BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Because fried chicken is addictive and could cause you to murder people to get a fix. Grow up.Hi, I'm Lois. I learned about drugs from after school specials. Hows it going? Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Hi, I'm Lois. I learned about drugs from after school specials. Hows it going? Nope. Dad was/is an addict. So were both brothers. Try again. Link to post Share on other sites
Sheiky 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 This is getting nuttier and nuttier. 30 pounds depends on the person, it's a guidleine, not a ****ing law. Not to mention, they could be just genetically overweight, some people just are, no matter what. I singled out vegetarians because of a case that happened last year, remember the vegans who were basically starving there kids because the kids were not getting enough nutrients? Interesting, it never occured to me to take away veganism as a choice for kids. Not once. This is absolutely ****ing nuts. We are actually sitting here talking about arbitrarily just taking away freedom of choice like it's ****ING NORMAL. The thing is,nobody has actually said that but that is where this road leads, or it leads to a 40% tax on "junk food." It's just a matter of time.It has nothing to do with freedom of choice when the person has no idea what choice they're making or any reasonable means of asserting that choice themselves.When you're an adult, fine, eat whatever the hell you want I don't really care. But with children it's a totally different issue. You act as if we're turning into a 1984 society just for talking about restricting the food children eat, as if by banning cheeseburgers from 5 year olds we're destroying their very soul or something. The fact is that children don't understand the consequences of what they eat nor do they have much power to change their diet.In this case, it is absolutely the parent's responsibility alone to ensure their child is eating healthily, it has nothing to do with freedom or choice or Liberal agendas, it's just right. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 If w get nationalized healthcare, the government will have a legal right to outlaw certain foods etc. Link to post Share on other sites
Sheiky 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 If w get nationalized healthcare, the government will have a legal right to outlaw certain foods etc.No they won't? Link to post Share on other sites
BigLebowski 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 This is absolutely ****ing nuts. We are actually sitting here talking about arbitrarily just taking away freedom of choice like it's ****ING NORMAL. The thing is,nobody has actually said that but that is where this road leads, or it leads to a 40% tax on "junk food." It's just a matter of time.I'm with you on this one LMD. I think it is a joke that we try to stop adults from eating what they want by outlawing trans fat, etc. As always, I was just playing devil's advocate to your thought process. However, Sheiky nailed it on the head with his last post. This is about children, not about adults. The 30 lbs measure is not what I was talking about. There are many other formulas out there including BMI. Some people have a genetic disposition to be drunks. Does that mean we should take it easy on them for killing someone while DUI? As I have stated before I am just upset that I bail out the fat people because of their medical problems. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 No they won't?See tabacco lawsuitsReason government had a right to sue was because of inflated cost for medicare patients due to smoking.Now, when most politicians are lawyers..do you really think they will ignore this cash cow of suing McDonalds, Nabisco etc? Link to post Share on other sites
Sheiky 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 See tabacco lawsuitsReason government had a right to sue was because of inflated cost for medicare patients due to smoking.Now, when most politicians are lawyers..do you really think they will ignore this cash cow of suing McDonalds, Nabisco etc?The vast majority of court decisions have been in favour of the defendant companies And last time I checked, smoking isn't outlawed...And the lawsuits were bought against the companies on charges related to fraud and such because they deliberately hid the health risks coupled with smoking in the early days. This is totally different from fast food.So yeah, that point is just wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
BigLebowski 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 The vast majority of court decisions have been in favour of the defendant companies And last time I checked, smoking isn't outlawed...And the lawsuits were bought against the companies on charges related to fraud and such because they deliberately hid the health risks coupled with smoking in the early days. This is totally different from fast food.So yeah, that point is just wrong.Don't forget about the fact they blatantly market to minors which I guess is cool and all. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 The vast majority of court decisions have been in favour of the defendant companies And last time I checked, smoking isn't outlawed...And the lawsuits were bought against the companies on charges related to fraud and such because they deliberately hid the health risks coupled with smoking in the early days. This is totally different from fast food.So yeah, that point is just wrong.Smoking is outlawed inside in most states.Many towns in California have outlawed smoking on public beachesAll cigarette packages have health warnings and have for 32 years. So yea they really hid the dangers.There are two things you can always win money on betting on. One is that Amscray will turn every topic into a racisist anaology, and the government is incapable of not screwing things up once they get a little power. Link to post Share on other sites
Sheiky 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Smoking is outlawed inside in most states.Many towns in California have outlawed smoking on public beachesAll cigarette packages have health warnings and have for 32 years. So yea they really hid the dangers.There are two things you can always win money on betting on. One is that Amscray will turn every topic into a racisist anaology, and the government is incapable of not screwing things up once they get a little power.Again notice the great difference between fast food and smoking. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Again notice the great difference between fast food and smoking.One is bad for you, easily accessable, and a hard habit to break.And the other one is...What was the final payout the Tabacco companies paid out? $300 million? Oh no, $300 BILLIONYea, no way any lawyers would try to use thse cases as precedent for the government being impacted with higher medical cost related to poor eating habits caused by shady advertisements from fast food restaurants.They probalby only got a 5% cut of that pie, which is only $15 Billion.No chance there Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Why do you think McDonalds cut out their supersized drinks and changed their menu after the movie came out during the whole tabacco lawsuit time?Preplanning to prevent the lawsuits.Carl's Jr. in LA was getting told they would have to stop flame broiling burgers because of the carcinogentics polluting the air form their grills.Wendy's had to stop using worms to cut their meat. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 It has nothing to do with freedom of choice when the person has no idea what choice they're making or any reasonable means of asserting that choice themselves.When you're an adult, fine, eat whatever the hell you want I don't really care. But with children it's a totally different issue. You act as if we're turning into a 1984 society just for talking about restricting the food children eat, as if by banning cheeseburgers from 5 year olds we're destroying their very soul or something. The fact is that children don't understand the consequences of what they eat nor do they have much power to change their diet.In this case, it is absolutely the parent's responsibility alone to ensure their child is eating healthily, it has nothing to do with freedom or choice or Liberal agendas, it's just right. It has everything to do with freedom of choice, are you serious with this shit? It's MY kid. It's JUST FOOD. So, back the **** up. How can you possibly see how opening a door like this is just insane. There is a long, long list of things that are dangerous for kids, they don't really know the danger, but they partake and it's perfectly lawful, and it should be. Do I sound angry? I damn well should be. You are taking the position that I am not fit to make choices for my own kid, that if my kid eats fried chicken somehow I am a bad parent. My answer to that is a resounding F off, dude. You have no business making that choice for me, take care of your own life. Let me say it again, this has everything to do with freedom of choice. Everything. You don't see it because you don't treasure it. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I'm with you on this one LMD. I think it is a joke that we try to stop adults from eating what they want by outlawing trans fat, etc. As always, I was just playing devil's advocate to your thought process. However, Sheiky nailed it on the head with his last post. This is about children, not about adults. The 30 lbs measure is not what I was talking about. There are many other formulas out there including BMI. Some people have a genetic disposition to be drunks. Does that mean we should take it easy on them for killing someone while DUI? As I have stated before I am just upset that I bail out the fat people because of their medical problems. What's next? Can I not let my daughter race bmx with me because she could break her neck? Because she could. Hell, no, she loves to ride. The way you are thinking would lead to outlawing parental choice for so many things, like I said before it's nuts. Kids usually have no clue of all the attached danger to many things. Should I not take her hiking? What if a snake bites her? Most of the attitudes towards "fat people" in this thread is ****ing appalling, seriously. Whatever happened to letting people live ones own life? Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I'm with you on this one LMD. I think it is a joke that we try to stop adults from eating what they want by outlawing trans fat, etc. As always, I was just playing devil's advocate to your thought process. However, Sheiky nailed it on the head with his last post. This is about children, not about adults. The 30 lbs measure is not what I was talking about. There are many other formulas out there including BMI. Some people have a genetic disposition to be drunks. Does that mean we should take it easy on them for killing someone while DUI? As I have stated before I am just upset that I bail out the fat people because of their medical problems. You are very good at playing devils advocate to me, I will give you that, and to anybody who thinks I am being a bit over the top, trust me, it's based off of this one thought: my daughter is everything to me, being a parent is everything to me, our life is the most important thing I have ever taken on, and within that is risk. Every day, risk. Uncontrollable risk- you know, poker players should get this more than anything. We cannot control everything- we want to, but we truly cannot. It's within the possibility of math that you will never win a hand again. That being said, so many choices we make could go horribly wrong, but as a parent that's my choice. Everyone told me not to buy a trampoline, I loved having one as a kid, I bought one anyway. Sometimes I wonder if I am in the percentile that will someday regret that choice, but that's being a parent. So, if I get mad it's truly out of love of what it is I do everyday, and I apologize if it offends anyone. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 To add to LMD's rant, I just have to say that I would be very sad to live in the gray, dull world envisioned by the people who think that they know what is best for me and my kids. Life is about living in color, with joie de vivre, filled with thrilling triumphs and depressing defeats.There are worse things than a life filled with mistakes, such as a life where mistakes are not allowed. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 To add to LMD's rant, I just have to say that I would be very sad to live in the gray, dull world envisioned by the people who think that they know what is best for me and my kids. Life is about living in color, with joie de vivre, filled with thrilling triumphs and depressing defeats.There are worse things than a life filled with mistakes, such as a life where mistakes are not allowed. A thousand times this. Thanks Henry. Link to post Share on other sites
Sheiky 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 It has everything to do with freedom of choice, are you serious with this shit? It's MY kid. It's JUST FOOD. So, back the **** up. How can you possibly see how opening a door like this is just insane. There is a long, long list of things that are dangerous for kids, they don't really know the danger, but they partake and it's perfectly lawful, and it should be. Do I sound angry? I damn well should be. You are taking the position that I am not fit to make choices for my own kid, that if my kid eats fried chicken somehow I am a bad parent. My answer to that is a resounding F off, dude. You have no business making that choice for me, take care of your own life. Let me say it again, this has everything to do with freedom of choice. Everything. You don't see it because you don't treasure it.I'm not telling you you're a bad parents for feeding your child crap. You ARE a bad parent. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 What's next? Can I not let my daughter race bmx with me because she could break her neck? Because she could. Hell, no, she loves to ride. The way you are thinking would lead to outlawing parental choice for so many things, like I said before it's nuts. Kids usually have no clue of all the attached danger to many things. Should I not take her hiking? What if a snake bites her?In your BMX example do you think the Gov't should have a regulation that your child should have to wear a bike helmet when they are riding ? Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I'm not telling you you're a bad parents for feeding your child crap. You ARE a bad parent. Wrong, and if you called me that to my face I would literally knock you the **** out. You have no clue as to my parenting, none whatsoever. Link to post Share on other sites
Sheiky 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Wrong, and if you called me that to my face I would literally knock you the **** out. You have no clue as to my parenting, none whatsoever.If you feed your kid takeaways 5 times a week because of the freedom of choice crap, then I would say you're a pretty sucky parent. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 In your BMX example do you think the Gov't should have a regulation that your child should have to wear a bike helmet when they are riding ? No, but the track does, and so we wear helmets. I would make her wear one anyway to help minimize risk, that's for sure. We don't eat "bad" food everyday, and "bad" food would include things like Mac and cheese, which kids love, and so do adults after a bad day. Little chocolate donuts. Steak. Where exactly would the line be drawn? What would the penalty be? One kids metabolism can handle more than another, etc. There are so many angles to this it makes my headspin, and not in that good, after BJ way. Gotta be honest, I am steaming about this Sheiky character calling me a bad parent. You don't know me, mothe****er. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Why do you think McDonalds cut out their supersized drinks and changed their menu after the movie came out during the whole tabacco lawsuit time?Preplanning to prevent the lawsuits.Carl's Jr. in LA was getting told they would have to stop flame broiling burgers because of the carcinogentics polluting the air form their grills.Wendy's had to stop using worms to cut their meat.If you sell an addictive product which slowly (or quickly) kills your customer, I'd say you share some responsibility with the fools that buy your product. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 If you feed your kid takeaways 5 times a week because of the freedom of choice crap, then I would say you're a pretty sucky parent. So would I, but that's still my right if I want to, that's the point. Seriously, you don't know me like that. Freedom of choice crap. The truth comes out. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now