OK Fatso! How Many Big Macs This Week?

[maplesyrup]

15-year study shows strong link between fast food, obesity and insulin resistance

A lot of people treat their bodies the same way a lot of people treat the environment. Disrespect either one at your peril!

[ndpnic]

I think all smokers should unite and picket fastfood places until the fastfood industry is subject to the same advertising standards as the tobacco industry!

[Hugo]

You two have obviously not thought about this at all. Your ideas are self-contradictory, inconsistent, and lack any kind of moral grounding.

I assume from your previous posts that you think homosexuality is OK, despite the fact that it is clearly statistically linked to vastly increased rates of disease and early death, but you nevertheless believe that the law should not exclude homosexuality.

I also assume from your previous posts that you think marijuana should be legalised, despite the fact that it causes brain damage, cancer and respiratory diseases.

So why do you want to ban fast-food and, of all things, religion? On some matters you are permissive, on others not. There is no consistency in your beliefs. Fast-food and even religion may be harmful, but you have already demonstrated that harmfulness is not a criterion for banning anything, so what is? It makes no sense.

You clearly don't value the intelligence of other people enough to allow them to exercise their own judgement in regard to their own lives, and yet you plainly believe that your own judgement is wiser and superior, and that you should use the law and violence to enforce your judgement upon others regardless of what they actually want, like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the others of your kind. You only differ in degree, not in principle.

I therefore ask that you two should prove to us all how it is that you are of superior intelligence and moral judgement to everybody else on the planet and therefore should have the power to use violence to make others conform with your ideas.

You rail against the Pope and then demand powers far in excess of the Papacy. You are utterly ridiculous. I think you two should go away, read some decent books on moral theory rather than hysteria-laden pamphlets, and maybe think about what the heck it is you actually believe and whether or not it even makes sense before you start spouting foolhardy nonsense in a public forum.

[Big Blue Machine]

Get people to stop eating at McDonalds and fat food places. They are the mostly the cause of the obnesity. I don't like eating there because it's disgusting. McDonalds doesn't even use real meat. (200% not pure beef). I go there once in a while (and I mean a while) I go to a fast food place, because my mother treats us.

[Cartman]

Hugo,

Would you not agree that doing nothing about a known problem is also an immoral choice?

[daniel]

The act of homosexuality isn't what causes the health risk. It's the practise of non-safe sex. (And don't try to equate this to any sort of promotion of homosexuality.)

The danger of marijuana is compared to as less than that of tobacco and alcohol. Plus it does have medicinal value.(And don't try to equate this to any sort of promotion of narcotics.)

If smokers decide to picket McDonalds, that would only give the current debate an added push to label transfats on all our foods. Inform the consumer and let him decide.

I think you two idiots should go away, read some decent books on moral theory rather than hysteria-laden pamphlets

no comment required.

[Hugo]

Would you not agree that doing nothing about a known problem is also an immoral choice?

No, I wouldn't agree at all.

The act of homosexuality isn't what causes the health risk. It's the practise of non-safe sex.

It doesn't particularly matter. The link between homosexuals and STDs is as strong as the link between fast-food customers and heart attacks.

The danger of marijuana is compared to as less than that of tobacco and alcohol.

You are completely missing the point. Unless you are telling me that marijuana is absolutely 100% risk-free and does no harm to health whatsoever, my point stands.

The argument that fast-food should be banned while marijuana and homosexuality should be legalised is invalid and inconsistent.

Get people to stop eating at McDonalds and fat food places. They are the mostly the cause of the obnesity. I don't like eating there because it's disgusting.

Maybe you should try actually going into McDonalds before you pass judgement!

I went in there the other day and had a very tasty turkey, lettuce and tomato sandwich in whole-wheat bread. If you go into any fast-food outlet now they are all offering salads, sandwiches, low-carb and low-fat meals. I think Wendy's is offering real fruit juice to drink now.

Which proves that the free market works. People are demanding healthier food and vendors are providing it. There is no role for the usual leftist demands to violate human rights on a large scale for the "common good" (as if such a thing could even exist).

[daniel]

It doesn't particularly matter. The link between homosexuals and STDs is as strong as the link between fast-food customers and heart attacks.

But it does matter. The practise of safe sex reduces STDs. It applies equally to heterosexuals as well.

As for fast foods, it's the selection of which food. No one's going to get a heart attack on a salad but as for Big Macs?

Marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol should be treated equally.

Homosexuality is currently not illegal.

Since when is the supply of trans-fats a human rights issue?

[Hugo]

But it does matter. The practise of safe sex reduces STDs. It applies equally to heterosexuals as well.

Yes. The homosexual who is monogamous and practices safe sex is unlikely to contract an STD. The fast-food diner who has a McChicken sandwich once a week is unlikely to have a heart attack.

The homosexual who sleeps with fifty men in a year without protection is likely to get an STD, and the fast-food diner who eats 8 Big Macs a day is likely to have a heart attack.

Yes, a heterosexual could get an STD. A person who eats twenty pounds of vegetables a day might have a heart attack too. But we are discussing odds and probability here.

This is why there are no grounds for outlawing fast-food and not homosexuality - or any other possibly dangerous pursuit, either.

Since when is the supply of trans-fats a human rights issue?

It violates the right of people to use their own property (money) and their own bodies, and the right to make decisions for themselves about their lives. To ban fast-food presumes to tell individuals that another person - the bureaucrat - has more right to control their body and their wallet than they do.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You two have obviously not thought about this at all. Your ideas are self-contradictory, inconsistent, and lack any kind of moral grounding.

I assume from your previous posts that you think homosexuality is OK, despite the fact that it is clearly statistically linked to vastly increased rates of disease and early death, but you nevertheless believe that the law should not exclude homosexuality.

I also assume from your previous posts that you think marijuana should be legalised, despite the fact that it causes brain damage, cancer and respiratory diseases.

So why do you want to ban fast-food and, of all things, religion? On some matters you are permissive, on others not.

Good point, Hugo. Both the right and the left subscribe to agenda items which are blatantly at odds with principles of freedom they ostensibly support.

[Cartman]

I went in there the other day and had a very tasty turkey, lettuce and tomato sandwich on whole-wheat bread. If you go into any fast-food outlet now they are all offering salads, sandwiches, low-carb and low-fat meals. I think Wendy's is offering real fruit juice to drink now.  Which proves that the free market works

Although I agree that these joints have made some changes, if temporarily, do you really believe that this is the result of market forces or fear of state intrusion? C'mon Hugo, they are afraid that they are the next victim of a moral panic just like tobacco companies were/are.

For once, I actually agree with you here (for the most part). McDonalds and others are simply victims of their own success. They offer something that people truly enjoy but are afraid of being punished for it. Much English and German food (and I suspect other "ethnic" food) is actually more fattening than this stuff but only fast food meets with potential state force. Why? Because they are easy targets due to their success.

The problem still remains, however, when it comes to child obesity and we should not equate frequenting fast food joints with marijuana use or homosexual acts because we are often talking about children going to these places. I don't care if adults choose to eat this crap (I personally enjoy this crap myself), but what about kids who go to these places? What should be done?

You never really answered my last question and neither has anyone else so far. Do parents have the right to let their children become obese? We would not allow parents the right to let their children smoke dope or engage in sexual acts so why let them neglect their kids in this way?

[Guest eureka]

I would argue that parents do not have the right to let their children become obese. They have the duty to prevent that.

Becoming a parent brings with it the obligation to protect offspring from harm and nature has built into us mechanisms to ensure our concern with that obligation above all others. To ignore that is to deny our humanity.

Your question brings a much deeper question of why we are straying from the urge to the survival of the species and for personal survival. What has happened to us as a species? There are, obviously, societal issues at play; but what are they?

[Hugo]

Although I agree that these joints have made some changes, if temporarily, do you really believe that this is the result of market forces or fear of state intrusion?

That is just speculation on your part. If you claim that they're looking to avoid lawsuits and the turning of public opinion against them, I must remark that there's nothing like bolting the barn door after the horses have gone!

They are selling these new, healthy items because they believe they will be profitable. I don't know if you've noticed but there has been quite the craze for healthy eating lately.

Litigation and government action raises the possibility of going out of business, however, selling unprofitable products makes it a near-certainty. In any case, I think that it does not matter how many salads and sandwiches they sell, as long as they sell foods rich in saturated fat they are still as open for litigation and government action as ever.

I don't believe there is any foundation to your claim.

You never really answered my last question and neither has anyone else so far. Do parents have the right to let their children become obese?

Your question cannot be answered as posed because there are too many unknown variables. How old is the child and what is his level of maturity? How responsible is he? How responsible and mature are the parents? How independent is the child? Does he have freedom of movement and his own money? How many choices is he being given by his parents?

[caesar]

The problem still remains, however, when it comes to child obesity and we should not equate frequenting fast food joints with marijuana use or homosexual acts because we are often talking about children going to these places. I don't care if adults choose to eat this crap (I personally enjoy this crap myself), but what about kids who go to these places? What should be done?

It is their parent's responsibility to feed them properly not Macdonalds. When will people take resposibility for their own actions. If kids are fat it is because they sit around and play computer games and watch tv; if they are eating too much McDonalds then they have irresponsible parents who are too lazy to feed their kids properly.

[daniel]

It violates the right of people to use their own property (money) and their own bodies, and the right to make decisions for themselves about their lives.

Wait a minute. That means marijuana should be legal because criminalizing it goes against 1) a person's right to choose how he spends his money (property); and 2) a person's right to do to his body as he pleases (fry his brain).

Brian Mulroney put property rights into the Meech Lake Accord but human rights groups screamed because property owners especially corporations would have rights over individual rights as well as over local legislation and bylaws.

Furthermore, not sure what your position on these are but the right to do with one's own body opens up the right to abortion, euthanasia, as well as self mutilation.

We're only talking about a certain segment of food here. So what's wrong with just labelling it?

[Hugo]

Wait a minute. That means marijuana should be legal because criminalizing it goes against 1) a person's right to choose how he spends his money (property); and 2) a person's right to do to his body as he pleases (fry his brain).

Is there a point to this?

Furthermore, not sure what your position on these are but the right to do with one's own body opens up the right to abortion, euthanasia, as well as self mutilation.

I'm not going to get into the abortion debate right now, but suffice it to say that a fetus is biologically distinct from the mother and is human, therefore, it doesn't fall into the category of one's own body.

As to euthanasia, self-mutilation, suicide, sado-masochism, yes, it does open up the right to that. Once again, what is your point?

We're only talking about a certain segment of food here. So what's wrong with just labelling it?

If consumers want their food labelled, it will be labelled. But information assymetry, like gravity, is a fact of life and no amount of wishful thinking will negate it.

[daniel]

Hugo, have you forgotten what you youself have posted? You're the one who brought up property rights as a human rights issue, not me. I just expanded on it.

[Hugo]

I'm sorry, daniel, you've completely lost me. Congratulations on your expansion of the human rights issue, but I must ask: so what? As far as I can tell you're telling me that, to be consistent, I must support all of the things you list. I already do. That's why I wonder what your point is.

[daniel]

Here's the discussion trail beginning with the 2nd post on this thread:

Ndpnic: I think all smokers should unite and picket fastfood places until the fastfood industry is subject to the same advertising standards as the tobacco industry!

Hugo: I also assume from your previous posts that you think marijuana should be legalised, despite the fact that it causes brain damage, cancer and respiratory diseases.

BBM: Get people to stop eating at McDonalds and fat food places. They are the mostly the cause of the obnesity. …

Hugo: People are demanding healthier food and vendors are providing it. There is no role for the usual leftist demands to violate human rights on a large scale for the "common good" (as if such a thing could even exist).

Daniel: Since when is the supply of trans-fats a human rights issue?

Hugo: It violates the right of people to use their own property (money) and their own bodies, and the right to make decisions for themselves about their lives.

Daniel: Wait a minute. That means marijuana should be legal because criminalizing it goes against 1) a person's right to choose how he spends his money (property); and 2) a person's right to do to his body as he pleases (fry his brain).

Did you see that "human rights" was introduced into the conversation by you? And then I started to address it. So where was it that you got lost?

[Hugo]

I "got lost" at the point where you started with things like:

Wait a minute. That means marijuana should be legal because criminalizing it goes against 1) a person's right to choose how he spends his money (property); and 2) a person's right to do to his body as he pleases (fry his brain).

Now, this is true. It does mean that marijuana should be legal. I never claimed anything different. In fact, I already said that advocating the legalisation of marijuana is tantamount to advocating lack of regulation of the fast-food industry, and not to do so is inconsistent, which means that MS and ndpnic are being inconsistent, and I attacked them for holding a logically fallacious viewpoint.

Basically, what you have said is, "Your argument is your argument." And my answer is, "Yes, it is. Your point being?" You've basically lead the argument in a circle back to the third post in the thread.

[Cartman]

In fact, I already said that advocating the legalisation of marijuana is tantamount to advocating lack of regulation of the fast-food industry, and not to do so is inconsistent, which means that MS and ndpnic are being inconsistent, and I attacked them for holding a logically fallacious viewpoint.

They were not inconsistent Hugo. They never advocated banning McDonalds or Wendy's, NDPnic suggested ad restrictions. I suspect that they would be against advertising marijuana also.

That is just speculation on your part. If you claim that they're looking to avoid lawsuits and the turning of public opinion against them, I must remark that there's nothing like bolting the barn door after the horses have gone!  They are selling these new, healthy items because they believe they will be profitable. I don't know if you've noticed but there has been quite the craze for healthy eating lately.

I admit this is just speculation, but there has been a fitness craze on for decades now and McDonalds did try to sell that McLean burger a while back and it failed.

Maybe you are right, but I am surprised that you would take me to task on this matter. If I am right that they are altering their behaviour due to fear of state sanctions, then does this not give further support for your general outlook?

[Guest LLL]

If consumers want their food labelled, it will be labelled.

One of the most important labels that the majority of consumers always pay attention to is the sticker price.

Remember when vagetables used to be dirt cheap and nobody even considered the sticker price before putting them in their basket?

Today they rival the meats in price, even when they're locally in season.

What the hell happened?

[Cartman]

France was told in the late 1990's (by the US and the WTO) that they faced trade sanctions if they kept on putting the country of origin on their meat products. So, I am not so sure labelling is that easy.

Remember when vagetables used to be dirt cheap and nobody even considered the sticker price before putting them in their basket?

Today they rival the meats in price, even when they're locally in season.

What the hell happened?

Good question.

[daniel]

...

I assume from your previous posts that you think homosexuality is OK, despite the fact that it is clearly statistically linked to vastly increased rates of disease and early death, but you nevertheless believe that the law should not exclude homosexuality.

I also assume from your previous posts that you think marijuana should be legalised, despite the fact that it causes brain damage, cancer and respiratory diseases.

....

These two paragraphs sound like you are on the same side of the issue opposing both. Sure didn't sound like you supported the legalization of pot.

Maybe you support homosexuality too? Please clarify.

[Hugo]

They were not inconsistent Hugo. They never advocated banning McDonalds or Wendy's, NDPnic suggested ad restrictions. I suspect that they would be against advertising marijuana also.

There's a new TV ad campaign in Ontario right now which labels smokers as "stupid." Do you think they'd support a campaign to label homosexuals as "stupid"? Why not? Either statistically risky behaviour is stupid or it isn't, no?

I admit this is just speculation, but there has been a fitness craze on for decades now and McDonalds did try to sell that McLean burger a while back and it failed.

Exactly. They tried to market healthy food before, and it failed, so they dropped it. Now there is a shift in market demand and they're trying it again. If there is a demand, there will arise a supply, in the free market.

If I am right that they are altering their behaviour due to fear of state sanctions, then does this not give further support for your general outlook?

Why would it? If they were altering their behaviour due to state sanctions, then all that proves is that the threat of violence tends to influence behaviour - hardly big news.

These two paragraphs sound like you are on the same side of the issue opposing both. Sure didn't sound like you supported the legalization of pot.

Maybe you support homosexuality too? Please clarify.

I believe everything I said about the negative aspects of both homosexuality and marijuana. I also believe that it is absolutely none of my business what consensual acts other people get up to. Therefore, I believe passing laws against consensual acts is unethical no matter how destructive those acts may be.

This means that I support people being allowed to do whatever they want, including homosexuality, drug abuse, fast-food binging, skydiving, Russian roulette or any darn fool thing they feel like. I just don't think there is any consistency in trying to outlaw some consensual yet self-destructive acts while turning a blind eye to others.