Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 4 of 52  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 52 Next
5 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 11:11AM #31
Erey
Posts: 21,730

I seriously doubt the big gulp sized sodas are the cause of the obesity problem. Nor do I see the big sodas as a contributor.


I admit when I go to the movies I will sometimes get the large soda and large popcorn and share with one of the kids.  It seems the cheapest way to go vs. two small sized combos.


  fat people don't offend me or make me want to legislate them out of existance.  I can live in a world with fat people without wanting to create alot of laws.  However, I do support and encourage people that want to make healthy lifestyle changes.  What I would say to such people is to forgo the sodas and instead drink water or unsweetened tea or something.  That is probably much, much better for them than drinking a small vs. extra large soda. 



That is what I did, I always loved sodas, craved them.  Water was not something we drank by itself like we do today.  We never drank water with meals.  It was always soda, milk or juice and the adults might have a iced tea. 


I just started substituting water for the sodas and when I felt I needed something besides water went for unsweet tea.   If I can do it anyone can do it too, If they want to do it - in their own time.  I still like sodas and imagine I always will.  I just try to limit myself to one a week.  My skinny mother has to have one a day and she is in fine health. 



Probably the very best think for the overweight population is take up exercise.  Is Bloomberg going to put a ban on public transportation and taxi cabs and force people to walk more? 


I might be supportive, maybe of this kind of intrusive and nannying legislation IF, IF it were to make a big difference.  If it would bring significant results.  But I don't see any meaningfull positive results from this, I see it as abuse of power.



Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 3:08PM #32
rabello
Posts: 29,815

Limiting a single serving of a sugary drink to 16 ounces (4 oz more than what comes in a standard can of pop) --that is an "abuse of power"?   If people need 4 or 6 servings of a sugary drink to go with one meal while at a restuarant, they can get it, they'd just have to pay for it.  What's wrong with that?  Free market values!!!  Supply and demand!!  You see it as an abuse of power for whatever reason, I see it as an abuse of the public, especially kids.  Nobody is being prevented from purchasing 2 or 3 Big Gulps -- it'll just come in 2 or 3 containers instead of one, and there won't be free "bottomless" refills at Chuckee Cheese's.  I have no idea why anybody would get their gander up over such a bengn plan based on the prinicples of supply and demand.

Black Lives Matter
Muslim Lives Matter
There is no such thing as "illegals"
LGBT Lives Matter
Poor Women's Lives Matter

"If we jump too quickly to the universal formulation, 'all lives matter,' then we miss the fact that black people have not yet been included in the idea of 'all lives.'"

--Professor Judith Butler
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 3:24PM #33
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Something like this was bound to pop up sooner or later. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 3:27PM #34
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Kanye West needs to re-do that scathing song he did about George Bush in the wake of Katrina.


Except this time, the lyrics will be...  "Bloomberg don't like fat people."

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 4:00PM #35
rabello
Posts: 29,815

Jun 5, 2012 -- 3:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Kanye West needs to re-do that scathing song he did about George Bush in the wake of Katrina.


Except this time, the lyrics will be...  "Bloomberg don't like fat people."




haha.  But it's not about not liking "fat people".  It's about the public health, which we all ultimately pay for, in one way or the other.


I imagine there's no use in trying to discuss the real aspects of the plan that is adequately explained in the linked article in the original post, rather than people's assumptions.  


The mayor's plan is not based on discrimination.  And it is much less benign than is adult-onset diabetes in adolescents and public health statistics that show more than half of the adolecent population in NYC alone is obese.   You'd have to know a kid with diabetes to realize that, though.

Black Lives Matter
Muslim Lives Matter
There is no such thing as "illegals"
LGBT Lives Matter
Poor Women's Lives Matter

"If we jump too quickly to the universal formulation, 'all lives matter,' then we miss the fact that black people have not yet been included in the idea of 'all lives.'"

--Professor Judith Butler
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 4:11PM #36
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 5, 2012 -- 4:00PM, rabello wrote:


Jun 5, 2012 -- 3:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Kanye West needs to re-do that scathing song he did about George Bush in the wake of Katrina.


Except this time, the lyrics will be...  "Bloomberg don't like fat people."




haha.  But it's not about not liking "fat people".  It's about the public health, which we all ultimately pay for, in one way or the other.


I imagine there's no use in trying to discuss the real aspects of the plan that is adequately explained in the linked article in the original post, rather than people's assumptions.  


The mayor's plan is not based on discrimination.  And it is much less benign than is adult-onset diabetes in adolescents and public health statistics that show more than half of the adolecent population in NYC alone is obese.   You'd have to know a kid with diabetes to realize that, though.




The problem isn't so much diet, IMO.


We used to pound down quite a lot of sugar when I was a kid too. The neighborhood corner store would sell cans of pop and candy bars for a quarter each, and we took full advantage.


The problem is inactivity.


In the summer, we would leave the house just after sun up, and be running around or on our bikes until our parents made us come in to go to bed.


Nowadays, kids just sit inside on their arse. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 4:59PM #37
Erey
Posts: 21,730

Jun 5, 2012 -- 3:08PM, rabello wrote:


Limiting a single serving of a sugary drink to 16 ounces (4 oz more than what comes in a standard can of pop) --that is an "abuse of power"?   If people need 4 or 6 servings of a sugary drink to go with one meal while at a restuarant, they can get it, they'd just have to pay for it.  What's wrong with that?  Free market values!!!  Supply and demand!!  You see it as an abuse of power for whatever reason, I see it as an abuse of the public, especially kids.  Nobody is being prevented from purchasing 2 or 3 Big Gulps -- it'll just come in 2 or 3 containers instead of one, and there won't be free "bottomless" refills at Chuckee Cheese's.  I have no idea why anybody would get their gander up over such a bengn plan based on the prinicples of supply and demand.





yes, I don't appreciate people butting their nose in MY rights as a consumer to purchase what a Vendor has been selling me.  If I want to buy a Big Gulp ain't nobody's flipping business. 


Again, if I could on some level see this as solving say even 5-10% of the obesity problem of NY city then I would say go for it!  If it could work on some level but it won't because it can't.  you care not going to get less fat people by doing this.


And yes, on occasion I LIKE A BIG GULP.  I can be trusted to drink them on occasion and not 5 Big Gulps in a day .  Again, I would forgo my occasional Big Gulp if I could see it reducing waist lines around the country. But it won't.  Nobody really imagines this is going to help.  It is just a way of exerting control and domination over people.  Fuckem!  I say


If you want to reduce Obesisty get people moving.  Get them substituting problem foods for more positive ones.  Ideally do this without being an asshole and casting all kinds of Nanny State legislation. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 5:25PM #38
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 5, 2012 -- 4:59PM, Erey wrote:


Jun 5, 2012 -- 3:08PM, rabello wrote:


Limiting a single serving of a sugary drink to 16 ounces (4 oz more than what comes in a standard can of pop) --that is an "abuse of power"?   If people need 4 or 6 servings of a sugary drink to go with one meal while at a restuarant, they can get it, they'd just have to pay for it.  What's wrong with that?  Free market values!!!  Supply and demand!!  You see it as an abuse of power for whatever reason, I see it as an abuse of the public, especially kids.  Nobody is being prevented from purchasing 2 or 3 Big Gulps -- it'll just come in 2 or 3 containers instead of one, and there won't be free "bottomless" refills at Chuckee Cheese's.  I have no idea why anybody would get their gander up over such a bengn plan based on the prinicples of supply and demand.





yes, I don't appreciate people butting their nose in MY rights as a consumer to purchase what a Vendor has been selling me.  If I want to buy a Big Gulp ain't nobody's flipping business. 


Again, if I could on some level see this as solving say even 5-10% of the obesity problem of NY city then I would say go for it!  If it could work on some level but it won't because it can't.  you care not going to get less fat people by doing this.


And yes, on occasion I LIKE A BIG GULP.  I can be trusted to drink them on occasion and not 5 Big Gulps in a day .  Again, I would forgo my occasional Big Gulp if I could see it reducing waist lines around the country. But it won't.  Nobody really imagines this is going to help.  It is just a way of exerting control and domination over people.  Fuckem!  I say


If you want to reduce Obesisty get people moving.  Get them substituting problem foods for more positive ones.  Ideally do this without being an asshole and casting all kinds of Nanny State legislation. 




It's a quandry.


On one hand, I get what you're saying about personal freedom, and trying to turn the governent in to a universal helicopter mom.


However, there's also the point that people making piss-poor dietary choices and simply not taking care of themselves costs us all -- in terms of money, a flooding of the health care system with preventable conditions, social problems, and so forth. 


People of advanced elderly age who need extra care, or those who are disabled for reasons they can't help, are one thing. It's only moral and socially responsible and humane that we should all pitch in for them.


But I know people who are young enough, that they should have decades of robust productivity before them, and yet, they have ruined their own health to the point that they are essentially crippled wards of the state (and tax payers), simply because of continued horrible dietary choices and a refusal to engage in any strenuous physical activity.



Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 5:43PM #39
Erey
Posts: 21,730

Well Mytmouse if you really believe that then you should just ban ALL sugary drinks, all sodas.  Because if you are blaming the disabled young people with poor health on food choices then ban all problematic food choices.  French fries, chips, candy bars, etc.  Just ban them if having access to problematic food is the reason.



But it is not the reason, that is the problem.  Big Gulps are not the reason anyone is disabled at the age of 35.  We all make a series of choices and we live with them.  How often and how much soda we drink, do we exercise, how much, do we smoke, do we strive to maintain a positive additude, do we endeavor to eat a ballanced diet.    Again, If I could forsee a significant percentage of the population having a marked improvement with the absense of the very large sodas then I might say it is worth throwing together new laws that are restrictive of freedom and liberty.  But I don't.


For the record, if I felt compelled to do something about obesity I would instead formulate a witty and catchy series of public service messages aimed at eschewing the supersize. 









Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 05, 2012 - 5:52PM #40
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 5, 2012 -- 5:43PM, Erey wrote:


Well Mytmouse if you really believe that then you should just ban ALL sugary drinks, all sodas.  Because if you are blaming the disabled young people with poor health on food choices then ban all problematic food choices.  French fries, chips, candy bars, etc.  Just ban them if having access to problematic food is the reason.



But it is not the reason, that is the problem.  Big Gulps are not the reason anyone is disabled at the age of 35.  We all make a series of choices and we live with them.  How often and how much soda we drink, do we exercise, how much, do we smoke, do we strive to maintain a positive additude, do we endeavor to eat a ballanced diet.    Again, If I could forsee a significant percentage of the population having a marked improvement with the absense of the very large sodas then I might say it is worth throwing together new laws that are restrictive of freedom and liberty.  But I don't.


For the record, if I felt compelled to do something about obesity I would instead formulate a witty and catchy series of public service messages aimed at eschewing the supersize. 





I get your point, bans and turning the state into a helicopter mom won't solve the problem. 


But we need to do something. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 52  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 52 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook