What's your take?

[oly884]

Smart thinking, or slippery slope?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080729/D927OLQ02.html

As you guessed for me, slippery slope. Start to control what people can and can't have access to eat and you're heading further down the road of government control. I'm not saying it's OK that those who become obese from these chains are not having an effect on the heath of our society, but what makes us strong is the ability to choose what we do with our lives, right? After all, McD's or BK isn't the one forcing people to eat fatty foods, it's ultimately the choice of the individual to eat that way.

It's a very dangerous road that is being traveled, once they put a 'ban' on new fast food joints, what's going to happen next? Forcing companies out of business if they are not healthy enough? Banning burgers? Socializing the food industry?

Comrads! Come one, come all, get your gruel!!! :chair:

[corax]

I believe in the inalienable right to die or go to hell in whichever way you choose (so long as it doesn't infringe upon others). Sounds like they're trying to stall the process of natural selection, in a way.

I'd take it further, though, and remove all the idiotic warning labels we have that are supposed to guard against lack of common sense. Why a box a toothpicks has to have directions and a warning label is beyond me. If you can't figure out how to work a toothpick, you might not be good for the gene pool.

[oly884]

If you can't figure out how to work a toothpick, you might not be good for the gene pool.


:lol:

[Tanto]

I'm for it.

America is slowly getting tired of being the fatasses of the world.

[oly884]

America is slowly getting tired of being the fatasses of the world.


True.

However, handing over more power to the government to make choices for us isn't always going to be for the best. Yes, there are some people out there that have no concept of self control. The problem is that this won't teach people self control, what it WILL teach people is that they can rely on the government to step in and choose what is right and wrong for them. If people get out and push the notion of self control, the market will handle it just fine. If the demand for health is increasing, then these companies will have to follow the demand. Healthier and good tasting foods will appear on the menu, more and more. (Funny how in the recent years salads, veggies, and fruits are showing up on menus, huh?)

What happens when they decide that only ranchers and construction workers need trucks? I'm neither, so is it for 'the greater good' to take my truck away? This is socialism, and it's taking a greater root here. Worst of all people are more than happy to hand it over because they think it will solve problems, and heck, it may solve some...

But what happens when it's something you don't want to hand over?

It's a slippery slope folks, and if you think it won't ever get there, I'm going to bet you're wrong if we keep going this way.

[fustercluck]

If you want more government control over details and freedom of your personal life, then step on this frictionless slope. Image what they'll do when they control your medical care and costs.

A caged bird is the safest bird...it is also the most pathetic.

[oly884]

If you want more government control over details and freedom of your personal life, then step on this frictionless slope. Image what they'll do when they control your medical care and costs.

A caged bird is the safest bird...it is also the most pathetic.


Good luck getting enough people to realize this.

As I've said before, what happens when they don't let you have something you really want?

[surf4runner]

ahhh c'mon, theyre only trying to keep the fat lazy people off this slippery slope.
the same fat lazy SOB's who cant, i mean wont, help themselves.
good thing food stamps arent accepted.



i read a street interview from a local...he ate the last 3 meals at 2 diff FF joints because he was laid-off, had no gas money and were close enough to walk to.
maybe they all need to be in 1 location w/o a drive through so everyone can waddle in and get theyre govt mandated exercise.

...maybe we could just :archer: on sight :gunner:

[oly884]

ahhh c'mon, theyre only trying to keep the fat lazy people off this slippery slope.
the same fat lazy SOB's who cant, i mean wont, help themselves.
good thing food stamps arent accepted.



i read a street interview from a local...he ate the last 3 meals at 2 diff FF joints because he was laid-off, had no gas money and were close enough to walk to.
maybe they all need to be in 1 location w/o a drive through so everyone can waddle in and get theyre govt mandated exercise.

...maybe we could just :archer: on sight :gunner:



If they can't help themselves, then why should the government help them? What does banning new fast food joints teach them? That some one else will solve their problems for them?

Instead of getting off their fat asses and choosing to do the right thing, they are going to rely on the government yet again.

If they can't/won't help themselves, then they need to pay the consequences (die early is the primary one). Remember there ARE consequences in life, and the government seems to think that it can remove them.

As for the local laid off guy....

If he's laid off, how is he going to pay for GOOD food at a 'nicer' restaurant if he has no money? What happens when there ISN'T one close?

I also seem to remember seeing 'healthier' choices at most fast food places now-a-days, why isn't he eating those? Is it because they are brainwashing him? Or is it because he is a weak minded individual who looks for excuses for his problems?

[corax]

I also seem to remember seeing 'healthier' choices at most fast food places now-a-days, why isn't he eating those?


I don't think there is such a thing as healthy fast food alternatives. The Big Mac, McDonald's signature sandwich, boasts 590 calories and 34 grams of fat while the Bacon Ranch Salad with Crispy Chicken and ranch dressing has 660 calories and 51 grams of fat. But again, inalienable right to go to hell in whichever way one chooses. I wouldn't eat either.

[Seanz0rz]

government needs to get out of our lives. while a part of me feels the need to have the government protect us from harm, the much larger part just thinks that they need to stay the hell out of our business.

[oly884]

I also seem to remember seeing 'healthier' choices at most fast food places now-a-days, why isn't he eating those?


I don't think there is such a thing as healthy fast food alternatives. The Big Mac, McDonald's signature sandwich, boasts 590 calories and 34 grams of fat while the Bacon Ranch Salad with Crispy Chicken and ranch dressing has 660 calories and 51 grams of fat. But again, inalienable right to go to hell in whichever way one chooses. I wouldn't eat either.


I was speaking in terms of the salad shakers, 'apple fries' (don't know which chain, but I saw an add), and others. They are making healthier choices....

but don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the fast food industry is completely innocent. One would imagine with the health issues many face in these days, there would be a larger sense of morality in these companies (hahaha, right).

My point is that the power should be in the people, not the government. You get enough people to realize how BAD this food is for you, especially day to day, and let them make up their minds. WE should be the ones saying no thanks to these fatty foods, promoting healthier eating habits, and supporting chains that DO provide healthy foods.

Letting the government do it for you is only going to let them look back and say, "look, see, we didn't allow fast food places to be built and people became healthier, we should do this for (insert blank)" and the amount they control only gets bigger from there.

Or, they could say, "well, it didn't work THAT time because of all the fast food places already there, let's try kicking all the fast food places out of this area and see how that goes."

We are reaching a point in this country where our rights as individuals are coming into question more and more, and it is very important that we all understand that WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who run this country. Not every one of the idiots in DC. It's a joke what is going on right now, our government was created for the people, by the people, now it is for special interest, by special interest.

Sorry, but I prefer my rights to be my choice, not some dumbass that isn't in touch with reality.

I'll leave you with this:

http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/government.jpg

[tulsa_sr5]

my step son paid $34 for a large beer the other night in france. He's spending a month in europe, coming up on the end of his college days. I told him, only half joking that most of that $34 went to support socialism. But honestly, that is what to expect if you think goverment is the answer to your problems. The bottom of that slippery slope is socialism, and it's expensive as hell.

The capitalist answer, and this will sound cruel, but if you think about it it's fair. You smoke? you die younger and collect less in social security. Way overwieght? die younger than you would have and colllect less in SS. Nothing wrong with choosing your destiny, but a country whose main purpose is safety net is a country doomed.

[oly884]

The capitalist answer, and this will sound cruel, but if you think about it it's fair. You smoke? you die younger and collect less in social security. Way overwieght? die younger than you would have and colllect less in SS. Nothing wrong with choosing your destiny, but a country whose main purpose is safety net is a country doomed.


Basically, you are responsible for your own actions. It's not that crazy of an idea.

[04 Rocko Taco]

I thought maybe it was in Fusters sig line, but its not, I think it is in Ric's, actually...okay, I think it USED TO be in Ric's sig.

"He who will sacrifice liberty and freedom for temporary safety, deserves neither."

[calrockx]

I'm for it.

It's sad it's come to this, but that's what it takes sometimes for their own good. You have to save people from themselves in this case. A healthier Los Angeles population = lower medical costs, more productivity, better image. I'm for it.

Yeah some of those fast food places offer healthier choices, but really - no one gets those. Those are merely to fulfill a societal obligation almost.

I'm pro-do whatever you want usually, but to a point I can take laws like this. If cigarettes were to be banned completely in the US, I'd be fine with that. People are too retarded to stop smoking, so if you make it a law, the overall gain would outweight the negatives.

[04 Rocko Taco]

I see no reason to save people from themselves..... call it evolution, call it survival of the fittest, call it cold hearted, I dont care what you call it, if people want to be stupid, eat fast food all day every day, and smoke themselves into an early grave, or whatever......LET THEM.

It just leaves more of the planet for us, and less retard DNA in the gene pool. :)
There was a lady on TV this morning with her 96 pound, 3yr old child.... and she weighed about 345, she was saying she didnt want her child to go through the same ridicule that she did growing up, and someone needed to do something about it, but then she went on to describe what this child eats.... Holy Cripes, more than I eat in a week, and thats just breakfast!!!

Sounds to me like to me that to not get ridiculed and perpetuate the cycle, she should stop eating so *#&$ much.

Same thing as the fast food deal. Let these people die off, or solve thier own problems.





But of course this from the guy who thinks seat belt laws are stupid....

I mean whats the easiest way to take some of those millions of polluting cars off the road? Stop making people wear thier seatbelts. Whether I have my belt on or not, doesnt affect the safety of anyone else in the crash, only me. So if I dont want to wear one and die in a car wreck, why not let me? One less car on the road. :)


I guess you guys can see where I stand on government control.

[oly884]

I found this interesting:

http://history.howstuffworks.com/european-history/fascism-movement2.htm

In particular this:

"By dispelling the myth of happiness as absurd, the fascist society is able to constrain its people and convince them to submit for the greater good. People cannot gather without permission, and they can't say anything negative against the State. Instead, they are submerged in an extreme sense of national and ethnic unity. Political youth groups recruit the youngest members of society, teach them about the State and entrust them with its survival and its power. Fascism glorifies youth, which makes sense if you consider the ideal of survival of the fittest -- the young are the strongest and the fittest."

And this is interesting as well....

" the [individual] is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone ? - Mussolini, "Fascism," the Italian Encyclopedia, 1932

So, the while some of you may agree with THIS one, what happens when you (the individual) is deprived of "useless and possibly harmful freedoms" that you don't think are useless and possibly harmful?

This is fascism, if you can prove me wrong, please do so.

[calrockx]

Sometimes I'm in favor of laws like this, but other times not so much. I guess if the situation only brings harm to oneself, I say let freedom ring. The Helmet law for example...if you're too stupid to protect your cranium, the world is probably better off without you.

There are a million "what-ifs" that complicate that situation, but still.

[oly884]

Sometimes I'm in favor of laws like this, but other times not so much. I guess if the situation only brings harm to oneself, I say let freedom ring. The Helmet law for example...if you're too stupid to protect your cranium, the world is probably better off without you.

There are a million "what-ifs" that complicate that situation, but still.


Very true cal. I completely understand why. People are fat and lazy, they will continue to eat shitty food and be a drain on society. It will raise insurance rates because of the extra health care they need, it will lower the productivity of the work force, and lets face it, there will be less hotter chicks around here. Who wants that????

However, one could look at this much in the way the left looks at the whole phone tapping ordeal (we ALL know about that). I have changed my stance on that to a certain degree. One may justify it by saying, "oh well they are JUST looking at terrorists it's OK." Some proclaimed that it was a slippery slope and it could become domestic spying any Bob next door could be arrested for talking about his stolen cable that he got. Right?

This is the same concept. Give the government this right, and where will it lead?

[corax]

Whether I have my belt on or not, doesnt affect the safety of anyone else in the crash, only me. So if I dont want to wear one and die in a car wreck, why not let me? One less car on the road. :)


Seat belt laws were a product of Insurance lobbyists. It cost the insurance industry too much to pay out for care of people who were maimed or disabled by not wearing their belt. So now we have seat belt laws. At least a few states have gone back on helmet laws for motorcycles, which were spawned by the same people. Myself, I won't get on a bike without a full face and jacket, but to those who don't . . . we all dig our own graves

Oly hit it on the head


. . . our government was created for the people, by the people, now it is for special interest, by special interest.

[oly884]

Whether I have my belt on or not, doesnt affect the safety of anyone else in the crash, only me. So if I dont want to wear one and die in a car wreck, why not let me? One less car on the road. :)


Seat belt laws were a product of Insurance lobbyists. It cost the insurance industry too much to pay out for care of people who were maimed or disabled by not wearing their belt. So now we have seat belt laws. At least a few states have gone back on helmet laws for motorcycles, which were spawned by the same people. Myself, I won't get on a bike without a full face and jacket, but to those who don't . . . we all dig our own graves



The seatbelt law is in the same category. Yes, seatbelts save lives, and lives saved means insurance companies spend less money. For a while I would thought that insurance companies could simply deny coverage if it was shown that the person injured didn't have their seatbelt on, but that opens up a whole new can of worms (think, immoral insurance agents/companies). Now, I don't know what a good solution is. Fining people for it seems stupid, but allowing these idiots to live off of insurance for the rest of their lives because of a horrific accident doesn't seem fair to the people that DO wear seatbelts.

The issue becomes very tricky because, in the end, the actions by the idiots who don't wear helmets, don't wear seatbelts, or eat their fat-asses to obesity all end up costing us (you and me) money.

But what is worse though? Giving the government this kind of power, or just paying the price? I say giving the government more power is worse.

[thook]

Giving the gov't the power to choose for the people is never good. People will still never really learn personal responsibility. Experience is the greatest teacher, and complete personal responsibility is the ultimate in liberation and empowerment. People with even half of free thinking mind will still think, but the ability to create a collective world based on free thinking will be gone. Free thinkers will just go mad. I would.

This kind of gov't control is for sheeple. I'm not a sheeple, and I know there are many like me. Since I'm in the world and a part of it...as insignifcant as they may seem on one level....it's still partly mine. The gov't can go fuck themselves if I can't go get a burger or pizza or taco bell every once and a while. I take really good care of my body....better than most anyone I know. I enjoy a few vices, but that's my prerogitive. I'm granted the right to take part of whatever our world has to offer by my existance. This is true for everyone in it. People that live on their vices...fast food and such....are products of a trend towards control. Lazy minds and bodies are easy to control....and, even feed off of. This is what the gov't wants. Not the greater good. If the greater good were the motive, we would NOT be in the condition we are in now. This all started long ago.

But, hey...it's duality. What else can you expect? The only way out is to dispell duality as reality.

(Sorry....I know this rambles here and there, but I have a good excuse. It's almost 3am..;))

[thook]

What's the matter? Did I kill the thread? :headscratch:

[oly884]

Yes, way to go!!!

I like what you had to say, I think it's spot on. I would imagine this is more of a hot-button issue with people, hence the infrequent postings.

[Seanz0rz]

i hate the fact the govt is in every aspect of our lives. my parents raised me to be extremely self sufficient, to the point of really educating me the best they could on growing my own food, etc. it has become clear to me that the government rarely has our best interest in mind when making decisions.

please mr. federal government, dont tell me what i can and cannot eat...

[calrockx]

This isn't the government telling you what you can or cannot eat. This is just an attempt to introduce some more variety/healthier options to that area of LA, an area that needs some more variety than fast food offers. Those fatties can still eat a big mac every day if they choose, but at least now it'll be easier to consider better options.

[Seanz0rz]

well thats my problem with this issue. it is something that needs to be addressed for the better of the community. but where do you draw the line on this? is it ok to take away our right to free speech because its less harmful to someone?

i dont like this, but i think its a necessary evil. however, i think people get complacent on issues like this and let our freedoms slowly slip away. that is my concern and why i disagree with it. otherwise i think its fantastic an innercity community will no longer have to deal with only one option for dinner. have some low cost healthy alternatives. its much cheaper to shop at a discount grocery store and prepare food than it is to eat at mcdonalds every day.

[oly884]

This isn't the government telling you what you can or cannot eat. This is just an attempt to introduce some more variety/healthier options to that area of LA, an area that needs some more variety than fast food offers. Those fatties can still eat a big mac every day if they choose, but at least now it'll be easier to consider better options.


I don't see how it will be any easier than it was before to eat healthier, are there NO places to eat that are healthy? Or is it going to make it easier by denying the ability to choose a fast food place?

And from the way I take it, the government IS telling people what they can eat by denying the ability to open a new burger place. They are preventing business from opening and selling a certain type of food.

I would think that giving a tax break to companies that offer a healthier menu would do far more in the long run. Tax breaks = more money for the company, therefore it's a very easy choice. Not only that, but the companies will FIGHT for who can make their menu healthier and get more business.

Substituting personal responsibility for things such as this is not going to solve the issue, it's a simple band-aid to a larger problem.

[thook]

This isn't the government telling you what you can or cannot eat. This is just an attempt to introduce some more variety/healthier options to that area of LA, an area that needs some more variety than fast food offers. Those fatties can still eat a big mac every day if they choose, but at least now it'll be easier to consider better options.


I see what you're saying and I can understand why the council would think it a good idea. But, it depends on what will be considered the "healthy alternative" to the fast food joints. It's a low income area....which ultimately means the people in the area will be limited on what will be affordable to them. Usually, healthier means more expensive and healthy just can't be prepared as cheaply or nearly as quickly. So, I can't see an actual healthy alternative lasting very long.

Tax breaks? Now, that's not a bad idea. Knock down the costs for the business and people would have more incentive. IF they were to actually get tired of being sick and realize the shark like nature of fast food franchises. Then again, I don't know. People can be pretty lazy.

I work at a health and nutrition store and see a lot of different people. Some actually want to make a change and get healthy while others want nothing more than a magic bullet. A magic bullet that might restore their health while they can continue on eating whatever according to their compulsions. Would something like this moratorium help these people? No. Not even if you explained to them all the reasons they feel like shit and what they could do about it, they will buy something they read about in a magazine and think they've made a real step towards health. And, a lot of times these are LOW INCOME people. "There's a grocery store nearby, folks!"

I think the said restaurant industry is correct. It won't help. Neither from the business standpoint or the customer base. Ultimately, people will just have to deny fast food marketing and themselves and make some real effort. I can honestly that's what I've had to do for myself, and that I'm the only one in my family who is not overweight and sick all the time. AND! I earn less than any of them. AND, AND!! I didn't my city council/gov't to tell me what to do. :hillbill:

[oly884]

It's far easier to reward good behavior (give tax breaks) than to shun bad behavior (keep people from building).

Tax incentives are very great ways to push things in the right direction. Solar panels, CFL's, efficient vehicles. All of these things have become more popular because of tax breaks.

[thook]

Yeah...that really is progressive thinking, if you can call it that. I'd be all for tax breaks along those lines. I do see people that would like to be able to eat...let's say organic foods, for example...yet are financially forced to go to the standard grocer because they won't be able to make ends meet otherwise. That being said, who really knows how true that is. I mean, could people give up their chips, soda, cigs, cold cereals, packaged goodies, etc so that they could afford organic? Hmmm....I know organic is expensive for various reasons (some of which I think are overinflated), but how is expensive is modern health care because they eat like shizzle?

I really don't know much about it, so I probably shouldn't even talk about it, but seniors can get certain tax deductions for vitamins and natural remedies (if counted as a supplement). I see that at the store I work at. I wish everyone could have that. I personally believe in whole foods over much of the supplements people take (like handfuls everyday), but it's a definite step in a positive direction. Which brings up the gov't trying to regulate supplements issue. What a bunch of crap!! Ah...but, also that's another topic.

[thook]

Thread killed...twice! Haha...I'm on a roll.