three 2 liter bottles of Pepsi during that time. Not a drop of water or anything else for that matter. Unreal, but that’s Pepsi’s fault, right?[/quote]
If they are manipulating ingredients to reward the pleasure area of the brain so as to make you want more then yes, they are culpable.
[/quote]
I’d hate for people to have to take some personal responsibility for what they eat. That would be just awful.
[/quote]
And I would hate for companies to be forced to tell the consumer what is going on with their product. That would be just awful.
[/quote]
And I would hate for companies to be forced to tell the consumer what is going on with their product. That would be just awful.
[/quote]
THEY DO. IT’s RIGHT ON THE PACKAGE[/quote]
Prefect example. I’m pro the regulation that requires food labeling to show ingredients and macro (or is it micro) breakdowns.
I don’t think that is tyrannical, and I don’t think it places a burden on manufacturers in excess.
But, I think those labels are sufficient to allow consumers to makes informed choices. [/quote]
Yup, this whole thread cracks me up. The picture of the package isn’t the best quality, but like every single packaged good it shows every single thing detail. Everything from nutritional break down to government % guidelines to ingredients. Literally everything including if fucking peanuts were also processed in the facility (not in the product mind you, but in the facility).
What more do you want ZEP? The SSN of the first born son of every executive of the company?
Damn, I sure wish someone would hold my hand and tell me if 67.5 carbs in one can of Pepsi is bad for me. The gov does point out it’s 27% of the carbs I should have in a day, but shit how am I supposed to know that… It’s not like it’s printed on every single can of Pepsi.
Do you smoke a Cigar ???
