01-06-2011, 01:49 PM | #41 (permalink) | ||||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 09:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
We should focus on real solutions. These theoretical bans (smart/motivated people get around them) don't work and history shows that time and time.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 01-06-2011 at 02:01 PM.. |
||||
01-06-2011, 02:19 PM | #42 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
i was under the impression that this thread is about the problematic results of a problematic non-study---more an exercise in playing with brain scan technologies---commissioned by a bbc show that frontloaded the premise (conservatives are more inclined to be afraid of things)----which is at the socio-political level self-evident (going by how conservative political discourse works). and it turned out that to the surprise of the team playing with the scanning technology that there was a correlation. but its wholly unclear what that correlation even really is not to mention what it means.
but we're talking about imaginary "food police" and other conservo-memes? why? why is this interesting? how is it relevant?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
01-07-2011, 08:08 AM | #43 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
For your post above. Quote:
Second, or actual it was my initial response in this thread, is that there is a known correlation between inclination of fear and age. There is also a correlation between age and conservatism. As the responses mounted I further illustrated how ideology clouds an objective analysis of this issue. It is all there, yet you focus on trivial matters and think I have a problem, go figure. Perhaps I need to s l o w d o w n a n d p e r h a p s u s e c o l o r f u l p i c t u r e s.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
||
01-07-2011, 01:36 PM | #45 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
The mindset that first creates an onerous amount of red-tape for a restaurant to be open, then goes on a crusade against the one type of restaurant (large corporate, with the advantage of economy of scale, at a low cost point - especially in low income areas) that can be profitable in some areas given the increased costs of regulations and the demographics, baffles the hell out of me. One day they want to protect the "character" of old neighborhoods, then its livable wages, then it is "for the children", etc. etc. etc. - what is it? What are they really afraid of? Why?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 01-07-2011 at 01:40 PM.. |
||
01-07-2011, 01:47 PM | #46 (permalink) | |
Lover - Protector - Teacher
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
I reckon it has something to do with this. Conservatives are keen to defend the ideals of "free market capitalism is always better" and "personal responsibility is the solution to many problems." However, we have a public health crisis on par with smoking or cancer, and obesity is on track to be the #1 killer of Americans, bar none. It's even worse in children, with the current generation being the first which will not outlive their parents. You're welcome to argue that if everyone had some personal responsibility and the free market were allowed to reign this public health crisis would go away, but I don't tend to agree, for obvious reasons. In all 50 states, more than ONE FOURTH OF THE POPULATION IS CLINICALLY OBESE. So as I see it, it is a simple conflict of values. When "free market capitalism" and "personal responsibility" do not solve a problem, an epidemic, even.. which has been developing for nearly 20 years; you can either work to address it with governance, or somehow instill personal responsibility and somehow let free market capitalism solve a problem they have no interest in solving. It's more profitable for everyone if the majority of the public is obese. I'd rather be working towards OBVIOUS solutions (like preventing the marketing of a food that is demonstrably worse for children than smoking TO children WITH toys) than simply chanting the mantra of free markets and responsibility.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel |
|
01-07-2011, 01:54 PM | #47 (permalink) | |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Quote:
How about satisfy the "free marketers" and those concerned with obesity in America: cancel the corn subsidies. Or better: redirect them into organic farmers of fruit and vegetables.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
|
01-07-2011, 02:42 PM | #48 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
If I was a restaurateur, even if I was able to provide amazing food at incredible prices by doing good business, I'd never, ever be able to compete directly with McDonalds or Pizza Hut because they're dishonest, evil corporations that are uninterested in fair competition. One of the main ways they're unfair, aside from massive subsidies, tax loopholes, and a bought and paid for food and drug administration, is that they use incredibly low quality products in their food. Large amounts of bovine fecal matter in the meat quality. Fries that never rot quality. Let's say my restaurant served perfect food at highly competitive prices and I paid a fair wage to my workers. McDonalds moves in next door and I'm royally screwed even though their food is of incredibly low quality, their customer service is nonexistant, and the atmosphere is that of the DMV. Why, you ask? Because corporations have earned their reputations. They DO strip the individuality out of old neighborhoods, they DO provide wages that are terrifyingly low, and they DO sell dangerously unhealthy foods marketed directly to children. They stifle competition, buy themselves subsidies (corn and subsidies benefit McDonalds incredibly), and then they provide a terrible service. |
|
01-07-2011, 02:49 PM | #49 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
An over-reliance on the market and on personal responsibility is what has gotten into this mess in the first place. |
|
01-07-2011, 05:17 PM | #50 (permalink) | |
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
I suppose you could file that under 'fear', but then it becomes even murkier as to whether this silly topic is actually a 'gotcha' moment. Perhaps it'll come out that liberals have larger 'apathy' areas in the brain.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
|
01-10-2011, 08:46 AM | #51 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
It seems your assumption is that low income people have low cost alternatives to high fat/sugar/salt processed food. Ironically in this country lower fat/sugar/salt foods actually cost more???? Poor people can not afford a diet full of fresh fruit, lean meats and rich colorful vegetables. Your proposed solution does not address the problem. In addition, low income people are less educated in terms of proper diet, and tasty food preparation using less harmful fats, less sugar and less salt. If we want to solve the obesity problem a focus on this will pay off, banning fast food won't. If people develop a taste for different food that is less fatty, less salty, less sugary - the market will respond. I remember when Mcdonald;s came out with their Mclean burger - it failed. ---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 PM ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ---------- Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|||
01-10-2011, 09:19 AM | #52 (permalink) | |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Quote:
I have asked a vegan friend of mine about how he feels about being a taxpayer when a portion of what he pays goes towards things he doesn't support. I'm thinking particularly about farm subsidies that go towards the meat and dairy industries. He shrugs if off, of course, because what is he going to do? The vegan philosophy is about minimizing what you can with regard to the use of animals as products. But you're right, there are unintended consequences. I think the U.S. is in a particularly tough spot where they've made corn, meat, and dairy products way cheaper than they should be in the consumer marketplace. I imagine a large proportion of what McDonald's produces has been subsidized by American taxpayers. On top of that add in vast purchasing power, highly developed processes, and high volume production and sales, and you have a really cheap product that makes fresh fruits and vegetables seem a luxury. I won't even get into packaged junk food. If liberals fear any of this, it's the fear of the influence and reach of McDonald's, rooted in the fact that their products tend to top the list of foods that lead to heart disease among other things. I agree with you in that the move to ban certain categories of food or whatever is misguided. I'd rather they go to the source. Cut down, redirect, or eliminate the subsidies that go towards corn, meat, and dairy producers. Interestingly enough, the meat and dairy producers are essentially double-dipping in that they use a shit-ton of corn for their purposes. There is no reason why beef should be as cheap as it is. And for the record, eating products like rice, potatoes, beans, carrots, etc., is rather cheap. But when alternatives are cheaply produced convenience foods, you have competition. I think the problem stems more from a combination of convenience and food education. But after having said all of this, I cannot see how this train of thought isn't rational. Bad food is bad for you. I suppose the lapse of rationality occurs in how problem is dealt with.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
|
01-10-2011, 09:27 AM | #53 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
people who choose to opt out of the industrial food system typically do it because they've researched the industrial food system.
it's a conscious choice based on political viewpoint, nutritional information and other considerations. depending on where you live, it can be a hassle to live off the industrial food grid. speaking for myself, i lost a lot of weight as a direct function of stopping my consumption of processed foods. i still don't eat them. it had nothing to do with fear---it was a deliberate and considered choice that had direct benefits. it turns out that i don't metabolize that shit very well. i know because i see every day the consequences of eliminating it. for example. the data about the nature of industrial food, particularly on substances like high-fructose corn syrup, is abundant and readily available. so as is usual, i don't think ace is talking about anything.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
01-10-2011, 09:29 AM | #54 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
I found your post above very rational. What I find irrational is the thought that we can solve a problem like obesity through restricting choices or the assumption of a - one size fits all - solution. A short review of history shows these approaches generally fail. I have no interest in living in a society where government rations and dictates food choice.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
01-10-2011, 09:30 AM | #55 (permalink) | |
Still Free
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
|
Quote:
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." |
|
01-10-2011, 09:58 AM | #57 (permalink) |
Still Free
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
|
My point is that it seems to me that the liberals of California are afraid to say "No" to their children when their children ask for happy meals EVERY day. So, instead of dealing with the tantrums until the child learns moderation, they have asked their nanny government to simply tell a company to stop producing a product. That way the sissy parents of California can coddle little Johnnie and say, "Oh, honey. I KNOW you want a happy meal. But, unfortunately, they don't make them anymore." Cue little Johnnie demanding Baskin Robbins...until that has to be banned.
If you can't control the fat intake of your 6 year old, you are a pussy.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." |
01-10-2011, 10:33 AM | #59 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
uh....so therefore regulation is unnecessary? because regulation does not automatically change the way individuals operate, the choices that they make? what kind of argument is that?
there's a deep problem with the american industrial food system as a whole and its subordination of human nutritional needs to profit imperatives, it's centralization of control/ownership, it's emphasis on standardization (monocropping, massive chemical dependencies to compensate for that), it's willingness to use corn-derivative substances that are only rational in a context where subsidies promote the irrational overproduction of corn no. 2....macdo is a powerful institution within the industrial food system; it is a massive buyer....fast food nation outlines the supply system pretty well. happy meals are basically shitty processed foods marketed to kids. personally, i think they're a health problem not only in themselves, but also because they're marketed at kids. i have no problem with regulating them out of existence. there's more a problem with the lack of regulation, really. it's the lack of regulation that enables your circular non-argument to function. what's bizarre is that you seem to imagine it an argument against regulation.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
01-10-2011, 10:44 AM | #61 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Obesity more likely with 'free market' economies
BBC News - Obesity linked to money insecurity in affluent nations This is an interesting story that I saw earlier today. It links higher obesity rates to nations with greater economic insecurity. For example, Canada and the U.S. have higher obesity rates than rich European countries with greater social systems with strong welfare. It states that the stresses of economic insecurity spurs poor eating habits even more than the mere availability of cheap fast food. So those of you who fear the nanny state, what do you think about that? I suppose this is interesting in that it's a kind of indirect cause rather than the direct cause if you consider not being able to say no to children. If parents are stressed out an eat a lot of fast food/processed food, then I guess the children are eating it too. So maybe the problem isn't McDonald's and children. It's deeper than that. Like I said, I don't think the solutions are about banning things. But I do believe the concerns are very real. There you go. I suppose one thing liberals fear is economic insecurity; though I'm sure that's shared amongst conservatives as well. Their way of dealing with it differs, I'm sure.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
01-10-2011, 12:23 PM | #64 (permalink) |
Still Free
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
|
If only the question were that simple. I support a policy which forces companies to reveal the ingredients, calories, and potential health consequences of ingestible products so that Americans can make an informed decision about what they put in their bodies (and their children's bodies). I oppose a policy which dictates what products a company can sell and what a person can consume. Now, all of this has the "within reason" caveat. I know we have reached the end of common sense when an American can sue a major corporation for putting a "toy" in a meal which is, in moderation, perfectly fit for consumption.
Frankly, I can't understand the position you take. You call the government's policy on smoking "fascism" but it's policy on food perfectly reasonable? What am I missing here?
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." |
01-11-2011, 10:44 AM | #65 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
Do you think a society increasingly weighted down by the high social and monetary costs of obesity is going to net more or less freedom? We've been relying on the personal responsibility-centric model for a long time. It is the model which has given us the obesity epidemic. Why do you think that it can provide the solution all on its own? Where does this deification of personal responsibility come from? I doubt anyone who works in the marketing industry shares it. Quote:
|
||
01-11-2011, 11:21 AM | #66 (permalink) |
Still Free
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
|
~sigh~
Trying to explain personal freedoms to a statist is like trying to explain the color blue to a blind person.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." |
01-11-2011, 11:28 AM | #67 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
No. I understand where you're coming from. I was hoping you could clarify for me a few things which I view as shortcomings of your perspective. My mistake. |
|
01-11-2011, 11:36 AM | #68 (permalink) |
Still Free
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
|
I'm so glad the rhetoric is going to be toned down. But anyway.
Let me ask you a simple, serious question. Do you have a right to kill yourself?
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." |
01-11-2011, 11:41 AM | #70 (permalink) |
Still Free
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
|
My answers lie in your answers. Go ahead, it's not that hard: Do you have a right to kill yourself?
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." |
01-11-2011, 01:10 PM | #72 (permalink) |
Still Free
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
|
It's a yes or no question.
Consider it the "eye test", before I start explaining the color blue to you.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." |
01-11-2011, 01:18 PM | #73 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
Perhaps your prior difficulties explaining personal responsibility to statists stems from your refusal to answer simple questions? |
|
01-11-2011, 01:24 PM | #74 (permalink) |
Still Free
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
|
Very simple. You answer ONE question of mine and I will answer ALL of yours. Otherwise, we are all done here.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." |
01-11-2011, 01:34 PM | #76 (permalink) |
Still Free
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
|
You are a coward. You expect me to share my beliefs and place them up for your scrutiny, but are unwilling to do the same.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." |
01-11-2011, 01:47 PM | #77 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Nice. I think you'll find this whole fucking website is littered with me sharing my beliefs and placing them up for scrutiny.
What I don't typically do is post condescending little notes about how statists are all too fucking blind to understand personal responsibility and then resort to silly rhetorical games when asked to clarify how personal responsibility should play out when subject to the constraints of the real world. You're just pissy because I won't play your game, which is fine. But don't pretend that it's because I'm somehow scared to share my beliefs. Anyone willing to plot the course of this thread will clearly see who lacks the will to support their convictions with explanations. |
01-11-2011, 01:49 PM | #78 (permalink) |
Still Free
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
|
You are but one word away from the support of my convictions with explanations. It's in your hands...
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." |
01-11-2011, 02:08 PM | #80 (permalink) |
Still Free
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
|
I have absolutely no responsibility to explain anything to you. My question to you is a litmus test to see how far back I must go in my explanation. If the next post is not a "Yes" or a "No," I'm done.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." |
Tags |
area, brain, conservatives, fear, larger, study |
|
|