{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by The Great DanTej:
1/5/2014 2:50:52 AM
52
[quote]"The point of this documentary is that its all about choices, its our choices that make us fat."[/quote]I should note that one of the reasons why fast food giants are often the target, is because strictly speaking they're a great choice, you get a lot of food for not a lot of money. Couple that with advertising and you have a situation where the only thing people chose to change about their lifestyle is eating more McDonalds.
You can say "oh no it's just your choice",[i] but are you also going to defend the tobacco industry with the exact same argument?[/i] No, fast food giants are selling products that are known to harm the health of their customers, that needs to be changed.
[spoiler]This is what happens when you let capitalism do whatever the -blam!- it likes, free market you say? more like early graves[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Also I should note that "it's your choice that is killing you" is the exact argument used by food giants and even tobbacco giants to dismiss any and all criticism, THAT is what victim blaming is.[/spoiler]
While I'm at it, "the men who made us fat" is a great documentary, watch it [i]Gaara[/i]
English
-
Except you can't get mad at companies because they advertise their food, no matter how unhealthy it is. It is your choice to eat it, you can't blame them at all.
-
so basically what you're saying is that we should punish people for giving us what we demand from them even though we consciously demanded those things from them knowing full well that it was probably detrimental to our health? you realize that this not only insults the people who willingly made this choice, but it also completely ignores the real problem and ultimately achieves nothing. if i want to eat myself into the grave, it is my natural right to do so, and it in no way affects you or the people around you.
-
I want to punish people for pushing a product that is detrimental to our health and is already causing serious health problems. Hate to pull the "think about the children" card, but when kids are getting diabetes, something is clearly not right. [quote]but it also completely ignores the real problem and ultimately achieves nothing.[/quote]And that is? Hint: It's not a matter of personal responsibility when you're being manipulated, telling people to "smarten up" without doing anything to stop the real problem will achieve, and has achieved, -blam!- all.
-
Or people could build self-control and not eat so much. Fast Food isn't terribly bad for you, and freedoms are absolutely important. Infringing on fast food companies will not help people be more responsible. Yes, I AM going to defend freedom. Absolutely.
-
I don't think you really understand the power of advertising. Here's a nice example of that power, Apple is a successful company that is loved by people - No cam, there's a point where you have to stop blaming victims and start dealing with the problem. I'm not advocating bans, eat your damn burgers and I'll eat my damn chocolate - but when those unregulated markets start heavily effecting public health, something needs to be done. Corporations do not deserve freedom, they are not people regardless of what the law currently says.
-
And dealing with the problem is educating and informing people, not infringing on the rights of business owners. It's called the power of self-control! They're not effecting public health, people's choices are and people have every right to harm their own bodies. People need to learn the difference between use and abuse. Moderation is key here. Everyone deserves freedom. No one has the authority to infringe on businesses, regardless of what any unjust law may say. In the '70s we significantly reduced cigarette consumption through ad campaigns and enlightenment of the harms of tobacco. It didn't take an unjust law to achieve this.
-
[quote]And dealing with the problem is educating and informing people, not infringing on the rights of business owners. It's called the power of self-control![/quote]Because that clearly has worked so well right now. No, the problem is allowing corporations to put profits ahead of people. [quote]They're not effecting public health, people's choices are and people have every right to harm their own bodies. People need to learn the difference between use and abuse. [b]Moderation is key here.[/b][/quote]And that goes out the window when you consider the influence of the food giants - you're blaming the symptom and ignoring the problem. [quote] Everyone deserves freedom. No one has the authority to infringe on businesses, regardless of what any unjust law may say. In the '70s we significantly reduced cigarette consumption through ad campaigns and enlightenment of the harms of tobacco. It didn't take an unjust law to achieve this.[/quote]And corporations aren't people. Evidently, education alone hasn't gotten us far - and if a law only benefits people, then it is in no way unjust.
-
[quote]And corporations aren't people. [/quote] There are nine people who have studied the law since before either of us were born and they disagree.
-
If the law says a cinder block is a person, is the cinder block magically a person? The law regarding personhood of companies needs to be rewritten.
-
[quote]If the law says a cinder block is a person, is the cinder block magically a person? [/quote] Except the law says nothing about cinder blocks, The Constitution has an open ended definition for the term of a person, and based on the Supreme Court's understanding of their interpretation (the highest and most knowledgeable people who understand it the most) they believe that companies are indeed people and have the same rights and protections. They're not going to say cinder blocks are people ever, however corporations are made up of people, which is why they say they are people.
-
The point was, does calling X, Y, transform X into Y. A corporation is no closer to being a person than our houses are, or our unions are, or our cinder blocks are. And unless we stumbled upon a new advancement in trans humanism, I don't believe something being made of people, makes it a person.
-
[quote]The point was, does calling X, Y, transform X into Y. A corporation is no closer to being a person than our houses are, or our unions are, or our cinder blocks are. [/quote] Well that argument can be used in many different ways both for and against. If I called a transgendered male a girl, would that make them one? [quote]And unless we stumbled upon a new advancement in trans humanism, I don't believe something being made of people, makes it a person. [/quote] If all those individuals spoke for the same exact position on each subject involved in whatever issue they're dealing with, wouldn't it be a lot easier to have one name on all the paperwork instead of 10,000?
-
No, they'd have to go through hormones and probably sex reassignment surgery. Solipsism is bullshit and having it written into the law is absurd. who says we have to grant personhood to group together under one name? My house has 5 people living in it, but instead we just call it 35a *some street in some town* My house is not a person, a business is not a person.
-
It has worked. People can make a choice, and it's up to them. How are they putting profits ahead of people and how is that a bad thing or something that is a fault capable of associating blame? I'm not understanding what you want here. It doesn't go out the window when an individual has self-control. You're making it sound like everyone that eats fast food is unhealthy and obese and physically obligated to gorge themselves on fast food. The fact is there are plenty of responsible and healthy people that eat fast food occasionally, and plenty of unhealthy fat people that have never had fast food in their lives. The reality is you have complete control of your diet, it's up to yourself to get healthy and it's time people stop fooling themselves and start associating the blame where it is due, on themselves. The owners of those corporations are people, and they have a right to liberty just like the rest of us and they can run their business how they want. You'll notice there are plenty of laws that only harm people, much like drug prohibition.
-
[quote]It has worked. People can make a choice, and it's up to them. [/quote]I'm looking at weight problems, the rates of diabetes and heart problems, and I'm clearly seeing that "leaving it up to them" hasn't worked [quote]How are they putting profits ahead of people[/quote]Pushing a product that is undeniably bad for a person, for the purpose of profits, that's how. [quote]and how is that a bad thing [/quote]Does anyone consider diabetes a good thing? I know you're into booty but BBW is not that beautiful. [quote] something that is a fault capable of associating blame?[/quote]Cause and effect. You can blame the effect on whoever or whatever is the cause. [quote]I'm not understanding what you want here.[/quote]Responsibility. The government has a responsibility to protect it's people. Corporations have a responsibility to produce safe products. You can try and put all the responsibility on the person but you wont achieve anything. [quote]It doesn't go out the window when an individual has self-control. You're making it sound like everyone that eats fast food is unhealthy and obese and physically obligated to gorge themselves on fast food. The fact is there are plenty of responsible and healthy people that eat fast food occasionally, and plenty of unhealthy fat people that have never had fast food in their lives. The reality is you have complete control of your diet, it's up to yourself to get healthy and it's time people stop fooling themselves and start associating the blame where it is due, on themselves. [/quote]Advertising is a powerful, multi-billion dollar force. Telling people to fend for themselves is not solving any problems, you're just band aiding the symptom. And again, the product is undeniably bad, I don't know what kind of solipsism you're working with, but you cannot fix that by blaming the victims. [quote]The owners of those corporations are people, and they have a right to liberty just like the rest of us and they can run their business how they want[/quote]They are people, their customers are people, the business is not. [quote]You'll notice there are plenty of laws that only harm people, much like drug prohibition.[/quote]Likewise, a lack of responsible laws only harms people, like the NSA's entire existence.
-
It has worked, their own health problems are their fault. They have every right to destroy their own bodies and no one is forcing you to eat anything you don't want to. Except it isn't bad for them, it's only bad for them if they abuse it. Nearly EVERY business is in it for profit. Fast food doesn't automatically lead to health problems. The cause is the individual. Yes, the INDIVIDUAL needs to be responsible and it's NONE of the government's business what we do with our own bodies. They are here to make sure we are free, not to infringe on us as they constantly do. They have no say in fast food, at all. They have no authority. I'm not telling them to fend for themselves, I'm telling them to help eachother help themselves, inform, enlighten and educate everyone possible. Don't condone glamorizing bad products. No, it's not. It's just food, and people abuse food often. Fast food is NOT to blame for this, and it happened long before it ever existed. They are only victims to their own mentality and lack of self-control, otherwise every single person that eats fast food is a victim, and that would be ridiculously asinine to attempt to assert. You're not making a point here. The head of the business is a person, and they are free to run THEIR business however the hell they want. Responsible laws are our freedoms, natural rights and liberty, Infringing on those freedoms is not responsible. Many of the government's laws are unjust and dangerous.
-
What is coercion? what is propaganda? what is the power of suggestion? Again, the product being pushed, and the way it's being pushed is clearly not good - for all your talk of rights you have little regard for people's rights to life. Of course not, that doesn't excuse what they're doing though. The individual alone cannot fight and regulate the corporations, they only have that power when grouped together under a recognized banner, that's essentially the principal behind the concept of a government. When a matter concerns the people at large of course the government has the authority to intervene. ...But that's what I want as well, I simply understand that you can't always rely on common sense to prevail. Fast food business models have changed within recent decades though, the idea of super sizing didn't exist a century ago. This is a new age problem caused by corporations jumping at a new way to print money, not a sudden drop in personal responsibility. Not when they infringe on their customers' right they don't. You're not allowed to sell a car that gets people killed, yet apparently a burger combo is fine? This is protection, not oppression.
-
That's where self-control and responsibility come in. How is it not good? Everyone has a right to life, what made you think otherwise? How doesn't it? What are they doing other than running a business which sells food? No, WE can make the difference ourselves with education and deciding where to do business. Government has no authority we ourselves do not have because we can't grant it any authority we don't have. The government has LIMITED powers. And we can do it without infringing on anyone or using unnecessary and unjust force. Guess what? You can get a meal supersized, and not eat fast food every day and still remain skinny and healthy. Do you need the government to do that for you? To wipe your anus? To stop you from murdering and molesting little girls? No, we (hopefully) don't go out molesting and murdering girls because we know it's wrong and can control ourselves. They don;'t infringe on your right, you're only attempting to infringe on THEIR rights. A burger does not kill people, excessive consumption of ANYTHING will kill you. Governments always pervert themselves to tyranny and oppression. Our natural rights, freedoms and liberties are all we need.
-
Edited by The Great DanTej: 1/6/2014 8:38:56 AMAgain, between the power of these corporations, the general public not being humanity's brightest, and that lazy attitude that simply does not solve any problems...your solution doesn't solve anything. You happily defend corporations encouraging people to effectively kill themselves, and have the guts to claim that as liberty and freedom - being essentially shat on is not my idea of freedom. Harming the general public's health. Knowing that their products are harmful and endorsing them anyway. I cannot write down a few pages of legislature and decide who does what, but the government can. That's the point of government, to do what the individual cannot, to protect it's citizens who cannot protect themselves. Might I ask how? because whatever we are currently doing is not working. No, enforced regulations is the only remaining option. Do I personally need them to do that? no. Is there a large amount of people out there who do, who would benefit from it? Yes, clearly. And they provide the means to, and heavily endorse those means, to consume excessively. In the past that was because nobody could stand up to them; Right now, it's because nobody cares. I'd rather fix what is broken than leave it to fester.
-
You can avoid the problem. We can help as much as we can, but again, people have every right to do themselves harm if they wish. You're not blaming the right people, nor should they be blamed. Let them live their lives. I defend freedoms regardless if they are positive or not. It's called having principle. Do I like what the Westboro church says? Of course not, but I will absolutely defend to death their right to say what they say, you'd rather use the government and infringe on their rights and use force and possibly kidnapping/murder to get your way. They're not harming the public, the public is doing that to themselves. IT's like you're blaming the auto-industry for drunk drivers and collisions. No, you can't tell anyone they are forced to do something against their will and neither can the government. Where in the Constitution do they have the authority to tell business owners how to operate their personal business? The government only harms us, they are incompetent. I've explained already. Informing people, encouraging good behavior and letting people make their own choices on how to live their lives. It's NONE of your or the government's business how many burgers someone decides to consume. Live your own life. Regulations only make things worse. They can benefit themselves, the government is not going to make irresponsible people healthy and responsible. Stop trying to infringe on responsible adults. And what business is that of yours, what authority does the government have to deny them from doing this? But you're not fixing the problem, you're making it worse. The problem right now, the reason no one cares, is because there is TOO MUCH government, more government power is not going to make things better. Period.
-
I'm going straight to the source of the problem, that is the people who supply and endorse it. Since you mention murder in a second I'll use an analogy. When someone gets killed, you would blame the dead body, where as I would blame the social constructs (or lack thereof) that allowed the murder to take place. Thing is, nobody by default has the right to harm someone else, least of all a business, that's one of my principles. And who said I want to use murder? I want regulations; at the very least do what they do with cigarette packets and put a "this will kill you and here's how" label on it. Not, it's like blaming the alcohol industry for alcohol. Most likely in the commerce clause. Of course, the rights of the citizens supersedes the rights of a corporation, so when one is infringed upon by another, the government should take the side of people, not profit. And that isn't enough. the point of regulations is to protect the people, especially from corporations. And I'm a little confused here, you don't want the government to be in charge, but you want the faceless, completely uncountable corporations to be in charge? Between swaying public opinion, and limiting the ways they can be excessively unhealthy, yes you can. Same business they have to stop anyone who harms people. On the contrary, this problem only exists because no government has bothered to stop it. Corporations wont magically become paragons of virtue if you remove the government, It wouldn't even be a stretch to say they'd become the exact opposite. [spoiler]Kinda want to sleep now. I can only have so much fun in a day.[/spoiler]
-
There's nothing wrong with supplying and endorsing it, and I've NEVER seen a place that has actually recommended you abuse their own product. It's just what some people decide to do.The source of the problem is these people. Your analogy does not work as it is too vague. It depends entirely on the circumstances of the death. And you're trying to harm the business owners who don't directly harm anyone. Cigarettes shouldn't have to warn you, you should educate yourself BEFORE using a product. Just like you should educate yourself in realizing eating 35 cheeseburgers in a week is bad for you, even if you made them all at home which you could easily do yourself. No one is forcing you to buy 35 cheeseburgers from their venues. Those regulations are criminal and a complete waste. In some cases it causes someone to want to try the product. Which is completely asinine to blame the alcohol industry for drunk driving instead of the people driving drunk. Or cell phone manufacturers for accidents caused by moronic drivers reading a text. The commerce clause is completely irrelevant and horrifically abused by the tyrants in government. The commerce clause ONLY meant to allow merchants into other states during those times in order to keep the flow of commerce. It isn't some, "The government has unlimited power" exception. No ones rights supersede anyone else's unless you are a direct threat or infringing on other rights. I don't want ANYONE in charge except for the people, which is why I have principle and defend the freedoms of everyone, even if I disagree on their position. Except the government has no authority to limit what we do with our own bodies. We are not their slaves. We are free people capable of making our own decisions. How about the government install cameras in every home to prevent child abuse? Except we are allowed to harm ourselves. No, they can't stop freedom, we've seen this with drug prohibition which has caused far more harm than drugs ever could. Competition forces businesses to be more fair to consumers, government intervention makes it worse. Government stifles progress and consumes wealth. It's almost never a solution.
-
Yes there is, the product is harmful yet they wont even admit that. They need to be held accountable for that. The analogy works because you would waste all your time and effort on something that will achieve nothing, whereas I am actually attacking a problem. If I release a product that eventually explodes and harms/kills my customers, am I completely free of any responsibility? Is is their fault that they "didn't research enough and should've had self control" Answer: -blam!- no. And again, do you not even understand the power of marketing and coercion? There's a reason why advertising to kids is heavily regulated. Well really it would be more like blaming the alcohol industry for liver failure - bad analogy I admit. [quote]No ones rights supersede anyone else's unless you are a direct threat or infringing on other rights.[/quote]Well there you flaming well go, you just gave us your approval of regulating the fast food industry, commerce clause be damned. Which is why this isn't limiting the freedom of people, it's limiting the power of corporations. I don't want to ban burgers. never said otherwise, I said "they have to stop anyone who harms people." as in, they have to stop those who harms OTHER people. It's not about limiting freedom. Competition forces business to work harder, there is no guarantee this will benefit consumers,especially wen the most effective way to beat the competition harms consumers as a side effect. Why do you think giving profit driven corporations more power will magically make them benevolent and just?
-
The product isn't any more harmful than items at a grocery store. You're not attacking a problem, you're blindly tossing blame incorrectly. Yes, it IS the customer's fault if they purchase an explosive without first knowing how to use it and then blowing themselves up through improper use. If someone burns themselves because they taped a firework to their genitalia do you think fireworks manufacturers are to blame? I understand the power of advertising, that's why I have a strong mind and self-control, and I encourage others to develop their minds as well rather than abusing my strength and using force to gain what I personally want. And blaming alcohol industries for liver failure is still just as idiotic. Anyone can make liquor in their home and destroy their own livers. Plenty of people purchase liquor from stores without abusing it. No, I did not. They are not directly threatening anyone. They are actually doing the opposite of what the commerce clause is for. Limiting corporations unjustly IS limiting freedom, that's the point. And yet, you're attempting to harm business owners and consumers at the same time by saying you can make them liver their lives better than they can and they must comply with what YOU want. What gave to the power to make such a declaration? This would limit freedom. I'm not asking to give them more power, I'm asking to give them the power they have every right to. It's up to US to keep them in check.
-
That really depends on the food in question, you're onna have a hard time convincing anyone that apples are just as unhealthy as super sized big macs with large fries and 2 cokes. Don't twist my words - this isn't about improper use leading to harm, this is about doing EXACTLY AS ADVERTISED and being harmed. Perpetuating bad lifestyle choices and then providing the means to be harmed by those choices IS something I can blame them for. The product they are selling is harmful, and they are encouraging people to buy it, they are effectively infringing on other people's rights - so in your words their rights can be superseded. Protecting citizens and consumers is completely just. I'm saying they're not allowed to sell explosives en masse yet label them fit for consumption. The government's responsibility to protect it's citizens gives it the power to make such a decision. You don't have the freedom to kill people in the name of profit, neither do they. They have no right to do what they do. This is how we keep them in check.
