Author Topic: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.  (Read 14670 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5313
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #35 on: November 16, 2010, 01:29:15 PM »
Studies have shown that kids are extremely influenced by advertising. They did a study a while back where they gave kids carrots, one branded with Disney characters or something and one in generic packaging. The kids said the branded ones tasted better despite being the exact same thing. To say that kids are smart enough to wade through the bullshit of ads is innaccurate. Heck, many adults are too dumb to realize that ads are full of bullshit.

As a parent, I believe that it is my responsibility to steer my child away from advertisements as much as possible. I wish more parents would do the same. It would make their lives a heck of a lot easier and cheaper in the long run. But it's easier right now to plop their kids in front of Sponge Bob rather than actually playing with them, so that's what most of them do.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 01:35:48 PM by lordxizor »

Offline ehra

  • Posts: 3362
  • Gender: Male
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #36 on: November 16, 2010, 01:32:52 PM »
As a parent, I believe that it is my responsibility to steer my child away from advertisements as much as possible. I wish more parents would do the same. It would make their lives a heck of a lot easier and cheaper in the long run. But it's easier right now to plop their kids in front of Sponge Bob rather than actually playing with them, so that's what most of them do.

That's what I was getting at, obviously advertisements work or so much money wouldn't be pumped into it (heck, I read about a similar experiment done towards adults. They held a wine tasting thing but switched the lables on the wine. Everyone said the cheap wine (labeled as the expensive wine) was far better than the fancy stuff). But if they know they can scream a bit and get whatever they want then they'll do it all the time. Once you give in that first time they're going to keep doing it.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30572
  • Bad Craziness
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #37 on: November 16, 2010, 01:40:05 PM »
Here's the study showing kid's preference for McDonalds. https://adage.com/article?article_id=119753

Quote
"They actually believe that the chicken nugget they think is from McDonald's tastes better than an identical, unbranded nugget."
It doesn't matter what you feed them, if it comes in a McDonalds wrapper it will automatically be better. 

I'm actually stunned to here people suggest that kids aren't brainwashed zombies.  I mean, damn.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #38 on: November 16, 2010, 01:47:33 PM »
Here's the study showing kid's preference for McDonalds. https://adage.com/article?article_id=119753

Quote
"They actually believe that the chicken nugget they think is from McDonald's tastes better than an identical, unbranded nugget."
It doesn't matter what you feed them, if it comes in a McDonalds wrapper it will automatically be better. 

I'm actually stunned to here people suggest that kids aren't brainwashed zombies.  I mean, damn.

This is actually true. My ex fiances daughter totally knew the difference. She loved....LOVED chicken nuggets from McD's, but when we bought our own she didn't want to eat them as much.

Half the time she wanted to go to McD's just for the hell of it, or to play there. Food or no food.

Luckily I had no problems saying no.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5313
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #39 on: November 16, 2010, 01:57:08 PM »
It basically always comes back to the parents needing to say no, obviously. But many of the parents can't say no to themselves much less their whining child.

The question is how far should a parent be able to go in damaging their child physically before it's the duty of their government to step in? The answer is easier when the parent is beating a child, but less easy when they're helping them to become obese and crippling their health potentially for life. Some local governments are stepping in with laws like this one (let's ignore for the moment whether this law will actually do anything).

The real problem I see with laws such as these are that they're preventing parents who are doing the right thing (using trips to McDonalds and getting a Happy Meal as an occasional special treat rather than a daily or weekly occurance) from being able to purchase what they want for their child. But the fact of the matter is, millions of parents in the US are damaging their children's health, likely for life, by allowing them to comsume unhealthy products in far too high of quantities. I know it's expremely difficult to know where to draw the line. I don't really know what the answer is.

I'd love to hear someone with more of a Libertarian slant than me discuss what they think is an acceptable level of government intervention in such cases.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 02:08:02 PM by lordxizor »

Offline ehra

  • Posts: 3362
  • Gender: Male
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #40 on: November 16, 2010, 02:53:04 PM »
I'm actually stunned to here people suggest that kids aren't brainwashed zombies.  I mean, damn.

I'd say no more than anyone else.

Offline Tick

  • It's time to make a change
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9762
  • Gender: Male
  • Just another tricky day for you
Re: San Francisco becomes gayer than it was yesterday.
« Reply #41 on: November 16, 2010, 03:35:53 PM »

And is there statistical evidence that says kids buy more meals if they get a crappy toy?  Maybe it was just me, but I never cared for the toys when I was that young.

The crappy toy is irrelevant.  Kids like McDonalds because they think they're supposed to.  They've spend billions of dollars crafting their brand and aiming it directly at kids, so now if they put fried dog turds on a stick, kids will pester and annoy their dimwitted parents for them.  The food is irrelevant.  The toy is irrelevant.  Only the brand association matters. 

That's what bugs me about the whole deal.  McDonalds could easily be promoting healthier food, and they'd still have the same brainwashed zombies lining up for it. 
Damn, I hope the day never comes that McDonald's is promoting healthy food! Who the fuck goes to McDonald's for healthy food? I don't want fucking apple wedges from McDonalds, I want greasy fries! :metal I want a Big Mac that tastes awesome when I eat it and makes me ill an hour later.
As far as the toy goes, kids want that shitty toy up to a certain age, then it doesn't matter.
Its like when they used to put little shitty toys in cereal boxes.That was the reason you picked the cereal you did. You went for the best toy! You opened the cereal box as soon as you got home and stuck your arm completely into the box to get to bottom and pull out that treasure! :tick2:
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #42 on: November 16, 2010, 03:41:06 PM »
Here's the study showing kid's preference for McDonalds. https://adage.com/article?article_id=119753

Quote
"They actually believe that the chicken nugget they think is from McDonald's tastes better than an identical, unbranded nugget."
It doesn't matter what you feed them, if it comes in a McDonalds wrapper it will automatically be better. 

I'm actually stunned to here people suggest that kids aren't brainwashed zombies.  I mean, damn.

What you are describing is not limited to children. I have seen a number of studies like the one you linked to, and there is some deception to it. The advertising alone doesn't turn the children into zombies as would be suggested. Its the advertising, the food being good, prices being lowered so parents can afford it more often, and the fact that Mcdonalds has play places everywhere.

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9599
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #43 on: November 16, 2010, 03:45:38 PM »
Here's the study showing kid's preference for McDonalds. https://adage.com/article?article_id=119753

Quote
"They actually believe that the chicken nugget they think is from McDonald's tastes better than an identical, unbranded nugget."
It doesn't matter what you feed them, if it comes in a McDonalds wrapper it will automatically be better. 

I'm actually stunned to here people suggest that kids aren't brainwashed zombies.  I mean, damn.

This is actually true. My ex fiances daughter totally knew the difference. She loved....LOVED chicken nuggets from McD's, but when we bought our own she didn't want to eat them as much.

Unfortunate because McDonald's has the worst chicken nuggets. Even as a kid I was smart enough to know that.

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #44 on: November 16, 2010, 03:47:39 PM »
Here's the study showing kid's preference for McDonalds. https://adage.com/article?article_id=119753

Quote
"They actually believe that the chicken nugget they think is from McDonald's tastes better than an identical, unbranded nugget."
It doesn't matter what you feed them, if it comes in a McDonalds wrapper it will automatically be better. 

I'm actually stunned to here people suggest that kids aren't brainwashed zombies.  I mean, damn.

This is actually true. My ex fiances daughter totally knew the difference. She loved....LOVED chicken nuggets from McD's, but when we bought our own she didn't want to eat them as much.

Unfortunate because McDonald's has the worst chicken nuggets Mz. Lemon. Even as a kid I was smart enough to know that.

I wouldn't know, I've never had any chicken anything. And I refuse to go into a McDonalds.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9599
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #45 on: November 16, 2010, 03:48:17 PM »
You're a stronger man than I.

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #46 on: November 16, 2010, 03:49:29 PM »
You're a stronger man than I Ms. Lemon.

Thanks, I guess I'm just good at saying no.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #47 on: November 16, 2010, 06:13:52 PM »
You can't give me one legitimate reason for allowing the local government to enact food or smoking restrictions.
Yes, I can. Because people who belong to the locality want them.

Quote
The only corporate interest I'm defending is the right to conduct business without dealing with shit head regulations.
I'm not sure what that means, because there's nothing wrong or even unreasonable with the regulations being proposed.



Quote
I'm pessimistic about central planning because I know people can manage their lives independently of the guiding hand of government.
It's not central planning.
Quote
And what about the costs you impose on a local business? Would the bans be pressing then? What if a bar had to close or layoff employees because smokers wouldn't patronize it anymore? These regulations do impose costs on the people they're aimed at, and that can hurt the local economy. This isn't just a rehash of the slippery slope.
That's silly. If anything, I'd say the ban on smoking was good for business. People like going to bars more when they're not going to have smoke blown in the faces. And everyone just goes outside to smoke. Again, this is a non-issue that only libertarians seem to get fired up about.

*snip*

Okay, that's it. You guys are just too much for me today. I thought libertarians were all about verbal reasoning, not  using words like "shithead," "fucktard," "fucktastic," and so on at every chance to make strange arguments sound slightly more badass.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #48 on: November 16, 2010, 09:30:49 PM »
You haven't actually responded to anyones arguments.

How is the argument that there is no scientific research supporting the ban/legislation, and that the majority locality may not even agree with an elected officials view strange?


Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #49 on: November 16, 2010, 10:20:47 PM »
You haven't actually responded to anyones arguments.

Yes, I have. But, since you don't like what I've said, I'll convenience you by posting something you might have an easier time agreeing with:

Quote
"I can't believe people are so fucking stupid. First, the retards in office want to infringe on business by forcing fast-food restaurants to provide nannying "nutritional guidelines." Now, the same ass-wipes are trying to stop McDonalds from handing out toys. Well, isn't this just fucktastic. This is by far the gayest legislation I've seen yet.  What bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit."

You can just read that statement from now on if you disagree with the other things I've said. Over, and over, and over again...   :P

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #50 on: November 17, 2010, 12:07:56 AM »
I just reread your posts in this thread and have not seen anything other than "I dislike libertarians/their arguments because ..." and "Local government has the right to do whatever its elected officials/citizens want".


Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #51 on: November 17, 2010, 12:53:20 AM »
Here's some references to back up my claims that kids aren't always soft-headed retards.
Quote
Older children are discriminating consumers of advertising who find many commercials entertaining, interesting, and socially relevant. By virtue of their growing sophistication, older children and adolescents find entertainment in analyzing the creativity strategy of many commercials and constructing theories for why certain elements are persuasive. Advertisements are also valued as a device for social interaction, serving as a focus of conversation with peers, a means of belonging and group membership, and a conduit for transferring and conveying meaning in their daily lives
- John, D. “Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty-five years of research.” Journal of Consumer Research Vol 26, pg. 183-213 (1999)

More times than not, it's trends among kids that influence advertising, not the other way around.
- Goldstein, J. “Children and Advertising: The Research, Advertising and Marketing to Children” London: Advertising Association. (1999) pg. 113


And this is pure poetry:
Quote
The love of a no risk society results increasingly in substituting scapegoats outside one’s own sphere of influence for self responsibility. Due to its universal presence, advertising is one of those scapegoats; also because-fitting the naïve theory of the effects of advertising- it is attributed to having a direct effect on behavior, it provides psychological relief from the strain of personal responsibility
-Bergler, R. “The effects of commercial  advertising on children.” International Journal of advertising  Vol. 18, pg. 411-425


Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #52 on: November 17, 2010, 01:25:30 AM »
I'd seriously question the veracity of those claims. Just by being around my little brother and his friends, I can tell

I just reread your posts in this thread and have not seen anything other than "I dislike libertarians/their arguments because ..." and "Local government has the right to do whatever its elected officials/citizens want".

...And? I gave my opinion, and the reasons why I hold it. I'm not sure what you what else you want from me  ???

Here's some references to back up my claims that kids aren't always soft-headed retards.
Quote
Older children are discriminating consumers of advertising who find many commercials entertaining, interesting, and socially relevant. By virtue of their growing sophistication, older children and adolescents find entertainment in analyzing the creativity strategy of many commercials and constructing theories for why certain elements are persuasive. Advertisements are also valued as a device for social interaction, serving as a focus of conversation with peers, a means of belonging and group membership, and a conduit for transferring and conveying meaning in their daily lives
- John, D. “Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty-five years of research.” Journal of Consumer Research Vol 26, pg. 183-213 (1999)

More times than not, it's trends among kids that influence advertising, not the other way around.
- Goldstein, J. “Children and Advertising: The Research, Advertising and Marketing to Children” London: Advertising Association. (1999) pg. 113


And this is pure poetry:
Quote
The love of a no risk society results increasingly in substituting scapegoats outside one’s own sphere of influence for self responsibility. Due to its universal presence, advertising is one of those scapegoats; also because-fitting the naïve theory of the effects of advertising- it is attributed to having a direct effect on behavior, it provides psychological relief from the strain of personal responsibility
-Bergler, R. “The effects of commercial  advertising on children.” International Journal of advertising  Vol. 18, pg. 411-425

No one's saying kids are "soft-headed retards," but neither should they be considered "responsible consumers." The information you posted is nice, but I don't see what is has to do with whether a community can tell McDonalds to buzz of or not; which they certainly can, and there's no legal reason that says otherwise.

Side note: This is the kinda attitude that's starting to bug me about PR now, too. Every argument on the politic side of things gets boiled down to some obscenity, I guess to sound cool. Kids are "retards," lawmakers are "fucktards," the president is a "dumbass," everyone else's argument is "bullshit." This is a PR forum, not a Tool concert. Dammit guys!

I mean, it was funny when just El Barto was posting that way. Now I feel like everyone's just trying to sound badass.  

Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #53 on: November 17, 2010, 01:52:45 AM »
But I am bad ass, and in need of your approval. On a serious note, I am not suggesting that kids are independently responsible consumers. But they do have the ability to decipher the marketing that is aimed at them. That runs contrary to the assumption behind your argument, that we have to do this to protect parents and their children from overbearing advertising.

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #54 on: November 17, 2010, 02:15:10 AM »
I'm not saying we have to "protect parents." I'm saying parents have a right to work together to keep things out of their communities. And, for what it's worth, stable societies everywhere suggest your implicit assertion that only markets can successfully determine community standards is unfounded.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #55 on: November 17, 2010, 02:22:15 AM »
Quote
...And? I gave my opinion, and the reasons why I hold it. I'm not sure what you what else you want from me  

You got morally outraged at my use of profanity and called my argument strange. In order for this debate to be productive, it would help if you responded to my claim that local government should be required to cite factual evidence and logical reasoning when enacting new measures.

Quote
I'm not saying we have to "protect parents." I'm saying parents have a right to work together to keep things out of their communities. And, for what it's worth, stable societies everywhere suggest your implicit assertion that only markets can successfully determine community standards is unfounded.

Why do you keep calling this a parental response? This is a political response to the current media craze, lobbying, and a genuine but misguided attempt to prevent childhood obesity. It is not based on anything factual, and will only hurt Mcdonalds and other fast food companies that operate in the area.

Also, check this out:

https://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-09/us/california.fast.food.ban_1_meal-combinations-apple-dippers-yale-university-s-rudd-center?_s=PM:US

Quote
"As previously stated, we are extremely disappointed with this decision. It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for," said McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud.

Proud said public opinion is against such government intervention.

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #56 on: November 17, 2010, 03:15:38 AM »
Quote
...And? I gave my opinion, and the reasons why I hold it. I'm not sure what you what else you want from me  

You got morally outraged at my use of profanity and called my argument strange.
Not outraged. God forbid I lament the way the discourse in PR has devolved. It seems that libertarians really can't talk about ANYTHING with a hefty amount of hyperbole and blowing things out of proportion  :lol

Quote
In order for this debate to be productive, it would help if you responded to my claim that local government should be required to cite factual evidence and logical reasoning when enacting new measures.

I already did. You already know where the evidence is, too. You just disagree with it, because you live in a bizarre world where saturated fats and sodium are good, and eating lots of beef is good for people who want to lose weight. No amount of evidence to the contrary seems to be able to change your mind, as displayed in previous threads.

As per the community point, a community shouldn't have to "justify banning“ the sale of ANYTHING that doesn't already meet nutritional guidelines to minors. For what it's worth, I like McDonald's and wouldn't want support any such measures aside from simply forcing them to have nutritional information available (which you are also against). But I see no real cause for alarm with this particular piece of legislation. Sucks for McDonalds, but again, I don't see the big deal with them having to actually make their food somewhat healthier if they're going to make it as savory as possible to children.

Actually, this thread's got me craving some serious McDonald's right now  ;D
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 03:25:46 AM by Perpetual Change »

Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #57 on: November 17, 2010, 10:58:49 AM »
I'm not saying we have to "protect parents." I'm saying parents have a right to work together to keep things out of their communities. And, for what it's worth, stable societies everywhere suggest your implicit assertion that only markets can successfully determine community standards is unfounded.
That's irrelevant. The issue were discussing isn't one of destabilizing society. Again, it's a matter of respecting private property and the freedom of association. Society will still function peacefully with or without smoking bars. And I realize that people acting through their elected officials, or whatever sanctimonious way you describe it, can determine community standards. But that should be limited to issues that truly impact everybody; people shouldn't be allowed to vote on how others live their lives. 

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #58 on: November 17, 2010, 11:02:28 AM »
As usual I agree with the libertarians minus their illogical optimism.

Also minus NRs little speeches about how eating constant fat is the best diet possible.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline PlaysLikeMyung

  • Myung Protege Wannabe
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8179
  • Gender: Male
  • Maurice Moss: Cooler than you
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #59 on: November 17, 2010, 11:09:27 AM »
NigeriusRex, if you use the word 'gay' one more time to describe something here I'm giving you a temporary vacation

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #60 on: November 17, 2010, 11:11:00 AM »
NigeriusRex, if you use the word 'gay' one more time to describe something here I'm giving you a temporary vacation

Thank you, I actually appreciate that.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #61 on: November 17, 2010, 11:20:52 AM »


Also minus NRs little speeches about how eating constant fat is the best diet possible.
I would agree, but NR's probably lost 80 pounds over the last year eating mostly saturated fat.

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #62 on: November 17, 2010, 11:25:20 AM »


Also minus NRs little speeches about how eating constant fat is the best diet possible.
I would agree, but NR's probably lost 80 pounds over the last year eating mostly saturated fat.

And other people have lost weight eating no saturated fat and mostly fruits and veges. And other people lose weight in other ways. It's odd to assume your diet is the only possible diet and that everything else is unhealthy to a large extent.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Seventh Son

  • Posts: 2496
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #63 on: November 17, 2010, 12:05:01 PM »
Skimming through this thread I managed to read:

>ad hominem attack
>no u
Every time someone brings up "Never Enough", the terrorists win.

Offline j

  • Posts: 2794
  • Gender: Male
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #64 on: November 17, 2010, 12:35:41 PM »
There should be other goals of a healthy diet than just losing weight.  If you just want to lose weight, consume less calories than you expend.

-J

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #65 on: November 17, 2010, 12:45:16 PM »


Also minus NRs little speeches about how eating constant fat is the best diet possible.
I would agree, but NR's probably lost 80 pounds over the last year eating mostly saturated fat.

And other people have lost weight eating no saturated fat and mostly fruits and veges. And other people lose weight in other ways. It's odd to assume your diet is the only possible diet and that everything else is unhealthy to a large extent.

Losing weight does not make what you are doing healthy as per Mark Haub and the convenience store/twinky diet.

I never said my diet was the only diet and we should legislate it. I specifically have always said that the government should not condemn saturated fat as the reason behind America becoming fatter over the past thirty years and should rewrite their nutritional guidelines to let people know that foods high in carbohydrates are much more detrimental to their health than foods high in saturated fat and sodium. On a personal level, after trying miserably to lose weight for years via the government and Jillian Micheals way, I found that a low carb diet is easy to maintain and actually makes me feel fantastic, keep my waist size slim, and keep my blood and organ health on the up and up. .

Aside from that, there has never been any study anywhere that legitimately proves a link between heart disease and saturated fat, or weight gain and saturated fat. On the other hand, more research is emerging that questions those presupposed links. All those threads I made about the 2010 dietary guidelines were justified as an example.

Quote
The initial Dietary Goals for Americans (1977) proposed increases in carbohydrate intake and decreases in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and salt consumption that are carried further in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report. Important aspects of these recommendations remain unproven, yet a dietary shift in this direction has already taken place even as overweight/obesity and diabetes have increased. Although appealing to an evidence-based methodology, the DGAC Report demonstrates several critical weaknesses, including use of an incomplete body of relevant science; inaccurately representing, interpreting, or summarizing the literature; and drawing conclusions and/or making recommendations that do not reflect the limitations or controversies in the science

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #66 on: November 17, 2010, 07:12:40 PM »
Skimming through this thread I managed to read:

>ad hominem attack
>no u


If that's what you saw, then you didn't read through the thread at all.

Offline PlaysLikeMyung

  • Myung Protege Wannabe
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8179
  • Gender: Male
  • Maurice Moss: Cooler than you
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #67 on: November 17, 2010, 07:15:26 PM »


Also minus NRs little speeches about how eating constant fat is the best diet possible.
I would agree, but NR's probably lost 80 pounds over the last year eating mostly saturated fat.

And other people have lost weight eating no saturated fat and mostly fruits and veges. And other people lose weight in other ways. It's odd to assume your diet is the only possible diet and that everything else is unhealthy to a large extent.

Losing weight does not make what you are doing healthy as per Mark Haub and the convenience store/twinky diet.

I never said my diet was the only diet and we should legislate it. I specifically have always said that the government should not condemn saturated fat as the reason behind America becoming fatter over the past thirty years and should rewrite their nutritional guidelines to let people know that foods high in carbohydrates are much more detrimental to their health than foods high in saturated fat and sodium. On a personal level, after trying miserably to lose weight for years via the government and Jillian Micheals way, I found that a low carb diet is easy to maintain and actually makes me feel fantastic, keep my waist size slim, and keep my blood and organ health on the up and up. .

Aside from that, there has never been any study anywhere that legitimately proves a link between heart disease and saturated fat, or weight gain and saturated fat. On the other hand, more research is emerging that questions those presupposed links. All those threads I made about the 2010 dietary guidelines were justified as an example.

Quote
The initial Dietary Goals for Americans (1977) proposed increases in carbohydrate intake and decreases in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and salt consumption that are carried further in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report. Important aspects of these recommendations remain unproven, yet a dietary shift in this direction has already taken place even as overweight/obesity and diabetes have increased. Although appealing to an evidence-based methodology, the DGAC Report demonstrates several critical weaknesses, including use of an incomplete body of relevant science; inaccurately representing, interpreting, or summarizing the literature; and drawing conclusions and/or making recommendations that do not reflect the limitations or controversies in the science

The problem with saying that Saturated Fat can be good is that, yes it can be, for SOME people. But as far as I can tell it's harmful overall, and cutting it down at the very least is a good thing

Offline Seventh Son

  • Posts: 2496
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #68 on: November 17, 2010, 07:19:01 PM »
Skimming through this thread I managed to read:

>ad hominem attack
>no u


If that's what you saw, then you didn't read through the thread at all.
I said skimming but what I got out of what both sides were saying was "NO I'M RIGHT YOU SUCK" "NO U SUCK MORE LOLOLOL" except done more eloquently. Really for a moment I thought I was in the news board of a certain imageboard.

I'll have to re-read through it, but reading through it certainly made my eyes burn.
Every time someone brings up "Never Enough", the terrorists win.

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.
« Reply #69 on: November 17, 2010, 07:41:53 PM »
The big difference here is that people are saying each other's arguments--not eachother-- suck; a distinction which is unfortunately absent from most places on the internet where politics are discussed. This is not one of those places. No one here has any issues with each other on a personal level. Let's not start trying to make nothing into a big deal.