If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Mississippi, the fattest state in the union, reacts to NYC mayor Bloomberg's "big soda ban" by passing a law to make it illegal for any city in THEIR state to ever force restaurants to limit portion sizes or post calorie counts   (nydailynews.com) divider line 295
    More: Asinine, Michael Bloomberg, calorie counts, Mississippi, nyc mayor, Dietary Reference Intake, Big Gulp, Stonewall, speed limits  
•       •       •

3762 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 12:33 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



295 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-13 11:41:51 AM  
Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?
 
2013-03-13 11:57:50 AM  

Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?


I think the answer may lie in the fact that the sponsor also owns the state's largest chain of BBQ joints actually.

Still, this sort of knee-jerk reaction makes me think Bloomberg should next pass a law making the constant breathing of air mandatory for all citizens.  The collective IQ of the country would go up by 15 points overnight.
 
2013-03-13 12:06:21 PM  

Magorn: I think the answer may lie in the fact that the sponsor also owns the state's largest chain of BBQ joints actually.


But even then, it's inconsistent... "Citizens have the right to eat as much as they want! But we shouldn't be forced to let them know how much they're eating."
You'd think he would proudly put calorie counts on his menu, with prizes for consuming the 10,000 calorie snack pack and such.
 
2013-03-13 12:26:53 PM  
I thought that posting calorie counts was a mandatory part of Obamacare. Are restaurants in Virginia simply doing it of their own free will?  I think DC requires them too as well.
 
2013-03-13 12:29:30 PM  

Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?


The last thing business wants is an informed consumer.
 
2013-03-13 12:32:14 PM  

Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?


Done in one. It's funny how those that claim that the market can decide, also want to prevent the market from having information to make a decision.
 
2013-03-13 12:33:11 PM  
I loathe the fact my taxes are used to buy hoverounds and pay out disability payments for the willingly obese. They should have to enroll in a diet/fitness programs or lose benefits. Mississippi takes in more federal Medicaid dollars per those spent than any other state as well.
 
2013-03-13 12:35:03 PM  
Passing laws that they think will really 'stick it to them libs'... the primary goal of conservatives.
 
2013-03-13 12:36:07 PM  
i.imgur.com

'MERICA!
 
2013-03-13 12:36:29 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
Meanwhile, in Mississippi.
 
2013-03-13 12:36:31 PM  
The bill was authored by state Sen. Tony Smith, a Republican who owns the Stonewall's BBQ chain, who said government shouldn't tell people what they cannot eat.

Nope, no conflict of interest here.
 
2013-03-13 12:37:19 PM  
Yes, oppose derp with even MORE derp. BRILLIANT!
 
2013-03-13 12:38:09 PM  

Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?


No, you can post the calorie counts if your customers demand.  The local government may not force you to do so.
 
2013-03-13 12:39:03 PM  
Can we quit with the whole banning things for teh childrens thing?

/ it's kind of like those anti-drug pep-rally things from high school; they didn't make me not want to do drugs; they made me consider doing drugs so I wouldn't have to listen to the stupid presentation.
 
2013-03-13 12:39:58 PM  
The only trouble I have with this, is if we're taking away the calorie counts and soda size bans, they need to make it illegal for people to sue the restaurants saying that their food made them fat. I could EASILY see someone even suing the state for this bill, and state that since they had no idea what the calorie content was on a triple-pastrami burger with covered and smothered fries on the side, they can sue the state for keeping them ignorant and for the emotional distress caused by their obesity. And thanks to this law, they might even win.
 
2013-03-13 12:40:14 PM  
Miss is hippy so her pants do not fit well
 
2013-03-13 12:40:36 PM  
Good for them.
 
2013-03-13 12:40:41 PM  
(Born and raised in Mississippi.) If they want to derp themselves to death, why stop them?
 
2013-03-13 12:41:23 PM  

Magorn: Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

I think the answer may lie in the fact that the sponsor also owns the state's largest chain of BBQ joints actually.

Still, this sort of knee-jerk reaction makes me think Bloomberg should next pass a law making the constant breathing of air mandatory for all citizens.  The collective IQ of the country would go up by 15 points overnight.


He's a mayor, not a legislator.  Prohibition has never been successful.  Freedom of choice is the bedrock this nation was founded upon.
 
2013-03-13 12:41:35 PM  

PreMortem: I loathe the fact my taxes are used to buy hoverounds and pay out disability payments for the willingly obese. They should have to enroll in a diet/fitness programs or lose benefits. Mississippi takes in more federal Medicaid dollars per those spent than any other state as well.


Could you explain the relationship between obesity and Medicaid?
 
2013-03-13 12:41:50 PM  
If we're going to get into the business of regulating self-destructive behaviors, I think there are plenty of them we should work on before we get to soda.

That said, this sort of reaction is why I think many Republicans aren't very smart.
 
2013-03-13 12:42:52 PM  
ever force restaurants to limit portion sizes or post calorie counts

These people can fark up anything.
 
2013-03-13 12:44:22 PM  
ahh, the american south!  Never has a larger group of fat, stupid morons ever been collected.  Lincoln was wrong.  Should have let the racist inbred pig-farkers start keep their fatty fat country.

the whole of the south still lives in a slavery mentality, like the house slave: praising their oppressors.
 
2013-03-13 12:44:32 PM  

theknuckler_33: Passing laws that they think will really 'stick it to them libs'... the primary goal of conservatives.


Yep that's what this is really all about. I actually don't agree with trying to limit portion sizes if some one wants to drink three gallons of come be my guest. I also think if someone wants to get high as a kite that we shouldn't stop them either. Somehow I think the sponsor of the bill might not agree with me on that.
As for the calorie count issue. Why not put it out there let the free market decide? Oh you want to piss off libs that would like to make informed decisions about what they eat.
 
2013-03-13 12:44:38 PM  
In CA, chain restuarants with 20 or more locations are required to have the calorie counts posted on the menu.

I see nothing wrong with this.  I don't always order the lowest cal item on the menu but I appreciate being able to make a more informed decision.
 
2013-03-13 12:45:01 PM  

Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?


That should be the new motto of the Republican party.
 
2013-03-13 12:45:40 PM  
Slippery slope jerks.
 
2013-03-13 12:46:08 PM  
Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.
 
2013-03-13 12:46:15 PM  
A Republican businessman/politician with conflict of interest who sponsors a law that helps his business?
img829.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-13 12:46:48 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: ever force restaurants to limit portion sizes or post calorie counts

These people can fark up anything.


THIS.
I don't trust employees of most restaurants to wash their hands after using the john, much less providing me with accurate counts for the food I'm eating.
 
2013-03-13 12:47:16 PM  
New York liberals and their fascist robber baron mayor - the lulz just keep on coming with these idiots.
 
2013-03-13 12:47:16 PM  
It's good that Mississippi has such a handle on its problems that its legislature can dedicate time to reactionary chest-thumping over sodas.
 
2013-03-13 12:47:31 PM  

Ring of Fire: theknuckler_33: Passing laws that they think will really 'stick it to them libs'... the primary goal of conservatives.

Yep that's what this is really all about. I actually don't agree with trying to limit portion sizes if some one wants to drink three gallons of come be my guest. I also think if someone wants to get high as a kite that we shouldn't stop them either. Somehow I think the sponsor of the bill might not agree with me on that.
As for the calorie count issue. Why not put it out there let the free market decide? Oh you want to piss off libs that would like to make informed decisions about what they eat.


LOL of coke not come.  Not that there is anything wrong with that.
 
2013-03-13 12:48:51 PM  
did you see their facebook?  The cover photo is fatties covered in fat, drinking soda and fat.  Disgusting.
 
2013-03-13 12:49:07 PM  

pacified: ahh, the american south!  Never has a larger group of fat, stupid morons ever been collected.  Lincoln was wrong.  Should have let the racist inbred pig-farkers start keep their fatty fat country.

the whole of the south still lives in a slavery mentality, like the house slave: praising their oppressors.


Whoa, whoa, whoa there, son!
susanhenschen.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-13 12:49:14 PM  

Glancing Blow: PreMortem: I loathe the fact my taxes are used to buy hoverounds and pay out disability payments for the willingly obese. They should have to enroll in a diet/fitness programs or lose benefits. Mississippi takes in more federal Medicaid dollars per those spent than any other state as well.

Could you explain the relationship between obesity and Medicaid?


Have you never seen the old episode of The Simpsons where Homer's goal is to gain weight to get over 300 lbs so he can collect disability? If you can't work because you're too fat to get in the door/have heart problems/have knee problems/have a "thyroid problem"/whatever, then you're collecting disability and get medicaid/medical as your insurance since you're under the income line. You're welcome.
 
2013-03-13 12:50:42 PM  

Glancing Blow: PreMortem: I loathe the fact my taxes are used to buy hoverounds and pay out disability payments for the willingly obese. They should have to enroll in a diet/fitness programs or lose benefits. Mississippi takes in more federal Medicaid dollars per those spent than any other state as well.

Could you explain the relationship between obesity and Medicaid?


In general, I can in a single word: poverty.
 
2013-03-13 12:51:16 PM  
Calorie counts are already posted in the fast food restaurants around here. It does not seem to have made any difference in the length of the lines to get a double with cheese.
 
2013-03-13 12:52:04 PM  

pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.


So would you advocate that the government not use taxpayer money to fund the medical industry?
 
2013-03-13 12:53:07 PM  

pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.


And what if I want 64 ounces of  diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.
 
2013-03-13 12:53:25 PM  
I'd love to see some congressperson troll Mississippi by tying Medicaid funding to a mandate on the display of calorie counts.
 
2013-03-13 12:53:58 PM  

cainunable: In general, I can in a single word: poverty.


THIS
Also wik- Distance has a lot to do with it, too. Here in the South, everyone drives. Everyone. There's no adequate system of affordable mass transit or even sidewalks in most cities. People have to drive to get where they're going. That, in and of itself, is a giant contributor to obsity in our neck of the woods.
 
2013-03-13 12:54:51 PM  
The Bloomberg initiative didn't actually ban anything, did it? You can still buy a paint bucket's worth of soda, vendors can't pretend the bucket is one serving.

If you want to eat 10 pound of ground beef in one sitting, you will also have to buy several burgers.
 
2013-03-13 12:55:03 PM  
Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are. If you eat too many calories its your own dumb fault.

When I see calories on a menu I start thinking like an engineer again - reduce my $/calorie. I usually have to talk myself out of thinking like that. Calories on the menu are a distraction.
 
2013-03-13 12:55:03 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: I'd love to see some congressperson troll Mississippi by tying Medicaid funding to a mandate on the display of calorie counts.


I'd LOL at that.
 
2013-03-13 12:56:31 PM  

Theaetetus: pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

And what if I want 64 ounces of  diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.


"manly thirst requirements"? Hahaha. I guess that's the reason for the Big Gulps- like for long distance truckers... But what I don't understand is why in the last ten years, a small went from 12 oz to 16, a med went from 16 to 20, and a large went from 20 to like 40. So big that they had to alter the bottom four inches of the cup to fit into a cupholder, because the rest is so wide, it won't fit. It's utterly ridiculous. When I worked in food service in 2003, those were the sizes. Sometime in the last few years they've gone up. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THAT.
 
2013-03-13 12:57:09 PM  

Ring of Fire: theknuckler_33: Passing laws that they think will really 'stick it to them libs'... the primary goal of conservatives.

Yep that's what this is really all about. I actually don't agree with trying to limit portion sizes if some one wants to drink three gallons of come be my guest. I also think if someone wants to get high as a kite that we shouldn't stop them either. Somehow I think the sponsor of the bill might not agree with me on that.
As for the calorie count issue. Why not put it out there let the free market decide? Oh you want to piss off libs that would like to make informed decisions about what they eat.


Information is one of the requirements of the free market.

"Like casinos, large corporate entities have studied the numbers and the ways in which people respond to them. These are not con tricks - they're not even necessarily against our direct interests, although sometimes they can be - but they are hacks for the human mind, ways of manipulating us into particular decisions we otherwise might not make. They are also, in a way, deliberate underminings of the core principle of the free market, which derives its legitimacy from the idea that informed self-interest on aggregate sets appropriate prices for items. The key word is 'informed'; the point of behavioural economics - or rather, of its somewhat buccaneering corporate applications - is to skew our perception of the purchase to the advantage of the company. The overall consequence of that is to tilt the construction of our society away from what it should be if we were making the rational decisions classical economics imagines we would, and towards something else."― Nick Harkaway
 
2013-03-13 12:57:56 PM  
Even McDonald's posts calorie counts.
 
2013-03-13 12:58:17 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: I'd love to see some congressperson troll Mississippi by tying Medicaid funding to a mandate on the display of calorie counts.


lol
 
2013-03-13 12:58:35 PM  

occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are


Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.
 
2013-03-13 01:00:07 PM  
Obamacare is going to require that all restaurants with more than 20 locations post calorie counts anyway, so whatever, just another red state screaming like a maniac.
 
2013-03-13 01:00:30 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Theaetetus: pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

And what if I want 64 ounces of  diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.

"manly thirst requirements"? Hahaha. I guess that's the reason for the Big Gulps- like for long distance truckers... But what I don't understand is why in the last ten years, a small went from 12 oz to 16, a med went from 16 to 20, and a large went from 20 to like 40. So big that they had to alter the bottom four inches of the cup to fit into a cupholder, because the rest is so wide, it won't fit. It's utterly ridiculous. When I worked in food service in 2003, those were the sizes. Sometime in the last few years they've gone up. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THAT.


One word: ice.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 16oz cup filled to the brim with ice holds about 1/4 of that as actual drink.  Same goes for the 64oz cups ... fill it with 50oz of ice, and well, you get the customer to pay more for a preceived value.

Also, drinks are profit centers.  A $1.89 soda costs about 25 cents worth of product, 20 of which being the cup, lid, and straw.  The soda itself is the cheapest shiat known to man.
 
2013-03-13 01:01:09 PM  
Eating healthy is un-American.
 
2013-03-13 01:01:58 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Theaetetus: pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

And what if I want 64 ounces of  diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.

"manly thirst requirements"? Hahaha. I guess that's the reason for the Big Gulps- like for long distance truckers...


I'm an iced coffee fiend.

But what I don't understand is why in the last ten years, a small went from 12 oz to 16, a med went from 16 to 20, and a large went from 20 to like 40. So big that they had to alter the bottom four inches of the cup to fit into a cupholder, because the rest is so wide, it won't fit. It's utterly ridiculous. When I worked in food service in 2003, those were the sizes. Sometime in the last few years they've gone up. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THAT.

Because America. No, really. We've been trained by the corporations to go for value over quality, which invariably means quantity over reasonable sizes. Specifically, they can increase the size of a drink from 12 to 16 ounces for a mere penny or two, but charge the consumer 20-30 cents more, and we think we're getting a better "value". It's all about profit margins. Same thing with portions sizes at restaurants... You've got a $10 entree with an $8 cost, but most of that cost is labor. You can double the size of it for an additional $2 in food costs, the labor is just about identical, and now you can justify charging $15 or $20.
 
2013-03-13 01:02:16 PM  

occamswrist: When I see calories on a menu I start thinking like an engineer again - reduce my $/calorie. I usually have to talk myself out of thinking like that. Calories on the menu are a distraction.


You're right. Public policy should be tailored to avoid making aspies feel uncomfortable.
 
2013-03-13 01:02:27 PM  

pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.


Here's the funny thing about living in an ostensibly free society, you don't get to decide whether or not there's a reason to sell large drinks.  Oh, I'm sure the world would be a better place if you ran things, but unfortunately for all of us, we don't have you as our benevolent dictator and have to make do with our flawed representative democracy.
 
US1
2013-03-13 01:02:58 PM  

Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?


IT is because its expensive for small resturaunts to implement a calorie count.  If you dont know that what your eating is unhealthy already then...download palfit on your phone or something
 
2013-03-13 01:03:12 PM  

Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?


I'm not arguing in favor of the bill, but from a libertarian point of view, it's at least consistent. You can't tell me how big my portions can be, and you can't force me to post calorie counts.
 
2013-03-13 01:03:17 PM  

kumanoki: pacified: ahh, the american south!  Never has a larger group of fat, stupid morons ever been collected.  Lincoln was wrong.  Should have let the racist inbred pig-farkers start keep their fatty fat country.

the whole of the south still lives in a slavery mentality, like the house slave: praising their oppressors.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there, son!
[susanhenschen.files.wordpress.com image 320x353]



He's not wrong, and the south is now infecting the rest of the country.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/
 
2013-03-13 01:03:35 PM  
Why is this in any way asinine?
 
2013-03-13 01:03:36 PM  
So would the fattest Republican state in the nation qualify as big government or not?
 
2013-03-13 01:03:39 PM  
seadoo2006:
One word: ice.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 16oz cup filled to the brim with ice holds about 1/4 of that as actual drink.  Same goes for the 64oz cups ... fill it with 50oz of ice, and well, you get the customer to pay more for a preceived value.

Also, drinks are profit centers.  A $1.89 soda costs about 25 cents worth of product, 20 of which being the cup, lid, and straw.  The soda itself is the cheapest shiat known to man.


Not just the ice. Even if you include 64 oz of soda in that cup, it's still going to be only an additional few pennies of syrup and water. It's all profit margins and economies of scale.
 
2013-03-13 01:04:23 PM  

Theaetetus: Ring of Fire: theknuckler_33: Passing laws that they think will really 'stick it to them libs'... the primary goal of conservatives.

Yep that's what this is really all about. I actually don't agree with trying to limit portion sizes if some one wants to drink three gallons of come be my guest. I also think if someone wants to get high as a kite that we shouldn't stop them either. Somehow I think the sponsor of the bill might not agree with me on that.
As for the calorie count issue. Why not put it out there let the free market decide? Oh you want to piss off libs that would like to make informed decisions about what they eat.

Information is one of the requirements of the free market.


Oh yeah I know I probably could have worded it better.  I meant to put the calorie count out.  If people want a informed choices they can't do that without having all the information.  If people are at least able to find out how many calories are in that triple cheeseburger and they still want to eat it fine, but if they have no way of knowing thats not really a free market.
 
2013-03-13 01:04:32 PM  

impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.


Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..
 
2013-03-13 01:05:11 PM  

US1: Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

IT is because its expensive for small resturaunts to implement a calorie count.


They're explicitly exempt in the bill, so that's about as relevant as saying "it's expensive for small restaurants to buy aircraft carriers, so that's why informing consumers is bad."
 
2013-03-13 01:05:53 PM  
Vermont trying to pass a law about ingredients listing and calorie info.

Guess who is now all mad, and might get exemptions? Farmers markets!! Because darn it, if it is hippie, it should be exempt!
 
2013-03-13 01:06:03 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: The bill was authored by state Sen. Tony Smith, a Republican who owns the Stonewall's BBQ chain, who said government shouldn't tell people what they cannot eat.

Nope, no conflict of interest here.


A bill to the opposite effect would be a conflict of interests.  This is Zen BBQ harmony.
 
2013-03-13 01:06:27 PM  

Theaetetus: kiwimoogle84: Theaetetus: pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

And what if I want 64 ounces of  diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.

"manly thirst requirements"? Hahaha. I guess that's the reason for the Big Gulps- like for long distance truckers...

I'm an iced coffee fiend.

But what I don't understand is why in the last ten years, a small went from 12 oz to 16, a med went from 16 to 20, and a large went from 20 to like 40. So big that they had to alter the bottom four inches of the cup to fit into a cupholder, because the rest is so wide, it won't fit. It's utterly ridiculous. When I worked in food service in 2003, those were the sizes. Sometime in the last few years they've gone up. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THAT.

Because America. No, really. We've been trained by the corporations to go for value over quality, which invariably means quantity over reasonable sizes. Specifically, they can increase the size of a drink from 12 to 16 ounces for a mere penny or two, but charge the consumer 20-30 cents more, and we think we're getting a better "value". It's all about profit margins. Same thing with portions sizes at restaurants... You've got a $10 entree with an $8 cost, but most of that cost is labor. You can double the size of it for an additional $2 in food costs, the labor is just about identical, and now you can justify charging $15 or $20.


And that's why you should only eat at all-you-can-eat buffets.

QED
 
2013-03-13 01:07:27 PM  

mod3072: Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

I'm not arguing in favor of the bill, but from a libertarian point of view, it's at least consistent. You can't tell me how big my portions can be, and you can't force me to post calorie counts.


Libertarian, not anarchistic. Libertarians still believe in regulating the market by preventing fraud, for example. No one is making the argument that "it's not the government's place to keep me from lying to customers." Encouraging an informed marketplace is certainly a libertarian ideal.
 
2013-03-13 01:07:30 PM  

US1: IT is because its expensive for small resturaunts to implement a calorie count.


No it's not. Besides, small restaurants don't have to.
 
2013-03-13 01:07:37 PM  

seadoo2006: kiwimoogle84: Theaetetus: pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

And what if I want 64 ounces of  diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.

"manly thirst requirements"? Hahaha. I guess that's the reason for the Big Gulps- like for long distance truckers... But what I don't understand is why in the last ten years, a small went from 12 oz to 16, a med went from 16 to 20, and a large went from 20 to like 40. So big that they had to alter the bottom four inches of the cup to fit into a cupholder, because the rest is so wide, it won't fit. It's utterly ridiculous. When I worked in food service in 2003, those were the sizes. Sometime in the last few years they've gone up. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THAT.

One word: ice.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 16oz cup filled to the brim with ice holds about 1/4 of that as actual drink.  Same goes for the 64oz cups ... fill it with 50oz of ice, and well, you get the customer to pay more for a preceived value.

Also, drinks are profit centers.  A $1.89 soda costs about 25 cents worth of product, 20 of which being the cup, lid, and straw.  The soda itself is the cheapest shiat known to man.


I don't know ANYONE, outside of bartenders, who fill up their cups entirely with ice. And yes, profit centers, but we shouldn't have SIZE inflation. That's just stupid.

Theaetetus: seadoo2006:
One word: ice.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 16oz cup filled to the brim with ice holds about 1/4 of that as actual drink.  Same goes for the 64oz cups ... fill it with 50oz of ice, and well, you get the customer to pay more for a preceived value.

Also, drinks are profit centers.  A $1.89 soda costs about 25 cents worth of product, 20 of which being the cup, lid, and straw.  The soda itself is the cheapest shiat known to man.

Not just the ice. Even if you include 64 oz of soda in that cup, it's still going to be only an additional few pennies of syrup and water. It's all profit margins and economies of scale.


You're right. You're actually both right. It's just really stupid and fuels obesity. If I order a small soda, it's because I only want a little bit. Yet you hand me this monstrous thing because "it comes with the meal." Dear lord, I wanted a little bit to wash down my food, not a swimming pool.
 
2013-03-13 01:07:43 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: I'd love to see some congressperson troll Mississippi by tying Medicaid funding to a mandate on the display of calorie counts.


You'd love to see every poor person in MS lose Medicaid?
 
2013-03-13 01:08:30 PM  

pedrop357: Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

No, you can post the calorie counts if your customers demand.  The local government may not force you to do so.


So basically, you don't have to post calorie counts if it tells customers how bad your food is for them.  Which would completely defeat the point of posting calorie counts.
 
2013-03-13 01:09:38 PM  
Southern states dislike being labeled as stupid but also exert so much effort to make themselves appear stupid. I don't get it.
 
2013-03-13 01:09:40 PM  

occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..


No, because sometimes you can't get a reasonable idea. It's that simple.
 
2013-03-13 01:09:47 PM  

Cagey B: occamswrist: When I see calories on a menu I start thinking like an engineer again - reduce my $/calorie. I usually have to talk myself out of thinking like that. Calories on the menu are a distraction.

You're right. Public policy should be tailored to avoid making aspies feel uncomfortable.


I'm not the one trying to force my beliefs onto others.

The people trying to ban large sodas and mandate menus carry calories (because then fat people will think twice!) who are the ones forcing policies onto others.
 
2013-03-13 01:10:17 PM  

Dissociater: And that's why you should only eat at all-you-can-eat buffets.

QED


Demolition Man was wrong.  The only restaurant in the coming future dystopia won't be Taco Bell.  It'll be the Golden Corral.
 
2013-03-13 01:10:18 PM  

Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?


Completely agree.  Portion size is up to the person doing the purchasing and nobody else.

Calorie count is simply giving the purchaser more information.
 
2013-03-13 01:10:36 PM  

Theaetetus: pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

And what if I want 64 ounces of  diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.


I'd prefer levying a large tax on those beverages, not a ban.  I pay a lot for my cigarettes, time for the fatties to pony up as well.
 
2013-03-13 01:11:15 PM  
It's always the States that manifestly don't know what they're doing who tell the feds, "Don't you dare tell us what to do!"
 
2013-03-13 01:12:06 PM  

occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..


That only works if the food you get in a restaurant or at a drive-through is comparable to the food you make at home, and doesn't have, say, tons of sugar in the hamburger bun.
 
2013-03-13 01:12:13 PM  

Glancing Blow: PreMortem: I loathe the fact my taxes are used to buy hoverounds and pay out disability payments for the willingly obese. They should have to enroll in a diet/fitness programs or lose benefits. Mississippi takes in more federal Medicaid dollars per those spent than any other state as well.

Could you explain the relationship between obesity and Medicaid?


Not as good as This
 
2013-03-13 01:13:05 PM  
Ugh, fat people.  If only they qualified as big game I could have such a trophy room.
 
2013-03-13 01:13:50 PM  

occamswrist: I'm not the one trying to force my beliefs onto others.

The people trying to ban large sodas and mandate menus carry calories (because then fat people will think twice!) who are the ones forcing policies onto others.


As it so happens, "an informed marketplace" is indeed a belief of mine, and I'll force the shiat out of it onto you as far as I'm able. Fortunately there are enough people in government whose only ideology isn't "hurr stick it to libs" that basic information like what's in your food is widely available and has been so for years.

Also, it's not just fat people who keep track of caloric intake. In fact, I'd dare say that a non-fat person is probably more likely to want that information.
 
2013-03-13 01:14:05 PM  

Gergesa: Ugh, fat people.  If only they qualified as big game I could have such a trophy room.


Yes, but I'm not sure why you'd want to hang your used condoms on your walls.
 
2013-03-13 01:15:14 PM  

US1: Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

IT is because its expensive for small resturaunts to implement a calorie count.  If you dont know that what your eating is unhealthy already then...download palfit on your phone or something


So, it's too expensive for a small restaurant to download a free app and then have their staff take a few minutes a day over the span of a week or so adding calorie counts to the menus?  The calorie count laws don't apply to small restaurants anyway, but saying "it's too expensive to implement" is dumb when the information is available for free and the labor is damn close to free.


Thunderpipes: Vermont trying to pass a law about ingredients listing and calorie info.

Guess who is now all mad, and might get exemptions? Farmers markets!! Because darn it, if it is hippie, it should be exempt!


Holy shiat I was in for a surprise the first time I went to a Farmer's Market here in VT.  I'm used to the ones in AZ and CA...you know, where the farmer's sell direct to the customer at prices lower than the grocery store?  I get to a Farmer's Market here, and shiat's two and three times what it costs in the grocery store, even the hippe-ass co-op.
 
2013-03-13 01:15:24 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Glancing Blow: PreMortem: I loathe the fact my taxes are used to buy hoverounds and pay out disability payments for the willingly obese. They should have to enroll in a diet/fitness programs or lose benefits. Mississippi takes in more federal Medicaid dollars per those spent than any other state as well.

Could you explain the relationship between obesity and Medicaid?

Have you never seen the old episode of The Simpsons where Homer's goal is to gain weight to get over 300 lbs so he can collect disability? If you can't work because you're too fat to get in the door/have heart problems/have knee problems/have a "thyroid problem"/whatever, then you're collecting disability and get medicaid/medical as your insurance since you're under the income line. You're welcome.



I'm not sure who the people you describe are collecting disability from since the ones you list would not be grounds for Social Security Disability income (lookup sedentary work as defined by the Department of Labor), nor do they appear to be related to any kind of workman's compensation.

You do not automatically qualify for medicaid because you're receiving disability payments, although in many states people with disabilities qualify automatically if they get Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits.  Medicaid is income-based, not disability based.   Medicaid is available to anyone who can show a medical need, but lacks the income to obtain the care, although the services vary widely from state to state.
 
2013-03-13 01:17:35 PM  

pacified: the whole of the south still lives in a slavery mentality


I think at this point we can call it mental slavery.
 
2013-03-13 01:17:41 PM  

Theaetetus: Gergesa: Ugh, fat people.  If only they qualified as big game I could have such a trophy room.

Yes, but I'm not sure why you'd want to hang your used condoms on your walls.


Needs work.  Try again.
 
2013-03-13 01:19:38 PM  
You want your god given right to be Fatty Fat McFatston? Stay classy, Mississippi.

i651.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-13 01:20:33 PM  

Gergesa: Theaetetus: Gergesa: Ugh, fat people.  If only they qualified as big game I could have such a trophy room.

Yes, but I'm not sure why you'd want to hang your used condoms on your walls.

Needs work.  Try again.


It's because you have sex with fat people.
 
2013-03-13 01:20:49 PM  
Nice chinstrap on that fat fark libertarian.
 
2013-03-13 01:20:52 PM  

PapaChester: A Republican businessman/politician with conflict of interest who sponsors a law that helps his business?

img829.imageshack.us

Yup...

Florida's Lt Gov resigns over charges she was feathering her own nest.
 
2013-03-13 01:21:00 PM  

Theaetetus: occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..

That only works if the food you get in a restaurant or at a drive-through is comparable to the food you make at home, and doesn't have, say, tons of sugar in the hamburger bun.


Point taken.

I remember being in a burger king as a kid and looking at their calorie chart. Hamburgers ranged from 500-900 calories or so depending on what's on it.

Can I move the goal post and say "looking at and taking one bite of your food and you can get a reasonable idea on calories."

If they gave you too many calories on your tray, don't eat all the food. Big deal...

How many people who count calories eat shiat fast food often enough that this matters? My guess is few.
 
2013-03-13 01:22:12 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Uranus Is Huge!: I'd love to see some congressperson troll Mississippi by tying Medicaid funding to a mandate on the display of calorie counts.

You'd love to see every poor person in MS lose Medicaid?


Yes. That was exactly my point. I hope to see the poor of Mississippi die in the streets after my imaginary bill passes through the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives, gets rubber-stamped by the Senate, and is signed into law by HRH Barack Pol Pol Obamao.

Thank you for your concise summary of my proposal.
 
2013-03-13 01:23:22 PM  

Glancing Blow: kiwimoogle84: Glancing Blow: PreMortem: I loathe the fact my taxes are used to buy hoverounds and pay out disability payments for the willingly obese. They should have to enroll in a diet/fitness programs or lose benefits. Mississippi takes in more federal Medicaid dollars per those spent than any other state as well.

Could you explain the relationship between obesity and Medicaid?

Have you never seen the old episode of The Simpsons where Homer's goal is to gain weight to get over 300 lbs so he can collect disability? If you can't work because you're too fat to get in the door/have heart problems/have knee problems/have a "thyroid problem"/whatever, then you're collecting disability and get medicaid/medical as your insurance since you're under the income line. You're welcome.


I'm not sure who the people you describe are collecting disability from since the ones you list would not be grounds for Social Security Disability income (lookup sedentary work as defined by the Department of Labor), nor do they appear to be related to any kind of workman's compensation.

You do not automatically qualify for medicaid because you're receiving disability payments, although in many states people with disabilities qualify automatically if they get Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits.  Medicaid is income-based, not disability based.   Medicaid is available to anyone who can show a medical need, but lacks the income to obtain the care, although the services vary widely from state to state.


You know what? You do in fact know more about this than I do, and prepared your counterpoint in a concise manner that did not insult or alienate me.

You sure you're in the right forum? :P

Thanks for the info, actually. I've never worked the side of determining eligibility for government services, I just get the claims. I get a lot of obesity related claims and I have always been under the IMPRESSION that if you were legally qualified as disabled due to your weight, and collected disability pay, you'd automatically be in an income bracket to recieve state medical benefits. Now I'll have to do my research to see what the guidelines actually are, since it could be useful to my field. Thanks!
 
2013-03-13 01:23:31 PM  

Theaetetus: Gergesa: Ugh, fat people.  If only they qualified as big game I could have such a trophy room.

Yes, but I'm not sure why you'd want to hang your used condoms on your walls.


Winning.
 
2013-03-13 01:25:23 PM  

Magorn: Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

I think the answer may lie in the fact that the sponsor also owns the state's largest chain of BBQ joints actually.

Still, this sort of knee-jerk reaction makes me think Bloomberg should next pass a law making the constant breathing of air mandatory for all citizens.  The collective IQ of the country would go up by 15 points overnight.


IQ doesn't work like that.
 
2013-03-13 01:25:49 PM  

occamswrist: Theaetetus: occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..

That only works if the food you get in a restaurant or at a drive-through is comparable to the food you make at home, and doesn't have, say, tons of sugar in the hamburger bun.

Point taken.

I remember being in a burger king as a kid and looking at their calorie chart. Hamburgers ranged from 500-900 calories or so depending on what's on it.

Can I move the goal post and say "looking at and taking one bite of your food and you can get a reasonable idea on calories."

If they gave you too many calories on your tray, don't eat all the food. Big deal...

How many people who count calories eat shiat fast food often enough that this matters? My guess is few.


And that was my previous point regarding lawsuits- Someone tried to sue Oreos once for making them fat, or pass a law that said you had to be 18 to buy them, or something like that (I'll look it up later.) Someone could actually get away with denying knowledge of how many calories a triple pastrami heart attack burger had in it, and sue over obesity due to it, since the calories aren't listed. And that fat fark will win.
 
2013-03-13 01:26:21 PM  

occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..


Quick, glance at these and give us a reasonable idea of how many calories they are in each:
2.bp.blogspot.com
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
US1
2013-03-13 01:26:27 PM  
It's also bad for business.  I think they shouldmake it available upon request
 
US1
2013-03-13 01:28:38 PM  
Is Bloomberg gonna put an end to refills?  What if I order two sodas?  What if I want to get a hershey syrup bottle and put a nipple on it and just go to town?  We need more laws.
 
2013-03-13 01:28:43 PM  

Theaetetus: Gergesa: Ugh, fat people.  If only they qualified as big game I could have such a trophy room.

Yes, but I'm not sure why you'd want to hang your used condoms on your walls.



5.media.bustedtees.cvcdn.com
 
2013-03-13 01:32:20 PM  

PapaChester: A Republican businessman/politician with conflict of interest who sponsors a law that helps his business?
[img829.imageshack.us image 311x311]


Yes, only Republicans do this.
 
2013-03-13 01:35:30 PM  

US1: Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

IT is because its expensive for small resturaunts to implement a calorie count.  If you dont know that what your eating is unhealthy already then...download palfit on your phone or something


What, do they need to hire farking nutritionists at $100k a year to determine calorie counts? How expensive is it to look up calorie counts for food products? Either I'm missing something or you're just trying to keep the public uninformed.
 
2013-03-13 01:37:59 PM  

Theaetetus: Gergesa: Theaetetus: Gergesa: Ugh, fat people.  If only they qualified as big game I could have such a trophy room.

Yes, but I'm not sure why you'd want to hang your used condoms on your walls.

Needs work.  Try again.

It's because you have sex with fat people.


Predictable, as mentioned needs work.
 
2013-03-13 01:38:41 PM  

kiwimoogle84: occamswrist: Theaetetus: occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..

That only works if the food you get in a restaurant or at a drive-through is comparable to the food you make at home, and doesn't have, say, tons of sugar in the hamburger bun.

Point taken.

I remember being in a burger king as a kid and looking at their calorie chart. Hamburgers ranged from 500-900 calories or so depending on what's on it.

Can I move the goal post and say "looking at and taking one bite of your food and you can get a reasonable idea on calories."

If they gave you too many calories on your tray, don't eat all the food. Big deal...

How many people who count calories eat shiat fast food often enough that this matters? My guess is few.

And that was my previous point regarding lawsuits- Someone tried to sue Oreos once for making them fat, or pass a law that said you had to be 18 to buy them, or something like that (I'll look it up later.) Someone could actually get away with denying knowledge of how many calories a triple pastrami heart attack burger had in it, and sue over obesity due to it, since the calories aren't listed. And that fat fark will win.


Well I think we agree in that then if it prevents fatty mcfatty from winning a lawsuit its a good idea? But do you want to make providing that info a law? Are you looking out for fatty's interests or the restaraunts interests?

But the calorie statements in menus isn't even that big of a deal -- its just more government intrusion for your own good.

I think these laws, when summed up over many years, turns this country more and more into a nanny state. On issues like this I prefer individual choice over government bans.

Pathetic.
 
2013-03-13 01:39:20 PM  
farm7.staticflickr.com
 
2013-03-13 01:40:29 PM  
Sorry subby, but I agree with the fat farks of Mississippi on this one.

Its nobody's damn business, especially the government's, how much of what I choose to eat or drink.

/love soda
//not fat
 
2013-03-13 01:40:30 PM  

Teufelaffe: occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..

Quick, glance at these and give us a reasonable idea of how many calories they are in each:


Missed this. I'd say about 100-150 each.

Quick, look at your belly and tell me if you are eating too much.
 
2013-03-13 01:40:36 PM  

occamswrist: Can I move the goal post and say "looking at and taking one bite of your food and you can get a reasonable idea on calories."


I'm still not sure that would work. Here's a great example: ever notice how some restaurants will give you slices of beautifully toasted, crusty and delicious bread? Like, the toasted surface is literally golden and glowing with deliciousness? Particularly happens with grilled cheese sandwiches or similar:
g-ec2.apartmenttherapy.com
It's because instead of merely toasting the bread, or even using a small amount of butter, they slather it in mayonnaise and then grill it. So it's literally a surface of baked-on fat and protein.

If you didn't know about that trick, you might think bread+cheese+bit of butter=300 calories (based on adding up calories for slices of bread, slice of cheese, tbsp of butter). If you did, you'd instead come up with 700 calories.

So telling people "just look at your plate and figure out how much to eat" only works if the calorie count for the food is precisely what they'd expect.
 
2013-03-13 01:41:06 PM  

PreMortem: I loathe the fact my taxes are used to buy hoverounds and pay out disability payments for the willingly obese. They should have to enroll in a diet/fitness programs or lose benefits. Mississippi takes in more federal Medicaid dollars per those spent than any other state as well.




Background checks and licensing. Only way to be safe.
 
2013-03-13 01:42:53 PM  

theknuckler_33: Passing laws that they think will really 'stick it to them libs'..


or..more likely...laws that will really "stick to their Ribs".
 
2013-03-13 01:42:59 PM  

Theaetetus: So telling people "just look at your plate and figure out how much to eat" only works if the calorie count for the food is precisely what they'd expect.


It works for me, it should work for everyone.

Down with fatties.
 
2013-03-13 01:43:04 PM  

occamswrist: On issues like this I prefer individual choice over government bans.


occamswrist: Calories on the menu are a distraction.

 
2013-03-13 01:45:19 PM  

occamswrist: kiwimoogle84: occamswrist: Theaetetus: occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..

That only works if the food you get in a restaurant or at a drive-through is comparable to the food you make at home, and doesn't have, say, tons of sugar in the hamburger bun.

Point taken.

I remember being in a burger king as a kid and looking at their calorie chart. Hamburgers ranged from 500-900 calories or so depending on what's on it.

Can I move the goal post and say "looking at and taking one bite of your food and you can get a reasonable idea on calories."

If they gave you too many calories on your tray, don't eat all the food. Big deal...

How many people who count calories eat shiat fast food often enough that this matters? My guess is few.

And that was my previous point regarding lawsuits- Someone tried to sue Oreos once for making them fat, or pass a law that said you had to be 18 to buy them, or something like that (I'll look it up later.) Someone could actually get away with denying knowledge of how many calories a triple pastrami heart attack burger had in it, and sue over obesity due to it, since the calories aren't listed. And that fat fark will win.

Well I think we agree in that then if it prevents fatty mcfatty from winning a lawsuit its a good idea? But do you want to make providing that info a law? Are you looking out for fatty's interests or the restaraunts interests?

But the calorie statements in menus isn't even that big of a deal -- its just more government intrusion for your own good.

I think these laws, when summed up over many years, turns this country more and more into a nanny state. On issues like this I prefer individual choice over government bans.

Pathetic.


I'm not looking for anyone's interests. I'm just saying that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE will be stupid enough to blame the restaurant for not serving him the same 1,500 calorie burger every wednesday. Just like they can sue a bar for giving them too much. I'm all for personal responsibility and personal choices, and just because the calorie content is ON the menus, doesn't mean they have to read them.

My point is just that someone will find a legal loophole and exploit it. That's why there's warning labels on stuff. Someone out there sued because no one told them that drying their hair IN THE SHOWER was a bad idea. We shouldn't HAVE TO tell people that. They should just KNOW that bacon is fattier than broccoli. But because no one told them, they can sue, and I think frivolous lawsuits are a huge chunk of what's wrong with this country.
 
2013-03-13 01:46:43 PM  

occamswrist: But the calorie statements in menus isn't even that big of a deal -- its just more government intrusion for your own good.


Being able to see calorie counts is an intrusion?
 
2013-03-13 01:48:05 PM  
Killing them in the womb is the best way to protect them from themselves (or so I'm told).
 
2013-03-13 01:48:10 PM  
kiwimoogle84:
I'm not looking for anyone's interests. I'm just saying that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE will be stupid enough to blame the restaurant for not serving him the same 1,500 calorie burger every wednesday. Just like they can sue a bar for giving them too much. I'm all for personal responsibility and personal choices, and just because the calorie content is ON the menus, doesn't mean they have to read them.

My point is just that someone will find a legal loophole and exploit it. That's why there's warning labels on stuff. Someone out there sued because no one told them that drying their hair IN THE SHOWER was a bad idea. We shouldn't HAVE TO tell people that. They should just KNOW that bacon is fattier than broccoli. But because no one told them, they can sue, and I think frivolous lawsuits are a huge chunk of what's wrong with this country.


FTFM- not sure how that "not" slipped in there. I need more coffee.
 
2013-03-13 01:50:42 PM  

kiwimoogle84: occamswrist: kiwimoogle84: occamswrist: Theaetetus: occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..

That only works if the food you get in a restaurant or at a drive-through is comparable to the food you make at home, and doesn't have, say, tons of sugar in the hamburger bun.

Point taken.

I remember being in a burger king as a kid and looking at their calorie chart. Hamburgers ranged from 500-900 calories or so depending on what's on it.

Can I move the goal post and say "looking at and taking one bite of your food and you can get a reasonable idea on calories."

If they gave you too many calories on your tray, don't eat all the food. Big deal...

How many people who count calories eat shiat fast food often enough that this matters? My guess is few.

And that was my previous point regarding lawsuits- Someone tried to sue Oreos once for making them fat, or pass a law that said you had to be 18 to buy them, or something like that (I'll look it up later.) Someone could actually get away with denying knowledge of how many calories a triple pastrami heart attack burger had in it, and sue over obesity due to it, since the calories aren't listed. And that fat fark will win.

Well I think we agree in that then if it prevents fatty mcfatty from winning a lawsuit its a good idea? But do you want to make providing that info a law? Are you looking out for fatty's interests or the restaraunts interests?

But the calorie statements in menus isn't even that big of a deal -- its just more government intrusion for your own good.

I think these laws, when summed up over many years, turns this country more and more into a nanny state. On issues like this I prefer individual choice over government bans.

Pathetic.

I'm not looking for anyone's interests. I'm j ...




I have a loophole for Florida anti-smoking ban for restaurants or food servers.

There is a local bar that allows smoking since they don't serve food. The owner owns a restaurant next door. Patrons of the bar place an order with the restaurant and the food is delivered to the smoking bar. Brilliant!

Owner didn't like that I told him it wouldn't last long.
 
2013-03-13 01:51:16 PM  

Theaetetus: occamswrist: On issues like this I prefer individual choice over government bans.

occamswrist: Calories on the menu are a distraction.


For me they are. But I'm not fat (yet).
A law that calories are listed on the menu is just another something we have to comply with.

I get the impression this thread has some porkers in it and they are trying to blame restaraunts. Whatever makes you guys feel better.
 
2013-03-13 01:51:53 PM  

kiwimoogle84: I'm not looking for anyone's interests. I'm just saying that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE will be stupid enough to blame the restaurant for not serving him the same 1,500 calorie burger every wednesday. Just like they can sue a bar for giving them too much. I'm all for personal responsibility and personal choices, and just because the calorie content is ON the menus, doesn't mean they have to read them.

My point is just that someone will find a legal loophole and exploit it. That's why there's warning labels on stuff. Someone out there sued because no one told them that drying their hair IN THE SHOWER was a bad idea. We shouldn't HAVE TO tell people that. They should just KNOW that bacon is fattier than broccoli. But because no one told them, they can sue, and I think frivolous lawsuits are a huge chunk of what's wrong with this country.


The suit you may be thinking of is when that guy sued McDonald's for making him fat. The judge dismissed the case, as you'd expect,  but added a caveat allowing the guy to re-file if he could show that McDonalds' food was significantly and unexpectedly worse than cooking the same things at home. McDonalds immediately settled.
Thing is, yes, people know that bacon is fattier than broccoli. What you don't know is that that burger you expect to be 500 calories is actually 1500 calories because the bun has sugar, there's extra sugar in the sauce, the pickles are brined in sugar, the bun is toasted with mayonnaise, etc. And at that point, that frivolous "durr you're stupid for not knowing that bacon is fatty, fatty" suit suddenly starts looking a lot more reasonable.
 
2013-03-13 01:53:06 PM  

occamswrist: Theaetetus: occamswrist: On issues like this I prefer individual choice over government bans.

occamswrist: Calories on the menu are a distraction.

For me they are. But I'm not fat (yet).
A law that calories are listed on the menu is just another something we have to comply with.


Oh, ho! Letting your bias slip, are you?
 
2013-03-13 01:54:38 PM  
WAIT!! let me get this straight!!!

So these right wing politicians who are always ranting and up in arms about big governments and over regulations have themselves enacted regulations and laws on something that is non-existent nor regulated in their state...

Do they not see the hypocrisy? and the votes were 50-1? Who are the Mississisippi politicans? surely there is more than 1 out of 50 that is logical and reasonable amongst them!
 
2013-03-13 01:54:53 PM  

occamswrist: A law that calories are listed on the menu is just another something we have to comply with.


Yeah like ingredients and nut allergy warnings. Goddamn Government.

-plonk-
 
2013-03-13 01:55:06 PM  

impaler: occamswrist: But the calorie statements in menus isn't even that big of a deal -- its just more government intrusion for your own good.

Being able to see calorie counts is an intrusion?


For businesses, kind of.

I imagine my son growing up in a world where every aspect of his life has heavy government regulations. You might think that's a farking utopia but i don't. Why do we keep miving that way.

Take some responsibility for your actions.
 
2013-03-13 01:55:34 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: kumanoki: pacified: ahh, the american south!  Never has a larger group of fat, stupid morons ever been collected.  Lincoln was wrong.  Should have let the racist inbred pig-farkers start keep their fatty fat country.

the whole of the south still lives in a slavery mentality, like the house slave: praising their oppressors.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there, son!
[susanhenschen.files.wordpress.com image 320x353]


He's not wrong, and the south is now infecting the rest of the country.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/


Thanks for posting that. That article is an excellent summary of why things are the way they are. It's also kind of depressing to read :/
 
2013-03-13 01:55:43 PM  

JasonThomasX: Sorry subby, but I agree with the fat farks of Mississippi on this one.

Its nobody's damn business, especially the government's, how much of what I choose to eat or drink.

/love soda
//not fat

YET

It is governments business to tax (the bejeezeus out of IMO) bad behavior that puts a financial burden on the rest of it's citizens. If the poor fatties can't afford the giant big gulp, all the better.
 
2013-03-13 01:57:03 PM  

occamswrist: But do you want to make providing that info a law? Are you looking out for fatty's interests or the restaraunts interests?

But the calorie statements in menus isn't even that big of a deal -- its just more government intrusion for your own good.

I think these laws, when summed up over many years, turns this country more and more into a nanny state. On issues like this I prefer individual choice over government bans.


So, a law that forces businesses to provide more information to their consumers is leading us into being a nanny state?  That's some might fine thinking there, Lou.

As for the "fatty's interests" versus the restaurant's interests, as far as I am concerned the restaurant's interests should be at the bottom of the list of things to give a shiat about in this situation. Of course, I'm one of those librul hippies who steadfastly believes that in conflicts between business interests and the people's interests, the business interests should always lose.  There's no such thing as a benevolent business, so what they want is exponentially less important than the effects of what they do.

I know a lot of libertarians are very much like recalcitrant teenagers who are just absolutely sure that their parents are mean and only makes all those rules because they're control freaks, but it never occurs to them that most of those rules are born from experience.  The vast majority of business regulation in this country is a direct reaction to businesses doing dangerous, unethical, immoral, and just all around terrible shiat.  Laws requiring calorie counts are not the symptoms of an overreaching government who wants to control every aspect of our lives, they're the result of businesses using the cheapest ingredients they can (which also tend to be the least healthy) and then trying to downplay or outright ignore how unhealthy their resulting food is.  The thought of "if people see how many calories there are in our meals they might stop eating here" should be then followed with "so maybe we should find ways of making our food either more appealing, more healthy, or both" instead of "so we should fight the government's attempts to inform the consumer."
 
2013-03-13 01:57:42 PM  

occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: But the calorie statements in menus isn't even that big of a deal -- its just more government intrusion for your own good.

Being able to see calorie counts is an intrusion?

For businesses, kind of.

I imagine my son growing up in a world where every aspect of his life has heavy government regulations. You might think that's a farking utopia but i don't. Why do we keep miving that way.

Take some responsibility for your actions.


Why don't you want your child protected from himself. Sound criminal. Background check this guy. I want to know what his school teachers thought of him.

Only way to be safe.

/top secret security clearance
//vet
 
2013-03-13 01:58:34 PM  

Theaetetus: occamswrist: Theaetetus: occamswrist: On issues like this I prefer individual choice over government bans.

occamswrist: Calories on the menu are a distraction.

For me they are. But I'm not fat (yet).
A law that calories are listed on the menu is just another something we have to comply with.

Oh, ho! Letting your bias slip, are you?


We collectively.

Many years ago I worked at jack in the box for a few months in high school but that's the closest I've ever been to working in the restaraunt business.
 
2013-03-13 01:58:46 PM  

occamswrist: For me they are. But I'm not fat (yet).
A law that calories are listed on the menu is just another something we have to comply with.

I get the impression this thread has some porkers in it and they are trying to blame restaraunts. Whatever makes you guys feel better.


You simultaneously think the choice should be up to the consumer, but the consumer shouldn't be informed.

After getting your arse handed to you about your logically inconsistent viewpoints, you claim those making you look stupid are arguing because they're fat, and not because they are correct.

You must be a Republican.
 
2013-03-13 01:59:25 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: occamswrist: A law that calories are listed on the menu is just another something we have to comply with.

Yeah like ingredients and nut allergy warnings. Goddamn Government.

-plonk-


You know someone alergic to calories?
 
2013-03-13 02:00:15 PM  

Theaetetus: kiwimoogle84: I'm not looking for anyone's interests. I'm just saying that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE will be stupid enough to blame the restaurant for not serving him the same 1,500 calorie burger every wednesday. Just like they can sue a bar for giving them too much. I'm all for personal responsibility and personal choices, and just because the calorie content is ON the menus, doesn't mean they have to read them.

My point is just that someone will find a legal loophole and exploit it. That's why there's warning labels on stuff. Someone out there sued because no one told them that drying their hair IN THE SHOWER was a bad idea. We shouldn't HAVE TO tell people that. They should just KNOW that bacon is fattier than broccoli. But because no one told them, they can sue, and I think frivolous lawsuits are a huge chunk of what's wrong with this country.

The suit you may be thinking of is when that guy sued McDonald's for making him fat. The judge dismissed the case, as you'd expect,  but added a caveat allowing the guy to re-file if he could show that McDonalds' food was significantly and unexpectedly worse than cooking the same things at home. McDonalds immediately settled.
Thing is, yes, people know that bacon is fattier than broccoli. What you don't know is that that burger you expect to be 500 calories is actually 1500 calories because the bun has sugar, there's extra sugar in the sauce, the pickles are brined in sugar, the bun is toasted with mayonnaise, etc. And at that point, that frivolous "durr you're stupid for not knowing that bacon is fatty, fatty" suit suddenly starts looking a lot more reasonable.


I'm not saying putting calories on the menu should be a law. I'm just saying it would prevent such lawsuits from ever occurring. Not to mention, some of those salads are worse than the burgers thanks to the dressing they add. I'm an oil n' vinegar kind of gal, myself. And I just don't see how putting calories on the menu takes away our civil rights. You are ABSOLUTELY WELCOME to order a 6x6 at In n Out. No one is going to stop you. But it helps people like me, who happen to be watching the scales very closely and have most of my adult life, make better choices. I'm a fan of Applebee's "under 600 calories" menu. And I bet a lot of people are.
 
2013-03-13 02:00:52 PM  

Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?


You missed the entire point of the bill.  As did everyone else in this thread.  This bill, much like Virginia's state gun law preemption law, prevents any political subdivision smaller than the state to create a more narrow law regarding serving sizes and calorie restrictions.  It's essentially saying "if we want to pass laws for xyz, we want to do it at the state level and not the local jurisdiction level".

There are many reasons for this.  One is so that persons potentially violating the law don't have to be aware of every single different law in every single different municipality within the state.  Two is so that restaurants that have locations in more than one sub-jurisdiction don't need separate and independent vending and serving standards for specific locations.

A 3-location family italian restaurant may get bulk ordering discount by ordering for all 3 locations at once. When 1 location is in a city with a "special" serving size law then they have to order different goods for that specific location to comply with the law, and it creates a logistics nightmare.
 
2013-03-13 02:02:14 PM  

impaler: occamswrist: For me they are. But I'm not fat (yet).
A law that calories are listed on the menu is just another something we have to comply with.

I get the impression this thread has some porkers in it and they are trying to blame restaraunts. Whatever makes you guys feel better.

You simultaneously think the choice should be up to the consumer, but the consumer shouldn't be informed.

After getting your arse handed to you about your logically inconsistent viewpoints, you claim those making you look stupid are arguing because they're fat, and not because they are correct.

You must be a Republican.


Fark Independent™
 
2013-03-13 02:02:47 PM  

occamswrist: I imagine my son growing up in a world where every aspect of his life has heavy government regulations. You might think that's a farking utopia but i don't. Why do we keep miving that way.

Take some responsibility for your actions.


Posting food content isn't "heavy government regulation" anyway you cry about it.

And how are people supposed to take responsibility for what they eat, when people like you prevent them from knowing what they're eating?

No one said it was a utopia, so why are you arguing a strawman? Because like all Republican scum, you can't win on your viewpoints own merits?
 
2013-03-13 02:04:16 PM  

occamswrist: Teufelaffe: occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..

Quick, glance at these and give us a reasonable idea of how many calories they are in each:

Missed this. I'd say about 100-150 each.

Quick, look at your belly and tell me if you are eating too much.


The top picture was of vegan dinner rolls that clock in at around 30 calories each.  The bottom picture was of some butter rolls that clock in at around 200 calories each.  But hey, you can totally tell how many calories are in your food just by looking, right?
 
2013-03-13 02:04:33 PM  
I created this alt just for this thread: The thought of "if people see how many calories there are in our meals they might stop eating here" should be then followed with "so maybe we should find ways of making our food either more appealing, more healthy, or both" instead of "so we should fight the government's attempts to inform the consumer."

THIS.

This, right here, is rational thinking. Yeah, maybe we SHOULDN'T deep fry our salads in bacon grease just to make them taste better. Perhaps we shouldn't DROWN our burgers in cheese and sauces that have higher saturated fat levels than Ben n Jerry's.

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT I AM EATING. If I know option A has 30 g of sat fat and 1500 calories, and option B has 16 g of sat fat and 900 calories, then by jove, I'm eating option B. I don't want to end up the subject of a fatty thread on Fark is why.
 
2013-03-13 02:04:43 PM  

occamswrist: Well I think we agree in that then if it prevents fatty mcfatty from winning a lawsuit its a good idea? But do you want to make providing that info a law? Are you looking out for fatty's interests or the restaraunts interests?

But the calorie statements in menus isn't even that big of a deal -- its just more government intrusion for your own good.

I think these laws, when summed up over many years, turns this country more and more into a nanny state. On issues like this I prefer individual choice over government bans.


Several studies have found that people's choices are not influenced by nutritional information.
 
2013-03-13 02:05:15 PM  

avratt: theknuckler_33: Passing laws that they think will really 'stick it to them libs'..

or..more likely...laws that will really "stick to their Ribs".


I lol'd.
 
2013-03-13 02:07:04 PM  

impaler: occamswrist: For me they are. But I'm not fat (yet).
A law that calories are listed on the menu is just another something we have to comply with.

I get the impression this thread has some porkers in it and they are trying to blame restaraunts. Whatever makes you guys feel better.

You simultaneously think the choice should be up to the consumer, but the consumer shouldn't be informed.

After getting your arse handed to you about your logically inconsistent viewpoints, you claim those making you look stupid are arguing because they're fat, and not because they are correct.

You must be a Republican.


There are many products out there you don't know everything about but you arent biatching and moaning about learning their details.

I don't care much for mandating restaraunts post calories. It won't solve anything.

The fat statement was in addition to my other argument, not a replacement for it.

The only inconsistency is in your mind.
 
2013-03-13 02:07:24 PM  

nickerj1: You missed the entire point of the bill. As did everyone else in this thread. This bill, much like Virginia's state gun law preemption law, prevents any political subdivision smaller than the state to create a more narrow law regarding serving sizes and calorie restrictions. It's essentially saying "if we want to pass laws for xyz, we want to do it at the state level and not the local jurisdiction level".

There are many reasons for this. One is so that persons potentially violating the law don't have to be aware of every single different law in every single different municipality within the state. Two is so that restaurants that have locations in more than one sub-jurisdiction don't need separate and independent vending and serving standards for specific locations.


The overall effect is that States are grabbing power from the feds and from the people.  Every level of government has its power trip.
 
2013-03-13 02:07:45 PM  

occamswrist: Take some responsibility for your actions.


I noticed you ignored my post above about grilled cheese sandwiches that can have calorie counts that are more than twice what you'd expect by simply tallying the expected ingredients. How exactly are you supposed to "take responsibility" for something that is unforeseeable, and in fact is  contrary to what you could reasonably foresee?

/not to mention that you're suggesting that people should take responsibility while insisting that information be hidden from them... do you tell victims of fraud that they should have taken some responsibility?
 
2013-03-13 02:09:01 PM  
Since nobody knows the actual reason for the ban on calorie numbers, I will chime in.

Getting actual calorie counts for each menu item is NOT FREE. While small businesses with a door or three haven't been required to post their calories / content - mid-size businesses in some states have had to do this. The bill's creator owns a chain that has enough locations that it would be required to post calorie data if it was in other states that have this requirement. This guy doesn't want to have to pay for the testing - since it will come straight out of his profits.

It costs at least $100 per item, so a business that sells 30 different items - that is at least a $3k cost.
 
2013-03-13 02:09:50 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: BarkingUnicorn: Uranus Is Huge!: I'd love to see some congressperson troll Mississippi by tying Medicaid funding to a mandate on the display of calorie counts.

You'd love to see every poor person in MS lose Medicaid?

Yes. That was exactly my point. I hope to see the poor of Mississippi die in the streets after my imaginary bill passes through the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives, gets rubber-stamped by the Senate, and is signed into law by HRH Barack Pol Pol Obamao.

Thank you for your concise summary of my proposal.


Geez, the guy's been in office for a full term and this is the first I've heard of this one? I LOL heartily and bow to your sarcastic genius!
 
2013-03-13 02:10:28 PM  

Teufelaffe: occamswrist: Teufelaffe: occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..

Quick, glance at these and give us a reasonable idea of how many calories they are in each:

Missed this. I'd say about 100-150 each.

Quick, look at your belly and tell me if you are eating too much.

The top picture was of vegan dinner rolls that clock in at around 30 calories each.  The bottom picture was of some butter rolls that clock in at around 200 calories each.  But hey, you can totally tell how many calories are in your food just by looking, right?


I can't see how big the rolls are over the internet, fool.
 
2013-03-13 02:10:33 PM  

occamswrist: The fat statement was in addition to my other argument, not a replacement for it.


Additional or supplemental, it's not an argument any way you cut it. The fact you think it has any merit shows how ignorant you are.
 
2013-03-13 02:10:56 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: occamswrist: Well I think we agree in that then if it prevents fatty mcfatty from winning a lawsuit its a good idea? But do you want to make providing that info a law? Are you looking out for fatty's interests or the restaraunts interests?

But the calorie statements in menus isn't even that big of a deal -- its just more government intrusion for your own good.

I think these laws, when summed up over many years, turns this country more and more into a nanny state. On issues like this I prefer individual choice over government bans.

Several studies have found that people's choices are not influenced by nutritional information.


And yet, obesity rates in New York have declined every year since, while rates for the US have increased every year.
 
2013-03-13 02:11:10 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: occamswrist: Well I think we agree in that then if it prevents fatty mcfatty from winning a lawsuit its a good idea? But do you want to make providing that info a law? Are you looking out for fatty's interests or the restaraunts interests?

But the calorie statements in menus isn't even that big of a deal -- its just more government intrusion for your own good.

I think these laws, when summed up over many years, turns this country more and more into a nanny state. On issues like this I prefer individual choice over government bans.

Several studies have found that people's choices are not influenced by nutritional information.


If you look at the studies, it found that teenagers and people who eat at Taco bell aren't influenced. What about in restaurants that aren't serving shiat on a Doritos flavored shingle to stoned frat boys? "Calorie counts fell an average of 7 percent in sit-down restaurants, less in fast food restaurants, and were unchanged at pizza restaurants."

A 7 percent drop in calories is huge - that can be the difference between gaining weight versus maintaining.
 
2013-03-13 02:11:56 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: occamswrist: Well I think we agree in that then if it prevents fatty mcfatty from winning a lawsuit its a good idea? But do you want to make providing that info a law? Are you looking out for fatty's interests or the restaraunts interests?

But the calorie statements in menus isn't even that big of a deal -- its just more government intrusion for your own good.

I think these laws, when summed up over many years, turns this country more and more into a nanny state. On issues like this I prefer individual choice over government bans.

Several studies have found that people's choices are not influenced by nutritional information.


So people who support these laws are anti-science.

There must be some truthiness to their beliefs...
 
2013-03-13 02:13:32 PM  

madgonad: This guy doesn't want to have to pay for the testing - since it will come straight out of his profits.

It costs at least $100 per item, so a business that sells 30 different items - that is at least a $3k cost.


Citation please. Back in reality land, it takes 10 minutes of plugging the recipe into an appropriate calculator (although I guess you could make that cost $100 if you outsourced it badly enough). No one is loading their buffalo wings into a calorie bomb rig.
 
2013-03-13 02:13:52 PM  

occamswrist: I can't see how big the rolls are over the internet, fool.


They're the same size. The calorie difference is from the ingredients. Which is why I stated "Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes." In response to your ignorant, "just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are."
 
2013-03-13 02:14:50 PM  

madgonad: Since nobody knows the actual reason for the ban on calorie numbers, I will chime in.

Getting actual calorie counts for each menu item is NOT FREE. While small businesses with a door or three haven't been required to post their calories / content - mid-size businesses in some states have had to do this. The bill's creator owns a chain that has enough locations that it would be required to post calorie data if it was in other states that have this requirement. This guy doesn't want to have to pay for the testing - since it will come straight out of his profits.

It costs at least $100 per item, so a business that sells 30 different items - that is at least a $3k cost.


A $3000 cost to count the calories on a menu? Have you ever ran a farking business? $3000 was half the capitalized cost of my first lens when I started my videography business in farking HIGH SCHOOL ... if you're telling me a chain restaurant can't afford a $3000 capitalized cost to comply with a new law, then that business deserves to go under and have every person in management summarily executed for being a failure at business planning.  Jesus H. Christ, the Q'Doba I managed in college had a monthly contingency of spoiled food that was more than triple that ... :facepalm:
 
2013-03-13 02:14:55 PM  

pacified: ahh, the american south!  Never has a larger group of fat, stupid morons ever been collected.  Lincoln was wrong.  Should have let the racist inbred pig-farkers start keep their fatty fat country.

the whole of the south still lives in a slavery mentality, like the house slave: praising their oppressors.


0/10
 
2013-03-13 02:15:05 PM  

Theaetetus: occamswrist: Take some responsibility for your actions.

I noticed you ignored my post above about grilled cheese sandwiches that can have calorie counts that are more than twice what you'd expect by simply tallying the expected ingredients. How exactly are you supposed to "take responsibility" for something that is unforeseeable, and in fact is  contrary to what you could reasonably foresee?

/not to mention that you're suggesting that people should take responsibility while insisting that information be hidden from them... do you tell victims of fraud that they should have taken some responsibility?


I missed it. Lots of posts to reply to here :-)

When all else fails, look at your belly. It'll show you if you're eating too much/exercising too little.
 
2013-03-13 02:15:34 PM  

occamswrist: So people who support these laws are anti-science.


Nope. But the detractors are anti-free market.

Surpheon: "Calorie counts fell an average of 7 percent in sit-down restaurants

 
2013-03-13 02:15:52 PM  

occamswrist: The only inconsistency is in your mind.


He's like a derpy little Confucius of the internet. I'm guessing he's a pocketninja sock puppet for when he isn't inspired enough to troll up to his usual caliber.
 
2013-03-13 02:20:23 PM  

madgonad: Since nobody knows the actual reason for the ban on calorie numbers, I will chime in.

Getting actual calorie counts for each menu item is NOT FREE. While small businesses with a door or three haven't been required to post their calories / content - mid-size businesses in some states have had to do this. The bill's creator owns a chain that has enough locations that it would be required to post calorie data if it was in other states that have this requirement. This guy doesn't want to have to pay for the testing - since it will come straight out of his profits.

It costs at least $100 per item, so a business that sells 30 different items - that is at least a $3k cost.


I'm pretty sure everyone here knows that the guy writing the bill would rather change state law to his personal advantage than hand over a fraction of a percentage point of his profits complying with something that benefits consumers.
 
2013-03-13 02:21:18 PM  

Gergesa: Theaetetus: Gergesa: Theaetetus: Gergesa: Ugh, fat people.  If only they qualified as big game I could have such a trophy room.

Yes, but I'm not sure why you'd want to hang your used condoms on your walls.

Needs work.  Try again.

It's because you have sex with fat people.

Predictable, as mentioned needs work.


Looks perfect to me. I lol'ed.
 
2013-03-13 02:21:45 PM  

occamswrist: Teufelaffe: occamswrist: Teufelaffe: occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..

Quick, glance at these and give us a reasonable idea of how many calories they are in each:

Missed this. I'd say about 100-150 each.

Quick, look at your belly and tell me if you are eating too much.

The top picture was of vegan dinner rolls that clock in at around 30 calories each.  The bottom picture was of some butter rolls that clock in at around 200 calories each.  But hey, you can totally tell how many calories are in your food just by looking, right?

I can't see how big the rolls are over the internet, fool.


They're the same size (I've actually made both recipes), which is my point.  The same serving size of what appears to be the same food has a calorie count difference of ~170 calories each.  I don't care how special you think you are, you cannot just look at food and know the calorie count with anything even remotely resembling accuracy unless you know exactly what was used to make it.  Did they use whole milk, skim milk or buttermilk?  Did they use butter or cream?  Did they use brown sugar, granulated sugar or molasses?  There's all sorts of variations that can exist in a given recipe that will have considerable impact on the final calorie count yet cannot be identified by simply looking at the prepared food.
 
2013-03-13 02:22:10 PM  

PreMortem: Glancing Blow: PreMortem: I loathe the fact my taxes are used to buy hoverounds and pay out disability payments for the willingly obese. They should have to enroll in a diet/fitness programs or lose benefits. Mississippi takes in more federal Medicaid dollars per those spent than any other state as well.

Could you explain the relationship between obesity and Medicaid?

Not as good as This


WOW, that's impressive data.
 
2013-03-13 02:22:42 PM  

Surpheon: madgonad: This guy doesn't want to have to pay for the testing - since it will come straight out of his profits.

It costs at least $100 per item, so a business that sells 30 different items - that is at least a $3k cost.

Citation please. Back in reality land, it takes 10 minutes of plugging the recipe into an appropriate calculator (although I guess you could make that cost $100 if you outsourced it badly enough). No one is loading their buffalo wings into a calorie bomb rig.


Just follow the link. There are plenty of labs that focus just on this.

And no, a restaurant can't just go to some web site that provides calorie estimates. They have to have a real QA done in a real lab. Oh, and I miss-spoke before. I was wrong about $100, it can be $750 per item. So now we are talking about tens of thousands of dollars.
 
2013-03-13 02:24:52 PM  

occamswrist: The only inconsistency is in your mind.


No, this is pretty simple.

You think it should be up to consumers to decide.

Decisions take information.

You want to limit that information. Which inhibits the consumers' ability to decide, which you think they should do.

That's inconsistent. Any way you cut it.
 
2013-03-13 02:27:27 PM  

impaler: Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

Done in one. It's funny how those that claim that the market can decide, also want to prevent the market from having information to make a decision.


This! I think banning a given size, however large, is silly but I'm all for information, including calorie counts.

Also, not to be a Devil's Advocate or anything, those fountain sodas are a) watered down a lot from what you get in a can or 20oz and b) mostly ice anyway.

/Not fat
//Only drinks diet soda, anyway
///Would love all restaurants to post accurate nutritional information
 
2013-03-13 02:29:39 PM  

seadoo2006: madgonad: Since nobody knows the actual reason for the ban on calorie numbers, I will chime in.

Getting actual calorie counts for each menu item is NOT FREE. While small businesses with a door or three haven't been required to post their calories / content - mid-size businesses in some states have had to do this. The bill's creator owns a chain that has enough locations that it would be required to post calorie data if it was in other states that have this requirement. This guy doesn't want to have to pay for the testing - since it will come straight out of his profits.

It costs at least $100 per item, so a business that sells 30 different items - that is at least a $3k cost.

A $3000 cost to count the calories on a menu? Have you ever ran a farking business? $3000 was half the capitalized cost of my first lens when I started my videography business in farking HIGH SCHOOL ... if you're telling me a chain restaurant can't afford a $3000 capitalized cost to comply with a new law, then that business deserves to go under and have every person in management summarily executed for being a failure at business planning.  Jesus H. Christ, the Q'Doba I managed in college had a monthly contingency of spoiled food that was more than triple that ... :facepalm:


As I mentioned before, the cost can be even higher to do QA on custom food. BBQ would be a good example of that. Just how many calories are in a plate of slow-cooked, sauce slathered ribs?

Calorie counts will encourage some people to order smaller - or worse, shop elsewhere. There are both costs and risks to the business with this requirement - and most business owners would prefer to avoid that.

That said, I personally think that the information should be available, but I'm not going to hide the reality that there is a cost and risk to the business. Especially one like BBQ.

A good example of this data impacting me is my shift from burritos to bowls when I go to Chipotle. The number of calories in the tortilla is insane, so my purchases were changed by that knowledge.
 
2013-03-13 02:31:27 PM  

Teufelaffe: occamswrist: Teufelaffe: occamswrist: Teufelaffe: occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..

Quick, glance at these and give us a reasonable idea of how many calories they are in each:

Missed this. I'd say about 100-150 each.

Quick, look at your belly and tell me if you are eating too much.

The top picture was of vegan dinner rolls that clock in at around 30 calories each.  The bottom picture was of some butter rolls that clock in at around 200 calories each.  But hey, you can totally tell how many calories are in your food just by looking, right?

I can't see how big the rolls are over the internet, fool.

They're the same size (I've actually made both recipes), which is my point.  The same serving size of what appears to be the same food has a calorie count difference of ~170 calories each.  I don't care how special you think you are, you cannot just look at food and know the calorie count with anything even remotely resembling accuracy unless you know exactly what was used to make it.  Did they use whole milk, skim milk or buttermilk?  Did they use butter or cream?  Did they use brown sugar, granulated sugar or molasses?  There's all sorts of variations that can exist in a given recipe that will have considerable impact on the final calorie count yet cannot be identified by simply looking at the prepared food.


I agree with you mostly.

I said we can make reasonable estimates by looking at the food (and modified my statement to include taking a bite of it).

The examples presented I believe could have been distinguished through taste. If the vegan roll tastes like a high calories roll but doesn't have the calories then what's the problem? The original complaint was hat there are tii many calories in food, not too few.

In the end I still say most foods (your cherry picked examples notwitstandu g) you can reasonably tell how many calories they have.


And in the end look at your belly . That'll tell you more than a number on a menu.
 
2013-03-13 02:31:45 PM  
Freedom is stupid.  If you can't persuade, then require.  It's the liberal way.
 
2013-03-13 02:33:28 PM  
The law seems to prevent the government from forcing restaurants to post calorie counts, not forbid restaurants from posting them. That's an important difference. This is a good law. I fear politicians with delusions of godhood much more than cholesterol.
 
2013-03-13 02:34:44 PM  

occamswrist: Theaetetus: occamswrist: Take some responsibility for your actions.

I noticed you ignored my post above about grilled cheese sandwiches that can have calorie counts that are more than twice what you'd expect by simply tallying the expected ingredients. How exactly are you supposed to "take responsibility" for something that is unforeseeable, and in fact is  contrary to what you could reasonably foresee?

/not to mention that you're suggesting that people should take responsibility while insisting that information be hidden from them... do you tell victims of fraud that they should have taken some responsibility?

I missed it. Lots of posts to reply to here :-)

When all else fails, look at your belly. It'll show you if you're eating too much/exercising too little.


Ah, so backpedaling on the whole "just look at your plate/personal responsibility" derp, and instead it's now "wait until it's too late, and then make a futile attempt to change"? Spoken like a true Republican.
 
2013-03-13 02:35:05 PM  

madgonad: Calorie counts will encourage some people to order smaller - or worse, shop elsewhere. There are both costs and risks to the business with this requirement - and most business owners would prefer to avoid that.


So the cost is from the consumer being accurately informed of their product.

Anti-free marketism.
 
2013-03-13 02:36:39 PM  

madgonad: And no, a restaurant can't just go to some web site that provides calorie estimates. They have to have a real QA done in a real lab.


[Citation needed]
 
2013-03-13 02:37:10 PM  
OMG Mississippi.  I swear, no matter how many times we tell these people how stupid they are, they just refuse to do what we know is best for them.
 
2013-03-13 02:38:03 PM  

Theaetetus: occamswrist: Theaetetus: occamswrist: Take some responsibility for your actions.

I noticed you ignored my post above about grilled cheese sandwiches that can have calorie counts that are more than twice what you'd expect by simply tallying the expected ingredients. How exactly are you supposed to "take responsibility" for something that is unforeseeable, and in fact is  contrary to what you could reasonably foresee?

/not to mention that you're suggesting that people should take responsibility while insisting that information be hidden from them... do you tell victims of fraud that they should have taken some responsibility?

I missed it. Lots of posts to reply to here :-)

When all else fails, look at your belly. It'll show you if you're eating too much/exercising too little.

Ah, so backpedaling on the whole "just look at your plate/personal responsibility" derp, and instead it's now "wait until it's too late, and then make a futile attempt to change"? Spoken like a true Republican.


Um, I kind of take offense at this statement. I consider myself more repub than dem and I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So if you tossed that out there just to use it as an insult, the shoe doesn't fit.
 
2013-03-13 02:39:48 PM  

pacified: ahh, the american south!  Never has a larger group of fat, stupid morons ever been collected.  Lincoln was wrong.  Should have let the racist inbred pig-farkers start keep their fatty fat country.


yeah, but then would would actually NEED an anti-immigrant wall.
 
2013-03-13 02:40:09 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Theaetetus: occamswrist: Theaetetus: occamswrist: Take some responsibility for your actions.

I noticed you ignored my post above about grilled cheese sandwiches that can have calorie counts that are more than twice what you'd expect by simply tallying the expected ingredients. How exactly are you supposed to "take responsibility" for something that is unforeseeable, and in fact is  contrary to what you could reasonably foresee?

/not to mention that you're suggesting that people should take responsibility while insisting that information be hidden from them... do you tell victims of fraud that they should have taken some responsibility?

I missed it. Lots of posts to reply to here :-)

When all else fails, look at your belly. It'll show you if you're eating too much/exercising too little.

Ah, so backpedaling on the whole "just look at your plate/personal responsibility" derp, and instead it's now "wait until it's too late, and then make a futile attempt to change"? Spoken like a true Republican.

Um, I kind of take offense at this statement. I consider myself more repub than dem and I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So if you tossed that out there just to use it as an insult, the shoe doesn't fit.


Would you consider yourself properly represented by the GOP at present?
 
2013-03-13 02:40:22 PM  

occamswrist: And in the end look at your belly . That'll tell you more than a number on a menu.


I bet you're a libertarian because the libertarian answer to pretty much anything is reactionary and never preventative.  "How do I tell I'm getting too many calories?  I just wait to see if I'm getting fat, then I know the answer!"
 
2013-03-13 02:41:11 PM  

Theaetetus: occamswrist: Theaetetus: occamswrist: Take some responsibility for your actions.

I noticed you ignored my post above about grilled cheese sandwiches that can have calorie counts that are more than twice what you'd expect by simply tallying the expected ingredients. How exactly are you supposed to "take responsibility" for something that is unforeseeable, and in fact is  contrary to what you could reasonably foresee?

/not to mention that you're suggesting that people should take responsibility while insisting that information be hidden from them... do you tell victims of fraud that they should have taken some responsibility?

I missed it. Lots of posts to reply to here :-)

When all else fails, look at your belly. It'll show you if you're eating too much/exercising too little.

Ah, so backpedaling on the whole "just look at your plate/personal responsibility" derp, and instead it's now "wait until it's too late, and then make a futile attempt to change"? Spoken like a true Republican.


I think when its convenient to you, you ignore all my other posts so that you can focus on one and then claim "so that's all there is to your argument!"
 
2013-03-13 02:44:43 PM  

Theaetetus: kiwimoogle84: Theaetetus: occamswrist: Theaetetus: occamswrist: Take some responsibility for your actions.

I noticed you ignored my post above about grilled cheese sandwiches that can have calorie counts that are more than twice what you'd expect by simply tallying the expected ingredients. How exactly are you supposed to "take responsibility" for something that is unforeseeable, and in fact is  contrary to what you could reasonably foresee?

/not to mention that you're suggesting that people should take responsibility while insisting that information be hidden from them... do you tell victims of fraud that they should have taken some responsibility?

I missed it. Lots of posts to reply to here :-)

When all else fails, look at your belly. It'll show you if you're eating too much/exercising too little.

Ah, so backpedaling on the whole "just look at your plate/personal responsibility" derp, and instead it's now "wait until it's too late, and then make a futile attempt to change"? Spoken like a true Republican.

Um, I kind of take offense at this statement. I consider myself more repub than dem and I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So if you tossed that out there just to use it as an insult, the shoe doesn't fit.

Would you consider yourself properly represented by the GOP at present?


Nope, but you can't shove everyone who leans a certain way into one box. And more, you can't really use it as an insult in a food thread. :P
 
2013-03-13 02:44:45 PM  

kiwimoogle84: I consider myself more repub than dem and I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


RINO
 
2013-03-13 02:45:22 PM  

GORDON: OMG Mississippi.  I swear, no matter how many times we tell these people how stupid they are, they just refuse to do what we know is best for them.


Worst in the nation in science education.

48th out of 51 on overall K-12 educational performance according to a CONSERVATIVE organization.

Highest obesity rate in the nation.

That's pretty much the size of it, yes.
 
2013-03-13 02:45:23 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: occamswrist: And in the end look at your belly . That'll tell you more than a number on a menu.

I bet you're a libertarian because the libertarian answer to pretty much anything is reactionary and never preventative.  "How do I tell I'm getting too many calories?  I just wait to see if I'm getting fat, then I know the answer!"


Dividing people into a few political parties and then smearing them based on group association shows poor judgment on your part.

I do my best to take each idea on its own merits and do not look to any group on which to base my beliefs. At least I try not to.
 
2013-03-13 02:49:02 PM  

impaler: kiwimoogle84: I consider myself more repub than dem and I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

RINO


I'm not gonna argue politics in a calorie thread. I'm doing that enough in the Obama Disappointment thread today.
 
2013-03-13 02:50:46 PM  

iheartscotch: Can we quit with the whole banning things for teh childrens thing?



Yes. Every time I hear the same crap about "a child could have been hurt!" I say F-you lady, I could have been hurt too, and any other adult in the area. Thanks for caring about all human life.
 
2013-03-13 02:52:44 PM  

occamswrist: Theaetetus: Ah, so backpedaling on the whole "just look at your plate/personal responsibility" derp, and instead it's now "wait until it's too late, and then make a futile attempt to change"? Spoken like a true Republican.

I think when its convenient to you, you ignore all my other posts so that you can focus on one and then claim "so that's all there is to your argument!"


No, I read all your other posts. You only have one argument:

occamswrist: Quick, look at your belly and tell me if you are eating too much.

occamswrist: When all else fails, look at your belly. It'll show you if you're eating too much/exercising too little.

occamswrist:And in the end look at your belly . That'll tell you more than a number on a menu.
 
2013-03-13 02:56:08 PM  

occamswrist: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: occamswrist: And in the end look at your belly . That'll tell you more than a number on a menu.

I bet you're a libertarian because the libertarian answer to pretty much anything is reactionary and never preventative.  "How do I tell I'm getting too many calories?  I just wait to see if I'm getting fat, then I know the answer!"

Dividing people into a few political parties and then smearing them based on group association shows poor judgment on your part.

I do my best to take each idea on its own merits and do not look to any group on which to base my beliefs. At least I try not to.



Regardless of your political affiliation, or lack thereof, "You can tell if you're eating too many calories by whether or not you're getting fat" is just a stupid thing to say.  Fark informed consumerism, we can all just look to see if we're getting fat!  Who cares what the ingredients are in that food, if you have a reaction to it after you eat it, then it had something in it you're allergic to!  Trying to eat healthier?  Just eat random foods without looking at content or calories and see if you feel better afterward!

You're supposed to outgrow the "I wonder what this is...I'll stick it in my mouth" stage at age 3, dude.
 
2013-03-13 02:57:07 PM  

Theaetetus: occamswrist: Theaetetus: Ah, so backpedaling on the whole "just look at your plate/personal responsibility" derp, and instead it's now "wait until it's too late, and then make a futile attempt to change"? Spoken like a true Republican.

I think when its convenient to you, you ignore all my other posts so that you can focus on one and then claim "so that's all there is to your argument!"

No, I read all your other posts. You only have one argument:
occamswrist: Quick, look at your belly and tell me if you are eating too much.
occamswrist: When all else fails, look at your belly. It'll show you if you're eating too much/exercising too little.
occamswrist:And in the end look at your belly . That'll tell you more than a number on a menu.


I rely on the fair minded readers of fark to decide if you have honestly represented my thoughts from this thread.
 
2013-03-13 02:57:10 PM  

kiwimoogle84: I'm not gonna argue politics in a calorie thread.


Haven't you heard? Healthy eating is political now.

Sarah Palin mocks Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign
 
2013-03-13 02:59:08 PM  

Theaetetus: occamswrist: Theaetetus: Ah, so backpedaling on the whole "just look at your plate/personal responsibility" derp, and instead it's now "wait until it's too late, and then make a futile attempt to change"? Spoken like a true Republican.

I think when its convenient to you, you ignore all my other posts so that you can focus on one and then claim "so that's all there is to your argument!"

No, I read all your other posts. You only have one argument:
occamswrist: Quick, look at your belly and tell me if you are eating too much.
occamswrist: When all else fails, look at your belly. It'll show you if you're eating too much/exercising too little.
occamswrist:And in the end look at your belly . That'll tell you more than a number on a menu.


This, and some of the unhealthiest people in the world aren't overweight. Doesn't mean they aren't going to suffer a gigantic coronary if they don't weigh 400 lbs. My grandfather had a heart attack at a young age (late 40's) and he was in fantastic shape- ran every day. He also ate anything he wanted. Also, I have a guy friend who is incredibly skinny thanks to a high metabolism. He downs stuffed pizzas like I chug water. So, no. Belly fat is no indicator at all of if you're eating right or not.
 
2013-03-13 03:02:36 PM  

occamswrist: Theaetetus: occamswrist: Theaetetus: Ah, so backpedaling on the whole "just look at your plate/personal responsibility" derp, and instead it's now "wait until it's too late, and then make a futile attempt to change"? Spoken like a true Republican.

I think when its convenient to you, you ignore all my other posts so that you can focus on one and then claim "so that's all there is to your argument!"

No, I read all your other posts. You only have one argument:
occamswrist: Quick, look at your belly and tell me if you are eating too much.
occamswrist: When all else fails, look at your belly. It'll show you if you're eating too much/exercising too little.
occamswrist:And in the end look at your belly . That'll tell you more than a number on a menu.

I rely on the fair minded readers of fark to decide if you have honestly represented my thoughts from this thread.


Fair minded readers of Fark? ...Do you know where you are?

And aside from the NUMEROUS times you mentioned just looking at your toes, your other arguments were summed up as "I don't want the government dictating what I can eat" (and no one is saying that) and "Calorie counts on menus are distracting."
 
2013-03-13 03:03:26 PM  

Cagey B: GORDON: OMG Mississippi.  I swear, no matter how many times we tell these people how stupid they are, they just refuse to do what we know is best for them.

Worst in the nation in science education.

48th out of 51 on overall K-12 educational performance according to a CONSERVATIVE organization.

Highest obesity rate in the nation.

That's pretty much the size of it, yes.


If they can't be persuaded, they need to be compelled.  Freedom is stupid and has no place in America's future if we are to progress as a society.
 
2013-03-13 03:04:21 PM  

kiwimoogle84: And aside from the NUMEROUS times you mentioned just looking at your toes, your other arguments were summed up as "I don't want the government dictating what I can eat" (and no one is saying that) and "Calorie counts on menus are distracting."


That last one there makes me wonder if they find the description of the food and the price to be distracting as well.
 
2013-03-13 03:07:03 PM  
Phone is dying and I'm not continuing this on my work computer. You win. Congratulations?
 
2013-03-13 03:08:09 PM  

Teufelaffe: kiwimoogle84: And aside from the NUMEROUS times you mentioned just looking at your toes, your other arguments were summed up as "I don't want the government dictating what I can eat" (and no one is saying that) and "Calorie counts on menus are distracting."

That last one there makes me wonder if they find the description of the food and the price to be distracting as well.


I said it distracted me because I start thinking about $/calorie :-).
 
2013-03-13 03:08:36 PM  

GORDON: Cagey B: GORDON: OMG Mississippi.  I swear, no matter how many times we tell these people how stupid they are, they just refuse to do what we know is best for them.

Worst in the nation in science education.

48th out of 51 on overall K-12 educational performance according to a CONSERVATIVE organization.

Highest obesity rate in the nation.

That's pretty much the size of it, yes.

If they can't be persuaded, they need to be compelled.  Freedom is stupid and has no place in America's future if we are to progress as a society.


America's future should rest with its best and brightest, not its fattest and least intelligent. Sadly, 'fat and dumb' seems to correlate with 'really fertile'.

Mississippi is an anchor on progress.
 
2013-03-13 03:08:42 PM  

GORDON: Cagey B: GORDON: OMG Mississippi.  I swear, no matter how many times we tell these people how stupid they are, they just refuse to do what we know is best for them.

Worst in the nation in science education.

48th out of 51 on overall K-12 educational performance according to a CONSERVATIVE organization.

Highest obesity rate in the nation.

That's pretty much the size of it, yes.

If they can't be persuaded, they need to be compelled.  Freedom is stupid and has no place in America's future if we are to progress as a society.


ehhhh, I disagree there. Freedom isn't stupid, but if one is INFORMED and STILL makes bad decisions, they should be held liable for those decisions, and not get sue-happy because "I didn't know."


Teufelaffe: kiwimoogle84: And aside from the NUMEROUS times you mentioned just looking at your toes, your other arguments were summed up as "I don't want the government dictating what I can eat" (and no one is saying that) and "Calorie counts on menus are distracting."

That last one there makes me wonder if they find the description of the food and the price to be distracting as well.


Who knows? I'll admit I laughed. "This cheeseburger has ONIONS?? I can't even LOOK at the rest of this menu. ONIONS! the HORROR!"
 
2013-03-13 03:10:12 PM  

Theaetetus: BarkingUnicorn: occamswrist: Well I think we agree in that then if it prevents fatty mcfatty from winning a lawsuit its a good idea? But do you want to make providing that info a law? Are you looking out for fatty's interests or the restaraunts interests?

But the calorie statements in menus isn't even that big of a deal -- its just more government intrusion for your own good.

I think these laws, when summed up over many years, turns this country more and more into a nanny state. On issues like this I prefer individual choice over government bans.

Several studies have found that people's choices are not influenced by nutritional information.

And yet, obesity rates in New York have declined every year since, while rates for the US have increased every year.


I'm not going to search 32 pages for evidence that calorie info had anything to do with that.
 
2013-03-13 03:10:26 PM  
Ok, Mississippi, I see your point. You dont want someone restricting what you can and cannot drink. Hey, I understand. Freedom to drink whatever the hell you want no matter how toxic it is for you. It is America.

But (and this is merely MY suggestion) why not ENCOURAGE healthier living at the same time? It wouldn't hurt anything. Why not be a GOOD example for the rest of the country (for once) by saying "Hey, we aren't gonna let the government dictate what we eat and drink, but we ARE gonna take care of our people by encouraging them to burn off those extra calories by exercising and perhaps, eating smaller portions of our yummy food/soda" It's a simple fix.

Of course, that might be asking TOO much being it requires EFFORT and getting off your asses for once!
 
2013-03-13 03:12:23 PM  

Surpheon: BarkingUnicorn: occamswrist: Well I think we agree in that then if it prevents fatty mcfatty from winning a lawsuit its a good idea? But do you want to make providing that info a law? Are you looking out for fatty's interests or the restaraunts interests?

But the calorie statements in menus isn't even that big of a deal -- its just more government intrusion for your own good.

I think these laws, when summed up over many years, turns this country more and more into a nanny state. On issues like this I prefer individual choice over government bans.

Several studies have found that people's choices are not influenced by nutritional information.

If you look at the studies, it found that teenagers and people who eat at Taco bell aren't influenced. What about in restaurants that aren't serving shiat on a Doritos flavored shingle to stoned frat boys? "Calorie counts fell an average of 7 percent in sit-down restaurants, less in fast food restaurants, and were unchanged at pizza restaurants."

A 7 percent drop in calories is huge - that can be the difference between gaining weight versus maintaining.


So exempt fast food and pizza restaurants from calorie disclosure requirements.
 
2013-03-13 03:27:34 PM  

GORDON: If they can't be persuaded, they need to be compelled. Freedom is stupid and has no place in America's future if we are to progress as a society.


People's Communist Republic of Obamaland Mandated Nutritional Content Notice:

Informational Content of Quoted Post: 0 cals

Ingredients: One (1) bumper sticker, handful of lead paint chips, 3 mg extract of strawman

WARNING: Above post may cause birth defects.
 
2013-03-13 03:27:39 PM  

Redfish: The law seems to prevent the government from forcing restaurants to post calorie counts, not forbid restaurants from posting them. That's an important difference. This is a good law. I fear politicians with delusions of godhood much more than cholesterol.


Well I guess we know the course of your life. Angry and short.
 
2013-03-13 03:36:55 PM  

impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

I've got laser eyes.
cdn.ebaumsworld.com

/and I'm so curious
 
2013-03-13 03:42:44 PM  

Redfish: The law seems to prevent the government from forcing restaurants to post calorie counts, not forbid restaurants from posting them. That's an important difference. This is a good law. I fear politicians with delusions of godhood much more than cholesterol.


For Fark's sake THIS!!

This thread is so full of herpy-derps that don't get this simple distinction. Nobody is PREVENTING restaurants from posting calorie counts, limiting portion sizes, etc. What this law aims to do is forbid the REQUIREMENT to do these things.

In other words, if they want to, they can. If they don't want to, they don't have to. It's called freedom. Nothing asinine about it at all! Does anybody get this??
 
2013-03-13 03:45:52 PM  

Thunderpipes: Vermont trying to pass a law about ingredients listing and calorie info.

Guess who is now all mad, and might get exemptions? Farmers markets!! Because darn it, if it is hippie, it should be exempt!


What in the everloving fark does a farmers markets have to do with "hippies"?  Are you that stupid? jesus, you're in every thread just spouting the dumbest shiat i've read in a while around here.

STFU then DIAF
 
2013-03-13 03:47:07 PM  

MattyBlast: In other words, if they want to, they can. If they don't want to, they don't have to. It's called freedom


When people talk about "freedom," most people don't think of a food providers freedom to keep the consumer ignorant of their ingredients.
 
2013-03-13 03:49:07 PM  
Why are people up in arms over portion-size bans? It's not like Bloomberg banned soda. You can still drink as much as your stomach can hold, and then some. Why is this such a huge deal?
 
2013-03-13 03:50:51 PM  
food providers' rather. With a possessive apostrophe.
 
2013-03-13 03:51:11 PM  
Remember that Upton Sinclair book about all that freedom in Chicago in the early 20th century? What a utopia!
 
2013-03-13 03:58:25 PM  
This state is so backwards.  Since i was in high school our state has repeatedly rejected the idea of a State Lottery.  Why?  Because the poor are too stupid to make smart decisions with their own money and they would waste it on lottery tickets.  But apparently they are smart enough to make healthy eating decisions with NO nutritional information. WTF?
 
2013-03-13 04:02:24 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Remember that Upton Sinclair book about all that freedom in Chicago in the early 20th century? What a utopia!


People keep saying I am trolling, but I am dead serious.  These people DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM.  They are uneducated, ignorant savages, and they need to have the 64 ounce cups of liquid sugar slapped out of their hands.  If they have a problem with it, they can be sent to the kind of fat camp that has barbed wire and guard towers until they learn the correct way to do things.

Freedom is not only stupid, it is dangerous for our society as a whole.
 
2013-03-13 04:02:40 PM  

madgonad: Since nobody knows the actual reason for the ban on calorie numbers, I will chime in.

Getting actual calorie counts for each menu item is NOT FREE. While small businesses with a door or three haven't been required to post their calories / content - mid-size businesses in some states have had to do this. The bill's creator owns a chain that has enough locations that it would be required to post calorie data if it was in other states that have this requirement. This guy doesn't want to have to pay for the testing - since it will come straight out of his profits.

It costs at least $100 per item, so a business that sells 30 different items - that is at least a $3k cost.


That's pants on head retarded.  I'm sure the business owner doesn't really want pay for a lot of shiat but owning a business has

......drum roll.....

costs.
 
2013-03-13 04:08:28 PM  

GORDON: Uranus Is Huge!: Remember that Upton Sinclair book about all that freedom in Chicago in the early 20th century? What a utopia!

People keep saying I am trolling, but I am dead serious.  These people DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM.  They are uneducated, ignorant savages, and they need to have the 64 ounce cups of liquid sugar slapped out of their hands.  If they have a problem with it, they can be sent to the kind of fat camp that has barbed wire and guard towers until they learn the correct way to do things.

Freedom is not only stupid, it is dangerous for our society as a whole.


You sound fat.
 
2013-03-13 04:09:51 PM  

GORDON: Uranus Is Huge!: Remember that Upton Sinclair book about all that freedom in Chicago in the early 20th century? What a utopia!

People keep saying I am trolling, but I am dead serious.  These people DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM.  They are uneducated, ignorant savages, and they need to have the 64 ounce cups of liquid sugar slapped out of their hands.  If they have a problem with it, they can be sent to the kind of fat camp that has barbed wire and guard towers until they learn the correct way to do things.

Freedom is not only stupid, it is dangerous for our society as a whole.


If they're uneducated, then the answer is education, not the eradication of freedom.
 
2013-03-13 04:10:56 PM  

occamswrist: Theaetetus: occamswrist: On issues like this I prefer individual choice over government bans.

occamswrist: Calories on the menu are a distraction.

For me they are. But I'm not fat (yet).
A law that calories are listed on the menu is just another something we have to comply with.

I get the impression this thread has some porkers in it and they are trying to blame restaraunts. Whatever makes you guys feel better.


I get the impression you needed to say that to cover up your own disgusting obesity. Whatever makes you feel better,
 
2013-03-13 04:18:28 PM  

MattyBlast: If they're uneducated, then the answer is education, not the eradication of freedom.


You already stated education is not freedom.

MattyBlast: Nobody is PREVENTING restaurants from posting calorie counts... this law aims to do is forbid the REQUIREMENT to do these things... It's called freedom.

 
2013-03-13 04:21:44 PM  

GORDON: Freedom is not only stupid, it is dangerous for our society as a whole.


Except what you're talking about is corporations' freedom from the consequences of their decisions, and no basis for that exists in written law.
 
2013-03-13 04:34:33 PM  

MattyBlast: GORDON: Uranus Is Huge!: Remember that Upton Sinclair book about all that freedom in Chicago in the early 20th century? What a utopia!

People keep saying I am trolling, but I am dead serious.  These people DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM.  They are uneducated, ignorant savages, and they need to have the 64 ounce cups of liquid sugar slapped out of their hands.  If they have a problem with it, they can be sent to the kind of fat camp that has barbed wire and guard towers until they learn the correct way to do things.

Freedom is not only stupid, it is dangerous for our society as a whole.

If they're uneducated, then the answer is education, not the eradication of freedom.


A free market requires information. Limiting this information is limiting the freedom of the consumer to make an informed decision.

Why do you hate freedom?
 
2013-03-13 04:38:56 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: kumanoki: pacified: ahh, the american south!  Never has a larger group of fat, stupid morons ever been collected.  Lincoln was wrong.  Should have let the racist inbred pig-farkers start keep their fatty fat country.

the whole of the south still lives in a slavery mentality, like the house slave: praising their oppressors.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there, son!
[susanhenschen.files.wordpress.com image 320x353]


He's not wrong, and the south is now infecting the rest of the country.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/


thanks for sharing, great article.
 
2013-03-13 04:42:38 PM  
Drug labels shouldn't include listings of side effects or risks. The manufacturers shouldn't be prevented from including them, but it's not government's place to force them! When all else fails, look at your skin for hives or check for heart palpitations and you'll know you had the wrong drug.

Toy makers shouldn't have to notify consumers about lead paint. They shouldn't be prevented from telling consumers about it, but it's not government's place to force them! When all else fails, look at your kid drooling and having trouble concentrating on homework. After all, it's all about personal responsibility.
 
2013-03-13 04:44:41 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: MattyBlast: GORDON: Uranus Is Huge!: Remember that Upton Sinclair book about all that freedom in Chicago in the early 20th century? What a utopia!

People keep saying I am trolling, but I am dead serious.  These people DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM.  They are uneducated, ignorant savages, and they need to have the 64 ounce cups of liquid sugar slapped out of their hands.  If they have a problem with it, they can be sent to the kind of fat camp that has barbed wire and guard towers until they learn the correct way to do things.

Freedom is not only stupid, it is dangerous for our society as a whole.

If they're uneducated, then the answer is education, not the eradication of freedom.

A free market requires information. Limiting this information is limiting the freedom of the consumer to make an informed decision.

Why do you hate freedom?


The white people down there have had access to free public education for 150 years.  The descendants of slaves have had access to public education since 1965.  If they don't know how to feed themselves properly by now, they are never going to know.  We, as a society, cannot wait for them to get around to figuring it all out.  We have tried to persuade them, and failed.  It is time to forgo the carrot, and use the stick.

Freedom is stupidity, literally.
 
2013-03-13 04:47:20 PM  

MattyBlast: Redfish: The law seems to prevent the government from forcing restaurants to post calorie counts, not forbid restaurants from posting them. That's an important difference. This is a good law. I fear politicians with delusions of godhood much more than cholesterol.

For Fark's sake THIS!!

This thread is so full of herpy-derps that don't get this simple distinction. Nobody is PREVENTING restaurants from posting calorie counts, limiting portion sizes, etc. What this law aims to do is forbid the REQUIREMENT to do these things.

In other words, if they want to, they can. If they don't want to, they don't have to. It's called freedom. Nothing asinine about it at all! Does anybody get this??


It doesn't even forbid the requirement to do those things.  It forbids local jurisdictions smaller than the state from enacting the requirement.  The state can still do it.  This law is merely "If we do anything about this, we want to do it on the state level and state wide, we don't want you small asshats meddling with this shiat".
 
2013-03-13 04:47:46 PM  

GORDON: Freedom is stupidity, literally.


...says the most free person in this thread.
 
2013-03-13 04:51:15 PM  
i've noticed lower-calorie foods are a lot more expensive, wouldn't restaurants want us to go with the more expensive option instead of the cheap fries?  more tips too.
 
2013-03-13 04:53:07 PM  

GORDON: The white people down there have had access to free public education for 150 years. The descendants of slaves have had access to public education since 1965. If they don't know how to feed themselves properly by now, they are never going to know. We, as a society, cannot wait for them to get around to figuring it all out. We have tried to persuade them, and failed. It is time to forgo the carrot, and use the stick.

Freedom is stupidity, literally.


SOME of us have tried to persuade them, but we have been consistently outgunned and outspent by the food companies and lobbies, pushing bogus food pyramids, corn subsidies, lobbying against appropriate nutritional education (as you and the congressman in the TFA are), all the while enjoying an absolutely unfettered right to expose children to a non-stop bombardments of "food porn" style advertising in which they are openly allowed to lie about the consequences of consuming their products.
 
2013-03-13 04:56:49 PM  
Fill the prisons with people who take drugs 'cause that's NOT freedom.

Fill the hospitals with people who eat fatty or sugar filled foods 'cause that IS freedom.

Got it, people are retarded.
 
2013-03-13 05:07:09 PM  

Smoking GNU: Yes, oppose derp with even MORE derp. BRILLIANT!


assured mutual derp-struction?
 
2013-03-13 05:17:08 PM  
i wonder if occamswrist wants us to look at our belly?
 
2013-03-13 05:21:48 PM  

PreMortem: JasonThomasX: Sorry subby, but I agree with the fat farks of Mississippi on this one.

Its nobody's damn business, especially the government's, how much of what I choose to eat or drink.

/love soda
//not fat YET

It is governments business to tax (the bejeezeus out of IMO) bad behavior that puts a financial burden on the rest of it's citizens. If the poor fatties can't afford the giant big gulp, all the better.


"Commerce Clause"

Yay!
 
2013-03-13 05:33:11 PM  
i651.photobucket.com

Give it a generation or two and land in Mississippi will be even cheaper than it is now.

...unless they can keep the breeding program up.
 
2013-03-13 05:35:26 PM  

Heamer: Why are people up in arms over portion-size bans? It's not like Bloomberg banned soda. You can still drink as much as your stomach can hold, and then some. Why is this such a huge deal?


Since politicians aren't doing any real work, we have to debate the penny ante stuff they are pretending to do. Internet flame wars are in a recession.
 
2013-03-13 05:36:02 PM  
Tell Me How My Blog Tastes * * Smartest * Funniest 2013-03-13 12:26:53 PM I thought that posting calorie counts was a mandatory part of Obamacare. Are restaurants in Virginia simply doing it of their own free will? I think DC requires them too as well.
=================================================

Yes, it is. It hasn't gone into (full?) effect yet if I recall.

And yes, if people are already doing it it's of their own free will.
 
2013-03-13 05:37:33 PM  

chairmenmeow47: i've noticed lower-calorie foods are a lot more expensive, ...


Try wandering into the vegetable section.

i651.photobucket.com

Also, if you eat out, you're paying a lot of money for stuff that's really inexpensive. For example, a small fries is about 1/2 a potato (+ grease and salt), of which you could buy a whole sack for $3-5. That's enough fries to make you splurt out yellow mash for a week.
 
2013-03-13 05:42:29 PM  

kiwimoogle84: I created this alt just for this thread: The thought of "if people see how many calories there are in our meals they might stop eating here" should be then followed with "so maybe we should find ways of making our food either more appealing, more healthy, or both" instead of "so we should fight the government's attempts to inform the consumer."

THIS.

This, right here, is rational thinking. Yeah, maybe we SHOULDN'T deep fry our salads in bacon grease just to make them taste better. Perhaps we shouldn't DROWN our burgers in cheese and sauces that have higher saturated fat levels than Ben n Jerry's.

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT I AM EATING. If I know option A has 30 g of sat fat and 1500 calories, and option B has 16 g of sat fat and 900 calories, then by jove, I'm eating option B. I don't want to end up the subject of a fatty thread on Fark is why.


If you are eating out, the food is loaded with fat, salt, and sugar, always. It's the easy way to make food taste better.

/Stop being fat
//stop blaming others
 
2013-03-13 05:43:56 PM  

Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?


Whether or not restaurants post calorie counts should be a function of the market, not forced at gunpoint.

Not saying I agree with this. It's crap. Just saying that's what a market fundamentalist would say. Freedom doesn't "require" ignorance. But freedom requires consumers to be allowed to choose to be ignorant, and restaurants to be able to choose to keep them ignorant.
 
2013-03-13 05:51:37 PM  
Just because:
I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine.
 
2013-03-13 05:57:13 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: kiwimoogle84: I created this alt just for this thread: The thought of "if people see how many calories there are in our meals they might stop eating here" should be then followed with "so maybe we should find ways of making our food either more appealing, more healthy, or both" instead of "so we should fight the government's attempts to inform the consumer."

THIS.

This, right here, is rational thinking. Yeah, maybe we SHOULDN'T deep fry our salads in bacon grease just to make them taste better. Perhaps we shouldn't DROWN our burgers in cheese and sauces that have higher saturated fat levels than Ben n Jerry's.

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT I AM EATING. If I know option A has 30 g of sat fat and 1500 calories, and option B has 16 g of sat fat and 900 calories, then by jove, I'm eating option B. I don't want to end up the subject of a fatty thread on Fark is why.

If you are eating out, the food is loaded with fat, salt, and sugar, always. It's the easy way to make food taste better.

/Stop being fat
//stop blaming others



Oh look, someone who thinks Applebee's and TGI Fridays is "eating out."  Try going to a real restaurant some time.
 
2013-03-13 05:58:43 PM  
LOL Mississippi plans to eat itself to death.
 
2013-03-13 06:12:41 PM  
-Skimmed the article.  Skipped the thread.
Why is this asinine?  Let people consume what they want.  But they're going to have to start paying.  TAX soda and junk food like they tax tobacco smokers.
/the healthcare costs for OBESITY surpasses that of tobacco related diseases.
//Fat asses sucking up this sick need to start paying.  Enough of Medicaid paying for their obesity related diseases.  Tax the hell out of them like smokers are taxed.
 
2013-03-13 06:19:23 PM  
Dear Mississippi,

Thanks for making us look smart.

Love and kisses,
Louisiana
 
2013-03-13 06:35:35 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: StoPPeRmobile: kiwimoogle84: I created this alt just for this thread: The thought of "if people see how many calories there are in our meals they might stop eating here" should be then followed with "so maybe we should find ways of making our food either more appealing, more healthy, or both" instead of "so we should fight the government's attempts to inform the consumer."

THIS.

This, right here, is rational thinking. Yeah, maybe we SHOULDN'T deep fry our salads in bacon grease just to make them taste better. Perhaps we shouldn't DROWN our burgers in cheese and sauces that have higher saturated fat levels than Ben n Jerry's.

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT I AM EATING. If I know option A has 30 g of sat fat and 1500 calories, and option B has 16 g of sat fat and 900 calories, then by jove, I'm eating option B. I don't want to end up the subject of a fatty thread on Fark is why.

If you are eating out, the food is loaded with fat, salt, and sugar, always. It's the easy way to make food taste better.

/Stop being fat
//stop blaming others


Oh look, someone who thinks Applebee's and TGI Fridays is "eating out."  Try going to a real restaurant some time.


Came back to say exactly that.

To be fair, I did mention the 600 calorie menu at Applebee's- but I gave it as an example.

Yeah, I don't consider chain restaurants to be a night on the town. I know a lot of hole in the wall restaurants with fresh and healthy flavors.

And I like how StoPPeRmobile assumed I was fat- clearly he skipped the part where I stated my enjoyment of keeping trim. Either that or didn't even bother checking for pictures. *shrug*

Honestly even if one DOES go out to an unhealthy place, it's not hard to sub them fries for steamed veggies instead. It's just that people don't want to be held accountable for their actions for the most part, and that's what irks me.
 
2013-03-13 06:38:40 PM  

chairmenmeow47: i wonder if occamswrist wants us to look at our belly?


Even moreso than others in this thread wanted me to look at pictures of food!
 
2013-03-13 06:47:38 PM  
I agree with what Mississippi has done.  This country is not supposed to be a nanny state like Bloomberg has turned NYC into.  There's no real need for calorie counts.  Everybody knows that something with lots of sugar in it has lots of calories.  Everyone also knows that a greasy cheeseburger and greasy fries are not the most healthy of food choices.  Everyone knows foods with a lot of salt are high in sodium.  People already know salad is a healthier choice than fried chicken.  People also know salad dressing often adds fat, calories, and probably salt.  People who go out to eat already know how to choose a healthy meal.  Whether or not they want to eat healthy is none of my, yours or anyone else's damm business.  Let people take responsibility for their own actions.  And don't whine to me about how the taxpayers are paying for their medical care.  That's just an excuse to impose more control over what people do in their lives.   Here's another way to look at it.  Someone who eats too much may die at 50 if not sooner.  Either way, he won't be needing hip replacement surgery at 80 or any of the other expensive health care that old folks often need at the end of their lives.

Here's another path.  Let's ban everything that may be unhealthy.  Ban alcohol since people abuse it, and cause injuries to themselves and others.  Keep the ban of illicit drugs since their use causes numerous health problems and puts others at risk.  Also ban sex between people who aren't married to each other since VD requires lots of money on a national scale to treat the people who catch AIDS, syphilis and the other STDs.  Then we need a ban on homosexual contact because of the spread of VD.  Let's ban skydiving, bungee jumping, mountain climbing and any other sport you can think of that carries a risk of people being hurt.

Continue with this nanny state crap and we'll end up like the U.K.  If you want a nanny state, why not move to the U.K. where they already have one?
 
2013-03-13 06:48:27 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Just because:
I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine.


How you doin'?
 
2013-03-13 06:51:47 PM  

pedrop357: Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

No, you can post the calorie counts if your customers demand.  The local government may not force you to do so.


History has shown, again and again, that unless businesses are prodded to provide information by the government, they don't. Consumer choice doesn't enter into the picture unless there are a range of businesses offering the choice. Since asymmetry of information tends to favor businesses, there's very little incentive to do so, and default market forces aren't sufficient to counter that.

This is exactly the sort of place where regulation makes sense.
 
2013-03-13 06:52:22 PM  

PaLarkin: I agree with what Mississippi has done.  This country is not supposed to be a nanny state like Bloomberg has turned NYC into.  There's no real need for calorie counts.  Everybody knows that something with lots of sugar in it has lots of calories.  Everyone also knows that a greasy cheeseburger and greasy fries are not the most healthy of food choices.  Everyone knows foods with a lot of salt are high in sodium.  People already know salad is a healthier choice than fried chicken.  People also know salad dressing often adds fat, calories, and probably salt.  People who go out to eat already know how to choose a healthy meal.  Whether or not they want to eat healthy is none of my, yours or anyone else's damm business.  Let people take responsibility for their own actions.  And don't whine to me about how the taxpayers are paying for their medical care.  That's just an excuse to impose more control over what people do in their lives.   Here's another way to look at it.  Someone who eats too much may die at 50 if not sooner.  Either way, he won't be needing hip replacement surgery at 80 or any of the other expensive health care that old folks often need at the end of their lives.

Here's another path.  Let's ban everything that may be unhealthy.  Ban alcohol since people abuse it, and cause injuries to themselves and others.  Keep the ban of illicit drugs since their use causes numerous health problems and puts others at risk.  Also ban sex between people who aren't married to each other since VD requires lots of money on a national scale to treat the people who catch AIDS, syphilis and the other STDs.  Then we need a ban on homosexual contact because of the spread of VD.  Let's ban skydiving, bungee jumping, mountain climbing and any other sport you can think of that carries a risk of people being hurt.

Continue with this nanny state crap and we'll end up like the U.K.  If you want a nanny state, why not move to the U.K. where they already have one?


Correction- we aren't trying to ban the food itself. But what we ARE trying to do is put right out there that the chicken bacon ranch salad you're considering (because it's a SALAD. It's BETTER for you [and sadly I know many people with just this logic]) is worse than the cheeseburger. These are the things I would want to know, and might drive home that if you put lettuce under nine pounds of bacon that doesn't magically transform it into a diet food.
 
2013-03-13 06:56:10 PM  

Theaetetus: Because America. No, really. We've been trained by the corporations to go for value over quality, which invariably means quantity over reasonable sizes. Specifically, they can increase the size of a drink from 12 to 16 ounces for a mere penny or two, but charge the consumer 20-30 cents more, and we think we're getting a better "value". It's all about profit margins. Same thing with portions sizes at restaurants... You've got a $10 entree with an $8 cost, but most of that cost is labor. You can double the size of it for an additional $2 in food costs, the labor is just about identical, and now you can justify charging $15 or $20.


Restaurant guilt math! But you can get DOUBLE the sammich/extra meat for only $1.79 more! Twice the fat-ass calories!
 
2013-03-13 06:58:24 PM  

Baz744: But freedom requires consumers to be allowed to choose to be ignorant, and restaurants to be able to choose to keep them ignorant.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-13 06:59:02 PM  

kiwimoogle84: PaLarkin: I agree with what Mississippi has done.  This country is not supposed to be a nanny state like Bloomberg has turned NYC into.  There's no real need for calorie counts.  Everybody knows that something with lots of sugar in it has lots of calories.  Everyone also knows that a greasy cheeseburger and greasy fries are not the most healthy of food choices.  Everyone knows foods with a lot of salt are high in sodium.  People already know salad is a healthier choice than fried chicken.  People also know salad dressing often adds fat, calories, and probably salt.  People who go out to eat already know how to choose a healthy meal.  Whether or not they want to eat healthy is none of my, yours or anyone else's damm business.  Let people take responsibility for their own actions.  And don't whine to me about how the taxpayers are paying for their medical care.  That's just an excuse to impose more control over what people do in their lives.   Here's another way to look at it.  Someone who eats too much may die at 50 if not sooner.  Either way, he won't be needing hip replacement surgery at 80 or any of the other expensive health care that old folks often need at the end of their lives.

Here's another path.  Let's ban everything that may be unhealthy.  Ban alcohol since people abuse it, and cause injuries to themselves and others.  Keep the ban of illicit drugs since their use causes numerous health problems and puts others at risk.  Also ban sex between people who aren't married to each other since VD requires lots of money on a national scale to treat the people who catch AIDS, syphilis and the other STDs.  Then we need a ban on homosexual contact because of the spread of VD.  Let's ban skydiving, bungee jumping, mountain climbing and any other sport you can think of that carries a risk of people being hurt.

Continue with this nanny state crap and we'll end up like the U.K.  If you want a nanny state, why not move to the U.K. where they already have one?

Correction- we aren't trying to ban the food itself. But what we ARE trying to do is put right out there that the chicken bacon ranch salad you're considering (because it's a SALAD. It's BETTER for you [and sadly I know many people with just this logic]) is worse than the cheeseburger. These are the things I would want to know, and might drive home that if you put lettuce under nine pounds of bacon that doesn't magically transform it into a diet food.


If someone doesn't realize they ate 9 pounds of bacon at one sitting then you know what? Maybe they deserve a heart attack.
 
2013-03-13 07:01:23 PM  

PaLarkin: There's no real need for calorie counts... People already know salad is a healthier choice than fried chicken...


If you saw the calorie content on some salads, you wouldn't say something so stupid. But hey, it's not needed because people already know this stuff.

PS: posting calorie counts isn't a "nanny state." Limiting portion sizes would be nanny state type activity - giving out information is not.
 
2013-03-13 07:12:58 PM  

impaler: PaLarkin: There's no real need for calorie counts... People already know salad is a healthier choice than fried chicken...

If you saw the calorie content on some salads, you wouldn't say something so stupid. But hey, it's not needed because people already know this stuff.

PS: posting calorie counts isn't a "nanny state." Limiting portion sizes would be nanny state type activity - giving out information is not.


Its not just one isolated law that makes a nanny state, its the sum total of all the laws.
 
2013-03-13 07:14:42 PM  

GORDON: Uranus Is Huge!: Remember that Upton Sinclair book about all that freedom in Chicago in the early 20th century? What a utopia!

People keep saying I am trolling, but I am dead serious.  These people DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM.  They are uneducated, ignorant savages, and they need to have the 64 ounce cups of liquid sugar slapped out of their hands.  If they have a problem with it, they can be sent to the kind of fat camp that has barbed wire and guard towers until they learn the correct way to do things.

Freedom is not only stupid, it is dangerous for our society as a whole.


I don't think you're trolling, but your mindset rarely makes things better and usually just ends in tyranny. Those "knowing" what is best for others sit on their highest chair in judgement, and in doing so usually blind themselves to the actual reasoning. They're also usually the exact same people you could point out and say they should have worked on their own life's problems first.
 
2013-03-13 07:20:45 PM  

occamswrist: impaler: PaLarkin: There's no real need for calorie counts... People already know salad is a healthier choice than fried chicken...

If you saw the calorie content on some salads, you wouldn't say something so stupid. But hey, it's not needed because people already know this stuff.

PS: posting calorie counts isn't a "nanny state." Limiting portion sizes would be nanny state type activity - giving out information is not.

Its not just one isolated law that makes a nanny state, its the sum total of all the laws.



I think your tinfoil hat is getting a bit tight.  No matter how many laws that are implemented that increase consumer information, they would be the exact opposite of a "nanny state."
 
2013-03-13 07:25:57 PM  
I went through a drive through for an In n Out burger and I asked to have a nutritional information brochure (in fact the ordering board says feel free to ask for one).  I've been on a recent kick to count my daily calories.

The teller says "sure" and with a smile she gives me the brochure and says, "You're really not going to like what you see".
 
2013-03-13 07:30:51 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: occamswrist: impaler: PaLarkin: There's no real need for calorie counts... People already know salad is a healthier choice than fried chicken...

If you saw the calorie content on some salads, you wouldn't say something so stupid. But hey, it's not needed because people already know this stuff.

PS: posting calorie counts isn't a "nanny state." Limiting portion sizes would be nanny state type activity - giving out information is not.

Its not just one isolated law that makes a nanny state, its the sum total of all the laws.


I think your tinfoil hat is getting a bit tight.  No matter how many laws that are implemented that increase consumer information, they would be the exact opposite of a "nanny state."


My tinfoil hat reaches all the way down and goes between my legs. When my diaper is full it tugs on my hat.

Thank you mentioning that because it reminded me to change my diaper or at least pull it to the side and let the poop fall out.
 
2013-03-13 07:41:34 PM  

Teufelaffe: Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

That should be the new motto of the Republican party.


Seems to be consistent with their old logo.

i1.cpcache.com
 
2013-03-13 07:46:36 PM  
This must be more of that "let local governments and communities decide what's best" sort of governance that conservatives are always harping on about.
 
2013-03-13 07:57:24 PM  

occamswrist: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: occamswrist: impaler: PaLarkin: There's no real need for calorie counts... People already know salad is a healthier choice than fried chicken...

If you saw the calorie content on some salads, you wouldn't say something so stupid. But hey, it's not needed because people already know this stuff.

PS: posting calorie counts isn't a "nanny state." Limiting portion sizes would be nanny state type activity - giving out information is not.

Its not just one isolated law that makes a nanny state, its the sum total of all the laws.


I think your tinfoil hat is getting a bit tight.  No matter how many laws that are implemented that increase consumer information, they would be the exact opposite of a "nanny state."

My tinfoil hat reaches all the way down and goes between my legs. When my diaper is full it tugs on my hat.

Thank you mentioning that because it reminded me to change my diaper or at least pull it to the side and let the poop fall out.


You have just been farkied as "no longer a credible source for ANYTHING." Nice one.
 
2013-03-13 07:57:26 PM  

KrustyKitten: Uchiha_Cycliste: Just because:
I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine.

How you doin'?


I'm doin' good. It's nice to be able to do what I want.
 
2013-03-13 08:58:47 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: History has shown, again and again, that unless businesses are prodded to provide information by the government, they don't. Consumer choice doesn't enter into the picture unless there are a range of businesses offering the choice. Since asymmetry of information tends to favor businesses, there's very little incentive to do so, and default market forces aren't sufficient to counter that.


In other words, the consumers don't care enough about the information to demand it, and businesses don't bother posting it because no one's demanding it.  Sounds like a case of people interacting with each other voluntarily in ways that other people disapprove of.  Basically, a form of "stop liking what I don't like".

Consumers are bombarded with talk about how bad fast food is for health, yet they continue to buy it.  Sounds like they made their choice.

Most fast food restaurants post the calorie estimates (they'll never be perfect) near the register and online for those who are interested.  The smaller places that do not are also the same ones that no one really cares about the calorie count, AND are the ones that will be hurt by posting (and the testing requirements to get the totals).
 
2013-03-13 09:00:23 PM  

ImpendingCynic: This must be more of that "let local governments and communities decide what's best" sort of governance that conservatives are always harping on about.


Oh fark off. The left is in love with local control only when it's stricter than state or federal law.

Let one city in California decide to allow smoking in bars and we'll see how quickly state supremacy rises to the top of the lefty platform.
 
2013-03-13 09:02:37 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: KrustyKitten: Uchiha_Cycliste: Just because:
I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine.

How you doin'?

I'm doin' good. It's nice to be able to do what I want.


That's cool.  I like being able to make informed decisions.  It's nice.
 
2013-03-13 09:05:29 PM  

pedrop357: In other words, the consumers don't care enough about the information to demand it,


I'm guessing when you got to "asymmetry of information" you're stopped reading because you couldn't figure out what it says. Also, small places are exempt.

Either way calorie counts are just product labeling laws. In no way are they "nanny state" style laws.

And you can't say no one cares about the calorie count. When people start finding out that dish they've been eating sports 1500 calories, they might care. Ignorance is bliss.
 
2013-03-13 09:07:37 PM  

kiwimoogle84: occamswrist: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: occamswrist: impaler: PaLarkin: There's no real need for calorie counts... People already know salad is a healthier choice than fried chicken...

If you saw the calorie content on some salads, you wouldn't say something so stupid. But hey, it's not needed because people already know this stuff.

PS: posting calorie counts isn't a "nanny state." Limiting portion sizes would be nanny state type activity - giving out information is not.

Its not just one isolated law that makes a nanny state, its the sum total of all the laws.


I think your tinfoil hat is getting a bit tight.  No matter how many laws that are implemented that increase consumer information, they would be the exact opposite of a "nanny state."

My tinfoil hat reaches all the way down and goes between my legs. When my diaper is full it tugs on my hat.

Thank you mentioning that because it reminded me to change my diaper or at least pull it to the side and let the poop fall out.

You have just been farkied as "no longer a credible source for ANYTHING." Nice one.


Your loss not mine.
 
2013-03-13 09:15:13 PM  

pedrop357: Oh fark off. The left is in love with local control only when it's stricter than state or federal law.

Oh fark off. The left isn't constantly preaching "let local governments and communities decide."

Saying "the left," "the liberals," "democrats," (basically every non-Republican) like stricter laws is just Lying Republican Scum strawman bullshat.

And by "stricter" they mean "different." Republicans love to control the fark out of every aspect of peoples' lives. Yet, since they're Republican, they lie like they scum they are, and spout off how they love freedom and small government (both lies). They forget to mention that "small government" just means getting rid of the laws they happen to disagree with. They're just fine with the government having all the laws they do agree with (especially if it's about dictating to Doctors how to handle vaginas.)
 
2013-03-13 09:21:36 PM  

impaler: PaLarkin: There's no real need for calorie counts... People already know salad is a healthier choice than fried chicken...

If you saw the calorie content on some salads, you wouldn't say something so stupid. But hey, it's not needed because people already know this stuff.

PS: posting calorie counts isn't a "nanny state." Limiting portion sizes would be nanny state type activity - giving out information is not.


It's not the lettuce, tomatoes and so on that makes a salad loaded down with fat, cholesterol and salt.  It's the stuff people put on it.
 
2013-03-13 09:28:05 PM  

seadoo2006: [i.imgur.com image 720x588]

'MERICA!


Where do I get one of those 50-cal kits?
 
2013-03-13 09:31:05 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: KrustyKitten: Uchiha_Cycliste: Just because:
I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine.

How you doin'?

I'm doin' good. It's nice to be able to do what I want.


And copy Denis Leary, but only cuz he's awesome (though I don't agree with "smoking in the non-smoking section" Denis. That's the place for me to breath in wonderfully hazy brown polluted fresh air! :)
 
2013-03-13 09:44:22 PM  

PaLarkin: impaler: PaLarkin: There's no real need for calorie counts... People already know salad is a healthier choice than fried chicken...

If you saw the calorie content on some salads, you wouldn't say something so stupid. But hey, it's not needed because people already know this stuff.

PS: posting calorie counts isn't a "nanny state." Limiting portion sizes would be nanny state type activity - giving out information is not.

It's not the lettuce, tomatoes and so on that makes a salad loaded down with fat, cholesterol and salt.  It's the stuff people put on it.


Why are you so afraid of people being able to make informed decisions about what they put in their bodies?
 
2013-03-13 09:56:11 PM  
I just saw a bumper sticker on the way home tonight "Annoy a liberal. Work hard, get ahead and succeed" and I was thinking how that can't possibly work. But being fat obnoxious and ignorant would probably work. You can't fault them for changing to an effective strategy.
 
2013-03-13 11:13:47 PM  

Baz744: Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

Whether or not restaurants post calorie counts should be a function of the market, not forced at gunpoint.

Not saying I agree with this. It's crap. Just saying that's what a market fundamentalist would say. Freedom doesn't "require" ignorance. But freedom requires consumers to be allowed to choose to be ignorant, and restaurants to be able to choose to keep them ignorant.


But by that definition, "freedom" requires the government to stay out of fraudulent contracts. For example, if you agree to buy a new car from me for $20,000, and I deliver a matchbox car, "freedom" would require that you be allowed to choose to be ignorant, so you're fuxored (that's a legal term, btw).

In fact, under that definition, I can lie my ass off to you and we can even have a contract that fully specifies the car, terms, and everything else, but then I deliver something else having received full payment, and gee, gosh, that's your problem because you didn't wait for delivery before payment. It's essentially the ultimate "buyer beware" clause... and because an economy cannot thrive without at least some trust, it would be the end of civilization as we know it. Because, honestly, the fundamental purpose of government is enforcing contracts. Fark "national defense" or any other justifications - the primary reason for government is "that jackass isn't living up to his contract", because without that, you have nothing to govern.

So, basically, people saying "restaurants should be allowed to hide calorie counts" are saying "civilization shouldn't exist." In which case, you should feel free to defraud those people and even rob them blind, since that's what they're asking for.
 
2013-03-13 11:19:51 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Uchiha_Cycliste: KrustyKitten: Uchiha_Cycliste: Just because:
I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine.

How you doin'?

I'm doin' good. It's nice to be able to do what I want.

And copy Denis Leary, but only cuz he's awesome (though I don't agree with "smoking in the non-smoking section" Denis. That's the place for me to breath in wonderfully hazy brown polluted fresh air! :)


Nobody today remembers that that is from Demolition man, so sad. DM was even referenced upthread.
 
2013-03-13 11:33:24 PM  

Theaetetus: But by that definition, "freedom" requires the government to stay out of fraudulent contracts. For example, if you agree to buy a new car from me for $20,000, and I deliver a matchbox car, "freedom" would require that you be allowed to choose to be ignorant, so you're fuxored (that's a legal term, btw).


Yes.

In fact, under that definition, I can lie my ass off to you and we can even have a contract that fully specifies the car, terms, and everything else, but then I deliver something else having received full payment, and gee, gosh, that's your problem because you didn't wait for delivery before payment.

I wasn't aware that anyone was talking about repealing laws regarding fraud.
 
2013-03-14 12:24:36 AM  

GORDON: Freedom is stupid.  If you can't persuade, then require.  It's the liberal way.


I'm gonna bite on this one:

Having the information IS THE KEY OF BEING FREE TO DECIDE. And don't hand me this sh*t about "the liberal way." The GOP is the one clamoring for mandatory ultrasounds and 'rape wands,' who you marry, etc.

All this boils down to is that restaurant owners fear their customers knowing about what they're eating. We already do it at grocery stores, so why not there? It doesn't mean you can't order the high-calorie content. You're still free to do what you want, just as you can still smoke a cigarette despite the label on the side of the pack.

/if you are genuinely this dumb, I feel for you
//if you are a performance art troll like MikeLowell and some others around here, I applaud you for it
 
2013-03-14 12:54:25 AM  

I created this alt just for this thread: PaLarkin: impaler: PaLarkin: There's no real need for calorie counts... People already know salad is a healthier choice than fried chicken...

If you saw the calorie content on some salads, you wouldn't say something so stupid. But hey, it's not needed because people already know this stuff.

PS: posting calorie counts isn't a "nanny state." Limiting portion sizes would be nanny state type activity - giving out information is not.

It's not the lettuce, tomatoes and so on that makes a salad loaded down with fat, cholesterol and salt.  It's the stuff people put on it.

Why are you so afraid of people being able to make informed decisions about what they put in their bodies?


I'm not.  I'm against government trying to dictate every detail of our lives.  If the restaurant owner wants to put up a sign with the nutritional information for items on the menu, let him.  If the customers want this information and the owner won't supply it, let them to to a competitor that will.

Some restaurants already supply this information.  Here's a chart of their menu items and information for each.
Here it gives you the same information in the pdf file, but it lets you select what you want and gives you the total.

giving the consumer information about  what they're eating is a good thing.  I'm just tired of every time I turn around the government is trying to impose more rules, regulations and restrictions on people.
 
2013-03-14 12:55:47 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: DarkSoulNoHope: Uchiha_Cycliste: KrustyKitten: Uchiha_Cycliste: Just because:
I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine.

How you doin'?

I'm doin' good. It's nice to be able to do what I want.

And copy Denis Leary, but only cuz he's awesome (though I don't agree with "smoking in the non-smoking section" Denis. That's the place for me to breath in wonderfully hazy brown polluted fresh air! :)

Nobody today remembers that that is from Demolition man, so sad. DM was even referenced upthread.


Well, I wouldn't say "Nobody". You and I do! :) That's two at least in this world of seven billion, maybe even Denis remembers. :-P
 
2013-03-14 02:49:23 AM  
cool
 
2013-03-14 05:12:00 AM  

Theaetetus: pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

And what if I want 64 ounces of  diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.


Er... just order an extra drink?
 
2013-03-14 08:36:48 AM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: I thought that posting calorie counts was a mandatory part of Obamacare. Are restaurants in Virginia simply doing it of their own free will?  I think DC requires them too as well.



Agreed. The movie theaters in the RDU area all have calorie counts on their concession menus.

I'm certain they would rather not inform consumers that their nachos have 2200 calories if given a choice.
 
2013-03-14 08:48:21 AM  

PaLarkin: I created this alt just for this thread: PaLarkin: impaler: PaLarkin: There's no real need for calorie counts... People already know salad is a healthier choice than fried chicken...

If you saw the calorie content on some salads, you wouldn't say something so stupid. But hey, it's not needed because people already know this stuff.

PS: posting calorie counts isn't a "nanny state." Limiting portion sizes would be nanny state type activity - giving out information is not.

It's not the lettuce, tomatoes and so on that makes a salad loaded down with fat, cholesterol and salt.  It's the stuff people put on it.

Why are you so afraid of people being able to make informed decisions about what they put in their bodies?

I'm not.  I'm against government trying to dictate every detail of our lives.  If the restaurant owner wants to put up a sign with the nutritional information for items on the menu, let him.  If the customers want this information and the owner won't supply it, let them to to a competitor that will.

Some restaurants already supply this information.  Here's a chart of their menu items and information for each.
Here it gives you the same information in the pdf file, but it lets you select what you want and gives you the total.

giving the consumer information about  what they're eating is a good thing.  I'm just tired of every time I turn around the government is trying to impose more rules, regulations and restrictions on people.


Are you Mitt "Corporations are people my friend" Romney?  Requiring calorie counts on menus is a regulation on businesses, not people.  This is not about personal freedoms, this is about industrial regulation, so your "won't someone think of the poor companies" schtick isn't going to get much traction around here.
 
2013-03-14 09:17:05 AM  

occamswrist:Take some responsibility for your actions. You want me to take responsibility for my actions while actively limiting the amount of knowledge available about said actions. Are you aware of how much that doesn't make sense? You must be trolling at this point.

I lost 35 pounds. My diet change was centered around counting calories. After I started paying attention it was surprising how many calories some foods have. No, you can't always get a reasonable estimate of how many calories most foods have just by looking. Maybe an autistic person sorta can, but that isn't the norm. I'm left brained, with a high attention to detail (sometimes to a forest for the trees point), with a ~140 IQ (for whatever that's worth) and I was still surprised by caloric values.

No. No you can't tell just by looking. No one can with good enough accuracy to be viable. You need information. Just like with those rolls. If you knew what they were called, vegan roll or butter rolls, you'd have a better idea. See? More information = better informed guess. There's only one reason to actively want to keep your customers uninformed about your product. Deception.

madgonad: Since nobody knows the actual reason for the ban on calorie numbers, I will chime in. Getting actual calorie counts for each menu item is NOT FREE.


Much like keeping up with health codes, it's the cost of doing business. And, much like health codes, it's a reasonable thing to hold someone to. Are you going to biatch about restaurants needing to keep roaches out of the kitchen, too? That shiat isn't free either.
 
2013-03-14 09:59:38 AM  

LiberalConservative: Theaetetus: pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

And what if I want 64 ounces of  diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.

Er... just order an extra drink?


Why should I have to order an extra one when I can just get the 64oz container to start?
 
2013-03-14 10:49:39 AM  

occamswrist: How many people who count calories eat shiat fast food often enough that this matters? My guess is few.



I like knowing the counts because I sometimes go to lunch with coworkers.

I know that I can do alright at Wendy's if I get the Ultimate Chicken Grill with a side salad and a Minute Maid light lemonade.

I would expect the Turkey burger at Burger King to be alright, but in fact it has 30 grams of fat.

The nutrition facts are the only reason I know this.
 
2013-03-14 12:59:54 PM  
Complaining about too many calories in your food is a first world problem.

http://mukto-mona.net/Articles/kevin_carter/sudan_child.htm
 
2013-03-14 01:21:36 PM  

occamswrist: Complaining about too many calories in your food is a first world problem.

http://mukto-mona.net/Articles/kevin_carter/sudan_child.htm


OH DEAR GOD LET IT GO. But by your logic, that child should just look at his belly to see that since he's not overweight, he must be eating a healthy diet, right?

By the way, learn how HTML image hosting and posting works. YOU'RE WELCOME.
 
2013-03-14 01:26:24 PM  

occamswrist: Complaining about too many calories in your food is a first world problem.

http://mukto-mona.net/Articles/kevin_carter/sudan_child.htm



You're so right.  As a way to show solidarity with the third world, we should also stop caring about access to clean water, electricity, shelter, jobs, money, and anything and everything that some people in the world don't have.  After all, if someone somewhere doesn't have it, then it can't be that important.
 
2013-03-14 01:31:30 PM  

kiwimoogle84: occamswrist: Complaining about too many calories in your food is a first world problem.

http://mukto-mona.net/Articles/kevin_carter/sudan_child.htm

OH DEAR GOD LET IT GO. But by your logic, that child should just look at his belly to see that since he's not overweight, he must be eating a healthy diet, right?

By the way, learn how HTML image hosting and posting works. YOU'RE WELCOME.


Well, once their stomach becomes distended, that means they're eating too much and need to cut back.
 
2013-03-14 02:19:33 PM  

occamswrist: Complaining about too many calories in your food is a first world problem.

http://mukto-mona.net/Articles/kevin_carter/sudan_child.htm


Good ... I shiat more calories before lunch than that kid eats in a week ... :-D
 
2013-03-14 03:29:12 PM  

Teufelaffe: kiwimoogle84: occamswrist: Complaining about too many calories in your food is a first world problem.

http://mukto-mona.net/Articles/kevin_carter/sudan_child.htm

OH DEAR GOD LET IT GO. But by your logic, that child should just look at his belly to see that since he's not overweight, he must be eating a healthy diet, right?

By the way, learn how HTML image hosting and posting works. YOU'RE WELCOME.

Well, once their stomach becomes distended, that means they're eating too much and need to cut back.


Oh you're right on the money. They should just look at their bellies to see if they're eating too much. Failsafe plan. Thanks. OccamsWrist! YOU'VE SAVED THE WORLD.
 
2013-03-14 03:35:22 PM  
Mandatory calorie counts will cause bullying.

Setting:  The counter of your local ice cream parlor.

Teen  #1: "i'll have a small slushie, please."

Teen #2: "I'll have a vanilla ice cream cone and a cookie."

Teen  #1: "Like you need 450 calories, you fat skank?  I'm texting everybody, oh my god look at your face, I can hear it getting fatter! (texts Madison and Breighlynne, offstage, a picture of Teen #2 and the calorie count)"

Madison: <posts images to facebook>

Breighlynne: <texting to Teen #2> "oink oink, sweaty betty lol"

Teen #2: <suicide>

All because of calorie counts.  The left's war on women continues.
 
2013-03-14 03:44:30 PM  

another cultural observer: Mandatory calorie counts will cause bullying.

Setting:  The counter of your local ice cream parlor.

Teen  #1: "i'll have a small slushie, please."

Teen #2: "I'll have a vanilla ice cream cone and a cookie."

Teen  #1: "Like you need 450 calories, you fat skank?  I'm texting everybody, oh my god look at your face, I can hear it getting fatter! (texts Madison and Breighlynne, offstage, a picture of Teen #2 and the calorie count)"

Madison: <posts images to facebook>

Breighlynne: <texting to Teen #2> "oink oink, sweaty betty lol"

Teen #2: <suicide>

All because of calorie counts.  The left's war on women continues.


*facepalm* sweet baby jesus please be trolling, and terribly at that. They'll do that anyway with or without the calorie counts. Ice cream is ice cream whether it's 300 cals or 1000. Shoot, a bully will find a way to tease a girl about the name Mary Smith if they really wanted to.
 
2013-03-14 03:48:02 PM  

kiwimoogle84: another cultural observer: Mandatory calorie counts will cause bullying.

Setting:  The counter of your local ice cream parlor.

Teen  #1: "i'll have a small slushie, please."

Teen #2: "I'll have a vanilla ice cream cone and a cookie."

Teen  #1: "Like you need 450 calories, you fat skank?  I'm texting everybody, oh my god look at your face, I can hear it getting fatter! (texts Madison and Breighlynne, offstage, a picture of Teen #2 and the calorie count)"

Madison: <posts images to facebook>

Breighlynne: <texting to Teen #2> "oink oink, sweaty betty lol"

Teen #2: <suicide>

All because of calorie counts.  The left's war on women continues.

*facepalm* sweet baby jesus please be trolling, and terribly at that. They'll do that anyway with or without the calorie counts. Ice cream is ice cream whether it's 300 cals or 1000. Shoot, a bully will find a way to tease a girl about the name Mary Smith if they really wanted to.


It wasn't that terrible.
 
2013-03-14 04:25:22 PM  

another cultural observer: kiwimoogle84: another cultural observer: Mandatory calorie counts will cause bullying.

Setting:  The counter of your local ice cream parlor.

Teen  #1: "i'll have a small slushie, please."

Teen #2: "I'll have a vanilla ice cream cone and a cookie."

Teen  #1: "Like you need 450 calories, you fat skank?  I'm texting everybody, oh my god look at your face, I can hear it getting fatter! (texts Madison and Breighlynne, offstage, a picture of Teen #2 and the calorie count)"

Madison: <posts images to facebook>

Breighlynne: <texting to Teen #2> "oink oink, sweaty betty lol"

Teen #2: <suicide>

All because of calorie counts.  The left's war on women continues.

*facepalm* sweet baby jesus please be trolling, and terribly at that. They'll do that anyway with or without the calorie counts. Ice cream is ice cream whether it's 300 cals or 1000. Shoot, a bully will find a way to tease a girl about the name Mary Smith if they really wanted to.

It wasn't that terrible.


Eye of the beholder, darling.
 
2013-03-14 04:37:42 PM  
I remember when Fark wasn't overrun with liberal smug.

Hell, I remember when liberals weren't overrun with liberal smug.

It's an unattractive quality.
 
2013-03-14 08:50:11 PM  

Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?


And finally we agree on something.

There should be no food restrictions on non-poisonous edibles, but if you can't or won't tell your customers what they are eating, including at least an approximate calorie count, you shouldn't be selling food in the first place, and if a population wants to require that knowledge, it isn't hurting anyone.

But hey, when did southern conservatives shy away from a chance to openly promote ignorance?
 
2013-03-15 05:03:19 AM  

pedrop357: LiberalConservative: Theaetetus: pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

And what if I want 64 ounces of  diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.

Er... just order an extra drink?

Why should I have to order an extra one when I can just get the 64oz container to start?


To help other people that don't have good control over their own soda consumption (those that will get a huge size just because they can).
Am in Australia where such large cup sizes were banned before they were made available. Have never heard anyone complain drinks are not large enough. Not come accross anyone ordering an extra drink either. Some places offer a free refill but most do not take advantage. Kind of understand how restricting a product that already is available would upset people. But am pretty sure all people would survive the downsize and most would soon get over it. And in the end you can always order that extra drink.
 
Displayed 295 of 295 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report