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
 
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.
 
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