First Trans Fats, now Salts

turbolapp said:
So how about this? As a well educated, somewhat highly intelligent individual with a ooooh LIFE (2 kids, a fulltime business, a husband...etc) I don't have time to read up on every single food label before I purchase something (which by the way are meant to be confusing so that even a well educated, well informed person has trouble with them sometimes)
Click to expand...
But you're missing one thing.

What if they are wrong? What if the government bureaucracy, which has no accountability if it fucks up (sovereign immunity from prosecution), no profit/loss incentive (they get more funding when they fuckup), makes the wrong call?

Are you really willing to not outsource, but relinquish your right to make your own decisions, and consulting your own sources because you are too busy to do so? And if so, where do you draw the line? Should the state tell you what to cook? How to dress your children? What TV programs to watch? What constitutes acceptable sex with your husband? What the proper role of a woman should be?

Do you think Nancy Pelosi or Sarah Palin is qualified to make those decisions for you?

It's a slippery slope when you surrender the choice. You're welcome to follow government guidelines, but when they are mandates, you've lost the capacity to act in your own self-interest if you disagree.

And rights lost, are almost never recovered.

As I wrote, people are anxious to adopt slavery because it seems convenient. You get 3 square meals. Someone provides you with clothes and shelter. And you were going to work the plantation anyway, but now you don't have to worry about clothes and food, someone else is taking care of that decision for you...

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
The Illustrated Road to Serfdom
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trademark


I think this is great. When I'm out buying food it's so hard to tell that fatty, fried, sugary, salted, processed foods are unhealthy. How am I supposed to know that an apple is more healthy than french fries? All this being free and self-responsibility stuff is difficult.

I will gladly pay part of my paycheck to a group of Liberal Arts educated government employees that weren't quite admirable enough to start their own businesses and actually make a profit. The continual sucking sound of failure is gladly welcomed in my household. I like businesses that aren't profitable and self-sustaining.

We get the best of both worlds: Funding losers and taking away our own freedom of choice. I love it. What's there not to love? It's hard being smart, screw that. And discipline is something of former ages. We're entering a new age. We're doing things right.

I'm convinced. People are never going to figure it out until it's too late. Whatever.
 
guerilla said:
But you're missing one thing.

What if they are wrong? What if the government bureaucracy, which has no accountability if it fucks up (sovereign immunity from prosecution), no profit/loss incentive (they get more funding when they fuckup), makes the wrong call?

Are you really willing to not outsource, but relinquish your right to make your own decisions, and consulting your own sources because you are too busy to do so? And if so, where do you draw the line? Should the state tell you what to cook? How to dress your children? What TV programs to watch? What constitutes acceptable sex with your husband? What the proper role of a woman should be?

Do you think Nancy Pelosi or Sarah Palin is qualified to make those decisions for you?

It's a slippery slope when you surrender the choice. You're welcome to follow government guidelines, but when they are mandates, you've lost the capacity to act in your own self-interest if you disagree.

And rights lost, are almost never recovered.

As I wrote, people are anxious to adopt slavery because it seems convenient. You get 3 square meals. Someone provides you with clothes and shelter. And you were going to work the plantation anyway, but now you don't have to worry about clothes and food, someone else is taking care of that decision for you...

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
The Illustrated Road to Serfdom
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Click to expand...


A line has got to be drawn somewhere right? Otherwise on one end we'd have anarchy and the other, totalitarianism


and can I say it's still surreal to me that I just put the words anarchy and totalitarianism in an argument about salt.


EDIT: But if I had a choice, In lieu of the proposed recommendations, I would rather see stricter regulations with food labeling with an "across the board" metrics of accountability on labels. I would also support legislation that required restaurants to report exactly what they're serving. (Right now it's mostly voluntary)
 
Last edited:
slayerment said:
I think this is great. When I'm out buying food it's so hard to tell that fatty, fried, sugary, salted, processed foods are unhealthy. How am I supposed to know that an apple is more healthy than french fries? All this being free and self-responsibility stuff is difficult.
Click to expand...

well to be fair, with some things like sodium in canned vegetables, soup, or whatnot, it's a bit harder to tell.
 
I say let them eat what they want.

Just deny them of health care when they get sick because of it.

Humans never want to learn the easy way.
 
It makes more sense to ban unhealthy foods than recreational drugs.

I think people should be allowed to put what the fuck they like into their own bodies, but a lot of people are fucking stupid and easily manipulated. Banning advertising (as with tobacco) makes more sense than controlling certain products.
 
LazyHippy said:
It makes more sense to ban unhealthy foods than recreational drugs.

I think people should be allowed to put what the fuck they like into their own bodies, but a lot of people are fucking stupid and easily manipulated. Banning advertising (as with tobacco) makes more sense than controlling certain products.
Click to expand...

I agree to an extent, the only tough part is with like, manufacturing of meth when it endangers others. In which case I guess they'd get a reckless endangerment charge, or endangering a child, etc
 
papajohn56 said:
I agree to an extent, the only tough part is with like, manufacturing of meth when it endangers others. In which case I guess they'd get a reckless endangerment charge, or endangering a child, etc
Click to expand...

That's where you legalise, legislate and enforce quality controls, all paid for by taxation. Let the big guys make it, even taxed it will still be cheaper for the consumer. Sure there will be addiction & health problems with some drugs but no more so than with tobacco & alcohol. People producing there own will be doing it for different reasons and the associated risks will be a lot lower. How many people die from drinking moonshine these days?
 
LazyHippy said:
That's where you legalise, legislate and enforce quality controls, all paid for by taxation. Let the big guys make it, even taxed it will still be cheaper for the consumer. Sure there will be addiction & health problems with some drugs but no more so than with tobacco & alcohol. People producing there own will be doing it for different reasons and the associated risks will be a lot lower. How many people die from drinking moonshine these days?
Click to expand...

Then you just create more red tape and enforcement, and any cost benefit offset by taxing it, is gotten rid of with more bureaucracy that's been created to enforce more drug production.
 
papajohn56 said:
Then you just create more red tape and enforcement, and any cost benefit offset by taxing it, is gotten rid of with more bureaucracy that's been created to enforce more drug production.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing for a lot more bureaucracy, it could all be handled by whoever deals with the currently legal recreational drugs in each country/state and the additional costs would be more than offset by the reduction in law enforcement, incarceration, bribing foreign governments to destroy crops, etc.

Some countries might prefer a small government, pseudo-capitalist approach and instead of administering things themselves, sub-contract it out to a private firm. I can see a lot of flaws in that, but it might go down better with a population that prefers big chunks of their money paid to a few companies than lots of people on the gov payroll.
 
Drugs, food, alcohol, tobacco whatever...Don't tell me what to do, just tell me the truth. I want to know what's in it and how much. If it creates more bureaucracy then so be it. Honestly, I think it would be negligible once you remove all the laws and enforcement agencies banning these substances.

The only problem I see with this stance is addiction. We may think we have control, but with addiction, control is just an illusion.
 
1. IMO, the world's impending overpopulation is root of many of our planet's problems. Humans are the only species on earth that will willingly destroy it's own habitat. Eat salt by the deer blocks, see if you can get wholesale pricing on pallet fulls.'

2. Too much salt is not really a problem. An unbalanced potassium/sodium ratio at the cellular level is a problem. The human cells are basically generators, powered by the magnetic (polarity) interaction between potassium ions and sodium ions. When there is an imbalance, the cells can't operate at peak performance, not enough power (energy) is created, the system from the cellular level upward begins to fail, resulting in disease and illness.

Potassium, unlike salt, is not extremely cheap, doesn't play a part in preserving foods and isn't a flavor enhancer. So unless you strictly limit your sodium intake or ensure that you take well over the amount of sodium in a "typical" western diet, you're going to have an imbalance.

Bananas and apple cidar vinegar are cheap, readily available sources of dietary potassium.

And yeah, fuck you gubbmint, stay out of my body, my guns, my life. But keep paving those roads.
 
Grindstone said:
1. IMO, the world's impending overpopulation is root of many of our planet's problems. Humans are the only species on earth that will willingly destroy it's own habitat. Eat salt by the deer blocks, see if you can get wholesale pricing on pallet fulls.'

2. Too much salt is not really a problem. An unbalanced potassium/sodium ratio at the cellular level is a problem. The human cells are basically generators, powered by the magnetic (polarity) interaction between potassium ions and sodium ions. When there is an imbalance, the cells can't operate at peak performance, not enough power (energy) is created, the system from the cellular level upward begins to fail, resulting in disease and illness.

Potassium, unlike salt, is not extremely cheap, doesn't play a part in preserving foods and isn't a flavor enhancer. So unless you strictly limit your sodium intake or ensure that you take well over the amount of potassium in a "typical" western diet, you're going to have an imbalance.

Bananas and apple cidar vinegar are cheap, readily available sources of dietary potassium.

And yeah, fuck you gubbmint, stay out of my body, my guns, my life. But keep paving those roads.
Click to expand...

.........^^^^^This

And, the lead in my ass surrounded by water needs the salt in order to generate the electricity my cells need to function.

Lulz

I've been taking Potassium Gluconate supplements for years now. That and a couple of Banana's a day keep cellular imbalance away from this Salty Dawg!!

Nice post by the way. I think I fixed a part of it for you.
 
Grindstone said:
1. IMO, the world's impending overpopulation is root of many of our planet's problems.
Click to expand...

So fucking true. It's one issue no politician dares to address, how the hell do you sell the idea that we have to stop keeping alive those who would naturally die? Or stop reproducing at the same rate we did when we expected most of our offspring not to make it to adulthood?

In recent times only China has attempted to deal with this issue, and while it's certainly not without flaws their one child policy has made a big impact. Without it I doubt China would be in the position it is now.

How the fuck do you deal with population control in a more humane way?

Maybe priority should be given to development of the "male pill" (well injection/implant - for obvious reasons), then use education and other social engineering to make it the norm that both sexes basically chose to make themselves infertile until they are say 30. Loads of biological and ethical issues with that but better than leaving it until it gets to the stage where any action isn't so voluntary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom