Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Schools teach healthy diet. If you don't listen in school and eat unhealthily,
It would help if school lunches backed that up. They tend not to.
And if things like the "food pyramid" were based on things like, ya know, science, and not politics.
whats this food pyramid thing you speak of?
is it that thing in the top right that hasn;t been used since 2005?
"I LIEK CHOCOLATE MILK" - Batman
"It exist because it needs to. Because its not the tank the imperium deserve but the one it needs right now . So it wont complain because it can take it. Because they're not our normal tank. It is a silent guardian, a watchful protector . A leman russ!" - Ilove40k
3k
2k
/ 1k
1k
Schools teach healthy diet. If you don't listen in school and eat unhealthily,
It would help if school lunches backed that up. They tend not to.
And if things like the "food pyramid" were based on things like, ya know, science, and not politics.
100% with you here. The corporate/government line has been getting waaay too blurry lately. It's kinda starting to feel like the Republicans and Democrats are really just two wings of corporate America.
Go back to that post I made about what the government should be doing instead. Focussing MORE on efforts to educate people how to eat healthy, cheaply, and providing the means by encouraging expansion of grocery stores in area poorely represented. Food deserts, even in our great nation, are a very real thing and need to be resolved. Ensuring segments of our population have something other then a 7/11 or McDonalds to get food from will do a lot to help fight obesity, all without trampling on our personal liberties.
So now you want the government to mandate what stores exist where? Force companies to open businesses that will ultimately be unprofitable when cheap crap food is so easily available? Whole foods don't open up in the ghetto for a reason my friend.
What part of "encourage" means mandate?
OK, well what is your idea of "encouragement"? Because I can't for the life of me figure out how you do that.
According to your CDC, "In 2000–2004, cigarette smoking cost more than $193 billion (i.e., $97 billion in lost productivity plus $96 billion in health care expenditures).", while the revenue from cigarette taxation in 2011 was 17 billion.
I'm sure they aren't that bad at maths.
Numbers are pretty fun sometimes.
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
djones520 wrote: Tax incentives are the primary means of encouraging such growth as far as I'm aware. Maybe others who are a bit more saavy on the topic can chime in.
So instead of prohibiting something that is entirely useless and bad for consumption, you want the government to spend money on a tax incentive system that encourages stores into risky markets??????
This makes more sense how?
Tax junk food just like cigarettes, use that money for better health programs and possibly subsidies for healthy food could be a good start. Banning Trans Fats really is a pretty easy idea as Trans fats are just completely unnecessary.
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
djones520 wrote: Tax incentives are the primary means of encouraging such growth as far as I'm aware. Maybe others who are a bit more saavy on the topic can chime in.
So instead of prohibiting something that is entirely useless and bad for consumption, you want the government to spend money on a tax incentive system that encourages stores into risky markets??????
This makes more sense how?
Tax junk food just like cigarettes, use that money for better health programs and possibly subsidies for healthy food could be a good start. Banning Trans Fats really is a pretty easy idea as Trans fats are just completely unnecessary.
Guess you don't know that in many cities, aka St. Louis, there are very few grocery stores to service the areas.
djones520 wrote: Tax incentives are the primary means of encouraging such growth as far as I'm aware. Maybe others who are a bit more saavy on the topic can chime in.
So instead of prohibiting something that is entirely useless and bad for consumption, you want the government to spend money on a tax incentive system that encourages stores into risky markets??????
This makes more sense how?
Tax junk food just like cigarettes, use that money for better health programs and possibly subsidies for healthy food could be a good start. Banning Trans Fats really is a pretty easy idea as Trans fats are just completely unnecessary.
So, you'd rather that we continue to allow people who do not have ready access to grocery stores, continue to do so? Transfat is not the issue. It's a small part of the overall problem. Poor eating habits in general is the issue. Remove trans-fats from McDonalds food, and people consume 1200 calorie meals instead of 1250 calorie meals three times a day because they have no other choices. Pointing at the hot trend word of the day in the end does nothing more then slapping a band-aid on the gaping wound.
So instead of prohibiting something that is entirely useless and bad for consumption, you want the government to spend money on a tax incentive system that encourages stores into risky markets??????
.
Well, they did it with banks. Except they forced banks to lend to risky markets. That worked out well.
djones520 wrote: Tax incentives are the primary means of encouraging such growth as far as I'm aware. Maybe others who are a bit more saavy on the topic can chime in.
So instead of prohibiting something that is entirely useless and bad for consumption, you want the government to spend money on a tax incentive system that encourages stores into risky markets??????
This makes more sense how?
Tax junk food just like cigarettes, use that money for better health programs and possibly subsidies for healthy food could be a good start. Banning Trans Fats really is a pretty easy idea as Trans fats are just completely unnecessary.
So, you'd rather that we continue to allow people who do not have ready access to grocery stores, continue to do so? Transfat is not the issue. It's a small part of the overall problem. Poor eating habits in general is the issue. Remove trans-fats from McDonalds food, and people consume 1200 calorie meals instead of 1250 calorie meals three times a day because they have no other choices. Pointing at the hot trend word of the day in the end does nothing more then slapping a band-aid on the gaping wound.
Its not the cure all, but its a step. Adding a tax to junk food is also a good step, but you don't like that. Make the junk food more expensive and you have created incentive to find a better food source. If people need a better food source that then provides a market for better food outlets.
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
There are people who are honest to God expressing outrage at the idea that government wants to companies using one fattening agent, and make them use a less unhealthy but very slightly more expensive fattening agent. Incredible.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C. S. Lewis
Well, if you're going to put the same quote in two different threads, I might as well include the full quote and context so people can understand CS Lewis wasn't actually opposed to the idea of government doing positive work.
"I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber barron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.
And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme — whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence — the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication."
Understand this letter was written in response to a Marxist who had critiqued some of Lewis' science fiction. What sparked Lewis was not the individual's marxism, interestingly enough, but the extreme conviction to which he held those ideas, which he equated to theocracy. It isn't an attack on the idea of government doing good (which would make no sense given Lewis' general political convictions) but against the person who puts his faith in a utopia ahead of the facts on the ground or basic human decency.
This will hurt the economy in ways I don't think we can determine right now... is this the right thing to do at this time?
Ah, very no. Very, very no. Reducing the consumption of crud that kills people means healthier people, and healthier people have a lot more economic activity.
Not that judging things in terms of the economy and nothing else makes much sense anyway. That's what the Soviets did, and it produced a society where iron production might increase at the expense of thousands dying from air pollution, and it was deemed a good thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: I love it when people completely miss the point.
The point freedom of choice, including the freedom to make sub-optimal choices is important, but like all things it has its limit, and it is silly when people completely ignore that and just harp on about freedom with no regard to the specifics of the issue and the reality that there are plenty of choices that no properly informed person would make.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And if things like the "food pyramid" were based on things like, ya know, science, and not politics.
Well, with the Brawndo corporation buying the FDA, I'd expect that to change.
It's got what food pyramids crave.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: Well, they did it with banks. Except they forced banks to lend to risky markets. That worked out well.
Except, as I've explained to you several times now, the word 'forced' in your sentence is pants on head crazy pants nonsense.
Private banking sector - "Hey, government, you want us to help low income people own houses, but by the current regulations we can't." Government - "Fair point, we'll remove the restrictions we had, and give you more choice in who you lend to." Private banking sector - "Excellent. And now we'll loan to damn near everyone, on the assumption that payments can be maintained by the growing house prices, and that are income stream is entirely upfront as we on-sell tranched loans. Holy gak, this is a bigger rush than heroin, bigger even that transfats, we just loan to any stupid donkey-cave, bribe the debt rating agencies to AAA those loans, and sell this gak within minutes to do the same crazy gak all over again. With my bonus I just bought an island. A whole fething island just to myself." Government - "..." Private banking sector - "And now it's all gone to gak. Oh Jesus gak is bad." Free market true believers - "And it was all the fault of government, because we like to believe that removing restrictions that prevented certain loans is actually forcing the private sector to that thing, because we just don't fething care about reality."
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2013/11/08 06:09:55
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: There are people who are honest to God expressing outrage at the idea that government wants to companies using one fattening agent, and make them use a less unhealthy but very slightly more expensive fattening agent. Incredible.
This will hurt the economy in ways I don't think we can determine right now... is this the right thing to do at this time?
Ah, very no. Very, very no. Reducing the consumption of crud that kills people means healthier people, and healthier people have a lot more economic activity.
Not that judging things in terms of the economy and nothing else makes much sense anyway. That's what the Soviets did, and it produced a society where iron production might increase at the expense of thousands dying from air pollution, and it was deemed a good thing.
Yup lets Ban trans fats because all they do is make people fat.. its not the lack of exercise or choice in what you eat.. its the transfats
People* should be allowed to eat What ever the Feth they want to eat.
*Now if your living on government assistance then yes the government can control what you eat because your living on everyone elses dime
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/08 06:10:05
"I LIEK CHOCOLATE MILK" - Batman
"It exist because it needs to. Because its not the tank the imperium deserve but the one it needs right now . So it wont complain because it can take it. Because they're not our normal tank. It is a silent guardian, a watchful protector . A leman russ!" - Ilove40k
3k
2k
/ 1k
1k
Ninjacommando wrote: Yup lets Ban trans fats because all they do is make people fat.. its not the lack of exercise or choice in what you eat.. its the transfats
Being fat isn't the only issue. You can work out and look super fit and healthy but if you're eating really unhealthy food you're still very likely to die of a heart attack. Obesity is a cause of heart attacks, it is not the cause.
People* should be allowed to eat What ever the Feth they want to eat.
And to repeat my earlier point, 'feth yeah freedom do what you want' is not a complete philosophy that applies to all things at all times. Like all things, it has its limitations, and when you're talking about a product that is incredibly unhealthy and nothing more than a really cheap way to fatten up food, then we're talking about a choice that no fully informed person will make. In effect, you're arguing for the right for people to make grossly ignorant decisions that give them no benefit in terms of nicer flavour, but with serious health consequences.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Except, as I've explained to you several times now, the word 'forced' in your sentence is pants on head crazy pants nonsense.
Private banking sector - "Hey, government, you want us to help low income people own houses, but by the current regulations we can't."
Government - "Fair point, we'll remove the restrictions we had, and give you more choice in who you lend to."
Private banking sector - "Excellent. And now we'll loan to damn near everyone, on the assumption that payments can be maintained by the growing house prices, and that are income stream is entirely upfront as we on-sell tranched loans. Holy gak, this is a bigger rush than heroin, bigger even that transfats, we just loan to any stupid donkey-cave, bribe the debt rating agencies to AAA those loans, and sell this gak within minutes to do the same crazy gak all over again. With my bonus I just bought an island. A whole fething island just to myself."
Government - "..."
Private banking sector - "And now it's all gone to gak. Oh Jesus gak is bad."
Free market true believers - "And it was all the fault of government, because we like to believe that removing restrictions that prevented certain loans is actually forcing the private sector to that thing, because we just don't fething care about reality."
Except you're wrong. The CRA more or less forced banks to lend to demographics that they previously did not lend to due to risk. I believe the "encouragement" from the Gov't was in the phrasing "innovative and flexible" lending to LMI earners.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/11/08 07:24:47
Ninjacommando wrote: Yup lets Ban trans fats because all they do is make people fat.. its not the lack of exercise or choice in what you eat.. its the transfats
Being fat isn't the only issue. You can work out and look super fit and healthy but if you're eating really unhealthy food you're still very likely to die of a heart attack. Obesity is a cause of heart attacks, it is not the cause.
A Professor of human nutrition did a 2 month diet of hostess products, protien shake, Multivitamins, celery/cans of green beans for a total of 1,800 calories a day.
- He lost 27 pounts in 2 months
- "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent
- "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent.
- reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent
"I wish I could say the outcomes are unhealthy. I wish I could say it's healthy. I'm not confident enough in doing that. That frustrates a lot of people. One side says it's irresponsible. It is unhealthy, but the data doesn't say that." - Mark Haub
"I LIEK CHOCOLATE MILK" - Batman
"It exist because it needs to. Because its not the tank the imperium deserve but the one it needs right now . So it wont complain because it can take it. Because they're not our normal tank. It is a silent guardian, a watchful protector . A leman russ!" - Ilove40k
3k
2k
/ 1k
1k
sebster wrote: And to repeat my earlier point, 'feth yeah freedom do what you want' is not a complete philosophy that applies to all things at all times. Like all things, it has its limitations, and when you're talking about a product that is incredibly unhealthy and nothing more than a really cheap way to fatten up food, then we're talking about a choice that no fully informed person will make. In effect, you're arguing for the right for people to make grossly ignorant decisions that give them no benefit in terms of nicer flavour, but with serious health consequences.
If only you knew what was best for you, you'd choose what the nanny state is choosing for you, anyway! Silly peasants.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Are people really outraged that a government is banning a harmful ingredient that serves only to make certain foods cheaper to manufacture?
Seriously, this gak doesn't even make things taste better!
I'm outraged anytime the government intervenes needlessly in the marketplace.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Are people really outraged that a government is banning a harmful ingredient that serves only to make certain foods cheaper to manufacture?
Seriously, this gak doesn't even make things taste better!
I'm outraged anytime the government intervenes needlessly in the marketplace.
3k
2k
/ 
1k
1k 
