122 posts in this topic

You do know what the FDA does right? On aspect is saying what foods are approved for consumption.

Sorry, this was because of a typo. Meant to only put how much of what we eat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of a supposed obesity epidemic, this is still ridiculous. I don't see how they are even allowed to do something like this legally. The government needs to back the hell off. If we want to get fat, let us. It's not their right to control how much food we eat, nor how much we drink.

i could not agree with you more!

they should never be even allowed to attempt passing stuff like this as it's just sugar at the end of the day and should be left on the average joe what they want to drink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're just repeating the same nonsense. The diabetes website I linked to stated that sugar can contribute to diabetes - that was the only point I made. At no point did I state that sugar causes diabetes. And cigarettes don't give you cancer, they just dramatically increase the likelihood of getting it. If you're unwilling to reconsider your position when provided with evidence that directly contradicts it then this isn't a discussion and I shan't waste my time in the hope that you'll somehow see reason.

You speak of reason and you are sitting here defending a law that is based on sugar causing diabetes, not contributing. Lets regulate everything and punish everyone for something that contributes to something regardless of if it barely does or not. Every thread about personal freedoms you come into you always argue that we should have less freedom. I hope the UK doesn't have that same overarching attitude. I like being able to eat and drink what I want because I am responsible and take care of myself. I believe, unlike you, that I shouldn't be punished for other peoples choices. Don't claim you want any form of reason when you are constantly going on about giving personal freedoms away. You are in the minority when it comes to that mindset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a perfect example of this. My BMI classifies me as borderline obese, yet I'm roughly the same height and weight as most male Olympic gymnasts. Muscle weighs more than an equivalent volume of fat, yet BMI is based on just height and weight.

What the ****????? It may be a privilege where you live (and I'd hate to live there) but in the US freedom IS a right.

No you just think its a right, but then you think you have the right to own assault weapons, but most americans have no understanding of their own constitution or bill of rights, so ill excuse you.

Personally i can think of nothing more dangerous than having freedom be a right where one doesnt have to treat it as a partnership, and earn it, because it allows one to blanket excuse for any action...such as often happens in america, under the misuse of the term "freedom".

No thanks

I wouldnt want to live where you do either, its nucking futts, ill take my country anyday for any number of reasons....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every thread about personal freedoms you come into you always argue that we should have less freedom. I hope the UK doesn't have that same overarching attitude. I like being able to eat and drink what I want because I am responsible and take care of myself. I believe, unlike you, that I shouldn't be punished for other peoples choices.

That's a very selfish attitude. The vast majority of people in the US and UK are overweight and current policies simply aren't working. Do I want to see the price of food I want to buy go up? Of course not, but sometimes an individual has to make a sacrifice for the greater good of society. As I said, with freedom come responsibility and the latter is something is decidedly lacking - that is especially true in the US where everybody loves the freedom of owning a gun but refuses to take responsibility for the harm that policy is taking on society; where they love the freedom of speech but that's used to protect businesses and billionaires subverting the democratic process; where everybody talks about personal freedom but conservatives want the government to take away the freedom for women to have abortions.

The US model of freedom has encouraged immoral behaviour and a lack of compassion for fellow man. That's not to say that the UK has done a whole lot better, though I would argue we have a much fairer and more tolerant society. As for my opinions, few people if any are truly representative of an entire nation so obviously my views should be treated as my own.

In the UK we have a problem with alcohol and currently there is a lot of talk about setting minimum unit prices to curtail binge drinking - it's certainly not a popular move but it is generally accepted that something serious needs to be done to tackle the problem. Many European countries have very high prices for alcohol to prevent it from causing social problems; others like Italy are the opposite, where they have low prices and few restrictions yet their culture means they don't have any issue with it. Unfortunately the UK has had no success addressing the issue without legislation. Scotland has already passed a minimum alcohol unit price and England and Wales are likely to follow. Is it an ideal solution? No. Is it supported by everybody? Certainly not. But at some point we have to accept that what we're doing isn't working and try a different approach.

You show no interest in doing what is right for the country, only what is good for yourself. The food and drinks industries have exploited people and created a generation that is likely to live shorter lives that their parents. You can tout freedom all you want but it's damaging society. Simply saying it's an individuals responsibility to look after themselves just doesn't cut it, not when predatory business practices exploit vulnerable people. I mean, caffeine in fizzy drinks? It's not a flavour enhancer, it's designed to make it addictive. McDonald's sells meals that contain the entire recommended calorie intake for an inactive woman and the vast majority of an active man's. Upselling in Subway (and other restaurants) is used to pressure people into buying considerably more food than people initially wanted to order. And in the US it's absolutely crazy territory, where people are offered free meals for nearly killing themselves through over eating and where restaurants market themselves on how unhealthy they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

soda is tasty but the one thing the kids don't know its screws up your insides so enjoy it while u can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you just think its a right, but then you think you have the right to own assault weapons, but most americans have no understanding of their own constitution or bill of rights, so ill excuse you.

I'm QUITE sure that I understand our constitution and bill of rights FAR better than you do, so I'll excuse your ignorance of our country. Don't bother replying, since it is clear that you have no idea what the **** you are talking about on this subject, or most other subjects concerning the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm QUITE sure that I understand our constitution and bill of rights FAR better than you do, so I'll excuse your ignorance of our country. Don't bother replying, since it is clear that you have no idea what the **** you are talking about on this subject, or most other subjects concerning the US.

Exactly, I mean just yesterday i was thinking to myself what exactly is a "well regulated militia" and then it hit me the answer is "let anyone over 18 buy a rifle or shotgun"

Theyre the same thing! Im a conservative now!

And "America is not in any sense founded on the christian religion" that means "America is founded on the christian religion"

I Get It! Im a conservative now! :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, I mean just yesterday i was thinking to myself what exactly is a "well regulated militia" and then it hit me the answer is "let anyone over 18 buy a rifle or shotgun"

Theyre the same thing! Im a conservative now!

And "America is not in any sense founded on the christian religion" that means "America is founded on the christian religion"

I Get It! Im a conservative now! :rofl:

Shh...he's from the 'Republic of Mississippi'. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, I mean just yesterday i was thinking to myself what exactly is a "well regulated militia" and then it hit me the answer is "let anyone over 18 buy a rifle or shotgun"

Theyre the same thing! Im a conservative now!

And "America is not in any sense founded on the christian religion" that means "America is founded on the christian religion"

I Get It! Im a conservative now! :rofl:

Actually since most of the founding fathers were Christian (and the few that were not were likely agnostic or deist), you can believe, and should believe, that they wrote up all aspects of the functions of our early government with that in mind. In fact, since the basic reason there is a USA is because people were escaping religious persecution in England, you could imagine that too played a factor...

Look what they base our separation on? "GOD GIVEN RIGHTS".

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually since most of the founding fathers were Christian (and the few that were not were likely agnostic or deist), you can believe, and should believe, that they wrote up all aspects of the functions of our early government with that in mind. In fact, since the basic reason there is a USA is because people were escaping religious persecution in England, you could imagine that too played a factor...

Look what they base our separation on? "GOD GIVEN RIGHTS".

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

Note, that the term God Given Rights is never actually stated, even though you quoted it. I get the point you're making though. Note that they do not state at any time a preference for one God over another.

The whole leaving England thing? That was to help establish a government free from religious control.

Sorry but that doesn't prove that it's based on Christianity at all...and besides this is way off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, I mean just yesterday i was thinking to myself what exactly is a "well regulated militia" and then it hit me the answer is "let anyone over 18 buy a rifle or shotgun"

Actually, that is exactly what it means. The militia in the US includes anyone over the age of 17 actually. Technically the law only includes males between 17 and 45, and females who are members of the National Guard. However, the 2nd amendment actually doesn't say that only the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, it says "the right of the people"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note, that the term God Given Rights is never actually stated, even though you quoted it. I get the point you're making though. Note that they do not state at any time a preference for one God over another.

The whole leaving England thing? That was to help establish a government free from religious control.

Sorry but that doesn't prove that it's based on Christianity at all...and besides this is way off topic.

You are right, I meant to go back in and remove the quotes... I just put them there for emphasis.

Who were the people escaping religious control? Do you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right, I meant to go back in and remove the quotes... I just put them there for emphasis.

Who were the people escaping religious control? Do you know?

You mean do I realize that it was a group of 'Quakers' who had originally moved to Holland about a decade before taking the Mayflower to settle here?

Yes, I do know my history. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the UK we have a problem with alcohol and currently there is a lot of talk about setting minimum unit prices to curtail binge drinking

Paying more for something is one thing. Outright banning it is another. Add a sugar tax that goes to paying for driving the price of healthcare down. The next step after banning the selling of a certain size item is banning it out right. We watched it happen our schools because "think of the children." I was ****ed the year they took the vending machines out of my high school because it was the only source of clean water in the building. We have the technology and the means to target obese individuals and yet your solution is to punish those with no problem.

The thing is you say it is a selfish attitude as if that is a bad thing? When it comes to my health, I am selfish as everyone should be. It is my body and I should have the right to do what I wish with my body. Who are you to say otherwise? Having rights are about being selfish and unless you are hurting other people, there is nothing wrong with being selfish. You know what is wrong? Thinking that everyone owes you something and punish them because you fail to take care of yourself.

You bring up predatory business practices... and yet your course of action is to punish those that did nothing wrong instead. How is that reasonable? That is backwards thinking. You place businesses higher on the totem pole than individuals and that sickens me. I am guessing you believe "business are people" and somehow have rights that humans don't.

The crime rate in the US is around 3.8%. The crime rate in the UK is around 10.47% Please tell us all more about how the laws and practices in the UK are better and will benefit US society...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually since most of the founding fathers were Christian

The United States government has always argued that it was not founded by Christians, for Christians and also stated in official documents, over 200 years ago, that the United States was not founded on Christian beliefs... but lets not let facts stop you.

Treaty of Tripoli, Article XI... look it up. Until the US government retracts that treaty, we are officially not a Christian nation, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we did not tell people how to live the world will be a worse place.

Yup, will have to tell our grandkids about that obesity epidemic, what terrible times those were. I find it amusing that its the conservatives that are most riled by this. Frankly, you didn't stop the progressives when they came for our drugs and cigs. Especially when you keep inventing reasons some things should be taxed and other banned (a tax of another form). If you think a nanny state will stop there you're insane. Add public healthcare and you are screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note, that the term God Given Rights is never actually stated, even though you quoted it. I get the point you're making though. Note that they do not state at any time a preference for one God over another.

If consuming sugar isn't a God-given right, I don't know what is. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If consuming sugar isn't a God-given right, I don't know what is. :p

Amen! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and this "sin tax" on "junk food" only drives people to spend more and does not discourage it at all.... In a world where people have very few comforts and not everyone gets joy out of working out or eating celery.... that may be happy for you however, everyone has different tastes, tolerances, etc... and you have to be able to see from other people's perspective on that. I can see how some people wouldn't like pasta and that's perfectly fine with me if there are people that don't like pasta, or coffee, or whatever... am I gonna shove liking that stuff down everyone's throats and call people bad names because they don't like coffee.... hell no and nobody should think or be like that.... never, that's childish to think that and throw a fit and go "they don't drink coffee so they are a bad person and we need to punish them" is pretty damn assholic and anyone that thinks that way should be ashamed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of a supposed obesity epidemic, this is still ridiculous. I don't see how they are even allowed to do something like this legally. The government needs to back the hell off. If we want to get fat, let us. It's not their right to control how much food we eat, nor how much we drink.

 

Actually it is, because the government has been responsible for picking up the tab with healthcare costs.  This is exactly why I don't think government should be given authority over the things people can manage on their own.  We wouldn't be dealing with the current deficit crisis (at least not to the current magnitude) if it stayed the hell out of people's business.  If people want to die prematurely due to an intemperate and unhealthy lifestyle, then let them.  Let the people reap what they sow so and stop trying to play mother to the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.