Guvment Diet

[Hermit]

[snipped for clarity] Fuck off.

Yes, you did leave my reference to minors in, and I missed that. Apologies. The rest of your reply contained few points worth reacting to and rEv covered them very well.

Thanks, rEv.

[pErvinalia]

On the other hand, we voted that government into office, and we agree with the policy of discouraging the consumption of tobacco short of banning its sale. The death rate resulting from smoking cigarettes is several magnitudes greater than that of all illegal drugs combined. What's more, we go even further. We support our government's policies of making the sale of tobacco and alcohol to minors illegal.

Certainly, but what we're talking about is the government determining where a shop stocks a product on its shelves. Third row to the left, or bottom row down the aisle?

Bit like regulations on how shops must display and secure guns. Or health regulations for restaurants. How dare the government presume it can regulate commerce!

I don't recall the government telling a gun shop which guns it can display where.

So shops can display guns full constructed, unlocked and with ammo sitting right next to them if they want? If so, I guess this is another one of those "only in America" moments. However, there are definitely regulations on guns and ammo at gun shows. Goddamn, evil Marixsts trying to regulate your access to killing machines!!

..that's one thing, but to suggest that the government ought to be determining what leaves and potables are inhaled or imbibed by an individual otherwise,..

In the case of cigarettes, adults can still buy them. It's only the morally fragile libertarians and the like who take every little thing like that as a personal affront.

Who said something was a personal affront? I just said it's not really a proper role of government. Are you responding to someone else here?

Of course it's a personal affront to you. That's why you engage in the utterly ridiculous hyperbolic rhetoric. It's such a non-issue, that it barely needs commenting on, let alone the manic tone of your responses.

And if we decide that all Dunkin Donut shops have to be in big white buildings labelled "Food That Is Bad for You" and packaged in plain brown wrappers, I'd be in favour of that too.

I'm not all that surprised that you would favor that. However, it's a rather oppressive and tyrannical thing to do to people, isn't it?

Huh? People are still just as free to go and purchase donuts from the shop. Only in 42 world of spechul English and logic could that be "oppressive and tyrannical".

Well, telling someone who wants to run a donut shop, that they have to do so as persona non grata, in a brown paper bag is telling them that they can't so much as put up a sign that says "world's best donut."

Of course, because advertising isn't regulated at all. Given your love for the thin edge of the wedge, why aren't we seeing exactly this as you describe above? We've had regulations on advertising for a long time. And even if it was this bad, it's not fucking "tyrannical".

It's controlling their message, and limiting their point of view. So, at its heart, this kind of regulation is censorship, which is generally considered rather unpleasant.

I see you are trying to walk back your ridiculous hyperbole. First it was "tyrannical" and now it is just "rather unpleasant". I suppose it should be viewed as a good thing that you are finally cognisant of the utter nonsense you pump out at times (most of the time).

It would be like making a law that you're "perfectly free to sell and buy soft drinks" but then requiring 7-Eleven to sell them only from a separate room with a curtain that says "terrible product - do not buy" on the front and served only in cups that exhibit an image of enlarged and diabetic spleens and livers on them. Oh, sure, you're free to buy the product all you want.

You are free to buy the product all you want. As long as all stores are treated equally, no one at all is disadvantaged. How on earth could this be a problem, other than to the terminally precious libertarians amongst us?

I mean, donut shops? If an even-handed application of such a rule would be imposed upon any product that is as equally "bad for you" as donuts, well, then I think we'd see the overall landscape of our cities and towns taking on a decidedly, well, dystopian and totalitarian visage.

More hyperbole.

Not really, not if we accept the premise being offered, and carry it to its logical conclusion. Why would the State target donut shops, but not Starbucks, McDonalds, and Ice Cream stands, and the list goes on and on? What non-arbitrary reason would there be to not include all such unhealthy locales?

And, pubs? Very unhealthy. Get the shamrocks and catchy slogans off the pub. It should just say "Den of Iniquity" on it and be a brown building with demon rum served in brown glasses.

Yes, yes, thin edge of the wedge. Even if your ridiculous characterisations were to come true, that still doesn't make them "dystopian" or "totalitarian". That's abuse of the English language that even you should be embarrassed by.

A rational application of the "stop what's bad for them" government policy would likely include the de-glorification of casinos, right? Many of them still allow smoking in them. That's got to go first. No smoking in casinos.

Who gives a fuck? (other than morally fragile libertarians). Can people not gamble just as well without cigarettes? Can they not pop outside every now and then for a darb?

Well "who gives a fuck" means "i don't give a fuck." However, the proprietor of the establishment may care, and his customers might. I don't know if people can or can't gamble just as well without cigarettes. Maybe they don't want to. Maybe they like it. Do they need to justify their actions?

Proprietors of businesses want all sorts of regulations cut. Does that mean we should just do it? Of course not. The idea of regulations isn't to make proprietors happy. It's to manage safety in society.

Then, of course, there's alcoholic beverages served by hetero-normatively attractive females... can't have that. The alcohol is not good for you, and the hetero-normatively attractive females is sexist, transphobic and white, cisgendered patriarchy. And, of course, gambling is bad for people too, so we need to turn all the lights down, and the bells and whistles need to go. Turn the hotels into plain, brown buildings with no entertainment theme. If you want to play dice, do so quietly, and in embarrassment, in the corner of a bare room. No cheering.

Your 'thin edge of the wedge' hyperbole knows no bounds. We've gone from mild regulation discouraging people (particularly minors) from smoking, to bland soviet era concrete jungles living under tyranny and totalitarianism. Do you even understand how utterly ridiculous you sound?!

You consider requiring donut shops to serve their products in brown paper bags out of bare-bones, non-descript buildingss a "mild regulation?"

Fallacy after fallacy with you. I just explicitly mentioned what this tangent started with - that was, cigarette regulations. Not fucking donuts. Your ridiculous hyperbole starting with the donut shop and moving through to soviet style cities through to tyranny and totalitarianism and now to the utterly ridiculous above, is what is hyperbole.

And, then you declare me to be engaged in hyperbole? How can I be engaging in hyperbole,

Read what you write. Fucking hell.

when you've accepted some of what I actually meant as hyperbole to be "mild?" LOL.

Yes, lol at your strawman.

If you were to suggest that a donut shop is so unhealthy that it warrants the "mild regulation" of stripping it of all marketing, name-recognition, and trappings of any kind and serving only out of brown paper bags like some kind of illicit product - if that's what you think is "mild regulation" -

Instead of just constantly making bullshit up, why don't you actually read what's written and then comment on what's written? Would that be too much to ask?

Now to meat. Though I am not a vegetarian, I'd approve of butchers wrapping the steak I buy in a package which reminds me that ten trees have been chopped down, or whatever, in order for me to be able to eat it.

That sounds like a personal problem for you. You might seek therapy. You think you should be made to feel guilty for buying and eating meat, and that should be legislated, and that's a proper role for the government?

What's guilt got to do with it? It's information. I thought you free market types were in favour of the free flow of information. The better informed a market is, the better it will work for everyone. What could possibly be bad about informing consumers?!

Why would the information required be negative?

In English? I really don't know what you are trying to say here. Who said anything about information required to be negative? It's information. My point stands. Don't you alleged freedom types support access to information?

What of the negative health impact of the imposed guilt and embarrassment, and the anxiety? People with low self esteem will tend to be shamed by repeated guilt trips and embarrassment. This shame often causes them to develop even lower self-esteem and the cycle repeats, and can become clinical depression and such. But, you'd want the government doing that to people.

FFS, you and the hyperbole.

Hyperbole? Do you mean you don't think that what's printed there can have a deleterious effect on the customers?

"Serious effect on customers"?!? Are you fucking high? Of course I don't. What an utterly ridiculous notion.

Some things actually are thin edges of wedges. Naturally, if you say "we need to make motorcyclists wear helmets" because they may fall and crack their skulls, it's reasonable to ask what other activities should likewise be similarly required to involve helmets. How far will it go? Will it result in there being laws requiring people to wear them riding bicycles, tricycles, skate boards, segways, or what about when riding a sled in the winter...? http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... eaded.html

I'm pretty sure it's going to wind up with us all living in oxygen tents for the rest of our lives. Fuck that! Get yer gun, bro, we are going to overthrow this totalitarian system!!! Who else is with me?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But, there is something to be said for thinking critically about these things, and not simply accepting every "because it's good for you" thing the government seeks to impose.

Who's doing that? Please point to anyone in the thread that has said that.

[pErvinalia]

[snipped for clarity] Fuck off.

Yes, you did leave my reference to minors in, and I missed that. Apologies. The rest of your reply contained few points worth reacting to and rEv covered them very well.

Thanks, rEv.

It will come to nought. I'm about to give up.

[JimC]

Tonight, I made my lunch for tomorrow. It consist of 2 sesame seed coated white rolls, buttered then filled with grated cheese and sliced celery, plus an apple. Do I need to be arrested?

[pErvinalia]

You need to be sent to a margarine camp!

[JimC]

You can pry the butter out of my cold, dead hands!

[pErvinalia]

Should be easy, what with butter being pretty slippery...

[JimC]

Not so much when the hands are cold...

[pErvinalia]

We'll get to you before they put you on ice at the morgue...

[Hermit]

And if we decide that all Dunkin Donut shops have to be in big white buildings labelled "Food That Is Bad for You" and packaged in plain brown wrappers, I'd be in favour of that too.

I'm not all that surprised that you would favor that. However, it's a rather oppressive and tyrannical thing to do to people, isn't it?

Huh? People are still just as free to go and purchase donuts from the shop. Only in 42 world of spechul English and logic could that be "oppressive and tyrannical".

Well, telling someone who wants to run a donut shop, that they have to do so as persona non grata, in a brown paper bag is telling them that they can't so much as put up a sign that says "world's best donut."

Of course, because advertising isn't regulated at all. Given your love for the thin edge of the wedge, why aren't we seeing exactly this as you describe above? We've had regulations on advertising for a long time. And even if it was this bad, it's not fucking "tyrannical".

And that just a few days after 4.2 accused Ani of engaging in "concept creep" and "definition creep". I don't know if I should call him out on his hypocrisy or just quietly make my way to the local supermarket and buy another irony meter. Luckily I get a bulk discount on them. At full price our resident right wingers would have driven me bankrupt by now.

[rainbow]

Why do we seem to be concentrating on fats and not carbohydrates as the culprit for the rise in obesity?

I suppose it's the popular misconception that eating 'fat' makes you fat - like beget's like - dating from the fifties, I believe.

Whereas it is carbohydrates that now seem to be the cause, particularly added sugars which manufacturers appear to add to almost any manufactured food product.

It is the governments job to insist that food manufacturers declare the nutrition in their products, the rest is down to education, education, education.

It's not just about obesity. Saturated animal fats are particularly nasty for things like the various heart and artery diseases.

Good thing it is too.

Healthy people are using up all the world's resources, and leading the world economy into bankruptcy.

[JimC]

Why do we seem to be concentrating on fats and not carbohydrates as the culprit for the rise in obesity?

I suppose it's the popular misconception that eating 'fat' makes you fat - like beget's like - dating from the fifties, I believe.

Whereas it is carbohydrates that now seem to be the cause, particularly added sugars which manufacturers appear to add to almost any manufactured food product.

It is the governments job to insist that food manufacturers declare the nutrition in their products, the rest is down to education, education, education.

It's not just about obesity. Saturated animal fats are particularly nasty for things like the various heart and artery diseases.

Good thing it is too.

Healthy people are using up all the world's resources, and leading the world economy into bankruptcy.

Avoid obese missionaries, rainbow...

[rainbow]

Avoid obese missionaries, rainbow...

Au contraire.

Recycling is the key to sustainability.

[Scot Dutchy]

Indeed, and also, ban Frikandel, Friet & Mayo, witte spekje, Palingworst, boterkoek, suikerbeest, klapstuk.

That stuff has to go. It's horrible for people, and costing the health system millions...

Do you actually know what these are? You dont it is obvious. Klapstuk?



Beef for braising. Quite lean and very popular for slow cooking.

Palingworst?



A lean sausage made from smoked eels.

Boterkoek.



Very fast foody. Dates back to the 16the century as does suikerbeest and witte spekje. Child's sweets.

[Alan B]

Nutrition per 100g:
Klapstuk (Brisket)
kcal. 155, Fat 7%, Sat. Fat 2.6%, CHO 0%, Sugars 0%, Dietary Fibre 0%, Protein 21%, Salt Equiv. 0.2%

Palingworst ("Eel Sausage" Pork Sausage smoked a la 'smoked eels')
kcal. 304, Fat 26.4%, Sat. Fat 11.6%, CHO 4.5%, Sugars 1.0%, Dietary Fibre 0%, Protein 13%, Salt Equiv. 1.0%

Frikandel (Deep Fried Sausage: Beef, Pork & Chicken)
kcal. 258, Fat 18.4%, Sat. Fat 6.8%, CHO 9.1%, Sugars 0.8%, Dietary Fibre 0.7%, Protein 13%, Salt Equiv. 0.7%

Boterkoek (Butter cake?) Nutrition per 70g portion recalculated for 100g for comparison.
kcal. 770, Fat 43%, Sat. Fat 26.4%, CHO 89.1%, Sugars 44.6%, Dietary Fibre 1.4%, Protein 8.9%, Salt Equiv. 0.76%

Suikerbeest seems to be 100% sugar; witte spekje is 'White Marshmallow' - speaks for itself; Friet & Mayo is the Dutch version of French Fries (doused in mayonnaise).

Banning foods is stupid (unless they contain a known poison). You just gotta eat the sensible amount - y'know, educate yourself.

The frikandel sounds rather yummy...