Nyc Mayor Aims To Ban Super Sized Sodas And Sugary Drinks.

[mwc]

You have a very odd way of arguing sometimes. Kinda like throwing up flak.

 

I'm not following you at all.

 

Here I agree? Where here? Seems your post is missing a quote. Or if you're referring to the 'controversial' quote there, I was pointing to you. I don't get why you find my position, or Bloomberg's if you will, controversial.

It would be nice if I knew when you edited your posts. I saw this before and it was different. This has happened before (not just with you). I guess it's a privilege of paying?

 

In any case, instead of playing these games and trying to prove my position is inconsistent by trying to reframe my argument for me, let's just get back to the original argument, which is that I believe it's reasonable and would be a good thing if snickers bars and Mt Dew would be blacklisted on the food stamp program. You balked and called this discrimination.

 

So, show why it's discrimination.

I thought I did this?

 

From the government site you didn't care about because you didn't care about it:

Food stamp recipients would face increased complexity and potential for embarrassment if restrictions on the use of benefits are substantially expanded.

 

The imposition of new food restrictions would require more effort by recipients to understand which foods are allowed and which are not – suggesting that substantial resources would be needed to educate participants on allowable food choices. Even with such efforts, however, it is likely that some recipients will not always be able to keep track of which foods are allowed, thus increasing the chances that some purchase transactions will be rejected at the check-out counter. This has the potential to stigmatize participants by singling them out as food stamp recipients, and may discourage some eligible low- income persons from participating in the program.

 

And also:

Food Category...........................................Percent of Food Stamp....................Percent of Persons with

...................................................................Program Participants.......................Income over 130% of

...................................................................Consuming at Least Once...............Poverty Consuming at Least

...................................................................per Day............................................Once per Day

 

Soft Drinks (Regular and Sugar-Free)*......61.0..................................................59.2

Sweets........................................................61.6..................................................72.1

Salty Snacks...............................................29.6..................................................36.5

 

Sweets include jello, candy, ice cream, pudding, Ice/popsicles, muffins, sweet rolls, cake/cupcakes, cookies, pies/cobblers, pastries and doughnuts. Salty snacks include corn-based salty snacks, pretzels/party mix, popcorn, and potato chips.

 

* Difference is not statistically significant.

 

Finally, no evidence exists that Food Stamp Program participation causes obesity. While poverty is associated with obesity in some population groups and Food Stamp Program participation is closely linked with poverty, the independent effect of program participation on obesity is unknown.11

 

This we can compare with an older chart (but it shouldn't matter for this purpose):

TABLE 1: PREVALENCE OF PAST YEAR DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE AND ABUSE

 

................................................................................................................RECIPIENTS OF:

..............................................National.....Non-Welfare........Food

.............................................Estimates.....Recipients.........Stamps.....WIC.........Medicaid.......SSI...........AFDC

 

Heavy Drinking........................14.5%.........14.8%...............11.5%......13.8%.......10.3%..........6.4%........13.2%

Alcohol Abuse/Dependence......7.4%..........7.5%..................7.9%........8.2%.........5.2%..........4.3%..........7.6%

Drug Use...................................5.0%..........5.1%..................7.2%.........8.4%.........6.0%..........3.8%.........9.8%

Drug Abuse/Dependence..........1.5%..........1.5%..................2.5%.........2.7%.........2.0%..........1.3%.........3.6%

Sorry about the dots. The charts pasted great and looked nice but I previewed and it fell apart. I just wanted to borrow the numbers though so look at the links if you want to read the nice version.

 

Not being able to purchase alcohol hasn't even made a significant difference in the level of heavy drinking according to this graph. I figured if they haven't made real progress by 1996 (I believe that's when this last chart was made) that another decade or so wasn't going to make a huge difference. But maybe the lowest classes really cut back on drinking when Bush II came to office? I don't know.

 

So these people consume roughly the same amount of "junk." They appear to have the same level of "addictions." Where's the justification to single them out as a group? Because they're poor? I posted the requirements for getting on the program. They're not a unified group with a "fixed" set of nutritional requirements like WIC might be considered. They're a diverse group pretty much encompassing everyone. They have extremely poor in common. That's all. And that's enough to enforce some guidelines that they don't need anymore than anyone else?

 

If your argument is going to become "Poor people have bad diets" then that's not news. Are you going to impose a diet on all poor? Or just the ones you control through government payouts? The ones you can discriminate against?

 

mwc

[Akheia]

Compelling charts, mwc. I mean that sincerely. Especially compelling is the government's understanding that food stamps are already stigmatizing enough without making people feel worse about it.

 

It's important to note here that if someone does you a favor (such as giving you money), s/he is allowed to put restrictions on how that favor is used. If you don't like the restrictions, don't take the donation. If the government is giving someone money to survive, they're allowed to say what the money can be used for and to say that soda and candy doesn't have any special life-sustaining properties so therefore they don't want to pay for it. I'm just glad they have the humanity to recognize that the poor don't have a lot of options. Comfort eating is about all some people have. They don't get to jet to the Hamptons when they feel blue--but KFC has buckets of chicken for $20. Until the government starts operating its own commissaries for the poor, I don't know if the issue of food stamps' usage is ever going to be fully resolved.

 

Mike - I get that too and I'm not even skinny--just normal-sized. People who knew I was losing weight would make all sorts of bizarre comments if we went out to eat. And FUCK I hate that "real women have curves" tardbiscuited bullshit. I'm a real woman too, fuckyouverymuch! So are skinny women! Obesity doesn't make me more or less a "real" woman. (That, and I don't need to mention that the "curves" described are rarely hourglass-shaped.)

[RankStranger]

Fat people are oppressed. Skinny people are oppressed. So are black people, asians, and hillbillies. Both skinny ones and fat ones. Same goes for christians, atheists, Indians, mormons, Star Trek fans... the list goes on.

 

I'm definitely oppressed. So are you whether you know it or not.

 

I think I'm oppressing a pagan as I type. And MWC is oppressing me because he's just too fucking difficult to debate (even though I mostly agree with him on this thread).

 

Gawd what an oppressive world.

[Vigile]

It would be nice if I knew when you edited your posts. I saw this before and it was different.

 

Saw what before? you continue to be cryptic.

 

Regarding your support:

 

Oh, the food stamp web sight says it's discrimination, though it offers no justification for such other than to claim people would be singled out (something that already happens when they flash their stamps). I completely concede the point. Or not. This is just a silly claim. C'mon. And yeah, I still don't care what they say. I disagree with them. That's kinda the point.

 

Whether or not recipients will consume less sugar if products are black listed from the program is neither here nor there. I don't think we, the tax payers, should be paying for junk that does not reasonably constitute sustenance -- items not even on the USDA's 4 food groups list btw -- when the program is funded so that poor people don't go hungry (from the perspective of voter/tax payer mandate on the program). You, or the program itself, can call this singling them out all you like, but it doesn't make it true.

 

If black listing candy bars and soda is discriminatory, then it is also discriminatory when we black list beer, shampoo and a long list of other items that are typically sold in grocery stores. They can still buy these things, just not with food stamp money, which means tax payers are not directly paying for them.

 

BTW, in most grocery stores, food stamp items are separated by computer and customers are given two separate totals, one for food stamps and one for cash items. It's a seamless process. It's not like the stores embarrass them here by loudly exclaiming "you can't buy that with food stamps you bum!"

 

If your argument is going to become "Poor people have bad diets" then that's not news

 

So, here you go again, attempting to change my argument to support your position. My argument is not and has never been poor people have bad diets, though that's probably supportable. It's that tax payers shouldn't have to pay for candy bars and soda pop via the food stamp program and that I disagree with your claim that black listing these items constitutes discrimination.

[Akheia]

There are other programs that people use to survive, such as disability benefits and unemployment, that seem pretty immune to claims of "immoral" usage. I don't care what someone uses those disability benefits to buy--they are an insurance situation at that point. But food stamps are a special situation. They're given for a specific purpose. They're meant to feed someone so they survive. They're independent of other forms of welfare in that they have a targeted purpose. (There are other programs that are just as targeted, incidentally.) I don't see that asking food stamps be used for food that at least pretends to be life-sustaining is that much to ask. The issue of course is that really healthy food isn't cheap, and the rules for what is and isn't allowable are already a little hard to understand--and that the issue is serving sizes, not so much an occasional candy bar or soda. Even if you're eating healthy food, if you eat boatloads of it, you're still not sitting pretty. Definitely it's a thorny situation.

 

The argument isn't "poor people have bad diets." That's not an argument, nor even news. It's a well-documented, well-supported statement of fact. The questions that logically follow: Should we care? And if so, what form should "caring" take? I'm just not okay with telling the poor, "OKAY! We created this horrible situation, but now you're on your own dealing with the fallout." It seems a trifle mean to tell someone you've just damaged to grow a pair and quit being a baby about it.

[Vigile]

The issue of course is that really healthy food isn't cheap, and the rules for what is and isn't allowable are already a little hard to understand

 

I agree with you but I just can't see how candy bars and soda aren't obvious here. They aren't in the 4 food groups, which seems a pretty good point to start considering the food stamp program is a government program and so is the USDA. And they just don't do anything for people other than give them a temporary sugar rush.

 

Top ramen and other items are cheaper than pepsi and snickers too, so I don't see the issue.

 

Like I wrote earlier, I used to see loads of people abusing the food stamp program day after day, week after week using their stamps to buy entire shopping carts full of 2-liter pepsi bottles. Individual experience isn't usually a valid sample, but in my case, I spent 9 years working in a very busy grocery store and literally saw thousands of food stamp transactions every week, so I believe I got a pretty decent picture of what was going on -- at least then. It may be different today as food prices have gone up and more people are out of work and I'm guessing cut backs on the program meaning that perhaps people are abusing them less out of necessity. Dunno.

[mwc]

Oh, the food stamp web sight says it's discrimination, though it offers no justification for such other than to claim people would be singled out (something that already happens when they flash their stamps). I completely concede the point. Or not. This is just a silly claim. C'mon. And yeah, I still don't care what they say. I disagree with them. That's kinda the point.

Darn. I knew I should have posted where they changed from stamps to the little ATM/credit cards on account of this very reason. But you're aware of the general problem so I guess I didn't need to. It's nice to know you One that you know is real and the other that you deny. At least we're half way there.

 

But as for the other, the "no justification," you looked at the footnote when you went to look at the study? Right? You looked? And found:

11 Linz, Paul, Michael Lee, and Loren Bell. Obesity, Poverty, and Participation in Nutrition Assistance Programs.

Report prepared by Alta Systems for the Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, February 2005. Available on-line at

www.fns.usda.gov/oane

No. You didn't look. You disagreed. That's just the same as saying they had nothing since you had nothing yourself.

 

Here's the latest and greatest address for that file just so you can click right HERE.

 

Whether or not recipients will consume less sugar if products are black listed from the program is neither here nor there. I don't think we, the tax payers, should be paying for junk that does not reasonably constitute sustenance -- items not even on the USDA's 4 food groups list btw -- when the program is funded so that poor people don't go hungry (from the perspective of voter/tax payer mandate on the program). You, or the program itself, can call this singling them out all you like, but it doesn't make it true.

It says:

Solid fats and added sugars can make a food or beverage more appealing, but they also can add a lot of calories. The foods and beverages that provide the most empty calories for Americans are:

...

Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)

...

A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink.

This would mean it's a food...at least according to the USDA website you gave. You just don't like what kind of food it is. I don't like seafood. Won't touch it. Blech. I think if it were no longer considered a "food" I'd be just fine with that...as far as me, myself, goes. Don't care one whit what it might offer. Good, bad, or otherwise. Blech. People even die from fish (poisoning, allergies, mercury, etc.). I win. But others seem to like it. And don't die. So I lose. I can't speak for the world I suppose.

 

If black listing candy bars and soda is discriminatory, then it is also discriminatory when we black list beer, shampoo and a long list of other items that are typically sold in grocery stores. They can still buy these things, just not with food stamp money, which means tax payers are not directly paying for them.

Is beer and shampoo defined as food? I've mentioned that Congress would have to re-defined "food" as they have in the past or make an explicit category of some sort since that's not part of mission.

 

BTW, in most grocery stores, food stamp items are separated by computer and customers are given two separate totals, one for food stamps and one for cash items. It's a seamless process. It's not like the stores embarrass them here by loudly exclaiming "you can't buy that with food stamps you bum!"

Does this matter? Discretion would make it okay?

 

So, here you go again, attempting to change my argument to support your position. My argument is not and has never been poor people have bad diets, though that's probably supportable. It's that tax payers shouldn't have to pay for candy bars and soda pop via the food stamp program and that I disagree with your claim that black listing these items constitutes discrimination.

Good. Then we'll rule that out. There's no need to alter a diet that is not bad. So why alter the diet?

 

Ahh. The people spend too much money on candy bars and soda pop? How much money is that? And what is the correct amount they should be able to spend?

 

mwc

[Vigile]

No. You didn't look. You disagreed. That's just the same as saying they had nothing since you had nothing yourself.

 

Ok, fine, they used a study, so I concede they used something more than just an opinion. I still disagree and if I really cared enough, I've little doubt I could find studies of my own disproving their study. So?

 

This would mean it's a food...at least according to the USDA website you gave.

 

Yes, candy is food. Never said it wasn't. I said, it's not part of the 4 food groups.

 

You just don't like what kind of food it is. I don't like seafood.

 

Disingenuous and a red herring. This is not a mater of taste preference and you know it. You're equivocating here.

 

Is beer

 

Again, we aren't arguing whether something is or isn't food, we are debating whether some food can be removed from the list like other items are removed from the list. Beer, by your definition, however, is food.

 

Good. Then we'll rule that out. There's no need to alter a diet that is not bad. So why alter the diet?

 

In one breath you rule it out, which is the entire debate as far as I'm concerned and in the next breath you attempt to redefine my position for me once again. I have never once said we should alter anyone's diet. I have said I don't think tax payers should be footing the bill for food items that obvious to anyone with two brain cells do not offer real sustenance in a program designed for that very purpose.

 

If I cared about altering people's diets, I would have included frozen pizza on my black list suggestion since it is considered empty calories by the USDA website we've now both linked, but you notice, all I've said is tax payers shouldn't have to pay for candy and soda on a program designed to keep people from starving to death.

 

You aren't looking for a reasonable conversation here or a genuine discussion of opinions, you are looking to get me and you are using disingenuous debate methods in your attempt as this is the third time you've attempted to restate my position for me. I don't appreciate it.

[Akheia]

He did that to me, too, Vigile. It's not very nice. About all you can do is continue to call him on it.

 

To continue Ouro's argument, I'm not sure it's going to work to limit candy and soda with food stamps, as appealing as the idea is. I bow to Vigile's wisdom and experience in seeing what people use the money for (or at least what people in his area were using them for during that timeframe), but where would it end? Is a tub-sized bowl of sugar-sweetened monster-themed cereal really better than a candy bar? Is a cheap hot dog made with ammonia-treated slime and seasoned with a cocktail of cancer-causing chemicals really better than a soda? I'm worried that the exclusion of soda/candy would cause a spiralling exclusion of other foods whose connection to life-sustenance are equally dubious. And again, it's serving sizes that I think are the issue, not the foods themselves. Excluding soda and candy seems like demonizing them and I just don't like that idea. Thin people eat candy and drink soda too.

 

The mother of an ex of mine genuinely thought that only vegetarians should get full health benefits back when I lived in Canada. She was a nurse who regularly campaigned for this idea, incidentally. She hated paying for carnivores' putative cancer treatments. (Yes, yes, I know.) Our government has demonstrated time and again that they're happy to leap onto diet fads with little to no science backing it up--the blowup over "low-fat" foods that just made us fatter should tell anybody that the FDA doesn't know everything when it comes to food science. My ex's mom's big fad was vegetarianism. What if the government decides to cover only foods that fit into that kind of diet? How do we trust the issuer of food stamps to have picked the "right" Holy Grail of diet? To some extent we have to trust people to get foods on this program that they feel fit into their budgets and taste preferences. We're not going to fix the trifecta of junk foods' cheap calories, lack of education, and lack of food prep skills at the cash register.

 

That said, if people ARE using that money to buy entire shopping-carts full of soda, then how are they actually getting *food*? The money's supposed to go to people who are in need of *food* so much that they can't even pay for life's other essentials. What are they eating every day?

[Ouroboros]

The effects of soda ban in elementary to high school: http://healthfinder....px?Docid=658685 (healthfinder.gov, i.e. department of health)

 

 

MONDAY, Nov. 7 (HealthDay News) -- Laws that specifically ban sugar-rich sodas in schools -- but not other high-calorie drinks -- do not reduce consumption of these obesity-generating beverages, a new study shows.

That's probably because, with sodas less available, kids just gravitate to sweetened fruit or sports-type drinks instead, the study authors found.

...

 

"Laws that focus just on sodas are no better than allowing all sweetened beverages. They didn't reduce much of anything," said Taber. "School laws can help but they can't do it on their own. There may be helpful laws in other sectors."

 

"This isn't surprising because one thing that's not really well appreciated is that the taste for sweetness is something we're born with. People like sweet things, so just making them unavailable in one source is not likely to address something we really like that's available in many other places," said Kavey, who was not involved with the study.

Kavey thinks combining laws with educational campaigns "so kids know why [drinks are] not there anymore" might advance the cause.

I.e. ban not helping. Perhaps educating does?

 

So kids now know soda are bad, but they don't know that fruit juice is also bad.

 

What is the suggested step to make them aware of fruit juice and energy drinks also being unhealthy? Ban fruit juice. Ban coffee, sweetened tea, chocolate drinks... only allow water.

 

But wait, too much water is dangerous too. Too much, too fast, can harm kidneys. Ban larger water bottles?

[Vigile]

You're probably right A. In my mind it's common sense to not pay for something that isn't going to sustain life -- it would be interesting to see a study showing how long a person could survive on soda and candy bars, but I'm thinking months in many cases, not years. But looking for common sense from the government sometimes just opens cans of worms that were never intended.

[mwc]

You aren't looking for a reasonable conversation here or a genuine discussion of opinions, you are looking to get me and you are using disingenuous debate methods in your attempt as this is the third time you've attempted to restate my position for me. I don't appreciate it.

Should we go back and edit the thread so it's more cohesive?

 

mwc

[Vigile]

If you're accusing me of editing my thread to change my position, then fuck off for calling me a cheat.

 

I've no doubt made some edits. I do it all the time as I reread what I wrote and see grammatical errors or unclear points or sometimes as I think of additional points I wish to make (which I just did here).

 

Is winning a debate really this important to you that you have to go at it in an underhanded way?

[mwc]

If you're accusing me of editing my thread to change my position, then fuck off for calling me a cheat.

 

I've no doubt made some edits. I do it all the time as I reread what I wrote and see grammatical errors or unclear points.

Then I'm going to have to fuck off because you know exactly what I'm calling you and why I'm doing it. I'll take the "loss" in this rigged "debate."

 

Your "unclear points," as you call them, are what others might call "your points." You've went back and stealthily "clarified" your non-position so it looked like you could anticipate, rather than, reacting to, my posts as you had been doing earlier in the thread. Quite clever.

 

The edit tag should appear for everyone.

 

mwc

[RankStranger]

You aren't looking for a reasonable conversation here or a genuine discussion of opinions, you are looking to get me and you are using disingenuous debate methods in your attempt as this is the third time you've attempted to restate my position for me. I don't appreciate it.

Should we go back and edit the thread so it's more cohesive?

 

mwc

 

 

You would be a truly formidable troll if you were interested in that sort of thing.

[RankStranger]

If you're accusing me of editing my thread to change my position, then fuck off for calling me a cheat.

 

I've no doubt made some edits. I do it all the time as I reread what I wrote and see grammatical errors or unclear points.

Then I'm going to have to fuck off because you know exactly what I'm calling you and why I'm doing it. I'll take the "loss" in this rigged "debate."

 

Your "unclear points," as you call them, are what others might call "your points." You've went back and stealthily "clarified" your non-position so it looked like you could anticipate, rather than, reacting to, my posts as you had been doing earlier in the thread. Quite clever.

 

The edit tag should appear for everyone.

 

mwc

 

Burn it to the ground, man. Salt the fields and poison the wells!

 

 

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD your God does give you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes.

[Vigile]

If you're accusing me of editing my thread to change my position, then fuck off for calling me a cheat.

 

I've no doubt made some edits. I do it all the time as I reread what I wrote and see grammatical errors or unclear points.

Then I'm going to have to fuck off because you know exactly what I'm calling you and why I'm doing it. I'll take the "loss" in this rigged "debate."

 

Your "unclear points," as you call them, are what others might call "your points." You've went back and stealthily "clarified" your non-position so it looked like you could anticipate, rather than, reacting to, my posts as you had been doing earlier in the thread. Quite clever.

 

The edit tag should appear for everyone.

 

mwc

 

I would never do as you suggested. I can be an ass in that I have little patience and I'm often rudely blunt, but intellectual honesty and integrity is important to me.

 

You haven't even demonstrated what you think I said in my quote.

 

Moreover, if anyone here has cheated, it has been you and your underhanded tactics, which I have demonstrated.

[mwc]

What do you want me to prove? That you can "stealth" edit posts? Edit your last post. I imagine you have the ability to make such edits and I do not. You've stated you can.

 

I noticed it in this thread with the following post. I responded to it:

 

Last year, the Obama administration rejected the mayor's request to bar city food-stamp recipients from using their benefits to buy soda and other sugary drinks.

 

Seems smart of Bloomberg and pretty stupid of the O admin if you ask me. No doubt lobby pressures were involved in the admin's decision here.

 

16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee

 

Medium coffee? Yeah at Starbucks. That doesn't make it 'medium' sized.

 

I agree the government shouldn't be playing nanny here, but this is still bizarre that such a thing became the new normal in the US.

 

It got this way, no doubt because of marketing influence. While I think it's heavy-handed and a bad idea, I can certainly understand why many are tempted to fight back against it using the government. Especially since everyone's insurance premiums go up when their neighbors get fat and fuck up their health at the rate they are doing it. This is self interest if not empathy in action.

This last entire paragraph was absent. It was in my edit window. I loaded the thread in another tab to check something and here was the whole paragraph. Just sitting there. I canceled my post. This is a "new" post from you.

 

This is how it has been going now hasn't it? I respond and "new" posts appear? Not one's I respond to but "clarified" posts. That take into account "new" information? A minute. Two. Ten. Maybe an hour? How long after were these "clarifications" taking place? Without any notice? I "speak," you get my info, then you decide to go back and "clarify?" It looks like you're speaking with one unified voice all along but I'm spitting out in erratically in fits? No. If people could see you went back and changed the record they could see I spoke, you edited the record and "re-spoke," but that's not what happened.

 

And since there are no tags there's no evidence. The board assisted you in your crime. It was perfect. And, don't worry, I've seen others perform the same task. You're not alone. In fact, rethinking, you may well be entirely innocent as you can't be guilty of that which is not a crime. I've made that argument all along and I should stick to it here.

 

EDIT: I altered the last paragraph.

Nother EDIT: I just wanted to see the timestamps change on the edit tag.

 

mwc

[Vigile]

Yes brother, I told you, I regularly edit my posts. Editing posts for clarity, to add new ideas or to fix spelling and grammatical errors is what the edit function is for and I have a habit of using it liberally.

 

You really just want to 'get' me don't you?

 

I think it's better if I just avoid discussion with you for a while. I like how your mind works, but I really don't appreciate the things you've accused me of or the way you have attempted to spin my position. Not to mention spin my use of the edit function here.

[mwc]

Yes brother, I told you, I regularly edit my posts. Editing posts for clarity, to add new ideas or to fix spelling and grammatical errors is what the edit function is for.

 

You really just want to 'get' me don't you?

 

I think it's better if I just avoid discussion with you for a while. I like how your mind works, but I really don't appreciate the things you've accused me of or the way you have attempted to spin my position.

Then you admit to editing your position after the fact and without notice. That would be ch

 

mwc

[Vigile]

I've admitted it 3 times now and never once denied it. If that's cheating, then Dave needs to fix the board function that allows for an edit function (edits are automatically not time stamped for subscribers if that's your issue -- again, alert Dave!). Hell, alert Bill Gates and have him get on MS Word while we're at it.

 

You are accusing me of changing my position in order to win an argument. That's something else entirely.

 

You really can't help yourself can you?

[Akheia]

Yes brother, I told you, I regularly edit my posts. Editing posts for clarity, to add new ideas or to fix spelling and grammatical errors is what the edit function is for.

 

You really just want to 'get' me don't you?

 

I think it's better if I just avoid discussion with you for a while. I like how your mind works, but I really don't appreciate the things you've accused me of or the way you have attempted to spin my position.

Then you admit to editing your position after the fact and without notice. That would be ch

 

mwc

 

Out of curiosity, what sort of notice would you want? Was he supposed to PM you with proposed grammatical changes to his posts before he makes them? I missed that memo somewhere.

[blackpudd1n]

I think mwc's got a valid point with regards to editing a post. I didn't realise there was a difference between subscriber and non-subscriber editing options, because I started subscribing soon after I got here. I'm guilty of not saying that I've edited a post, but then, I don't use the function that much, and usually it's just to fix up a "can" into a "can't"- for some reason, I'm dyslexic when it comes to can and can't. But I should be saying when I have edited a post, so I will from now on.

[OpheliaGinger]

Don't know what is, but something sure as hell is going on in the US and it's a relatively new phenomena. You just don't see obese people on the level that is common in the US elsewhere; ever. And when I was in high school, you didn't see it in the US either.

 

 

It's called "fat acceptance".

 

Not only has it become socially acceptable to be overweight (or even obese in some parts of the country), it's almost to the point where it's become socially unacceptable to not be overweight.

 

I know, because I have a lean build (mostly I get called "skinny", much to my dislike), and I get crap from people all the time.

 

A few years ago I visited my family for the holidays and there were many relatives there I had never met before. Most were at least slightly to moderately overweight (nobody I would call obese though), but at one point someone decided to tell me I was "too skinny", and about four or five people decided to jump on the "lets hate on the skinny guy" bandwagon. WTF!? I am in perfect health! I have low blood pressure, low cholesterol, low pulse rate, I am on no meds for anything, etc etc etc. Yet I end up being the "freak" in the room because i'm not a fatass. This is VERY fucked up.

 

But, that's modern day America.... fat 'n lazy..... and proud of it!

 

Now you know how it feels when the skinny ass shit for brains who've never been fat in their life look down upon the rest of us and sneer. You want to know something else, we also looked over in jobs because we are fat and ugly.

 

MOTHER FUCKER!

[WMDKitty]

So, what's to stop me from buying two 16-oz sodas?

 

And... really? Really? THIS is what he's concerned about? Not dealing with murderers, rapists, pedophiles, abusers, and, you know, people who are actually HARMING others, no, he's fucking concerned about SODA. Regulating the choices ADULTS make? Fuck that! Part of being an adult is making your own choices and dealing with the consequences of those choices. We don't need, or WANT, to be herded about by a nanny telling us what to eat, how much we can drink, and what we're "allowed" to consume.

 

By the way, Prohibition has NEVER worked. It didn't work for alcohol, it isn't working for the War on (some) Drugs, and it won't fucking work for soda.