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

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

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

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