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  
•       •       •

3752 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 295 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report