Page 20 of 52  •  Prev 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 ... 52 Next
Switch to Forum Live View
Locked: Big Apple Soda Ban
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 4:14AM #191
rabello
Posts: 22,031

Jun 13, 2012 -- 2:07AM, solfeggio wrote:


My god, all along Rabello has been posting just plain common sense, and some people are still trashing what she says!  It boggles the mind.


No matter what anybody says, processed sugar is not a good thing for anybody to eat.  High fructose corn syrup isn't any good, either.


www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/ma...www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/ma...


Super size soft drinks are nothing more than an advertising ploy to get people to buy them.  If the mayor of a major city wants to try to curtail their sale, how could anybody possibly have any problem with that?


It's not as if anybody is taking away your 'rights' or your supposed 'personal freedom' by trying to steer people into healthier eating and drinking.


Subsidising cheap sugar (as in supersized drinks) with large governmental subsidies makes no public health or economic sense.


Added sugar in the diet leads to fatty liver and increased body fat.


Is that so hard for some people to grasp?


The fatter a person is, the higher his/her rate of cardiovascular mortality.


More sugar in the diet leads to a fatter population, and fatter populations die earlier of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.




Yes, it is. 


Are you one of those "stupid" people who "over react" when scientists say "outrageous" things based on their BS research, too?   If you are, then I am in good company Wink




 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 8:31AM #192
Nepenthe
Posts: 2,722

Jun 13, 2012 -- 3:59AM, rabello wrote:


Jun 12, 2012 -- 9:06PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


If they ban soda and junk food in NYC, then maybe the Mafia crime families there can make a comeback -- marketing twinkies and Dr. Pepper.




Except that absolutely no one is proposing that soda and junk food be banned in NYC or anywhere else.




Which is why this ban has little to nothing to do with actual health concerns. 

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 9:40AM #193
Cesmom
Posts: 5,336

Jun 12, 2012 -- 11:18PM, teilhard wrote:


Except ...


Excess Sugar in the Diet, inducing Obesity, can INDUCE Diabetes ...




Excess being the key word here.  Who decides what excess is?  Is excess drinking a 32 ounce soda every couple of weeks, or is excess drinking a 12 ounce soda twice a day?  Limiting the serving size accomplishes nothing.  Changing peoples habits through education does.  Bloomberg is terribly misguided on this one. 

Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 9:46AM #194
Cesmom
Posts: 5,336

Jun 13, 2012 -- 2:07AM, solfeggio wrote:


My god, all along Rabello has been posting just plain common sense, and some people are still trashing what she says!  It boggles the mind.


No matter what anybody says, processed sugar is not a good thing for anybody to eat.  High fructose corn syrup isn't any good, either.


Not a single poster on this thread has claimed that processed sugar is good for you.


www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/ma...www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/ma...


Super size soft drinks are nothing more than an advertising ploy to get people to buy them.  If the mayor of a major city wants to try to curtail their sale, how could anybody possibly have any problem with that?


It's not as if anybody is taking away your 'rights' or your supposed 'personal freedom' by trying to steer people into healthier eating and drinking.


Steering people into healthier eating and drinking is not accomplished by limiting the types (sizes) of food and drink they can purchase.  It's accomplished through education.


Subsidising cheap sugar (as in supersized drinks) with large governmental subsidies makes no public health or economic sense.


No one has ever suggested that the government should subsidize supersized drinks.


Added sugar in the diet leads to fatty liver and increased body fat.


Is that so hard for some people to grasp?


I think everyone grasps that just fine.  That's not what the problem with this law is.


The fatter a person is, the higher his/her rate of cardiovascular mortality.


Not every person who drinks a 32 ounce soda is fat or is going to get fat.  No one is suggesting that getting fat is healthy.


More sugar in the diet leads to a fatter population, and fatter populations die earlier of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.


No one is claiming otherwise.





Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 9:51AM #195
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,573

Jun 13, 2012 -- 3:20AM, rabello wrote:



Jun 12, 2012 -- 5:07PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Processed sugar in high amounts is what is bad for us.




Jun 12, 2012 -- 5:07PM, Girlchristian wrote:


According to many studies and the AMA, high fructose corn syrup is no worse than sugar. They're both sweeteners. The problem is in how much is consumed.






Exactly! Which is why Mayor Bloomberg proposes to put a limit on how much of the stuff sellers can sell to the buying public in one serving.  Thanks for bringing the point home!


A person has the right to consume too much if they want to. This wont work because people who want the soda will still get it, but the businesses will get more money from those people.


Jun 12, 2012 -- 5:07PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Of course, but then we 'the people' want our convenience items. We'd much rather buy jarred spaghetti sauce that's 'sweet' than make it ourselves. The problem isn't the additives, it's how much we consume.




Most people don't know what it in the processed food they buy so laziness isn't the biggest culprit, but I don't know anybody who doesn't make their own spaghetti sauce. 


I dont know anyone outside of my husband that does make their own. IMO, not knowing whats in ones food is laziness.


Nonetheless, I think the manufacturer has a moral obligation to produce a product that is safe to eat and doesn't have unnecessary additives that are dangerous to one's health.  I understand that you disagree, that you think all responsibility lies with the buyer, not the manufacturer.


If the buyer doesnt buy it then the manufacturer will change. If someone wants to consume too much crap than that is their right.


Jun 12, 2012 -- 5:07PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Anyone with diabetes should be watching their diet and exercising and there are many avenues where they can receive medical care for free or low-cost.




Better not to develop "adult"-onset diabetes in the first place, especially for kids, which means it's better not to drink too much super-sugary drinks.  Which is why the Mayor proposed what he proposed.  No kid and no adult needs to drink 32 ounces of super-sugary drinks to wash down their meat-lovers pizza, or their hot dogs.  


According to you, but you should have no say and neither should Bloomberg in how a person eats. Besides they'll just buy two drinks so all this really does is make businesses more money.


In my hometown there are no free medical clinics and no "avenues" for receiving free or low cost medical care, except to find a way to get to the nearest city that is 50 miles away.  Not so easy in the middle of winter, on a 2-lane, unplowed highway.  Having to wait to get 50 miles from home when one has lapsed into a diabetic coma isn't the best "avenue" to have.  See, not everyone in America is as fortunate as those of us who post here and have all the answers.  That's one reason there's a such thing as a "public" health institution.


 





"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 10:36AM #196
Erey
Posts: 19,170

Jun 13, 2012 -- 3:38AM, rabello wrote:


More red herrings....and personal insults instead of legitimate rebuttals to legitimate challenges.


Jun 12, 2012 -- 5:22PM, Erey wrote:


Rabello, are you one of those people that over reacts and seizes any bit of outrageous word from scientists? 




ROFFLMFAO


Jun 12, 2012 -- 5:22PM, Erey wrote:


Because if you are that would make you pretty stupid. 




ROFFLMFAO so much it's making my stomach hurt


Jun 12, 2012 -- 5:22PM, Erey wrote:


Rabello, most scientists and most doctors consume sugar, some more than others. 




What, you're saying that just because doctors and scientists consume sugar that their research is invalid, or I mean, "outrageous"?


ROFFLMFAO now my sides are splitting


Jun 12, 2012 -- 5:22PM, Erey wrote:


Most adults and frankly most children don't need this nanny state nonsese of let me control what you put in your body.  The healthiest people consume some sugar.  It is OK, we can consume some sugar unless we have a particular health condition. 




Absolutely NO ONE has said you can't have some sugar.  Get it yet?


Jun 12, 2012 -- 5:22PM, Erey wrote:


Rabello, if you want to go completely sugar free that is your choice and I will just say "good luck".  But don't impose your neurosis on others. 




Tell me where I said I "want to go completely sugar free"?  If you knew anything about the subject matter that we're TRYING to discuss you would know that a) that is impossible, and b) that isn't even close to the objective of the NYC proposal, which -- I'll say it again, hoping it sinks in -- DOESN'T AFFECT YOU!!!!!!! 


Jun 12, 2012 -- 5:22PM, Erey wrote:


Going back into the thread suddenly the posts depicting a sugar black market are starting to make real sense. 




Only if you insist on continuing to misrepresent and mischaracterize what those who disagree with you are saying.


Jun 12, 2012 -- 5:22PM, Erey wrote:


One minute you swear it is not about control and the next minute you are screaming about how it is poison and we must get rid of it for the sake of society. 




Show me where I said we need to "get rid of it" ("it" being sugar)?  


Talk about over reacting!!!!!


Jun 12, 2012 -- 5:22PM, Erey wrote:


Sounds like you need to expore your own thoughts a bit further on the subject. 




Sorry, but is sounds like you need to learn to read for understanding instead of throwing your fists around all the time, that is to have an adult conversation. 




You don't want to go sugar free, you just want to scream and foam at the mouth at how the "stupid people" need saving from themselves.  A long as they don't infringe on your sugar consumption, right?  hypocrite

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 10:40AM #197
Erey
Posts: 19,170

Jun 13, 2012 -- 8:31AM, Nepenthe wrote:


Jun 13, 2012 -- 3:59AM, rabello wrote:


Jun 12, 2012 -- 9:06PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


If they ban soda and junk food in NYC, then maybe the Mafia crime families there can make a comeback -- marketing twinkies and Dr. Pepper.




Except that absolutely no one is proposing that soda and junk food be banned in NYC or anywhere else.




Which is why this ban has little to nothing to do with actual health concerns. 




exactly it is just for his nanny-state constituents so they can feel like they are "doing something for the poor and stupid people".    This is not going to affect his annual hosting of the hot dog eating contest this 4th of July.  The same contest where many contestants report heart palpitations at the end of the contest.  The record is 68 hotdogs - with their buns. 


 


Not impressed

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 3:59PM #198
rabello
Posts: 22,031

Jun 13, 2012 -- 8:31AM, Nepenthe wrote:


Which is why this ban has little to nothing to do with actual health concerns. 



I know that you are a Libertarian, so it is not surprising that you would believe it's perfectly A-OK for businesses to sell supersized processed-sugary drinks to anybody who has the money to pay for them, even to an overweight little kid with a prediabetic condition, and for these businesses to provide free "bottomless" refills without the patron even asking for it.  I am not a Libertarian, so I am more concerned with the welfare of the persons paying for too much of the bad stuff businesses are providing, not the bottom-line of the profit-seekers.  There is no question that oversized servings of soda, 10% juice drinks, hawaiian punch, fruit punch, flavored water, etc, will eventually lead to health problems.  Are you one of those who believes that the field of study called "public health" is "junk science"?  I don't and since I am neither limited by Republican or Libertarian dogma, I am free to think capitalists have moral responsibilies in addtion to making money.   I understand that most of the participants here disagree.  Well, that's a reason we are the fattest nation on earth.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 4:19PM #199
Nepenthe
Posts: 2,722

Jun 13, 2012 -- 3:59PM, rabello wrote:

I know that you are a Libertarian, so it is not surprising that you would believe it's perfectly A-OK for businesses to sell supersized processed-sugary drinks to anybody who has the money to pay for them, even to an overweight little kid with a prediabetic condition, and for these businesses to provide free "bottomless" refills without the patron even asking for it.  I am not a Libertarian, so I am more concerned with the welfare of the persons paying for too much of the bad stuff businesses are providing, not the bottom-line of the profit-seekers.  There is no question that oversized servings of soda, 10% juice drinks, hawaiian punch, fruit punch, flavored water, etc, will eventually lead to health problems.  Are you one of those who believes that the field of study called "public health" is "junk science"?  I don't and since I am neither limited by Republican or Libertarian dogma, I am free to think capitalists have moral responsibilies in addtion to making money.   I understand that most of the participants here disagree.  Well, that's a reason we are the fattest nation on earth.



You and I share the same goal of trying to make the health of our people, especially our children, better.  We come at it from different angles, but it is the same goal.  Now, libertarians are mostly concerned with property rights and individual freedom.  What I see when I see an overweight child drinking a large soda is the parents infringing on the property rights of that child.  The child is too young to make the informed decision, so the parents are the ones committing the wrong.  Where as you will blame the profit-seekers, I will blame the parents for not properly parenting.


However, that does not deal with my comment, that this ban has nothing to do with health concerns.  That is because it doesn't; it is Bloomberg simply doing those little things he can do to exert more and more control over the city.  

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 4:20PM #200
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,573

Jun 13, 2012 -- 3:59PM, rabello wrote:


Jun 13, 2012 -- 8:31AM, Nepenthe wrote:


Which is why this ban has little to nothing to do with actual health concerns. 



I know that you are a Libertarian, so it is not surprising that you would believe it's perfectly A-OK for businesses to sell supersized processed-sugary drinks to anybody who has the money to pay for them, even to an overweight little kid with a prediabetic condition, and for these businesses to provide free "bottomless" refills without the patron even asking for it.  I am not a Libertarian, so I am more concerned with the welfare of the persons paying for too much of the bad stuff businesses are providing, not the bottom-line of the profit-seekers.  There is no question that oversized servings of soda, 10% juice drinks, hawaiian punch, fruit punch, flavored water, etc, will eventually lead to health problems.  Are you one of those who believes that the field of study called "public health" is "junk science"?  I don't and since I am neither limited by Republican or Libertarian dogma, I am free to think capitalists have moral responsibilies in addtion to making money.   I understand that most of the participants here disagree.  Well, that's a reason we are the fattest nation on earth.




1. Most businesses don't do this because it costs them money.


2. If true, why do you blame the business and not the person eating that could say "no thanks, I don't want any more"?


The problem is that you put ALL the blame on the evil, immoral businesses because you think people aren't smart enough to make their own decisions so others must do it for them.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 20 of 52  •  Prev 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 ... 52 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook