Forum

Quote from: KiLLaMaN on Monday, October 04, 2010, 15:01:38 PM

I feel that if people want to eat unhealthy, let them. It is only themselves they are going to hurt. The average person is educated enough to know what they are eating. What is really fucked up about all of this is that the U.S. government is thinking about trying to control what Americans eat by taxing foods and beverages that they deem "unhealthy." As if the American population is too stupid to understand the concept of unhealthy food. People do not eat unhealthy food because they don''t know it is unhealthy, they eat it because it tastes good.

Using the same logic, on a more sensible and moralistic subject, you may end up with: I feel that if people want to kill out of reason, let them. -- We live in a consequent world. By doing wrong to yourself, you are indirectly causing others to cause wrong as well. By eating fast food, you are contributing to the ever-growing demand for fast food. Between many things, this means more animals will be treated badly and eventually killed, just because the demand is excessively grand --as is the waste.

The average person is educated enough to know...may very well be a wrong pretence of your own. How sure are you that people actually know what is in the food they eat? You may be aware that fast food is unhealthy, however, that does not necessarily mean you know exactly what it is that you are eating, and what the exact consequences will be in your body.

Americans should indeed start taxing food according to their healthy value; "As if the American population is too stupid to understand the concept of unhealthy food." --For someone who is against generalisations, it is rather ironic, if I may. It sounds very much so eclectic to say people eat food because it tastes good. Fallacious. People eat fast food because they can illusively trick their body into feeling "full", they can get their food and eat in a minimal amount of time and pay a reasonable price for the whole meal. This is the demand society put us up with.
First off, one person eating fast food is not taking another human being's life. That is a terribly analogy. In no way can you compare eating unhealthy food with killing a human being. As for the last part,  the context I said that in was about how people think the American population is too stupid to know what is unhealthy. I never used a generalization to prove anything.

Quote from: KiLLaMaN on Monday, October 04, 2010, 16:41:46 PM

(...) they are fattening would be going against our economic philosophy. (...) The Government shouldn't be able to decide what we eat.

1. What is the American's Economic Philosophy? Without explanation or proof that you do know what you are talking about, your argument stands invalid.
2. By taxing fast food and the likes, you won't be told what you can or can not eat. There is no direct power from the Government applied to such a thing, at all. If anything, the inclusion of taxes will have you change your habits and consume less of what you once did and compensate with different food, drinks and so on. To your own advantage, that would mean eating healthier food.
The Economic philosophy is that the government should have no control over the free market except for a few regulations that keep things fair and keep companied honest. I said that in an earlier post, I guess you missed that.

Quote from: KiLLaMaN on Monday, October 04, 2010, 21:01:20 PM

There is no such thing as an "Average American" The United States of America is made up of many different people, cultures, races, and intelligence levels.
Why is it that I have the feeling that you are just joking around?

There is such a thing as "Average American". As there is of "Average Portuguese", "Average British", and so on. Different cultures, races and intelligence levels are but conditions and variants of the average, which does not -at any point in time or stage in theoretical conceptualisation- annihilate the consignation of the average as a whole. Compare it to the notion of "Neutral", if you will. There is no such thing as linear neutrality, however the circumstances. It's an established notion to help de-establish what is unknown or unheard of to humanity.

Nate is not joking around with you. He is simply disagreeing with you.

Quote from: KiLLaMaN on Monday, October 04, 2010, 22:07:46 PM

just the thought of congress trying to decide what I eat is scary.

FDA already does, what's the problem?

The fact that you have started your response with an implying attribute to it almost makes me want to stop reading it right away, regardless...I never established an analogy. I interpreted your logic and applied it to what you may consider a more dramatised topic within our society terms, that is. This is to prove that:  A) Logics are more often than otherwise faulty when applied lightly to a subject we known as far as the average about.

You are talking about Economical Regulations, not about Economical Philosophies. I will be waiting for a more solid response on this.

In many countries, one person alone is sufficient to represent the whole nation. They call him/her The President. In all countries, there are certain groups to which all fall fit into. Be it age-wise, intelligence-wise, aspect-wise or any other, groups and categories are existent and take a huge role in defining a society under the terms that vise an understanding of a society. Whereas there is not one type of person that represents, or better applied, defines a society; there is indeed a group that outstands abundantly. Trends, mannerisms, addictions, behaviour patterns, common level of intelligence...all of these constitute a notion of Average.

Quote from: KiLLaMaN on Monday, October 04, 2010, 22:16:58 PM

They decided what is ok to eat and sell from a safety stand point. They are not trying to tax perfectly edible and safe foods just because they can be fattening.

This really goes beyond fattening foods. FDA doesn't block everything unsafe, a LOT of unsafe food is out there. They are still deciding what is and what isn't ok to eat. Taxing food wouldn't tell you what you can and can't eat, it just pursuades you to eat better or pay for consuming (and thus demanding manufacturing of) unhealthy food.

The "average" I was talking about has nothing to do with political or religious views or culture/family history or any shit like that. It has to do with the average of being informed about what people are consuming. A lot of American's are in the dark or just couldn't care less. They need to pay for their ignorance and it's effect on others.

Therefore your reasoning holds very little weight.

They can't just add taxes to whatever food they feel like, they would have to tax all of it.

First you said it was illegal, now you're saying it's immoral. Your reasoning has just turned into opinion. Tax WILL make people pay attention, even if it's just proposing a tax, people will get worked up. That's not an opinion. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to pay a government tax on food when I don't get to choose what is and what isn't good but it will show the clueless people a little bit of what's going on.

On a related note, I'm happy as a clam paying sales tax for my state. I see my money in the roads

despite the many times your reasoning ends up changing further down the discussions, without you realising it.

More often than otherwise, your opinions too, hold very little to no weight, yet you somehow manage to stick by it