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 45
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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

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


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

Still, this sort of knee-jerk reaction makes me think Bloomberg should next pass a law making the constant breathing of air mandatory for all citizens.  The collective IQ of the country would go up by 15 points overnight.
2013-03-13 12:32:14 PM  
5 votes:

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


Done in one. It's funny how those that claim that the market can decide, also want to prevent the market from having information to make a decision.
2013-03-13 12:44:22 PM  
4 votes:
ahh, the american south!  Never has a larger group of fat, stupid morons ever been collected.  Lincoln was wrong.  Should have let the racist inbred pig-farkers start keep their fatty fat country.

the whole of the south still lives in a slavery mentality, like the house slave: praising their oppressors.
2013-03-13 12:36:07 PM  
4 votes:
i.imgur.com

'MERICA!
2013-03-13 12:29:30 PM  
4 votes:

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


The last thing business wants is an informed consumer.
2013-03-13 01:40:36 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:53:58 PM  
3 votes:

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


THIS
Also wik- Distance has a lot to do with it, too. Here in the South, everyone drives. Everyone. There's no adequate system of affordable mass transit or even sidewalks in most cities. People have to drive to get where they're going. That, in and of itself, is a giant contributor to obsity in our neck of the woods.
2013-03-13 12:33:11 PM  
3 votes:
I loathe the fact my taxes are used to buy hoverounds and pay out disability payments for the willingly obese. They should have to enroll in a diet/fitness programs or lose benefits. Mississippi takes in more federal Medicaid dollars per those spent than any other state as well.
2013-03-13 12:06:21 PM  
3 votes:

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


But even then, it's inconsistent... "Citizens have the right to eat as much as they want! But we shouldn't be forced to let them know how much they're eating."
You'd think he would proudly put calorie counts on his menu, with prizes for consuming the 10,000 calorie snack pack and such.
2013-03-13 02:04:16 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:03:17 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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



He's not wrong, and the south is now infecting the rest of the country.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/
2013-03-13 01:00:30 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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


One word: ice.

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

Also, drinks are profit centers.  A $1.89 soda costs about 25 cents worth of product, 20 of which being the cup, lid, and straw.  The soda itself is the cheapest shiat known to man.
2013-03-13 12:56:31 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


"manly thirst requirements"? Hahaha. I guess that's the reason for the Big Gulps- like for long distance truckers... But what I don't understand is why in the last ten years, a small went from 12 oz to 16, a med went from 16 to 20, and a large went from 20 to like 40. So big that they had to alter the bottom four inches of the cup to fit into a cupholder, because the rest is so wide, it won't fit. It's utterly ridiculous. When I worked in food service in 2003, those were the sizes. Sometime in the last few years they've gone up. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THAT.
2013-03-13 12:50:42 PM  
2 votes:

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

Could you explain the relationship between obesity and Medicaid?


In general, I can in a single word: poverty.
2013-03-13 12:45:01 PM  
2 votes:

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


That should be the new motto of the Republican party.
2013-03-13 12:39:58 PM  
2 votes:
The only trouble I have with this, is if we're taking away the calorie counts and soda size bans, they need to make it illegal for people to sue the restaurants saying that their food made them fat. I could EASILY see someone even suing the state for this bill, and state that since they had no idea what the calorie content was on a triple-pastrami burger with covered and smothered fries on the side, they can sue the state for keeping them ignorant and for the emotional distress caused by their obesity. And thanks to this law, they might even win.
2013-03-13 12:39:03 PM  
2 votes:
Can we quit with the whole banning things for teh childrens thing?

/ it's kind of like those anti-drug pep-rally things from high school; they didn't make me not want to do drugs; they made me consider doing drugs so I wouldn't have to listen to the stupid presentation.
2013-03-13 12:36:31 PM  
2 votes:
The bill was authored by state Sen. Tony Smith, a Republican who owns the Stonewall's BBQ chain, who said government shouldn't tell people what they cannot eat.

Nope, no conflict of interest here.
2013-03-14 05:12:00 AM  
1 votes:

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

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


Er... just order an extra drink?
2013-03-13 09:15:13 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

And by "stricter" they mean "different." Republicans love to control the fark out of every aspect of peoples' lives. Yet, since they're Republican, they lie like they scum they are, and spout off how they love freedom and small government (both lies). They forget to mention that "small government" just means getting rid of the laws they happen to disagree with. They're just fine with the government having all the laws they do agree with (especially if it's about dictating to Doctors how to handle vaginas.)
2013-03-13 04:42:38 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:10:26 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:37:10 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:24:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:21:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:07:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:02:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:51:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:32:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:13:50 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

Also, it's not just fat people who keep track of caloric intake. In fact, I'd dare say that a non-fat person is probably more likely to want that information.
2013-03-13 01:10:18 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

Calorie count is simply giving the purchaser more information.
2013-03-13 01:07:27 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


Libertarian, not anarchistic. Libertarians still believe in regulating the market by preventing fraud, for example. No one is making the argument that "it's not the government's place to keep me from lying to customers." Encouraging an informed marketplace is certainly a libertarian ideal.
2013-03-13 01:01:58 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


I'm an iced coffee fiend.

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

Because America. No, really. We've been trained by the corporations to go for value over quality, which invariably means quantity over reasonable sizes. Specifically, they can increase the size of a drink from 12 to 16 ounces for a mere penny or two, but charge the consumer 20-30 cents more, and we think we're getting a better "value". It's all about profit margins. Same thing with portions sizes at restaurants... You've got a $10 entree with an $8 cost, but most of that cost is labor. You can double the size of it for an additional $2 in food costs, the labor is just about identical, and now you can justify charging $15 or $20.
2013-03-13 12:53:25 PM  
1 votes:
I'd love to see some congressperson troll Mississippi by tying Medicaid funding to a mandate on the display of calorie counts.
2013-03-13 12:51:16 PM  
1 votes:
Calorie counts are already posted in the fast food restaurants around here. It does not seem to have made any difference in the length of the lines to get a double with cheese.
2013-03-13 12:47:31 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


LOL of coke not come.  Not that there is anything wrong with that.
2013-03-13 12:47:16 PM  
1 votes:
It's good that Mississippi has such a handle on its problems that its legislature can dedicate time to reactionary chest-thumping over sodas.
2013-03-13 12:46:15 PM  
1 votes:
A Republican businessman/politician with conflict of interest who sponsors a law that helps his business?
img829.imageshack.us
2013-03-13 12:41:50 PM  
1 votes:
If we're going to get into the business of regulating self-destructive behaviors, I think there are plenty of them we should work on before we get to soda.

That said, this sort of reaction is why I think many Republicans aren't very smart.
2013-03-13 12:41:23 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


He's a mayor, not a legislator.  Prohibition has never been successful.  Freedom of choice is the bedrock this nation was founded upon.
2013-03-13 12:40:41 PM  
1 votes:
(Born and raised in Mississippi.) If they want to derp themselves to death, why stop them?
2013-03-13 12:38:09 PM  
1 votes:

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


No, you can post the calorie counts if your customers demand.  The local government may not force you to do so.
2013-03-13 12:36:29 PM  
1 votes:
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
Meanwhile, in Mississippi.
2013-03-13 12:35:03 PM  
1 votes:
Passing laws that they think will really 'stick it to them libs'... the primary goal of conservatives.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report