57 replies to this topic

[DrakeN2k]

the debate about i don't want my tax to pay for the burden of people health problems which is true. so do I

but you could say I don't want people to drive as air pollution effects me quite a bit. but I own a car? You say it as you don't need to health costs. if you did its in your right for heath care.

[SPARTdAN]

Timan, on 21 June 2012 - 14:28, said:

Pft, make a healthy alternative that is just as addicting

Or perhaps if healthy foods/drinks weren't so expensive.

[Growled]

I think they are going about this wrong. Don't outlaw food. That makes the government seem like too much of a Big Brother. Just place a tax on foods (like Coke) that leads to health problems.

[Hum]

^ I'm not convinced soda leads to health problems.

And I don't drink that much.

[sanctified]

What I will say will seem polemic for some, take it for what it is, an opinion:

Many yell "freedom" when they read news like this one. But in reality we dont know what to do with our freedom, we think freedom is some kind of liberty to destroy, waste and consume. That's not freedom, thats a paradigm, thats why we need governments, we need a power that tell us what to do. Of course, abuse of power is common, but sometimes what we call as abuse of power in reality is "Im stubborn and dont want to see I need control".

I support laws like these. I would support laws that ban or at least regulate junk food. Too bad that something like that will never happen since the world economy is too dependent on corps.

[+Xenosion]

sanctified, on 22 June 2012 - 03:11, said:

What I will say will seem polemic for some, take it for what it is, an opinion:

Many yell "freedom" when they read news like this one. But in reality we dont know what to do with our freedom, we think freedom is some kind of liberty to destroy, waste and consume. That's not freedom, thats a paradigm, thats why we need governments, we need a power that tell us what to do. Of course, abuse of power is common, but sometimes what we call as abuse of power in reality is "Im stubborn and dont want to see I need control".

I support laws like these. I would support laws that ban or at least regulate junk food. Too bad that something like that will never happen since the world economy is too dependent on corps.

And to that I would say we already have regulations in place that have made a difference on the healthiness of fast foods and the education of what they contain so I ask the same question as I did before:

Xenosion, on 07 June 2012 - 17:12, said:

How does it make sense to ban some measly beverage size before toughening up on regulations that already exist and that don't affect freedom of choice.

Replace "some measly beverage size" with any free choice and you get the fundamental issue: are we going to evolve our society to be totally dependent on government to tie our shoes or are we going to take control of ourselves? Imagine what we could achieve if stupidity wasn't praised but condemned.

[sanctified]

Xenosion, on 22 June 2012 - 03:25, said:

or are we going to take control of ourselves?

Can we?

[+Xenosion]

We did a better job at one point... Unfortunately I doubt anyone here on Neowin has the end all solution, but I don't think it's coincidence that we're stuck fighting polarized politics, political correctness, and overall over sensitivity while loosing grasp on our own lives.

[IsItPluggedIn]

Just throwing this out there.

People over eat, which gives them health risks. Which then they become a burden on the health system.

So you ban foods which are unhealthy so people dont become a burden on the health system. Which removes "freedom" and punishes the people who do the correct thing.

Most people dont care abouts peoples health the just dont want to have to pay for other peoples unhealthy lifestyles.

So..... Instead of baning the unhealthy foods. Make any lifestyle health services payed. This way you can keep your "freedom" keep the foods you want and dont have to pay for other peoples lifestyles.

It may seem hash, but if you run it this way, everybody wins except those who cant afford the health services but they brought it on themselves, it may even be a big deterrent. Be overweight and you die, no help given.

[Hum]

^ Is it a win, when the low IQ people live longer and reproduce ?

[+Xenosion]

That is where humanity has arrived. Survival of the fittest in nature no longer exists.

[sanctified]

Xenosion, on 22 June 2012 - 22:42, said:

That is where humanity has arrived. Survival of the fittest in nature no longer exists.

That could be an interesting paper: Survival has to be forced.

[Growled]

Xenosion, on 22 June 2012 - 03:25, said:

Replace "some measly beverage size" with any free choice and you get the fundamental issue: are we going to evolve our society to be totally dependent on government to tie our shoes or are we going to take control of ourselves? Imagine what we could achieve if stupidity wasn't praised but condemned.

We're going to evolve to the point where government tells completely what to do. Then people will get itred of that and rebel and we'll start the cycle all over again.