More of the same, or "It's good for you, stupid!"

[cryowizard]

Once again, our do-goodie liberal friends are trying to legislate personal choice.

This time, it's fast food. They are seriously contemplating using zoning laws to lessen the number of fast food joints "to combat obesity".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5169234.stm

Everbody and their mother knows that gulping down greasy shit you buy at McDonalds on a regular basis is going to kill you. Yet if people choose to do it, they should be allowed to do it until they all fucking die of heart decease. Unless fast food is illegal. Which it isn't. Blah blah blah.

Same argument as with smoking: the concept of freedom includes freedom to be stupid and die of a coronary at 40 because your dumb fat ass was living in McDonalds.

Today it's smoking and greasy food. Tomorrow I won't be allowed to drink alcohol (that shit is baaad). And I will be forced to exercise every day for two hours (not looking well is baaad). And eat only vegan shit (killing cows is baaad).

No brain-dead liberal politician may stand in the way of me eating a nice juicy steak, gulping down a glass of White Lightning, smoking a Cuban cigar and watching nastiest porn ever, all the while comfortably resting my fat ass in a chair made of fresh cow skin and doing absofuckinglutely nothing good to my health. Should such be my choice.

Comments

[baffled-pumpkin.livejournal.com]

Dim, speaking of adults, yes (even though I still disagree about smoking -- it is not a self-contained act that can be compared to consuming a hamburger. It affects other people around you.)

The problem is that most of those fast-food joints target children, and children do tend to listen to commercials. I agree that parents should take responsibility for educating their kids about nutrition instead of "outsourcing" the solution by eliminating fast food joints. But they have vending machines in schools, they advertise, children absorb, and I don't want to spend a lot of my time fighting that. There are more interesting things to concentrate on...

Also, you forgot one important thing. If you look at the statistics, most of those "obese" people who are consuming fast food are not working and are on welfare. Just look around -- the number of fast food joints in upscale or upper-mid class neighbourhoods is close to none.

The freedom of choice, first of all, comes with responsibility. Meaning, if I want to be obese and sick by choice, I am the one who must be responsible for myself, and be able to deal with all consequences by myself. However, it is not the case here. At the end of the day it is not them, but you who is paying their hospital bills where they treat their obesity related issues (and there are many, believe me!)

So, in this case, I am not sure if this issue is "liberal". Liberals are for the freedom of choice (and liberals are actually even willing to pay for somebody's irresponsible "choices"). But in this case, the whole matter looks quite republican to me: "We do not want our tax money to be used to cover your medicaid bills, and if you are not responsible, we'll have to take care of this crap somehow" :)

[cryowizard.livejournal.com]

If you want to counter-infuence children -- do the same thing you did with cigarettes: counter-ads (financed by YOU, not the taxpayer). Keep drilling into the minds of parents first of all, and kids themselves, that burgers are bad. Change public opinion towards fast food and the fast food merchants will have to change with the public if they dont want to lose business (and they are changing already). That's the natural order of things, not saying "no fast food restaurants here". Don't use the law to restrict a very very very legal activity that is selling and consuming food. Pardon me, but a personal liberty to eat whatever I want may not be obstructed for any purpose, starting first and foremost with nonsense like "public good".

>> If you look at the statistics, most of those "obese" people who are consuming fast food are not working and are on welfare.

Show me those statistics. People who eat fast food may be poor, but not necessarily out of work or on welfare. There is a difference!

>> At the end of the day it is not them, but you who is paying their hospital bills where they treat their obesity related issues

This is a horrifyingly twisted "logic" you are employing. So we should restrict a legal business practice and people's personal liberties in order for me the taxpayer to save some of the money I am being raped out of by you the liberals. Awesome!

>> Liberals are for the freedom of choice (and liberals are actually even willing to pay for somebody's irresponsible "choices").

Dont make me laugh. Liberals are for the freedom of choice when that choice is within the range they find acceptable (we are not talking about abortion). And paying for somebody's irresponsible choices?! With whose money??? The taxpayers! You want to pay for other people? Use your own wallet.

As to the burgers, you are fogetting one thing. They are CHEAP. The reason why your neighbourhood doesn't have fast food joints is because middle-class and up people live there. A sandwich in a joint in Cobble Hill ran me $10 during my jury duty in May. Most poor people can't afford that. So when fast food joints are gone, you will force the poor to spend more of their money on transportation to get to the places where cheap food is. Or do you think they will be buying organic produce like you do??

A solution to this problem is cheap healthy food. But there is no such thing, is there.

[baffled-pumpkin.livejournal.com]

So we should restrict a legal business practice and people's personal liberties in order for me the taxpayer to save some of the money I am being raped out of by you the liberals. Awesome!

Liberals are for the freedom of choice when that choice is within the range they find acceptable (we are not talking about abortion). And paying for somebody's irresponsible choices?! With whose money??? The taxpayers! You want to pay for other people? Use your own wallet.


I have no idea how this relates to me. First of all, what do you mean by "you the liberals"? I am not affiliated with any party. Neither, republican, nor democratic, nor green or pink or whatever.
I am just a human being who has views :) Some of them are in sync w/democrats, some w/republicans, and some w/you name it. Having liberal views on abortion, sex, and gay marriage doesn't make me a liberal just as well as having conservative views on tax policies doesn't make me a republican. It is very hard to box me into any political affiliation, so don't even try :)

Another thing is that I think I clearly stated that I am not for paying for somebody's irresponsible choices. And I did say that parents should educate their kids. However, the media sometimes (quite often, I should say) is very invasive and overwhelming. My point was that it is very sad that I should spend my money and energy to fight McDonalds ads, when it can be used on something much more interesting, that's all.

I do agree with your view about changning public opinion on fast food, and everything that goes w/it.
However, there are some extremes. For instance, there is 1 McDonalds on the edge of my neighbourhood. And it is next to the supermarket. Who eats there? People who come from projects several blocks away (hey babe, it's NY, everything is nearby :))

Yes, hamburgers and fries are cheap, but so are the beans, potatoes/other veggies, wholesome breads and meats in a supermarket that do not contain huge amount of transfats and other bad stuff (i am not talking about organic produce). But these people do not want to be educated. And they do use Medicaid. And they do make irresponsible choices.

As for legality, maybe I am such a big opponent of fast food joints because I question whether the food with such high amount of detrimental elements in it should be legal at all. At least lately food companies have been forced to put the amounts of transfats on the label, so people see what they are eating.