User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 81

  1. #11
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    Bloomy is not my daddy either, but I still think this move makes sense.
    Sure you can be a responsible parent and not let your kid watch TV and it's concomitant fast food adverts, as that article suggests. You make sure he eats a balanced diet, etc;
    Then he goes out with his friends, and eats the same stuff anyway.
    So in the mean time, while all those irresponsible parents learn how to unlearn their helplessness, maybe the government of NYC can try to change the supply side...
    It's worth a shot.

  2. #12
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CzeCze View Post
    Bloomberg is getting a lot of flak for that. But you know what? NYC got rid of peep shows in Times Square and hot dog vendors on corners and mandated nutritional info on menus - which is AWESOME if you are in NYC and you care about health it makes it SO much easier to eat out. I think given its track record if NYC wants to do away with large sodas it will.
    I don't understand banning hot dog vendors. It seems like there are much more dire capitalist corporate evils to battle than small time hot dog vendors, which is an American tradition. In fact, I don't see how it helps anything, seems like it would just direct more business toward McDonalds. Which infuriates me and seems like a larger issue, no pun intended.

    It would be like banning taco trucks in L.A. County. Fuck that shit, Ill cut somebody.

    Anyway banning large size soft drinks does seem pointless, like one person said they'll just make small and medium sizes bigger.

  3. #13
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    Bloomy is not my daddy either, but I still think this move makes sense.
    Sure you can be a responsible parent and not let your kid watch TV and it's concomitant fast food adverts, as that article suggests. You make sure he eats a balanced diet, etc;
    Then he goes out with his friends, and eats the same stuff anyway.
    So in the mean time, while all those irresponsible parents learn how to unlearn their helplessness, maybe the government of NYC can try to change the supply side...
    It's worth a shot.
    the real problem is the trend toward laissez faire parenting since the 70s and 80s which is ironically a liberal trend and the government isn't going to address this problem by downsizing soft drinks, because its a huge fucking social issue that goes beyond food

    also, ADVERTISING, specifically CORPORATISM IN ADVERTISING AS NEO CONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA is the other main issue, which also has been out of hand since approximately the 1980s

    if these real issues aren't addressed then nothing will really change

    furthermore the kid who occasionally eats fast food with friends is actually indulging sanely and moderately, and probably still has a more balanced diet and a healthier weight

  4. #14
    Head Pigeon Mad Hatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    -1w sp/sx
    Socionics
    IOU Ni
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Omg @ government governing ...

    Is there anything worse?
    IN SERIO FATVITAS.

    -τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτέννει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ-

  5. #15
    ... Tyrinth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    649 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    1,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Hatter View Post
    Omg @ government governing ...

    Is there anything worse?
    Government governing? Nah, this is government acting like an overprotective parent...
    ...

  6. #16

    Default

    ^This. Government should govern, not parent.
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  7. #17
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    the real problem is the trend toward laissez faire parenting since the 70s and 80s which is ironically a liberal trend and the government isn't going to address this problem by downsizing soft drinks, because its a huge fucking social issue that goes beyond food

    also, ADVERTISING, specifically CORPORATISM IN ADVERTISING AS NEO CONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA is the other main issue, which also has been out of hand since approximately the 1980s

    if these real issues aren't addressed then nothing will really change

    furthermore the kid who occasionally eats fast food with friends is actually indulging sanely and moderately, and probably still has a more balanced diet and a healthier weight
    How is it a liberal trend? I think it's a social trend, not a political one. It has a lot to do with corporate farming and packaging of it's products, which are almost always higher in fat, corn syrup and preservatives like salt.
    the hands-off approach is to get people to figure it out by themselves. But they haven't, so what's the solution? Call it 'nanny state' if you want, but I prefer it that people follow traffic rules, don't drive on sidewalks, wear seatbelts, don't smoke in bars (I used to work in them full time), and don't make me responsible for thier long term care because of lifestyle diseases that they know about but choose to ignore. Ignoring these things for yourself? Sure, feel free. But when a kid is obese because of lifestyle choices perents made, who addresses the long-term consequences to that child's health?

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    But when a kid is obese because of lifestyle choices perents made, who addresses the long-term consequences to that child's health?
    Problem is we're not talking about removing fountain sodas and vending machines from schools for children. We're talking about regulating the way EVERYBODY eats. Everybody. I've got a problem with that. Adults can decide for themselves.

    Just like with smokers. You inform the public, but you do not make smoking illegal because that would be disastrous; --or say, hey cigarettes can only come in packs of 5. Why? You're invading the decision making process and lifestyles of ADULTS. Do I agree with their personal choice? No. But I'm not going to legislate their rights away. No gracias.
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  9. #19
    XES 5231311252's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    450

    Default

    If people didn't act like a bunch of children who have to be spoon-fed almost everything, the government wouldn't have to go to such lengths. These same people bitching about attempts to prevent them from gorging not only themselves but their children to death are the same ones wanting handouts to help with something they could have prevented. They're the same ones bitching about higher premiums and having to pay for an extra seat. He could have said he wanted to ban all sodas, but instead he's suggesting a ban of drinks larger than 16 oz. And it's not like they can't just buy two 16 oz drinks, sheesh.


    This is statism, they cry. Worse, it's nanny-statism. How dare these snobby elected elites presume to tell us how we should eat? Who is Michelle Obama to suggest we eat more vegetables? Whose business is it but our own if we want to gorge ourselves on sugary cakes and sugary drinks and deep-fried cheese and tubs of ice cream?

    Channelling millions of his listeners, Limbaugh blasted the president’s wife for suggesting Americans eat "cardboard and tofu … roots, and berries and tree bark," and howled with glee when she and her family were spotted dining on ribs in a restaurant.

    "It doesn't look like Michelle Obama follows her own nutritionary, dietary advice," he declared, insinuating that she could stand to lose a few pounds, too.

    "I'm trying to say that our first lady does not project the image of women that you might see on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit Issue."

    Yes. Well. Michelle Obama is a swan, compared to Limbaugh and millions of other obese Americans.

    That’s not the point, though. If obesity was just some jolly extra poundage, a harmless sign of prosperity, it wouldn’t be an issue.

    But it's not.
    High cost of obesity

    Again, according to the Centres for Disease Control, obesity is directly related to heart disease, stroke, certain types of cancer, and, of course, Type 2 diabetes, which is becoming an epidemic here. Those conditions kill.

    In 2008 (and things have worsened somewhat since then), medical costs related to obesity were about $147 billion. The medical costs to third-party payers (mostly health insurance companies or government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid) for people who are obese are $1,429 higher than for people of normal weight
    I personally think it's wasteful of the government to even run ads about obesity, since they serve as good examples of Darwinism and they clearly have no qualms with eating themselves to death.
    “'Fuck', I think. What a beautiful word. If I could say only one thing for the rest of my life, that would be it.”

  10. #20
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    How is it a liberal trend? I think it's a social trend, not a political one. It has a lot to do with corporate farming and packaging of it's products, which are almost always higher in fat, corn syrup and preservatives like salt.
    the hands-off approach is to get people to figure it out by themselves. But they haven't, so what's the solution? Call it 'nanny state' if you want, but I prefer it that people follow traffic rules, don't drive on sidewalks, wear seatbelts, don't smoke in bars (I used to work in them full time), and don't make me responsible for thier long term care because of lifestyle diseases that they know about but choose to ignore. Ignoring these things for yourself? Sure, feel free. But when a kid is obese because of lifestyle choices perents made, who addresses the long-term consequences to that child's health?
    ok laissez faire parenting is a liberal trend, its certainly NOT a socially conservative one, I know, I was raised by my conservative grandparents (thank god, two of my sisters had kids and drug problems by age 20 from my mother's victim-y passive parenting, though my mother herself was never a drug addict, and she didn't have her first child until age 22 while married to my dad, her passive parenting failed to reign in and protect two of my sisters, though the third is an ESFJ who was apparently born a tiny adult, ready to fold socks and balance my mom's checkbook before learning to fix cars and the plumbing).

    Anyway, I agree with you on all points except about regulations in this particular case, which seem foolish and pointless to me. A smarter ban would be to remove soda machines from high schools and to stop calling pizza a vegetable in school lunches.

    Common sense seems to be a lost art. That's why Im now a political moderate.

Similar Threads

  1. "Flavor of Love", "I Love New York" And Meyer Briggs?
    By Mondo in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-24-2008, 09:44 PM
  2. INFJ hails and well mets (but not New York Mets)
    By comicsgurl in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-28-2008, 02:04 AM
  3. New York stereotypes
    By Oso Mocoso in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-07-2008, 06:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO