Superior Mind wrote:
Roc, this is price that is payed for practicing fascism-lite and calling it republican democracy.
well that's convenient, because your priggish defense of the right to drink supersize portions of soft-drink neatly align with the pointlessness of redneck republicans who demand the need to own military armaments to keep trespassers off their lawn. the same absurd illogic and unreason of american life: defending that which is killing you, based on a utopian and unattainable principle.Jay wrote:
Yes, they are called Democrats, and are the very reason I don't vote in that direction. So much for being liberalUzique The Lesser wrote:
no, there are many others, of different persuasions and types. and frankly they are far removed from the blatant retardation you have on display here.Jay wrote:
Uzi, this is the type of person that supports your arguments here in America.
you should really read a fucking book before you post continually on a topic. if you don't know anything about how eating junk-food/high-sugar foods taps into dopamine receptors and 'feel-good' reward pathways in the same way as most street-drugs, why are you even in this debate? there is no difference in the mental problems and lack of discipline between someone who lights up a crack-pipe and some unemployed waster that can't even get through his front-porch, who orders in 20 hershey bars a day to satisfy his buzzing mind's cravings.Roc18 wrote:
Really?Superior Mind wrote:
Refined sugar is a synthetic drug, just like cocaine and distilled alcohol.
If this highly addictive and destructive substance wasn't allowed in food, there wouldn't be an obesity epidemic.
I agree with gun rights too.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
well that's convenient, because your priggish defense of the right to drink supersize portions of soft-drink neatly align with the pointlessness of redneck republicans who demand the need to own military armaments to keep trespassers off their lawn. the same absurd illogic and unreason of american life: defending that which is killing you, based on a utopian and unattainable principle.Jay wrote:
Yes, they are called Democrats, and are the very reason I don't vote in that direction. So much for being liberalUzique The Lesser wrote:
no, there are many others, of different persuasions and types. and frankly they are far removed from the blatant retardation you have on display here.
Superior Mind wrote:
I do not advocate for the legislated regulation of any food or drug substances. What I do advocate for is legitimate education on food and drugs for children and adults.
i suppose private health providers, health insurance companies, and the big pharm industry are perfectly happy about the prospects of an ever-increasing portion of the population needing life-long type 2 diabetes medication, too. funny how it all works, isn't it? what was that earlier about adorno and horkheimer: individuals are given the illusion of complete freedom, only in order to be more invisibly subjugated?Macbeth wrote:
Food companies lobby to make sure people are still allowed to buy unhealthy food with their foodstamps. It is why the poor are usually overweight. That is a big problem but freedom.
I just don't think the unhealthy eating issue is this serious. The transfat thing pissed me off now this sugary drink ban is too. Does Bloomberg really think that this "ban" crap will stop anything?Superior Mind wrote:
Roc, this is price that is payed for practicing fascism-lite and calling it republican democracy.
Roc, people are brainwashed into believing that they are not in fact highly addicted to a drug which is worse for the body than heroine.
i'm not sure, but with america's pathological obsession with entertainment/desire/immediate gratification, that utopia of yours would turn very soylent green, very very quickly.Jay wrote:
I agree with gun rights too.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
well that's convenient, because your priggish defense of the right to drink supersize portions of soft-drink neatly align with the pointlessness of redneck republicans who demand the need to own military armaments to keep trespassers off their lawn. the same absurd illogic and unreason of american life: defending that which is killing you, based on a utopian and unattainable principle.Jay wrote:
Yes, they are called Democrats, and are the very reason I don't vote in that direction. So much for being liberal
Gun rights.
Gay marriage.
Recreational drugs being legal.
Soda not being regulated.
What else ya got?
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-11 19:31:07)
>Reading booksUzique The Lesser wrote:
you should really read a fucking book before you post continually on a topic. if you don't know anything about how eating junk-food/high-sugar foods taps into dopamine receptors and 'feel-good' reward pathways in the same way as most street-drugs, why are you even in this debate? there is no difference in the mental problems and lack of discipline between someone who lights up a crack-pipe and some unemployed waster that can't even get through his front-porch, who orders in 20 hershey bars a day to satisfy his buzzing mind's cravings.Roc18 wrote:
Really?Superior Mind wrote:
Refined sugar is a synthetic drug, just like cocaine and distilled alcohol.
If this highly addictive and destructive substance wasn't allowed in food, there wouldn't be an obesity epidemic.
Roc18 wrote:
I just don't think the unhealthy eating issue is this serious. The transfat thing pissed me off now this sugary drink ban is too. Does Bloomberg really think that this "ban" crap will stop anything?Superior Mind wrote:
Roc, this is price that is payed for practicing fascism-lite and calling it republican democracy.
Roc, people are brainwashed into believing that they are not in fact highly addicted to a drug which is worse for the body than heroine.
what bigger civil issues do you have, exactly? "not that big of an issue" compared to what? killing towelheads in the desert? hunting phantasmal terrorists in the mountains? preparing for the second coming of jesus christ?Obesity in the United States has been increasingly cited as a major health issue in recent decades. While many industrialized countries have experienced similar increases, obesity rates in the United States are among the highest in the world.[3]
Of all countries, the United States has the highest rate of obesity. From 13% obesity in 1962, estimates have steadily increased, reaching 19.4% in 1997, 24.5% in 2004[4] 26.6% in 2007,[5] and 33.8% (adults) and 17% (children) in 2008.[6][7] In 2010, the CDC reported higher numbers once more, counting 35.7% of American adults as obese, and 17% of American children.[8]
According to a study in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), in 2008, the obesity rate among adult Americans was estimated at 32.2% for men and 35.5% for women; these rates were roughly confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention again for 2009-2010. Using different criteria, a Gallup survey found the rate was 26.1% for U.S. adults in 2011, up from 25.5% in 2008. Though the rate for women has held steady over the previous decade, the obesity rate for men continued to increase between 1999 and 2008, the JAMA study notes. Moreover, “The prevalence of obesity for adults aged 20 to 74 years increased by 7.9 percentage points for men and by 8.9 percentage points for women between 1976-1980 and 1988-1994, and subsequently by 7.1 percentage points for men and by 8.1 percentage points for women between 1988-1994 and 1999-2000.”[9]
Obesity has been cited as a contributing factor to approximately 100,000–400,000 deaths in the United States per year[10] and has increased health care use and expenditures,[11][12][13][14] costing society an estimated $117 billion in direct (preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services related to weight) and indirect (absenteeism, loss of future earnings due to premature death) costs.[15] This exceeds health-care costs associated with smoking or problem drinking[14] and accounts for 6% to 12% of national health care expenditures in the United States
It is really serious. When was the last time you were in a public place? Were the people around you fit and muscled like normal human beings? Or were the dying and coughing and sad looking?Roc18 wrote:
I just don't think the unhealthy eating issue is this serious. The transfat thing pissed me off now this sugary drink ban is too. Does Bloomberg really think that this "ban" crap will stop anything?Superior Mind wrote:
Roc, this is price that is payed for practicing fascism-lite and calling it republican democracy.
Roc, people are brainwashed into believing that they are not in fact highly addicted to a drug which is worse for the body than heroine.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2013-03-11 19:33:56)
He banned people from giving food to the homeless too. Apparently all food that the homeless eat has to go through his advisory board so they can monitor and make sure that they only receive healthy food. They're fucking homeless, and you can't give them a sandwich without getting fined. That is that fuckers utopia.Roc18 wrote:
I just don't think the unhealthy eating issue is this serious. The transfat thing pissed me off now this sugary drink ban is too. Does Bloomberg really think that this "ban" crap will stop anything?Superior Mind wrote:
Roc, this is price that is payed for practicing fascism-lite and calling it republican democracy.
Roc, people are brainwashed into believing that they are not in fact highly addicted to a drug which is worse for the body than heroine.
yes, you fucking idiot. are you not reading my posts? taking drugs and eating chocolate triggers the exact same chemical response in the brain. the same chemical triggers, the same receptors, the same mental orgasm of neurotransmitters and hormones, reinforcing the same 'reward pathway' behaviour. when you eat chocolate, you get a buzz from dopamine - it feels good. you want more. the brain gets conditioned this way. chocolate = feel good! when people are miserable, they eat chocolate. when you snort cocaine, it triggers a massive flush of... dopamine! cocaine = feel good! when people are down and out, impoverished and poor, they reach for the crackpipe.Roc18 wrote:
>Reading booksUzique The Lesser wrote:
you should really read a fucking book before you post continually on a topic. if you don't know anything about how eating junk-food/high-sugar foods taps into dopamine receptors and 'feel-good' reward pathways in the same way as most street-drugs, why are you even in this debate? there is no difference in the mental problems and lack of discipline between someone who lights up a crack-pipe and some unemployed waster that can't even get through his front-porch, who orders in 20 hershey bars a day to satisfy his buzzing mind's cravings.Roc18 wrote:
Really?
And did you really compare Crack and Hershey Bars?
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-11 19:39:01)
Jay wrote:
Yes, they are called Democrats, and are the very reason I don't vote in that direction. So much for being liberalUzique The Lesser wrote:
no, there are many others, of different persuasions and types. and frankly they are far removed from the blatant retardation you have on display here.Jay wrote:
Uzi, this is the type of person that supports your arguments here in America.
You have a point, I'm just saying that Candy isn't as serious as Heroin or Crack.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
yes, you fucking idiot. are you not reading my posts? taking drugs and eating chocolate triggers the exact same chemical response in the brain. the same chemical triggers, the same receptors, the same mental orgasm of neurotransmitters and hormones, reinforcing the same 'reward pathway' behaviour. when you eat chocolate, you get a buzz from dopamine - it feels good. you want more. the brain gets conditioned this way. chocolate = feel good! when people are miserable, they eat chocolate. when you snort cocaine, it triggers a massive flush of... dopamine! cocaine = feel good! when people are down and out, impoverished and poor, they reach for the crackpipe.Roc18 wrote:
>Reading booksUzique The Lesser wrote:
you should really read a fucking book before you post continually on a topic. if you don't know anything about how eating junk-food/high-sugar foods taps into dopamine receptors and 'feel-good' reward pathways in the same way as most street-drugs, why are you even in this debate? there is no difference in the mental problems and lack of discipline between someone who lights up a crack-pipe and some unemployed waster that can't even get through his front-porch, who orders in 20 hershey bars a day to satisfy his buzzing mind's cravings.
And did you really compare Crack and Hershey Bars?
it's the EXACT SAME BEHAVIOUR. no i am not saying a hershey bar will make you turn into a crackhead with no teeth. what i am saying is it is the exact same behaviour, and that people with obesity problems and 'food addictions' are in just as deep mental waters as drug addicts with substance abuse problems. food (sugar in particular) is JUST ANOTHER SUBSTANCE. what's the difference between a gram of white cocaine and a tablespoon full of sugar granules? you think because one comes in supermarket packaging that it's not a SUBSTANCE that has mental/physical impacts on the body, and its metabolism? if you divide food and drugs into two completely separate categories, you are a fucking idiot.
read. a. book. learn something. stop being the resident dumb cunt.
post of the year.Roc18 wrote:
I know overweight people who are perfectly healthy.
If you are overweight you are not perfectly healthy. The word overweight implies that you are OVER normal.Roc18 wrote:
Well all I know is the actions of a few shouldn't affect the whole. Make laws that specifically target morbidly obese people, although i believe that someone is entitled to eat unhealthily just like someone is entitled to smoke a cigarette whenever they want. There is a difference between being fat and obese and having an eating disorder. I know overweight people who are perfectly healthy.
well read my pasted quotation above. candy and obesity are bigger problems and more serious concerns for american society than drug and alcohol abuse combined. candy may not kill you as quickly, or as dramatically, as drug abuse. but on a society-wide level, candy bars are causing you a much bigger problem than crack addicts. again:Roc18 wrote:
You have a point, I'm just saying that Candy isn't as serious as Heroin or Crack.
the obesity rate in america has more than doubled in the space of 40 years. nearly 40% of all american adults are obese. one generation. nearly 30% increase. that's not a problem to you? if 40% of american adults had painkiller addictions, would you say it's "not that big of a deal"? i think you are desensitized to the sight of fat, unhealthy people. it is not 'normal'. a fat person in europe stands out - they are NOT normal. they have an EATING PROBLEM. in america, i think you see so many fat people, eating so many huge portions, that you are fooled into thinking it is 'healthy'. there is no such thing as an "overweight person who is perfectly healthy". you are an idiot.Obesity has been cited as a contributing factor to approximately 100,000–400,000 deaths in the United States per year[10] and has increased health care use and expenditures,[11][12][13][14] costing society an estimated $117 billion in direct (preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services related to weight) and indirect (absenteeism, loss of future earnings due to premature death) costs.[15] This exceeds health-care costs associated with smoking or problem drinking[14] and accounts for 6% to 12% of national health care expenditures in the United States
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-11 19:43:36)
For all the bullshit that the fundie Christians inject into American society, you generally don't have to worry about Republicans banning stuff 'for the common good'. There's enough people that still believe in freedom in that party that they offset the fundies. There's no anchor holding back the liberal left in the Democratic party from trying to install their own version of utopia in American society whenever they gain power.-Whiteroom- wrote:
Jay wrote:
Yes, they are called Democrats, and are the very reason I don't vote in that direction. So much for being liberalUzique The Lesser wrote:
no, there are many others, of different persuasions and types. and frankly they are far removed from the blatant retardation you have on display here.
