BF2S Forums DAST Chat

our government doesn't "promote" any foods. why does banning harmful foods == an enforced eating regime for you? the government has never told me once what i SHOULD eat. it has only seen fit to ban extreme examples of food that people should never have ANY INTEREST in eating, anyway. "hipster diet"? my diet is mostly meat, fruit, and vegetables. of all varieties. i don't even have 'a diet'. i eat whatever i damn please, according to my taste. but i eat in (self-governed) moderation. decent portion sizes. maybe i'll have an ice-cream. maybe two-desserts! full fat milk too, just because. but then i'll take a fucking run. never, not once, has the government's food laws impacted my life negatively. i have never thought "oh gee, i could really use 8 litres of coke inside a carton right now". know why? i'm not a fucking idiot.

Can you eat a carrot out of the ground, or do you have to peel it? Can you eat a coconut directly off a tree or do you need to break it open? Can you eat an artichoke off the stalk or does it have to be sliced open and processed? The raw food movement is by far the dumbest thing to ever come out of hipster culture. It is serious infantile stupidity.

Last edited by Jay (2013-03-12 11:25:44)

Yes, they are the exact same thing, which is why you are utterly stupid.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

our government doesn't "promote" any foods. why does banning harmful foods == an enforced eating regime for you? the government has never told me once what i SHOULD eat. it has only seen fit to ban extreme examples of food that people should never have ANY INTEREST in eating, anyway. "hipster diet"? my diet is mostly meat, fruit, and vegetables. of all varieties. i don't even have 'a diet'. i eat whatever i damn please, according to my taste. but i eat in (self-governed) moderation. decent portion sizes. maybe i'll have an ice-cream. maybe two-desserts! full fat milk too, just because. but then i'll take a fucking run. never, not once, has the government's food laws impacted my life negatively. i have never thought "oh gee, i could really use 8 litres of coke inside a carton right now". know why? i'm not a fucking idiot.

Ok so when I hear the government banning "sugary drinks" that's when I get pissed off. I agree that only extreme examples like poisonous food should be regulated and banned as well. But sugary drinks and transfats is ridiculous.

But bullion isn't a drug compound. It's concentrated fat and flavor. What you're saying is that the production of cocaine is essentially cooking. Why not just call all forms of cooking or drug making chemistry, this way there will be less arguing over semantics?

Superior Mind wrote:

But bullion isn't a drug compound. It's concentrated fat and flavor. What you're saying is that the production of cocaine is essentially cooking. Why not just call all forms of cooking or drug making chemistry, this way there will be less arguing over semantics?

It is all chemistry. Every last bit of it.

Roc18 wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

our government doesn't "promote" any foods. why does banning harmful foods == an enforced eating regime for you? the government has never told me once what i SHOULD eat. it has only seen fit to ban extreme examples of food that people should never have ANY INTEREST in eating, anyway. "hipster diet"? my diet is mostly meat, fruit, and vegetables. of all varieties. i don't even have 'a diet'. i eat whatever i damn please, according to my taste. but i eat in (self-governed) moderation. decent portion sizes. maybe i'll have an ice-cream. maybe two-desserts! full fat milk too, just because. but then i'll take a fucking run. never, not once, has the government's food laws impacted my life negatively. i have never thought "oh gee, i could really use 8 litres of coke inside a carton right now". know why? i'm not a fucking idiot.

Ok so when I hear the government banning "sugary drinks" that's when I get pissed off. I agree that only extreme examples like poisonous food should be regulated and banned as well. But sugary drinks and transfats is ridiculous.

they aren't banning sugary drinks. i can drink as much dr. pepper and cola as my dumb ass wants. they are banning irresponsible large servings. things that kids point at on the menu and dumb/irresponsible parents buy. portion sizes that actively encourage over-consumption. nobody is saying you can't drink cola. nobody is saying, if you were determined enough, that you can't go get 4 refills and drink the exact same quantity of cola. the point is that these large portions are specifically designed/marketed to make you drink MORE than you normally would in a sitting. they encourage over-consumption of sugar, just because they exist. these food companies that offer super-size portions are not stupid. it is a carefully designed menu.

Jay wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

But bullion isn't a drug compound. It's concentrated fat and flavor. What you're saying is that the production of cocaine is essentially cooking. Why not just call all forms of cooking or drug making chemistry, this way there will be less arguing over semantics?

It is all chemistry. Every last bit of it.

Yes, of course it is. Yet we still use other words to describe the particulars of different types of chemistry.


Do you call the synthesizing of drugs in a lab "cooking?"

Last edited by Superior Mind (2013-03-12 11:37:31)

You're ignoring the point that refined sugar is a drug, not a food.

Also, you are the ONLY one claiming to possess hate or disgust of any kind.

Last edited by Superior Mind (2013-03-12 11:39:19)

Superior Mind wrote:

You're ignoring the point that refined sugar is a drug, not a food.

Also, you are the ONLY one claiming to possess hate or disgust of any kind.

It's not a drug, you tool. Every food produces dopamine when you eat it.

You guys (jay and roc) are ok with the government forcing us to buy insurance, wear our seatbelts, wash our hands after going to the bathroom if we work in restaurants, forcing companies to abide by cooking/heating/cleaning regulations, regulating driving privileges, etc.  But heaven forbid they outlaw a supersize soda! The TYRANNY!!

Would you rather the government allow a corporation free reign to include any additive, slaughter animals in any way they see fit in any type of condition, allow companies to dump rocket fuel and other industrial chemicals into the water supply, etc?

Every one of those examples above is government "limiting our freedom".  It's not black and white - you have to compromise.  It's not a bad thing to hold the ideology of "government should stay out of our lives", but you have to understand it's not practical.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You guys (jay and roc) are ok with the government forcing us to buy insurance, wear our seatbelts, wash our hands after going to the bathroom if we work in restaurants, forcing companies to abide by cooking/heating/cleaning regulations, regulating driving privileges, etc.  But heaven forbid they outlaw a supersize soda! The TYRANNY!!

Would you rather the government allow a corporation free reign to include any additive, slaughter animals in any way they see fit in any type of condition, allow companies to dump rocket fuel and other industrial chemicals into the water supply, etc?

Every one of those examples above is government "limiting our freedom".  It's not black and white - you have to compromise.  It's not a bad thing to hold the ideology of "government should stay out of our lives", but you have to understand it's not practical.

Banning a large soda is ridiculous. Insurance and safety regulations aren't. First it's the guns, then it's the food, what's next?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You guys (jay and roc) are ok with the government forcing us to buy insurance, wear our seatbelts, wash our hands after going to the bathroom if we work in restaurants, forcing companies to abide by cooking/heating/cleaning regulations, regulating driving privileges, etc.  But heaven forbid they outlaw a supersize soda! The TYRANNY!!

Would you rather the government allow a corporation free reign to include any additive, slaughter animals in any way they see fit in any type of condition, allow companies to dump rocket fuel and other industrial chemicals into the water supply, etc?

Every one of those examples above is government "limiting our freedom".  It's not black and white - you have to compromise.  It's not a bad thing to hold the ideology of "government should stay out of our lives", but you have to understand it's not practical.

I'm ok with liability insurance coverage, because it gives us recourse if someone else hits us. The alternative is endless small claims court filings.

Requiring seat belts is nannyism, yes.

Washing hands is a public safety thing.

Forcing companies to abide by food regulations, well, if a company has bad practices and people get sick, it goes out of business, does it not? Most of our food regulation is as effective as the TSA, they can't and don't check everything, and it has more to do with peace of mind than actual safety. We still have periodic outbreaks of e.coli and other stuff.

Regulation of driving privileges are a bad joke, honestly. There are millions of uninsured and unlicensed drivers on the road every day. Besides, do you remember how stupidly easy the driving test was? Driver's license requirements have more to do with having a piece of identification, so they know where to send the tickets, than anything else really.

Do you really want to go down the reducio ad absurdum route in this argument anyway? The law was unlawful and was thankfully overturned by the courts. That's how it's supposed to work, and I'm glad that in this case, reality prevailed.