First they came for Tony the Tiger...

[Tez3]

Damn! I wrote out a huge answer which I clicked on and was sure was there but it seems it's not! .
Basically my point was that if you can afford to support others through welfare etc who eat themselves into illness that's fine but for those who work hard and struggle to make ends meet in this recession it's hard on them to have to support those who basically cause their own illness. Ideals are fine on paper and when you are well off but reconciling various peoples freedoms is difficult, that's what I'm trying to ask. How do you deal with those who's right it is to eat themselves to death with those rights of everyone else not to have to work extra to cover for them at work, to pay taxes when they don't, to support their children through schools, pay for policing, street cleaning and all the stuff your taxes pay for. Where is the freedom in that situation?
I also asked about cocaine in Coca Cola, morphine and opium in cough mixtures, tonics etc. That was made illegal, should they be legalised because it's peoples right to buy and consume bad things? Huge amounts of salt and sugar can be every bit as dangerous so surely the government in lieu of anyone else trying to doing anything ( is there anyone else who can do something about the obesity epidemic?) should be saying to the companies 'Oi, your food is dangerous, make it less so', no one has to buy so called healthy food but surely too food that is dangerous shouldn't be sold or if it is a bloody great label should be stuck on it.

People who are eating themselves into obesity are iimpinging on your rights already, if the government doesn't try to do something, who should and what? How do you keep all your rights, so they can carry on eating whatever they want and you don't have to work harder to allow them that freedom? How many think that paying welfare for obese people to eat themselves to death is giving everyone their rights and freedoms? I'm fine with people eating whatever they want but I'm not fine with paying for their care if they knowingly do it and I'm paying. It's on a par with paying for drug addicts to live on welfare and have their medical needs looked after by the State. Is that freedom for those who don't eat themselves stupid?

 

[Tez3]

Bill M, I do understand where you are coming from, but looking at the problem from afar I can see there's a huge dilemma here. On one hand you want your freedom to do as you wish, quite rightly, no one likes being told what to do, on the other hand you have what is amounting to an epidemic of obesity where people are causing problems both monetary and medically for everyone else. So what is to be done? If nothing is done on the grounds it infringes peoples right to eat what they want medical services are going to get clogged up,( I believe many hospitals are having to buy bigger beds, wheelchairs etc and have special units just for the obese), sickness levels are rising, people not working and living off the state. On the other hand if you start bringing in legislation to control this epidemic you have the government stamping on peoples rights. So, what's the practical solution not the ideal on paper ?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm not into telling people what they are to do or not to do, smoke yourself to death if you wish but don't blow the smoke in my face, don't spill the ash all over me or put cigarette burns on my clothes, fair one? Don't expect me to pay your medical bills either.

I belong to a group health insurance policy through my employer. If you're part of that group, then yes, my medical costs affect you, and you have to pay for them. Guess what? Too bad for you.

On the other hand, I have to pay for the medical costs of those who drink and drive, drive too fast, hang-glide, engage in unsafe sex, and so on. That's the nature of private insurance; we all pay into the pool and we accept the risk that the group accepts.

You have no right to refuse to pay my expenses if you wish to be a member of the group. On the other hand, you can quit being a member of the group.

What you're saying is, you don't like the way insurance spreads risk. Well, that's all it is for. Like it or not.

On the other hand, if our insurance ends up being provided by the government and paid for by taxes, then it does become a different issue. That's why I'm against the nationalization of health insurance. As a taxpayer, I don't have the right to opt-out anymore. Then it does become my business what you put into your body or what I put into mine - or to be honest (and controversial and disgusting) it becomes my business whom you sleep with and what kind of sex you engage in. Yes, that's right. STD is a big expense. If you're in MY insurance pool and I cannot opt out, then you better not be sticking anything where it might result in disease. I have the right to demand you not do it.

If your government has decided that Americans should be given a choice between healthy food and non healthy food surely that is not a bad thing when so much of your processed food is full of salt and sugar?

Yes, it's a bad thing. I keep saying that. I don't know how many more times I need to say it. BAD THING.

If a toy manufacturer was making toys with dangerous components, the government would be correct in doing something about it. These companies are selling food with dangerous components so they want to do something about it. It's not about taking away liberties or telling you what you can or can't eat, but you should have a choice and from my visits to the PX when in Germany, I've seen your food is seriously overloaded with stuff that's not in most countries food. Coca Cola used to contain cocaine would you advocate it still was, in the interests of freedom or that medicines sold over the counter still contains opium and morphine as it used to be?

What makes you think I agree that 'salt' is dangerous? Or how much 'salt' is too much? Tell me how much is in it, and I'll decide for myself, thanks. The argument I get in this thread is that YOU get to decide how much is too much, and I won't be permitted to buy food with that much in it. You make a lot of statements about what is and is not dangerous and state them as if they were facts that no one disputed. It want to know what it is my food. I do not want to be told what I can and cannot buy - which is what happens if the government forbids foods to be sold with this or that in it.

I'm sure people can still get as fat as they wish eating whatever they want but that a few foods should offer a healthier choice is not a bad thing.

YES IT IS. When the government assumes the role of nanny, it is a very bad thing.

Freedom is about choice, there is no choice if all there is going to be is food containing dangerous levels of salt, sugar and additives. Making some companies clean up their food will give a choice, you don't have to eat the healthy stuff.

Not if the government makes them stop producing it, which is what you're talking about. And again - I do not agree with what YOU think is unhealthy. That's YOUR opinion. Stop making choices for MY life. I don't make any such choices about yours.

If you happy with paying more taxes and higher health premiums because other people choose to get obese therby curtailing your choices over how you spend your money that's up to you.

I'm happy with freedom. That means I accept the consequences - positive and negative - that freedom brings. People who want to throw away their freedom to be protected from making bad decisions mystify me. I guess they like being slaves.

There's no such thing as a perfect society so even conservative government have to make decisions that are unpopular. How would cut the costs involved in obesity while allowed people to eat themselves to death as is their right, it's not an easy thing to work out so everyone is content. It's not a case of taking away liberties or trying to be big brother but of reconciling peoples rights which are conflicting with each other.

What right is being conflicted by, for example, MSG being in canned food? I'm a little unclear on what right of yours is being infringed by not being allowed to tell me how to live.

And stop saying you're not telling me how to live. You say that, and then you proceed to tell me how to live. If you really don't think you are, then I don't know what else we have to talk about. Again, this is why no matter how much I disagree with the Republican Party and cannot be a Republican, I could never, never, be a Democrat. They tend to think this way - they want to run everybody's life for them, in their own best interests of course. I don't need or want to be taken care of, so f right off, sez I (in general, not meaning you personally). Democrats. Ugh.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill M, I do understand where you are coming from, but looking at the problem from afar I can see there's a huge dilemma here. On one hand you want your freedom to do as you wish, quite rightly, no one likes being told what to do, on the other hand you have what is amounting to an epidemic of obesity where people are causing problems both monetary and medically for everyone else. So what is to be done? If nothing is done on the grounds it infringes peoples right to eat what they want medical services are going to get clogged up,( I believe many hospitals are having to buy bigger beds, wheelchairs etc and have special units just for the obese), sickness levels are rising, people not working and living off the state. On the other hand if you start bringing in legislation to control this epidemic you have the government stamping on peoples rights. So, what's the practical solution not the ideal on paper ?

What we're doing now - provide information and educate. That is the proper role of government with regard to public health.

The problem is always the same with liberals. They say they want to modify behavior by informing and educating, and that's great. But if it doesn't work, then they suggest incentives to do the healthy thing. And if that doesn't work, they suggest disincentives to do the unhealthy thing. And when people persist in doing something unhealthy, then they finally show their true colors - force them to do the 'healthy' thing whether they like it or not.

That's a liberal for you. Persuade, educate, cajole, and if if you still won't do what they say you should, bring out a stick and force you to do it anyway.

Not playing. Dislike liberal philosophy. I especially dislike it because liberals lie about what their ultimate motives - live the way they tell you to or else.

 

[JohnEdward]

Some points. Everyone lies. It's about $$$$$$. it isn't personal, it is just business, i.e. insurance and diet industries. We are way past Orwell. I mean like light years.

Caught Dr. Oz on the TV debating health diet with some medical researcher. Dr. Oz showed what he ate as a healthy diet. So freaking unrealistic what he ate, a real diet minimalist with a flare for repetition. With a heavy dose of malnutrition and just enough to medical say your not starving yourself. He was anti corn syrup and sugar. The guy he was debating was pro saturated fat, pushing to debunk that LDL is bad, and what we believe know about it is a myth. He agreed corn syrup is evil and should be outlawed too. It was great TV and sensationalism.

There is too many "obese people" in this country according to someone, which is propagated through the media. And the "fat epidemic" is a great band wagon for many of the medical and nutrition and diet community to jump on, it is a medical tradition, see Dr. Kellogg. But the creme is the insurance companies can charge higher premiums, and are probably behind it all. If you have noticed in the 1970s or so the changed what a health total cholesterol level is, and they just re-calibrated the BMI, and redesigned the "Food Pyramid". All this translates to more $$$$ for health insurance companies by charging higher premiums. Doctors can be bought, just like politicians.

My advise is stop eating out, stop buying pre-made foods, and make everything at home from scratch. That way no one call tell you squat.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

My advise is stop eating out, stop buying pre-made foods, and make everything at home from scratch. That way no one call tell you squat.

Wanna bet? If you can't buy the ingredients, and you're not capable of growing it yourself, you're being told.

As to the health nazis, all I can say is that a carb is a carb, fat is fat, sugar is sugar, protein is protein. If a candy bar has what my body needs in it, it's no more or less healthy for me that an egg or a teaspon of wheat germ, or a bowl of tofu -in my opinion. My body doesn't even know the difference between a calorie that came from tofu or a calorie that came from creamy nougat. It's only a problem if I eat too much of it or if my body can't process the things that come with it. And that's my business. Give me the information and leave me the hell alone. I don't want regulations on what I eat, I don't want people telling me what I 'need' to be doing, and I refuse to comply utterly, daring them to to impose the 'or else'. Not now, not ever.

 

[Tez3]

Bill, again you miss the point I'm not telling you how to live, you are over defensive and reading it wrongly I'm asking you questions. I want to know how people feel about other people who go on welfare, cost you money etc etc because they chose to live unhealthy life styles. I'm not saying they can't, I'm asking how you reconcile their freedoms with yours? is everyone happy with paying for those who chose to be obese with it's attendant health problems, are they happy to do extra work because that obese person has to have time off through illness?
You didn't answer my questions about morphine and opium being banned in food either. I'm sure the users of those cough medicines and tonics didn't agree with them being dangerous either.

I think you have more to worry about than just salt in your food btw.

http://www.fooducate.com/blog/2010/07/22/what-do-silly-putty-and-chicken-mcnuggets-have-in-common/

I just wondered if you thought I was asking rhetorical questions to make a point? I wasn't, I do actually want to know how people feel about this and how they reconcile people's freedoms, not just to eat what they want, when what they do impacts on other people. Your situation regarding healthcare etc is different from ours so I'm curious to know how it works when you have to pay higher insurance etc and taxes for others to live off welfare. We all pay NI when we are working so ours is not the same.

 

[JohnEdward]

Wanna bet? If you can't buy the ingredients, and you're not capable of growing it yourself, you're being told.

As to the health nazis, all I can say is that a carb is a carb, fat is fat, sugar is sugar, protein is protein. If a candy bar has what my body needs in it, it's no more or less healthy for me that an egg or a teaspon of wheat germ, or a bowl of tofu -in my opinion. My body doesn't even know the difference between a calorie that came from tofu or a calorie that came from creamy nougat. It's only a problem if I eat too much of it or if my body can't process the things that come with it. And that's my business. Give me the information and leave me the hell alone. I don't want regulations on what I eat, I don't want people telling me what I 'need' to be doing, and I refuse to comply utterly, daring them to to impose the 'or else'. Not now, not ever.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic - can't find that damn sarcasm button. We are dependent upon other feeding us. Since the advent of the TV dinner generation, and instant cake mixes, if you are going to cut out carbs, corn syrup, everything else than make your food yourself from scratch, i.e. eat salad and fruit the rest of your life. The government or anyone else doesn't need to step in and tell us to any extreme what to eat. The government should be dealing with Con Agri, Yumi and those mega food companies to put out healthier food. But healthier food doesn't have the same profit margins than salt and sugar. The government should be informing us and not telling us about food. Sadly, the government is for the corporations by the corporations. Let me say, I do agree with Doctors on the fat issue. More saturated fats the more patients the doctor sees. The priest was replaced by the business man when it comes to the medical health industry. Not so much where the doctor is a pharmaceutical salesmen. There is credibility to what doctors they say, and we do have allot of obese "100+ "over weight people in this country. But the issue for me is the extremism, doctors who sell out, corporations and it's government. It is all the misinformation, propaganda, and fear speech out that. I don't care what anyone says, no one has control over what you eat, expect you. Yes, there is crap food out there, but if that is the case where you can't find healthy food. Make it yourself, control your own diet. No matter how hard it seems to be.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, again you miss the point I'm not telling you how to live, you are over defensive and reading it wrongly I'm asking you questions. I want to know how people feel about other people who go on welfare, cost you money etc etc because they chose to live unhealthy life styles. I'm not saying they can't, I'm asking how you reconcile their freedoms with yours? is everyone happy with paying for those who chose to be obese with it's attendant health problems, are they happy to do extra work because that obese person has to have time off through illness?

And I'm trying to answer by pointing out that these are invalid questions. Kind of like saying "Do you agree that you should drive an economy car, or do you prefer to rape the planet?" Uh, neither one, thanks.

However, let's try once more. Then I'm off to the dojo.

"is everyone happy with paying for those who chose to be obese with it's attendant health problems, are they happy to do extra work because that obese person has to have time off through illness?"

I'm not 'happy' about it. I also don't think I have the right to tell an obese person that they have to lose weight because their poor choices cost me money. See what I'm saying? You pose two answers and demand that I chose one or the other; but I don't like the choices you're giving me and I don't agree with either of them, so I cannot answer you.

You didn't answer my questions about morphine and opium being banned in food either. I'm sure the users of those cough medicines and tonics didn't agree with them being dangerous either.

It's a good point, and I'm sorry I didn't answer you. I'll say you have a valid position here. However, I shudder to think that MSG poses the same risk to society as morphine. Nor do I suspect that morphine was banned because it wasn't good for you, but rather because it was bad for society.

I think you have more to worry about than just salt in your food btw.

Not the point.

I just wondered if you thought I was asking rhetorical questions to make a point? I wasn't, I do actually want to know how people feel about this and how they reconcile people's freedoms, not just to eat what they want, when what they do impacts on other people. Your situation regarding healthcare etc is different from ours so I'm curious to know how it works when you have to pay higher insurance etc and taxes for others to live off welfare. We all pay NI when we are working so ours is not the same.

It's the way you ask the questions. "Do you like President Obama, or are you a hateful racist?" That's how you're asking. I don't care for either answer. I don't like him and I'm not a hateful racist. So now what?

I believe people should be free to choose what food they eat. I believe that advising people on what is in their food and the possible risks and consequences of poor food choices is within the proper role of government. I do not believe that the government has the right to go any further, to the point of outlawing food that others think is unhealthy.

I understand the arguments that poor choices cost us all money. I can't disagree, it's pure logic. I point out that if that is the rationale for making certain foods illegal, then it is a poor one, because that logic - true logic - can be used to also proscribe any behavior that costs us money. Risk sex costs us money. Being obese costs us money. Extreme sports cost us money. Which of these are you willing to give up to save us money? If you can demand one, why is it wrong to demand the others?

I also think that people who have strong opinions on what is healthy and what is not tend to have the opinion that because they have logic and science on their side, that is how society ought to be made to operate. You personally may not be telling me what to do. But anyone who thinks that it is OK to create laws whose purpose is 'for my own good' are indeed telling me what to do. Period. I find this to be a distinctly liberal trait, and it really gets up my sleeve at times.

I find that this viewpoint is often manifested by people using the term 'need'. For example, a person says "Well, people need to be made to understand that this is for their own health." OK, stop there. I don't 'need' to be made to do anything. You are welcome to try if you think you can. The wording is a classist statement; you are my superior and you will decide what it is that I 'need'. I reject that. If my statements seem strong and often angry, it is in reaction to having people tell me what I 'need' to do according to them.

 

[JohnEdward]

Here is another issue, all this diet control and policing targeted at society does effect the eating habits and perspectives of kids, tweens, and teenagers. When they hear things like low salt diets, no carbs, calorie reduction, they take far more seriously and intensely. For decades there was the anorexia problem, because the spot light was on being "thin" is pretty. Many think that is a problem of the past, but it still exists as strongly then when it was first exposed as it does today, but it is not focused on. Instead the focus is on obesity championed by the medical community is to reduce what they see,amplified by the media, as an epidemic of Biblical proportions of an obese population.

The media ripe for such a crisis focuses on both adults and children fiercely creating an image of this evil fat epidemic. All cheerleaded and panic stricken schools, nutritionists, government, media and doctors propagating this idea, and where to stop this great evil is with our kids, who are allAugustus Gloops, and Rollie Pollies (the old song about a fat kid). That really effects kids adversely.

The youth than becomes overly conscious hearing this barge of propaganda, where some stop eating because they are worried about high caloric intakes, too much fat, and all the other nutritional trends resulting in them being fat and in danger. So much so, it compounds the issue of anorexia. Now it is not just an issue of self image, it is about the evils of food, and coupled with the lower BMI target. Now there is justification to purge or not eat because they are taking in too many calories, too much fat, too much.... food.

If this hard trend of how and what to eat continues and is successful we will be a country suffering from a malnutrition, and being "too thin" crisis. Where we will be told to eat all the evil foods once again, base on "what scientists now believe." As the diet pendulum will swing back again.

 

[Tez3]

Well you are going to have to excuse me for throwing my rattle out of the pram here but I've just been kicked in the teeth, there's me trying hard to undrstand how things are for you guys and I'm accused of quite a few things I can assure you I'm not guilty of. I'm sorry if anyone finds the way I write things 'wrong', I phrase things as I think them, if that's not to your likeing, I can't do anthing more. I'm sorry if you are reading more than curiosity into my posts, there is nothing more than that I assure you. I think there's a real communication problem and I can't think of a way to make it any better so all I can do is not post and I'll leave my questions unasked and unaswered as they obviously aren't being understood for what they are, a non political, non partisan noseyness on how other people cope with the things life and governments throw up. I don't even have a dog in this fight because your situation isn't the same as ours so I have no opinion on what you should do, yet the posts I get back are sharp and aggressive. So much for trying to understand each other.

 

[SensibleManiac]

And if they choose not to? What's the 'or else'?

That's why I can never call myself a liberal. In my world, people 'should' take control of what they're feeding themselves. But if they don't, they don't. End of discussion. I try not to tell people what they 'need' to do in general.

That's the liberal position: I see a problem in you. I tell you about it. You refuse to fix it. That gives me the right to force you to fix it or demand that the government do so.

Uh, no.

I don't see why there should be an "or else" as you put it.

The consequences on why people "need" to as opposed to "should" is that when you poison the entire population health care costs skyrocket like what is happening in the US right now.

Clean water and healthy food is a NEED not a should last time I checked. Or what you end up with is a dysfunctional society that's falling apart.
I am not American or a liberal, but I am a realist. So I realize that if things keep going the way they are, (people turning a blind eye on the fact that the food supply is being nothing less than poisoned,) then we will run out of time to correct this.

The government should not be the one to force manufacturers of goods to comply with making healthy food. But it is illegal to serve alcohol to a child right? So why shouldn't it be illegal to serve them known and proven carcinogens?

Is it not the governments place to step in and say, hey, we should prevent children from being poisoned?
And then shouldn't they then step in and say hey, we should prevent our population from being poisoned?
Now granted not all junk food is the equivalent of poison, some can be reasonably consumed in moderation but, there has to be some accountability and rules put in place for honestly labeling what people are eating.

So yes the governnment does have the need and right to step in, I never said that they have the right to force anyone to eat anything, or manufacturers to be forced to make healthy food.
People should be able to choose to eat crap if they want to. But in order to be able to CHOOSE it, they need to know that it's crap and not be told they're eating "artificial flavor"...

 

[shinbushi]

I am not a liberal.

You post shows otherwise.

 

[Tez3]

I think if someone says they aren't liberal we should take them at their word the same as if they say they are conservative we should. To contradict someone when they tell you what their view is and say it's actually something else is somewhat rude and attacking.

 

[granfire]

not to mention 'being liberal' is too commonly tossed around as insult...(in a country based on liberty...gawd almighty...)

 

[SensibleManiac]

It's funny that even if someone has a "liberal" view on a topic, (not saying that I do) does that even make them a liberal?
That's what I hate about politics, people stop thinking for themselves.

If I was a conservative, does that mean that I have to agree 100% with every policy? Is that even possible?

Either way I am neither liberal nor republican, can't I be something else? lol

It's funny when someone tries to make such a claim or as Tez put it very well, an attack on a person based on one post.

 

[billc]

Well, you could be a liberal republican, which is almost the same thing as being a democrat. That covers three things right there.

 

[SensibleManiac]

Well, you could be a liberal republican, which is almost the same thing as being a democrat. That covers three things right there.

Does that make me a socialist too?

 

[billc]

Definitely.

 

[granfire]

Does that make me a socialist too?

Fascist commy, actually!