I've never heard that boiling alive story applied to humans, but I have heard of it in relation to frogs.

Not at all.

You believe that is how it works because that is how you want it to work.

The point is that no person in a society can live a completely independent life. How I live and act inevitably affects the people around me, even in extremely subtle ways. Therefore, I have a vested interest in the overall health of my surroundings. If my society is healthy, I have a better chance of living a healthy life (not just physical health). If my society goes to shit, there is a better chance of my life going to shit as well.

This "for each his own" bullshit doesn't hold up to reality. Unless you become a mountain man, our ability to become independent is directly linked to the strength of our surroundings. Right now, I can personally live an independent lifestyle where I can survive solely on my input to society (my job) and the surrounding society (where I buy my necessities). I do not directly take anything from the government or people around me. I also believe in that lifestyle and encourage others to do the same. Although, if the surrounding society goes to shit, it will require more personal effort to independently fulfill my own needs, taking time away from my job and personal life. To take it to an extreme, if our society completely collapses, I will then need to spend almost all my time competing for very limited resources. Even if I did follow your advice and was successful in doing so, that would be an EXTREMELY shitty way to live.

To get to the concise point: I would much rather invest in a healthy society than invest in being completely independent from society during a worse case scenario.



The irony...

"the irony..."

Lol.

careful waving that red society flag around like that.... I'm just sayin.

Hilarious.

Please, pick me for the role of 'robot' so I don't do any silly human things that might make me "happy".

What a relief that must be, to know what makes you better and what makes you a poor excuse. To think how long I've struggled with this as I drank a pop.

"Three Medium Cokes to go please...."

No pop for you! It's all 'small' or we get confused.

Ok, 4 small Cokes to go. Wow, I am really getting thirsty. Wonder what the involvement of the industry was in this decision????

The cupholder shareholders. :)

Please to make them take a new cup each time for refill.

Like not re-using your plate at some crappy All You Can Eat.

Yeah, that will curb obesity.and it reverses conservation efforts

Take all you want but drink all you take. Or else.

.

That poor guy is gonna get shot for taking more than he can drink in one minute. :lol:

Obama's Drones will get him....

Except this is a discommunicated repub who now calls himself an indie.

So, wrong.

Next player?

True Dat.

:)

Good night and thanks fot the convo. :)

I'm not waving a red flag around, it is just a response to Quirk's "Do what you can to self-preserve, expect nothing from any one" statement. Investing in a healthy society can mean many things but complete control by an "elite" few is not one of them.

complete control by an "elite" few SHOULD NOT not be one of them.

He was right the first time. If you are talking about what constitutes a healthy society, "complete control by an elite few" is *not* an option, not merely should not.

Oye' Not the way I originally read his post, but I agree with both.

Bloomberg is now going after mlkshakes and popcorn. Next: cotton candy and lollipops. Soon, the only simple pleasures that will be allowed in any size are drugs and alcohol. Prohibiting them has never worked. Hmmmm.

Popcorn and lollipops are not killing people. Either is masterbation. Stop worrying about bans that will not be implemented.

"I would much rather invest in a healthy society than invest in being completely independent from society during a worse case scenario."

As you like. As I say up-thread, 'Each of you should do exactly, with your time, resources, 'self', as you like (up to and including self-cruxification if you think such a thing will do any good for any one)...I simply claim the same for myself (that is: to attempt to do as I choose).'

"No More Popcorn for your you fat fuckers!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_1...nd-milkshakes/

Give it another month or two and they'll ban restaurants from serving any meals over 400 calories total and add mandatory exercise to The Ban Plan.

"Everyone able to move must add at least an hour of vigorous exercise to their daily routine. Those who do not comply will face a $200 fine, payable by parents in the case of minors. Daily exercise must be verified by a city health inspector in one of several to-be-opened City Fitness Centers. The inspector monitor your exercise to be sure your pulse rate has reached minimum peak efficiency range for your gender."

Give up, mate, there's no way you can get that last nail in.


Yeah, eating lots of processed sugary foods and not exercising is bad for your health.

Like pretty much everyone else here said, people have the right to make their own choices and spend their lives the way they want.

You can deny yourself all mildly harmful pleasures and live 110 years of boredom and discomfort. You can binge on heroin and be dead by 21. Somewhere between these two is a zone of good value hedonistic returns, but for the gubmint to try to enforce one (medium) size fits all choices is stupid.

I wonder if this issue will make people acknowledge that drug prohibition is equally stupid.

Don't ban big drinks. Ban the use of high fructose corn syrup as a cheap sweetener in food and drink.

That stuff switches off the mechanism that signals to the brain that we're full. It also is, if recent studies are to be believed, addictive and harmful. Forget lowfat, low calorie options, it's the sugar and in particular the fructose that's the big danger. And that isn't down to the consumer, or the outlet, it's all in the manufacturing. Even if a consumer wants to avoid fructose, well, good luck with that because it's in everything. Biscuits, burgers, breads and sodas.


Unfortunately every time an attempt is made by anybody in the fucking world to make that point the US Corn lobby goes into overdrive. The WHO was about to put out a report condemning the use of the stuff and setting out its health implcations. In response the US corn lobby directly lobbied WHO and told them if they continued then the $1/2 a billion in US contributions would be withheld. Report buried. Everybody go back to using high fructose corn syrup in everything. Nothing to see here, move along please.

Interesting article about this on the BBC. There was a documentary a couple of nights ago. Scary stuff.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18393391

I always though it was more the over-consumption of sugars than specifically high fructose corn syrup (FHCS) that was linked to obesity and all those other effects?

Its extremely difficult to find an unbiased study but from what I have read, which is very limited, it seems that separating the effect from HFCS and other sugars is difficult. It is hard to tell whether sugars in general have helped the rise of obesity or if a disproportionate amount is from FHCS.

I do agree with the fundamental point though.

Corn syrup means nutritional items from other ingredients can be removed. Replacing with corn syrup also increases profits. Ie new Coke. The old formula was based in extracts from food that had some nutritional value (ie oranges). The new Coke was pure sugar.

Detecting sugar difference is difficult. Beechnut, a company caught repeatedly subverting their foods, sold corn syrup as Apple juice. Their scientist had difficulty discovering that their Apple juice was only sugar water. When eventually discovered and reported it to top management. He later overhead top management laughing during a party about how well the scam out of Brooklyn was working. That is when he went to the government.

Consumer Reports detailed the research, scam and coverup. The bottom line applies. Corn syrup and other sugars are similar and difficult to differentiate.

The cartoonists are having a field day.

More.

That's what they said about the smoking ban here: it's not going to stop anyone smoking, it's just going to create little "smoking sections" on the corner of every downtown street away from the bar doors, this is the land of the free goddammit, it just means people are going to smoke more in their cars and homes around their children, etc. etc. etc.

But none of it happened. Instead what happened is the power of inconvenience took over, lazy asthmatic fucks didn't want to walk 20 feet outside the bar to smoke, and the local "quit smoking" program announced that its clientele increased five-fold. By now thousands of people in this city have quit entirely because it was made a little more inconvenient to smoke. And thousands (tens of thousands, in New York) will consume less sugar and calories once it becomes inconvenient to carry two sodas.

Dunno Clod, hope you are right, but this ban only has very limited coverage. The inconvenience factor is minimal at best.

I finally figured out why Napolean Bloomberg don't like them big ol' drink cups.

He can't see over the top of 'em.

Hey, you know what's way way more reprehensible than regulating fucking soda? Stop and frisk. NO BUT YOUR SODA RIGHTS ARE WAY MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RIGHTS OF OPPRESSED MINORITIES!

Least trustworthy person is always the guy (or girl) with a mustache.

Least trustworthy person is always the person telling others who is least trustworthy.

Guess who has a mustache and now feels guilty. Snidley Whiplash? No. Snidley had a splash of goodness in him.

I didn't know you could grow facial hair, tw.

*chuckles*

Noooow it comes out.

Bloomberg and NYC are taking over the fast food market.

Look, they already got a BK! And they're already undercutting the Croissan'wich! They just started w/the sodas!

Attachment 40456