[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The entire food industry is designed to sell processed food.

Don't be such a victim. It's no harder to get flour and water and cook for yourself than it was in generations past (almost certainly easier). Just because you see an ad for something doesn't mean you have to buy it, that's why your house isn't overflowing with feminine hygiene products and lip gloss.

Overeating isn't because of advertising, it's because of gluttony. That's why counter-advertising (PSAs and government-sponsored eating education) hasn't reversed the problem.

[imitchellg5]

The obesity epidemic stems from the simple fact that a capitalism-based society such as the United States has no concept whatsoever of everything in moderation, including food.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Eh, I don't think it's that bleak. After all, food still costs money, and eating less saves money. Capitalism certainly speaks to that motivation.

But food subsidies aren't helping this situation, that's for sure.

[Athens]

Its sad when people focus on the little details and omit the bigger picture. You eat ok, im trying to eat better thanks to being Educated about the problems with our food but 200+ million people in North America are oblivious to it and are continuing down the path of health problems. And who pays for the health problems. See that would be part of the bigger picture which you can't seem to see. The bigger picture is the costs involved to all of us by not intervening in the industry that is causing the problem in the first place. If HFCS was banned, sucrose limited causing artificial price increases you dam well know the food industry would compensate with using less sugars thus less sugars being in the general diet of people. You act as if people buy sugar and poor it on their food before you eat it. Its nicely hidden away in the food. And the amounts of sugar that that is being put into food has been increasing for years. I would love to see the nutritional information of a muffin from 1970 compared to the same size muffin of today. People don't have to eat more then what people ate in 1970 to get more sugars. The food itself has changed. Its not just a case of over eating.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Eh, I don't think it's that bleak. After all, food still costs money, and eating less saves money. Capitalism certainly speaks to that motivation.

But food subsidies aren't helping this situation, that's for sure.

Capitalism speaks to spending less money?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Don't be such a victim. It's no harder to get flour and water and cook for yourself than it was in generations past (almost certainly easier). Just because you see an ad for something doesn't mean you have to buy it, that's why your house isn't overflowing with feminine hygiene products and lip gloss.

Overeating isn't because of advertising, it's because of gluttony. That's why counter-advertising (PSAs and government-sponsored eating education) hasn't reversed the problem.

I agree that it's a cultural problem, but it is an interesting discussion to debate whether the "enabler" of this problem should shoulder some blame. I realize that there is no single enabler, but there are at least a few of them.

At the end of the day though, it's like cigarettes, it doesn't matter how big you make the warnings on the packages and how big the font is that insists that regular smoking will cause you to grow a third nipple and ponies and rainbows glass shards, people are going to do what they're going to do.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

And who pays for the health problems. See that would be part of the bigger picture which you can't seem to see. The bigger picture is the costs involved to all of us by not intervening in the industry that is causing the problem in the first place.

Oh I see it. The picture I see is even bigger than that: you can't save people from themselves. You can mount the largest effort to help someone, but if they don't participate it's a fool's errand.

That's why the real problem is the victim mentality you're perpetuating in this thread. The idea that people aren't responsible for their own actions, that their food choices are dictated by "the industry," and that their failures (in health, finances and everything in life) will be bailed out by the nanny state, are ultimately responsible for this epidemic. Not only can the state not do as good a job at looking out for the individual's best interest, but if the individual is taking it for granted that he doesn't have to care, then the harm he does himself will dwarf any meager help that the state provides. Always.

If HFCS was banned, sucrose limited causing artificial price increases you dam well know the food industry would compensate with using less sugars thus less sugars being in the general diet of people. The food itself has changed.

They should definitely reverse the interventions that make HFCS artificially cheap in the first place. That I agree with. It's not helping and it is hurting.

But if you think that this alone will reverse the enormous increase in gluttony, sloth, and shortsightedness that are far larger contributers to declining health in this country, you are in for a rude awakening. The food has changed, but not even as much as the people have changed, the jobs have changed, the downtime has changed, and the expectation of doing no physical exertion has changed.

[besson3c]

If you believe that HFCS can be addictive, there is a whole moral argument to the subsidies as well, but I'll let somebody else get into that cause I hate moral arguments.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree that it's a cultural problem, but it is an interesting discussion to debate whether the "enabler" of this problem should shoulder some blame. I realize that there is no single enabler, but there are at least a few of them.

At the end of the day though, it's like cigarettes, it doesn't matter how big you make the warnings on the packages and how big the font is that insists that regular smoking will cause you to grow a third nipple and ponies and rainbows glass shards, people are going to do what they're going to do.

It's a good question, and I've considered it myself too. But cigarettes are addictive, and that is a big contributer to why the government feels the need to step in. I think it's more like watching TV, or motorcycling, or sports, or masturbation (if you don't include that under "sports" or "watching TV"). A little is good for you, but like anything in life if you do it too much it will damage your body and ruin your life. And for government to try to discourage it, the injustice in liberty would far outweigh the benefits.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you believe that HFCS can be addictive

I haven't heard of that before, do people think this?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Capitalism speaks to spending less money?

How does it not?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Capitalism speaks to spending less money?

Well, Capitalism speaks to spending your OWN money, not somebody else's.
It's alright if you blow your own.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's a good question, and I've considered it myself too. But cigarettes are addictive, and that is a big contributer to why the government feels the need to step in. I think it's more like watching TV, or motorcycling, or sports, or masturbation (if you don't include that under "sports" or "watching TV"). A little is good for you, but like anything in life if you do it too much it will damage your body and ruin your life. And for government to try to discourage it, the injustice in liberty would far outweigh the benefits.

Yes, but manufacturing conditions where it makes it incredibly easy to damage your body and ruin your life ain't right either.

All I'm saying is that the government should cut the f-ing subsidies.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It's alright if you blow your own.

You must be flexible!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You must be flexible!

Sure. That's why our government can only blow other's.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Sure. That's why our government can only blow other's.

-t

I don't think we're talking about the same thing here...

You see, I'm referring to you giving yourself a blowjob where you suck your own penis, and being flexible enough to do that. By blowjob, I mean putting your penis inside your mouth for the purpose of pleasure.

[turtle777]

*sigh*

It's really no fun if you have to explain double entendres. I have been playing along so well.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

*sigh*

It's really no fun if you have to explain double entendres. I have been playing along so well.

-t

Maybe you should eat more turtle pellets so that you won't be as slow.

[turtle777]

Actually, YOU didn't get it. Here, take some pellets.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Actually, YOU didn't get it. Here, take some pellets.

-t

Oh, I got it. You said something or other with the word "blow", and I chose to interpret that as "blowjob". It's not my fault that you can't keep up with me.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm pretty sure "government blows" can't be a double entendre. Single, or single and a half tops.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Oh, I got it. You said something or other with the word "blow", and I chose to interpret that as "blowjob". It's not my fault that you can't keep up with me.

Bang job, besson.

And by that, I literally mean that you ****ed my joke to death.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Bang job, besson.

And by that, I literally mean that you ****ed my joke to death.

-t

Turtle, if you don't stop screwing around I will offer to pay you to be my servant for an amount you simply can't refuse, then I will mistreat you by saying stuff like "hey, go fetch me a lemonade bitch!" I will make you cry from calling you a bitch so many times, and I'll spit the lemonade in your face, but you'll be under contract so you can't quit. Then, when it comes time to being paid I will pay you in pesos and inform you that we didn't agree that the amount was to be in US dollars. Then you will cry, and I'll tell you to get out of my face!

So, you just watch it.

[turtle777]

Guess my post hit home

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Capitalism speaks to spending less money?

No, conservation does which lends itself to maintaining more capital. Obesity is rampant among the lowest income percentiles and their food is subsidized by government.

Likewise, obese people pay for their healthcare unless the government intervenes there as well. This leads to less conservative behaviors (people are more shrewd with their own money than someone else's) and the moral hazards we're dealing with today across the board.