[quote]therajraj wrote:
People have made a fair point about how non fat people also buy junk food.
But the reality is, practically anything you implement in any instance there will be downsides and people who end up getting the short end of the stick undeservedly.[/quote]
You could eat steak and eggs all day and get fat. The moment you have to label steak and eggs as “warning: will lead to fatness if you inhale the fuckers all day long nonstop you fat stupid mutherfucker” we have all lost.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think that’s retarded. If humans need to be spoonfed like that just to avoid morbid obesity, what are we saving them for?
Uh, no, I don’t need a warning sign on that bag of cookies. If I want cookies, I have enough sense to not eat them until I become obese.[/quote]
Concur.
Plus, taxes are for raising necessary money for the government, not controlling or rewarding behavior.[/quote]
But poor health in society is a cost we all end up bearing thanks to how our government spends the money.
A healthier society ultimately lowers the tax burden.[/quote]
That’s what the government are saying now that obesity is a problem. You need to weigh that (no pun intended) against the decades of revenue the government has gained from the fast food culture they’ve helped to nurture. It was pretty fucking convenient while it lasted, like smoking.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think that’s retarded. If humans need to be spoonfed like that just to avoid morbid obesity, what are we saving them for?
Uh, no, I don’t need a warning sign on that bag of cookies. If I want cookies, I have enough sense to not eat them until I become obese.[/quote]
Concur.
Plus, taxes are for raising necessary money for the government, not controlling or rewarding behavior.[/quote]
But poor health in society is a cost we all end up bearing thanks to how our government spends the money.
A healthier society ultimately lowers the tax burden.[/quote]
That’s what the government are saying now that obesity is a problem. You need to weigh that (no pun intended) against the decades of revenue the government has gained from the fast food culture they’ve helped to nurture. It was pretty fucking convenient while it lasted, like smoking. [/quote]
Incidentally, since you used smoking as an example - some years ago when the government significantly raised taxes on cigarettes in Ontario under one of the guises of deterring people from smoking for health reasons, something else actually happened. The people became outraged and those people either started buying their cigarettes on the native reserves or they bought stolen cigarettes. Nobody quit smoking, they just tried to find way to still smoke and not pay as much. I wonder if people would be as pissed off about their twinkies and pepsi?
Even if you were owned by the government, and you had the right to dictate health decisions to other people in the name of saving money, you guys arguing for this are still full of it.
It isn’t necessarily true that unhealthy people cost more. Healthy people can cost more money in total healthcare over a lifetime. If you live longer, and live into old age, you cost one hell of a lot of money. If you are a fat ass with diabetes that dies of a heart attack at 40, you cost a lot less.
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think that’s retarded. If humans need to be spoonfed like that just to avoid morbid obesity, what are we saving them for?
Uh, no, I don’t need a warning sign on that bag of cookies. If I want cookies, I have enough sense to not eat them until I become obese.[/quote]
Concur.
Plus, taxes are for raising necessary money for the government, not controlling or rewarding behavior.[/quote]
But poor health in society is a cost we all end up bearing thanks to how our government spends the money.
A healthier society ultimately lowers the tax burden.[/quote]
That’s what the government are saying now that obesity is a problem. You need to weigh that (no pun intended) against the decades of revenue the government has gained from the fast food culture they’ve helped to nurture. It was pretty fucking convenient while it lasted, like smoking. [/quote]
Incidentally, since you used smoking as an example - some years ago when the government significantly raised taxes on cigarettes in Ontario under one of the guises of deterring people from smoking for health reasons, something else actually happened. The people became outraged and those people either started buying their cigarettes on the native reserves or they bought stolen cigarettes. Nobody quit smoking, they just tried to find way to still smoke and not pay as much. I wonder if people would be as pissed off about their twinkies and pepsi? [/quote]
Of course. We had a “candy store” house in our neighborhood growing up. It isn’t like my parents would actually buy me that many Now&Laters. The same will happen for fat people. Right now, the best hamburgers in the world are likely being made in some broken down house in South Houston.
They will be lined around the corner to buy black market Oreos from Cambodian mules with large anuses.
as long as they don’t tax naturally occuring sat fats, which would be likely.
Try talking to the regular public sometime 1. they are rather uneducated to proper nutrition 2. they don’t realize how powerful good/bad nutrition really is
[quote]csulli wrote:
This is so stupid. Get the fucking government off my back. I’m a “relatively” lean 200lbs. If I want to eat a dozen fucking donuts for breakfast and McDonalds for lunch and dinner for a year, I should be free to do so. (That is pretty much my diet as is).[/quote]
are they taking away your right to do so?
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think that’s retarded. If humans need to be spoonfed like that just to avoid morbid obesity, what are we saving them for?
Uh, no, I don’t need a warning sign on that bag of cookies. If I want cookies, I have enough sense to not eat them until I become obese.[/quote]
Concur.
Plus, taxes are for raising necessary money for the government, not controlling or rewarding behavior.[/quote]
But poor health in society is a cost we all end up bearing thanks to how our government spends the money.
A healthier society ultimately lowers the tax burden.[/quote]
That’s what the government are saying now that obesity is a problem. You need to weigh that (no pun intended) against the decades of revenue the government has gained from the fast food culture they’ve helped to nurture. It was pretty fucking convenient while it lasted, like smoking. [/quote]
Incidentally, since you used smoking as an example - some years ago when the government significantly raised taxes on cigarettes in Ontario under one of the guises of deterring people from smoking for health reasons, something else actually happened. The people became outraged and those people either started buying their cigarettes on the native reserves or they bought stolen cigarettes. Nobody quit smoking, they just tried to find way to still smoke and not pay as much. I wonder if people would be as pissed off about their twinkies and pepsi? [/quote]
I think so:
I added smoking b/c there are similarities. If they taxed sugar people would just seek out cheaper alternatives. That doesn’t mean less sugar but less of what is considered healthy in junk food.
Junk gets junkier. Asses are covered. Coffers and coffins keep on filling.
[quote]sen say wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
An [extreme] 10% increase in price to unhealthier foods won’t make much a difference to those who occasionally indulge, but will start making an impact on the food budgets of those who constantly indulge.
[/quote]
Bullshit. How many fuckers you know that were going to stop smoking when Marlboros hit 2 bucks a pack? $2.50? $5.00? Any of them quit? No and magically alternative brands appeared that cost less.[/quote]
Fair point. I was surprised though once that an older person said they quit smoking after seeing those commercials on TV w/ people speaking through their neck… That said, I doubt the commercials work that much, but makes me wonder how much they actually do work.
[quote]sen say wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
As a matter of fact, if we stopped helping people that are capable of helping themselves we could help so many more people that actually NEED it. [/quote]
You anywhere near College Park? [/quote]
Nah not really. I’m in Carroll and work in the city. I’m sittin at Towson University right now actually.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The problem is making it seem like food itself is the problem and not SELF FUCKING CONTROL.[/quote]
This is mostly correct.
What needs to be acknowledged is that these packaged junk foods, not unlike cigarettes, have been engineered precisely to fuck with self control.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I think a “fat tax” on these products would really do more good. If someone wants to throw their cash away on cookies, and I get better roads to drive on, I’m all for it.[/quote]
Yeah, the crashing diabetic drinking orange juice or a coke to save their life owes you something.
Anyone who is for this is ignorant. There is no such thing as a healthy food and almost no such thing as an unhealthy one. What is very healthy for one person may be very unhealthy for another.
Not only could the most informed studied people not be able to correctly evaluate what is or isn’t healthy for someone, but if they could, you couldn’t do it on the bases of a type of food. Much less some bureaucratizes trying to do it
No, you stupid, thieving, ass hole, you don’t deserve any of my money if I drink a fucking coke at the end of a long workout.
Just another thing to add to the list of reasons I’m glad I don’t live there.[/quote]
Wrong. All food is healthy, depending upon the situation. The only bad food is processed food. That simple.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Because really, if those cookies meet your macronutrient needs for the day, I’m not actually going to say they’re unhealthy.
.[/quote]
Your teeth may not agree with it “fitting your macros”
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No doubt a healthier population would benefit society. I just don’t think it’s wise to try and force it through regulation. [/quote]
Serious question, so what should be done? At what point is it completely out of control.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
People have made a fair point about how non fat people also buy junk food.
But the reality is, practically anything you implement in any instance there will be downsides and people who end up getting the short end of the stick undeservedly.[/quote]
You could eat steak and eggs all day and get fat. The moment you have to label steak and eggs as “warning: will lead to fatness if you inhale the fuckers all day long nonstop you fat stupid mutherfucker” we have all lost.[/quote]
Let’s not compare foods that pretty much will help someone’s body to self-regulate intake to stuff thta can easily cause over-consumption. I get your point, but it’s not really viable.
[quote]chillain wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The problem is making it seem like food itself is the problem and not SELF FUCKING CONTROL.[/quote]
This is mostly correct.
What needs to be acknowledged is that these packaged junk foods, not unlike cigarettes, have been engineered precisely to fuck with self control.
[/quote]
exactly, many on here don’t seem to want to acknowledge this.
I think also a big culprit that reeally changed our nation is both parents working. Parents don’t often want to take the time to cook nutritious food, rather rely on processed stuff that saves time.
[quote]chillain wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The problem is making it seem like food itself is the problem and not SELF FUCKING CONTROL.[/quote]
This is mostly correct.
What needs to be acknowledged is that these packaged junk foods, not unlike cigarettes, have been engineered precisely to fuck with self control.
[/quote]
That goes back to lifestyle. I was way more sluggish when I was much heavier mostly because of my diet and overall activity level. That doesn’t change without a complete overhaul to what you are doing and eating. Putting labels on random food won’t fix that. Laziness isn’t fixed with government mandate.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Laziness isn’t fixed with government mandate.[/quote]
Sure it is. They’re called forced marches.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Fair point. I was surprised though once that an older person said they quit smoking after seeing those commercials on TV w/ people speaking through their neck… That said, I doubt the commercials work that much, but makes me wonder how much they actually do work.[/quote]
I smoked regularly in the past, but cut down to the occasional smoke/pack for the past couple years.
After seeing those commercials a few months back, I threw out what I had left and haven’t looked back.