EdwinWillers
Well-Known Member
- Jan 13, 2010
- 19,443
- 5,258
- Country
- Niue
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
LOL:
*facepalm*
Wow. Just wow.
Upvote
0
LOL:
*facepalm*
Wow. Just wow.
I feel like I have been saying this a lot lately. The solution to problems like these is for individuals to exercise personal responsibility.
That's what the Democrats are aggressively (no pun intended) promoting right now - the ability to selectively eliminate unwanted female babies before they're born (the majority of selective gender abortions being females, worldwide).
That's the problem a 20 oz drink contains 62 grams of sugar.
If you're wondering why we have a diabeties problem in this country you don't have to wonder much longer.
Most things can be broken down into personal and societal responsibilites and both should be addressed.
However here the societal responsibility is to educate people on their health. It is the personal responsibility to heed that advice and use the education given.
Soft drinks existed prior to 1980, so I don't think that soft drinks are to blame completely. But, when you add increased reliance on technology, fast food, high fructose corn syrup in practically everything we eat, sedentary lifestyle, and lack of individual responsibility and accountability, I think you get closer to understanding the drastic increase in diabetes, obesity, and other related health problems in the past few decades.
When I was kid, we had a PSAs that told us to brush our teeth, eat our veggies, and don't do drugs. Now, we have PSAs telling kids to go outside and play at least 60 minutes a day. When kids need to a PSA to tell them to play, that is a strong indicator of where the problem lies.
That's the problem a 20 oz drink contains 62 grams of sugar.
If you're wondering why we have a diabeties problem in this country you don't have to wonder much longer.
Considering I was talking about "selective gender abortions" - which BY DEFINITION (please do understand) are abortions done ONCE THE GENDER IS KNOWN. (That would make knowing the gender a given, fyi).
In other words, once the woman knows what the gender is (i.e. and not before, obviously) and it isn't what she wants, she seeks to abort it.
In other words, the decision is a function of knowing (obviously) what the baby's gender is.
In other words, if the gender of the baby isn't known, the decision to abort based on the gender can't be made (obviously, one would think).
I applaud this. When foolish people let themselves gain diabetes, heart problems or other obesity/diet related illnesses, who has to pay for it? Usually tax-payer funded programs like medicaid. If the govt. has to flip the bill health problems caused by gluttony and blatant disregard for health, then the govt. should have the right to step in and enforce some regulations.
Excellent point. Answer? Nothing.If you contend that controlling what people chose to eat is with in the purview of the state what exactly do you think the state does not have the right to control?
Well, I understand what you're saying, but the "issue" here is the role of government. We wouldn't be having this discussion if everyone understood the proper role of government - and more to the point, that it's not the role of government to regulate people's weight.Constitutional issues aside, this law is also a meaningless gesture. Limiting the size of a beverage won't stop those who are truly addicted to carbohydrates from drinking the SAME amount. At issue here isn't the size of the beverage but what's in it: Sugar. If it was 64oz. of plain Iced-Tea that people were walking out of the 7-11 with we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Well, I understand what you're saying, but the "issue" here is the role of government. We wouldn't be having this discussion if everyone understood the proper role of government - and more to the point, that it's not the role of government to regulate people's weight.
Everything is open for debate.The proper role of government is always open for debate.
Soft drinks existed prior to 1980, so I don't think that soft drinks are to blame completely. But, when you add increased reliance on technology, fast food, high fructose corn syrup in practically everything we eat, sedentary lifestyle, and lack of individual responsibility and accountability, I think you get closer to understanding the drastic increase in diabetes, obesity, and other related health problems in the past few decades.
When I was kid, we had a PSAs that told us to brush our teeth, eat our veggies, and don't do drugs. Now, we have PSAs telling kids to go outside and play at least 60 minutes a day. When kids need to a PSA to tell them to play, that is a strong indicator of where the problem lies.
Are you sure this isn't just better reporting.
I'll agree it's a "problem."I don't, but they can be partially blamed for increased sugar intake. Serving sizes for all foods, soda included have increased.
Thus since 1980 intake has increased.
Indeed, we are experienceing major cultural shifts in diet and excersize that will eventually ruin the lives of many and cost society dearly.
Part of that shift was the idea that the proper normal serving size for a medium soda is 20 oz containing 65 grams of sugar.
That is all that is being argued about here. That a 55 oz soda is comparable to serving someone a cup full of sugar.
So you can still get your cup of sugar if you really want it. (I am not sure that people really do), just in many smaller glasses, so there is atleast some psycological barrier.
And I am not suggesting that this is the only or proper solution here, just that there is a major problem.
I'll agree it's a "problem."
However, Bloomberg's solution is even more problematic.
Look, that the intake of too much sugar is problematic is without question. The problem however is not that it's a problem, but how to solve the problem?
Is this a "social issue" that warrants the involvement of the government or people like Bloomberg who profess to know how people ought to be behaving better than they do, to intervene in people's lives and assert "you can't do this!" Or is it a problem at the individual level?
I mean, c'mon,
Bloomberg isn't some "messiah" who is himself a paragon of human perfection that he can assert without issue who must do what or how.
For pity's sake, even Jesus didn't presume to assert what we should eat and what we shouldn't. Who the hell does Bloomberg think he is?
Jesus never knew about the problem with High Fructose corn syrup and other refined forms of sugar. Or at least if he did he never let on that he knew. If he told his disciples about the problem of type II diabetes they probably wouldn't have understood what he was talking about.
"I am the way, the truth and the life....oh and btw guys don't eat sugary drinks"