Freedom of Choice

[Steve Petersen]

Eroded more every day by government. It's all for the public good though, so that's alright.

Chicago moves to ban high calorie vending.

 

[Touma]

If you don't like the laws of a place, you have every right to move away from there. So there is your choice. ;-)

 

[HiLo]

Eroded more every day by government. It's all for the public good though, so that's alright.

Chicago moves to ban high calorie vending.

Why do people get worked up over freedom of choice in "vending machines" and "big gulps" but are the complete opposite on a woman's right to choose? Not saying you are, just stating the obvious hypocrisy of some.

How is that also not considered an "erosion of freedom"?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Meanwhile, schools start mandating healthy school lunch menus. Students reject it.

More choice: bag lunches banned in Chicago.

 

[Marek]

Maybe you haven't noticed, but obesity is a huge problem in the United States. We've tried nutrition and physical education; it isn't working. Honestly, I not sure what should be done. But if banning bag lunches, vending machines, and big gulps helps improve the situation in any appreciable manner, then it's definitely worth it.

 

[katautumn]

Eroded more every day by government. It's all for the public good though, so that's alright.

Chicago moves to ban high calorie vending.

I'd think the taxpayers of Chicago would be all over this. Less junk food in government building vending machines= healthier government employees = less the taxpayers have to pay to foot their medical bills through their government provided insurance plans. I notice they aren't regulating private sector vending machines, only government buildings. I really don't see the problem with this one.

 

[Touma]

Maybe you haven't noticed, but obesity is a huge problem in the United States. We've tried nutrition and physical education; it isn't working. Honestly, I not sure what should be done. But if banning bag lunches, vending machines, and big gulps helps improve the situation in any appreciable manner, then it's definitely worth it.

But people have the right to be grossly obese and get all the health complications that come along with it, which use up valuable resources causing medical care costs to sky rocket for everyone!

 

[Steve Petersen]

Why not just pass laws outlawing all 'unhealthy' food nationwide then? I am sure you could find justification for that.

Could start with Starbucks, but where would you stop? Someone might decide that what YOU eat is not healthy.

In the name of 'health' why doesn't the government mandate daily exercise? Enforcable by financial 'penalties' (oops, I meant taxes.)

 

[DaisyDay]

Eroded more every day by government. It's all for the public good though, so that's alright.

Chicago moves to ban high calorie vending.

You understand that that is only for vending machines in government buildings, right?

 

[Touma]

You understand that that is only for vending machines in government buildings, right?

 

[katautumn]

Why not just pass laws outlawing all 'unhealthy' food nationwide then? I am sure you could find justification for that.

Could start with Starbucks.

I think there is a world of difference between regulating food distribution in the private sector (i.e., the waste of time called The Big Gulp Ban) and making it to where if taxpayers are having to foot the bill we at least have healthy snack and meal options in government facilities.

 

[Sistrin]

If you don't like the laws of a place, you have every right to move away from there. So there is your choice. ;-)

Until laws like this become the laws of the land. How myopic.

The true choice of the American people is to vote petty control freaks like Rahm Emmanuel out of office, or better yet, to stop being sheep and never vote people like him into office. But the "gimmie" mentality rules, and until that changes the sheep will go baaaaaaaa......

Why do people get worked up over freedom of choice in "vending machines" and "big gulps" but are the complete opposite on a woman's right to choose?

Because people choose to eat a bag of chips or drink a large soda. It is their right to make this choice for themselves without having Squealer standing over them delivering Napoleon's propaganda message. Additionally, a bag of chips sitting in a vending machine is not sitting there waiting to be born into the care of another. It is just a bag of chips that when eaten have no effect on anyone else in the entire world except the person who ate them.

Babies in the womb are living beings who do not choose to be aborted.

How is this not considered an "erosion of freedom"?

Because if abortion is ever outlawed women are still free to engage in all the sex they want and have all the free birth control provided by their neighbors and the catholic church they want. They will simply have to be responsible for their actions if they make the dreaded, hated mistake of becoming pregnant.

 

[HiLo]

Until laws like this become the laws of the land. How myopic.

The true choice of the American people is to vote petty control freaks like Rahm Emmanuel out of office, or better yet, to stop being sheep and never vote people like him into office. But the "gimmie" mentality rules, and until that changes the sheep will go baaaaaaaa......

I know right? All these greedy corporations and their government welfare and "gimmie" attitudes is sickening. Darn socialist, communists.

Because people choose to eat a bag of chips or drink a large soda. It is their right to make this choice for themselves without having Squealer standing over them delivering Napoleon's propaganda message. Additionally, a bag of chips sitting in a vending machine is not sitting there waiting to be born into the care of another. It is just a bag of chips that when eaten have no effect on anyone else in the entire world except the person who ate them.

No a bag of chips is waiting to be eaten. It's so sad when a bag of chips is "aborted" from a vending machine because of peoples desire to control obesity. It's just not right. "Thou shalt not kill potato chips."

Babies in the womb are living beings who do not choose to be aborted.

They have no right to choose. That rests on the parents. Freedom, remember?

Because if abortion is ever outlawed women are still free to engage in all the sex they want and have all the free birth control provided by their neighbors and the catholic church they want. They will simply have to be responsible for their actions if they make the dreaded, hated mistake of becoming pregnant.

When they make ALL birth control available in vending machines, maybe this argument will hold water. Until then, it's just hypocrisy. Freedom of choice for some and no choice for others. Absolutely unconstitutional BTW. I believe people should be able to be as obese as they want and also choose what they will or won't with their own bodies. Freedom isn't freedom when it's only reserved for some and prevented for others. Freedom is freedom for all. I'm not arguing the right or wrong of it, I'm arguing consistency in the message.

 

[Marek]

Why not just pass laws outlawing all 'unhealthy' food nationwide then? I am sure you could find justification for that.

Could start with Starbucks, but where would you stop? Someone might decide that what YOU eat is not healthy.

In the name of 'health' why doesn't the government mandate daily exercise? Enforcable by financial 'penalties' (oops, I meant taxes.)

Because that would be going to far. The slippery slope argument is a fallacy. What's wrong with trying to find an optimal balance between the two? It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

 

[Sistrin]

Honestly, I not sure what should be done. But if banning bag lunches, vending machines, and big gulps helps improve the situation in any appreciable manner, then it's definitely worth it.

Oh sure, because if you agree to turn over this amount of personal freedom to the government because it is in your own good, that government will never attempt to expand its control over you. Never......

I'd think the taxpayers of Chicago would be all over this.

They still a voice in Chicago?

Less junk food in government building vending machines= healthier government employees = less the taxpayers have to pay to foot their medical bills through their government provided insurance plans.

Oh, right, because if junk food is removed from government buildings those who work there will never ever......ever ever ever....eat a bag of chips again.

But it is interesting to see how you worded this: the "less the taxpayers" will "have" to pay to foot "their" medical bills through their "government" provided insurance plan.

From the article:

“These new vending machines will make it easier than ever before for city employees and the public to make healthy lifestyle decisions,” Emanuel said. “When city employees take their wellness into their own hands, we can reduce health care costs and also serve as a model for the residents of Chicago when it comes to making healthy choices.”

Except the city employees are not taking their wellness into their own hands, they are having it dictated to them.

I notice they aren't regulating private sector vending machines, only government buildings. I really don't see the problem with this one.

Incrementalism.

But people have the right to be grossly obese and get all the health complications that come along with it, which use up valuable resources causing medical care costs to sky rocket for everyone!

Which "use up valuable resources"........

Wonder who is going to decide who is and who is not "using up valuable resources" under the government mandated health insurance plan.

Why not just pass laws outlawing all 'unhealthy' food nationwide then? I am sure you could find justification for that.

If Rahm said it in Chigaco it would be justified for no other reason than he said it. If Obama said it nationally it would be justified for no other reason than Obama said it.

In the name of 'health' why doesn't the government mandate daily exercise? Enforcable by financial 'penalties' (oops, I meant taxes.)

Quote:

"Obesity is fueled by the hot dogs, burgers, and junk food that are being fed to children in school and at home," said PCRM nutrition education director Susan Levin."

"The Let’s Move campaign needs to address the causes of obesity in America, not sweep them under the rug."

Source: Health group slams Michelle Obama's 'Let's Move' anti-obesity campaign - The Hill's Healthwatch

You understand that that is only for vending machines in government buildings, right?

We understand that is all the government officials are talking about today.

 

[KarateCowboy]

If you don't like the laws of a place, you have every right to move away from there. So there is your choice. ;-)

"My way or the highway" --the dictator's credo.

 

[cow451]

You understand that that is only for vending machines in government buildings, right?

Apparently not, LOL.

 

[Sistrin]

Freedom of choice for some and no choice for others.

That's abortion!

Freedom isn't freedom when it's only reserved for some and prevented for others.

Usually that is called abortion rights, or some such nonsense.

 

[KarateCowboy]

"When city employees take nutrition into their own hands". LOL. Durrr, when you make the choices for them it's in your hands not theirs Mayor Ballerina.

 

[Marek]

Oh sure, because if you agree to turn over this amount of personal freedom to the government because it is in your own good, that government will never attempt to expand its control over you. Never....

Oh look, another slippery slope fallacy.

And for the record, I don't need government to ban anything for me. I'm a healthy weight. But I do see others that can't control themselves. I'm willing to give up some of my personal freedom if it means helping fellow citizens with their problems.