BF2S Forums Only Soup For You

Dilbert_X wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I'm 5'9.

same, @ 185. just wait til you turn 30 (if you live that long) you'll replace your whole wardrobe.

I didn't need to. If you overeat/eat garbage you can get away with it up to ~30, then you're screwed.

Restaurants shouldn't have to do this, it should be done through health advertising and taxation.
If people are still too stupid or greedy to understand then bad luck for them.

Why be such a pussy? If you're going to try to control people, at least do it to their face instead of hiding in the background, making them believe they have choices and lead them to the 'correct' decision by taxing the fuck out of stuff you don't like? Coward.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its not about controlling people per se, its about minimising cost to society.

If dumbfucks want to eat cheeseburgers all day, clog the hospitals with their health problems and pollute the world with their consumption related consequences then let them pay a tax on it.

It is 100% about controlling the actions of others and forcing them to conform to your worldview. You're just as bad as the religious nutjobs you complain about incessantly. You're just less direct.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-10-17 17:22:21)

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its not about controlling people per se, its about minimising cost to society.

If dumbfucks want to eat cheeseburgers all day, clog the hospitals with their health problems and pollute the world with their consumption related consequences then let them pay a tax on it.

It is 100% about controlling the actions of others and forcing them to conform to your worldview. You're just as bad as the religious nutjobs you complain about incessantly. You're just less direct.

I don't know, I'm siding with Dilbert on this one.

Of course you are. Two peas in a pod.

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

It is 100% about controlling the actions of others and forcing them to conform to your worldview. You're just as bad as the religious nutjobs you complain about incessantly. You're just less direct.

Yawn, we shouldn't have speed limits, drink-driving limits, limits on who can own nuclear bombs or weaponised anthrax, limits on people with contagious diseases or violent mental disorders or limits on government or corporate power cuz ah lurv freedum

Its not about 'control' in social policy, its about giving people the choice but letting them know there are costs and consequences.

It's about control. Nothing more. You feel people are too stupid to make the correct decisions so you wish to limit their decisions for them. For all the lip service paid by your type to competition, you all sure do go out of your way to limit people to one type of bread on the shelves.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

It is 100% about controlling the actions of others and forcing them to conform to your worldview. You're just as bad as the religious nutjobs you complain about incessantly. You're just less direct.

Yawn, we shouldn't have speed limits, drink-driving limits, limits on who can own nuclear bombs or weaponised anthrax, limits on people with contagious diseases or violent mental disorders or limits on government or corporate power cuz ah lurv freedum

Its not about 'control' in social policy, its about giving people the choice but letting them know there are costs and consequences.

It's about control. Nothing more. You feel people are too stupid to make the correct decisions so you wish to limit their decisions for them. For all the lip service paid by your type to competition, you all sure do go out of your way to limit people to one type of bread on the shelves.

If the decisions of others cost me more, yeah, I'm going to do what I can to limit their ability to cost me.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Yawn, we shouldn't have speed limits, drink-driving limits, limits on who can own nuclear bombs or weaponised anthrax, limits on people with contagious diseases or violent mental disorders or limits on government or corporate power cuz ah lurv freedum

Its not about 'control' in social policy, its about giving people the choice but letting them know there are costs and consequences.

It's about control. Nothing more. You feel people are too stupid to make the correct decisions so you wish to limit their decisions for them. For all the lip service paid by your type to competition, you all sure do go out of your way to limit people to one type of bread on the shelves.

If the decisions of others cost me more, yeah, I'm going to do what I can to limit their ability to cost me.

You aren't paying for other peoples health care so what right do you have to force them to eat only certain foods?

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If the decisions of others cost me more, yeah, I'm going to do what I can to limit their ability to cost me.

You aren't paying for other peoples health care so what right do you have to force them to eat only certain foods?

It's an aggregate thing.  The less healthy your society is, the more often the average person goes to the hospital.  Since we don't have socialized medicine, some people end up getting service without paying.

The costs of these people are passed to those of us who do pay.  Therefore, it's in my best interests to encourage those without the ability to pay for care to live healthier.

You have it backwards. The unhealthy people in our society are subsidizing us, and forcing more resources to be present because of their behavior. You are benefiting by having a society full of lardasses requiring triple bypass surgery. If everyone was healthy and fit we wouldn't need half the hospitals or doctors that presently exist and we sure as shit wouldn't get the medical breakthroughs because there wouldn't be as much money involved.

Next time you're walking down the street, thank a smoker for subsidizing your health care.

JohnG@lt wrote:

It's about control. Nothing more. You feel people are too stupid to make the correct decisions so you wish to limit their decisions for them. For all the lip service paid by your type to competition, you all sure do go out of your way to limit people to one type of bread on the shelves.

Half the population is of below average intelligence, many are too dumb to hold down a job, raise a mortgage etc etc.
Of the rest many are mendacious and greedy.

If education doesn't work then the alternative is control.

Anyway, I'd like to know why I can't have a quad 20mm AA cannon in my front garden.
Damn govt ruining my fun.

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

It's about control. Nothing more. You feel people are too stupid to make the correct decisions so you wish to limit their decisions for them. For all the lip service paid by your type to competition, you all sure do go out of your way to limit people to one type of bread on the shelves.

Half the population is of below average intelligence, many are too dumb to hold down a job, raise a mortgage etc etc.
Of the rest many are mendacious and greedy.

If education doesn't work then the alternative is control.

Anyway, I'd like to know why I can't have a quad 20mm AA cannon in my front garden.
Damn govt ruining my fun.

Did you get molested as a child?

You sound pretty resentful.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

It's an aggregate thing.  The less healthy your society is, the more often the average person goes to the hospital.  Since we don't have socialized medicine, some people end up getting service without paying.

The costs of these people are passed to those of us who do pay.  Therefore, it's in my best interests to encourage those without the ability to pay for care to live healthier.

You have it backwards. The unhealthy people in our society are subsidizing us, and forcing more resources to be present because of their behavior. You are benefiting by having a society full of lardasses requiring triple bypass surgery. If everyone was healthy and fit we wouldn't need half the hospitals or doctors that presently exist and we sure as shit wouldn't get the medical breakthroughs because there wouldn't be as much money involved.

Next time you're walking down the street, thank a smoker for subsidizing your health care.

Yeah...  and that's why we pay more per capita for care than any other country.

That is the most retarded argument I've ever heard on healthcare.

We pay more per capita but we get better care than anywhere else in the world.

Macbeth wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

It's about control. Nothing more. You feel people are too stupid to make the correct decisions so you wish to limit their decisions for them. For all the lip service paid by your type to competition, you all sure do go out of your way to limit people to one type of bread on the shelves.

Half the population is of below average intelligence, many are too dumb to hold down a job, raise a mortgage etc etc.
Of the rest many are mendacious and greedy.

If education doesn't work then the alternative is control.

Anyway, I'd like to know why I can't have a quad 20mm AA cannon in my front garden.
Damn govt ruining my fun.

Did you get molested as a child?

You sound pretty resentful.

He has daddy issues and yet wants to give daddy more power. Figure that one out.

Macbeth wrote:

I'm 5'9.

burnzz wrote:

same, @ 185. just wait til you turn 30 (if you live that long) you'll replace your whole wardrobe.

I must be one of the fortunate few then.
32" waist, 35" inseam in high school - 33" waist, 35" inseam 20 years later.
And American as well.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Yawn, we shouldn't have speed limits, drink-driving limits, limits on who can own nuclear bombs or weaponised anthrax, limits on people with contagious diseases or violent mental disorders or limits on government or corporate power cuz ah lurv freedum roll

Its not about 'control' in social policy, its about giving people the choice but letting them know there are costs and consequences.

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" works great amongst fair-minded, reasonable, conscionable adults.
It's the unreasonable, greedy, selfish bastards that occasionally need the smackdown.

The controls, laws, and punishment are there for the assholes that don't quite understand that their "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" isn't allowed to intrude on their neighbor's "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".

Dilbert_X wrote:

Aah insults, the sure sign Americans have lost an argument.

Aah, dismissing something as American, the sure sign Dilbert has lost an argument.