Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 8/3/08 11:51 AM, Al6200 wrote:

Right, so logically fast food should include vegetables and fish.

No, logically you shouldn't eat there.
Using your own free will.

Grilled salmon

poor people can't afford salmon.
Even though it's not that expensive, all things considered.

Is Shaggy really your alt?

no

---

At 8/3/08 06:57 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
Nixon wasn't a shining capitalist, nor is Bush. Let's not forget Nixon's gas rationing.
So your entire argument is based on the fact that Arnold left an oppressive country and fell in love with a liberal republican to prove your point? You're frigging kidding right?:

Nixon was farther on the Road of Capitalism then just about anyone else we've ever had. He's no Ron Paul, but then again, no one but Ron Paul is Ron Paul.

Open challenge Cuppa. Show one time where I've ever been dishonest with you.

This topic, where you specifically said I was saying capitalism wasn't being challanged, when I had said the opposite.

It's worth 100 bucks if you can do it. Once. Try. And I'd be REAAAAAL shy about calling someone dishonest after the O'Reilly thread....

The O'Reilly thread where you blatantly supported a man who had lied his ass off? Right.

You start off by saying:

"Free Market" has nothing to do with this.

Because it doesn't. The only "pro" of the Free Market is that it makes more money and makes money more efficiently, whereas socialism and mixed market is a giant money pithole. The fact is that financially, the free market can ALWAYS outperform the government. But this isn't ABOUT finances. If someone said "This new deal will make money", then it would be a good time to bring up the "Capitalism above all else argument". But I bet the politicians who made this bill would ADMIT this deal is bad financially, meaning that capitalism is irrelevant.

If someone has a choice betweeen Ice Cream and Bread, arguing "Bread fills you up more" is irrelevent if the person is only considering taste.

You go on to argue that fast food joints aren't being screwed.

No, I don't. Another case of you putting words in my mouth.

..its just that restaurants are being helped!

And that's completely made up.

And youre entire point is a refutation of someone talking about how we're abandoning the free market.

Actually, the point is that capitalism is irrelevent to the argument. Oh gee.

Maybe you idn't mean to argue against free markets...but you did.

Actually, I didn't. Because once again, Free Markets are irrelevant. If the point of this ban was to make the citizens, the fast food companies, or government money, THEN is the time to bring up that radical Free Market Capitalism makes the most money and makes the best workforce 100% of the time. But the government, in this case, isn't under their usual "government will help the private sector" delusion; they aren't saying this will help anyone financially. The entire goal of this ban is to make people less fat, period. It's dumb, but that's their goal.

Again; if someone picks ice cream over bread and is only considering taste, it's useless to bring up that bread fills you up.

So, your basic defense to lying through your teeth is to reiterate that everyone other than you is right?

I already pointed out out where you lied, feel free to point out where I lied.

And btw, I just reiterated what I said the first time.

Curious strategy, but I wanna see where you're going with it!

I want to see where your going by lying about what I said on a website that records everything I post. At least wait for me to forget what I wrote before you try it, geeze.

Starbucks failed due to bad business decisions, not location. Instead of trying to create the best product, Starbucks tried to bury their competition. Starbucks has gotten no less than 3 boycotts in the past year. There are a lot of reasons for Starbucks failure. Location isn't one of them.

Location isn't one of them? When you have 2 starbucks within 1 minute of each other (I'm not shitting you, I've seen it), you're locations are not going to be anywhere NEAR as productive as they should be. People in charge where desperately trying to meet quotas for new stores, and so they started expanding irresponsibly. Saying Location didn't matter is like saying losing Jeff Garcia had nothing to do with the 49ers starting this losing streak.

---

At 8/3/08 03:22 PM, poxpower wrote:

No, logically you shouldn't eat there.
Using your own free will.

So, people who are too impulsive, or are unaware of the health threats, should just die of heart attack or stroke, as they already do to a large extent.

Why does it matter if people in an ideal situation would make good health decisions? Don't we have to deal with how people behave in reality, and makes laws that improve health and human happiness?

poor people can't afford salmon.
Even though it's not that expensive, all things considered.

Even the relatively high mercury salmon costs like $3-5 for a nice fillet (all depends on size though).

no

Awww. So there really is a chance to redeem him and teach him some real physics so he can become a productive and thoughtful member of the community.

---

At 8/3/08 04:20 PM, Al6200 wrote:

So, people who are too impulsive, or are unaware of the health threats, should just die of heart attack or stroke, as they already do to a large extent.

Yes. Have any of you ever been REALLY fat? No?

I'm 6'4/5 and 270. It's not as fat as you'd think, since I play football so I have some muscle, but it's still well within the category of Obese. Theres not a doctors visit I have that the guy doesn't make sure I'm aware that I'm unhealthily fat, that fast food contributes too it, and tells me to set a personal goal for losing weight; 4 pounds by 2 months from now, something like that. So what do I do?

I eat fast food. Yeah, they tell us that it will kill us, but like every other fat person and cigarette smoker, we completely ignore it, and it never truly hits home that we may die until it's too late. This is OUR faults, no ones elses. The people of the U.S should not be subject to paying the consequences to our unhealthy lifestyle. I chose to eat, and if it gives me a heart attack I should be the one paying the financial consequences. We made the choice to put ourselves in a position to die, so we can make the choice to get out of that position.

Why does it matter if people in an ideal situation would make good health decisions? Don't we have to deal with how people behave in reality, and makes laws that improve health and human happiness?

No. Health and Happiness can achieve themselves without laws. We need SMALL amounts of Laws to protect human interests, that's it.

---

At 8/3/08 04:16 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

Nixon wasn't a shining capitalist, nor is Bush. Let's not forget Nixon's gas rationing.
So your entire argument is based on the fact that Arnold left an oppressive country and fell in love with a liberal republican to prove your point? You're frigging kidding right?

Yea, if you ignore stuff like price caps, gas rationing etc.

Open challenge Cuppa. Show one time where I've ever been dishonest with you.

This topic, where you specifically said I was saying capitalism wasn't being challanged, when I had said the opposite.

You said no such thing. You said the opposite. Granted, you're a moron who can't articulate his position...

The O'Reilly thread where you blatantly supported a man who had lied his ass off? Right.

Um, here's what happened.

You claimed O'Reilly said something 3 times. He was called on it on all three times and lied his way out if it To this day, under your story, he'd never admitted lying,

The reality: You made every last bit of it up. OReilly made a bad claim on two occasions. The first time he was called on it, he admitted guilt and changed his story. Wehn I confronted you on the fact that you were a liar, you admitted that your own links didn't support your story, but claimed it didn't matter. Thus, I was right, and you were dishonest.

Because it doesn't. The only "pro" of the Free Market is that it makes more money and makes money more efficiently, whereas socialism and mixed market is a giant money pithole. The fact is that financially, the free market can ALWAYS outperform the government. But this isn't ABOUT finances. If someone said "This new deal will make money", then it would be a good time to bring up the "Capitalism above all else argument". But I bet the politicians who made this bill would ADMIT this deal is bad financially, meaning that capitalism is irrelevant.

This is why I give you the benefit of the doubt Cuppa. You're honestly too stupid to understand your own arguments. If someone sayd "We're ignoring the free markets" and you claim "no we're not" you have to show it. Showing an abandoning of fre markets makes you look dumb....

And that's completely made up.

No, tyhat's exactly what you argued.

Actually, the point is that capitalism is irrelevent to the argument. Oh gee.

You can't say capitalisms irrelevant to the argument moron. Capitalism has been a central point. Fuck youre stupid.

---

At 8/3/08 06:40 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 8/2/08 04:21 AM, metalstorm wrote: Subways is a fast food restaurant. I also never implied that people who go to fast food restaurants do want to eat healthy. When I go to a fast food restaurant I don't want to eat healthy either but the difference between me and someone who is obese is that I am responsible enough to moderate how much I eat and how often I eat fast food.

Who cares? I don't give a flying one about what a great human being you are.

My point was that if people learned to moderate how much they ate then none of thins would be an issue. I thought I made that quite clear but it seems that I have to spell everything out for you.

I'm well aware of this and I never said that fast food restaurants should have to offer healthy alternatives. Although, mind you, the 'smart ones' are.

How is it smart? As we've both acknowledged, salads don't go over well in fast food.

With the use of no statistics we have come to the conclusion that salads are most likely the least selling item on the menu. In no way does this imply that they are not selling well, just that every other item on the menu is being sold more often. Mcdonalds, for example saw an increase in profits of 13% with the introduction of their 'premium salads' in 2003. The increase in profit would have also been partly due to the marketing associated with the introduction of the new menu

I'd say it would only really be appropriate for the government to intervene in extenuating circumstances and this would include situations where fast-food related obesity is leading to a diversion of tax payers dollars from other places in order to subsidize medical treatment of obese individuals.

AND HERE'S THE PROBLEM.
The problem is that government has stepped in and delegated this role to itself.

As it should. I don't pay tax to subsidize irresponsibility.

There's no tax payer funds at stake without the government offering. This is like me offering to buy you a free lunch then complaining that it was expensive.

I don't know what to say really. I'm quite stunned by your ignorance. All health-care is subsidized by the government thus when someone goes to hospital the government uses tax payer funds to pay for part of that treatment. Simplistic explanation but it should help to get the message across.

And which right would that be? Believe it or not, gluttony is not a right.

Yes. Yes it is.

And therein lies the answer to your stance in this argument.

---

At 8/3/08 04:29 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 8/3/08 04:20 PM, Al6200 wrote:

So, people who are too impulsive, or are unaware of the health threats, should just die of heart attack or stroke, as they already do to a large extent.

Yes. Have any of you ever been REALLY fat? No?

At one point I was 6'2 and weighed about 235.

I'm 6'4/5 and 270. It's not as fat as you'd think, since I play football so I have some muscle, but it's still well within the category of Obese. Theres not a doctors visit I have that the guy doesn't make sure I'm aware that I'm unhealthily fat, that fast food contributes too it, and tells me to set a personal goal for losing weight; 4 pounds by 2 months from now, something like that. So what do I do?

Good luck. I hope you can get healthier.

I eat fast food. Yeah, they tell us that it will kill us, but like every other fat person and cigarette smoker, we completely ignore it, and it never truly hits home that we may die until it's too late. This is OUR faults, no ones elses. The people of the U.S should not be subject to paying the consequences to our unhealthy lifestyle. I chose to eat, and if it gives me a heart attack I should be the one paying the financial consequences. We made the choice to put ourselves in a position to die, so we can make the choice to get out of that position.

Right, but if you go to the hospital, and can't afford the treatment (obese people have a higher chance of being poor then the population at large), guess who pays for it? What if you have a stroke and need costly rehabilitation? What if you have diabetes and can't afford all of the treatments that go along with that?

Whether it's your fault or not that you're out of shape, society has a collective responsibility to fix the problem.

No. Health and Happiness can achieve themselves without laws. We need SMALL amounts of Laws to protect human interests, that's it.

In an ideal situation people would make healthy choices - but in the real world they don't, and we have to frame our policy around that reality.

---

It's just a fucking zoning law basically. They still have the restaurants there.

Don't get all messed up over something that's not what you think it is.

---

At 8/3/08 04:20 PM, Al6200 wrote:

So, people who are too impulsive, or are unaware of the health threats, should just die of heart attack or stroke, as they already do to a large extent.

And though shit if they don't, we can't babysit everyone all the time making sure they know that sugar makes you fat and that there's no tooth fairy.

Why does it matter if people in an ideal situation would make good health decisions?

Yeah right, I still eat ice cream and chocolate and burgers and hot dogs.
People don't care.

---

I'll admit, encouraging people to eat healthier will do wonders medically.

However, it's by force and not by choice.

---

At 8/4/08 04:28 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Yea, if you ignore stuff like price caps, gas rationing etc.

Again, he's closer then others. We've never had a president totally dedicated to Capitalism.

You said no such thing. You said the opposite. Granted, you're a moron who can't articulate his position...

"NO ONE is saying that by limiting the free market, they are going to be making money off this deal."
"BY LIMITING THE FREE MARKET"

So, as any idiot can see, I made two claims in that sentence; first off, that THEY ARE LIMITING FREE MARKET, and secondly that NO ONE IS SAYING THEY WILL MAKE MONEY BY DOING SO.

Feel free to keep lying.

The reality: You made every last bit of it up. OReilly made a bad claim on two occasions.

He said it three times. On one of the equations, he said it TWICE. On another occasion, he said it once. That's three times.

The first time he was called on it, he admitted guilt and changed his story.

No, the first time he said it he claimed that everyone was simply misunderstanding him.

Wehn I confronted you on the fact that you were a liar, you admitted that your own links didn't support your story, but claimed it didn't matter. Thus, I was right, and you were dishonest.

Actually, I didn't. You also dishonestly claimed that Fox Never washed their own transcripts, when it's a documented fact that they did. That alone proves you are would refuse to admit anytime Fox News is wrong, so even if I proved beyond a doubt O'Reilly's intent, you still would deny it.

This is why I give you the benefit of the doubt Cuppa. You're honestly too stupid to understand your own arguments. If someone sayd "We're ignoring the free markets" and you claim "no we're not" you have to show it. Showing an abandoning of fre markets makes you look dumb....

Are you fucking retarded? Did you even read that paragraph you just wrote? NOWHERE IN IT do I claim we aren't limiting capitalism. I ONLY said that the only time capitalism matters is in situations where financial gain are factors, and in those situations capitalism will always win.

However, like I keep saying (and you keep distorting into "see, you just denied this is limiting capitalism!"), money is irrelevant here.

No, tyhat's exactly what you argued.

No, it isn't.

Again; arguing that capitalism is relevant to the argument is like saying taste is relevant to picking your dinner when the ONLY THING your considering is nutritional value. No one involved in this Bill CARES about the financial aspect, so it's irrelevant to argue capitalism.

Unless Capitalism in this situation could limit obesity better then government involvement can (it can't), then capitalism is irrelevant.

If the goal of the ban was to increase the amount of money someone makes, capitalism would be relevant, because it could do a better job.

If the goal of the ban was to make a better product, capitalism would be relevant, because capitalism could do a better job.

If the goal of the ban was to make a more healthy economy, capitalism would be relevant, because capitalism could do a better job.

---

At 8/4/08 02:47 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At one point I was 6'2 and weighed about 235.

I'm fatter, so I win.

Good luck. I hope you can get healthier.

I better, since it's my fault (and not anyone else) if I don't.

Right, but if you go to the hospital, and can't afford the treatment (obese people have a higher chance of being poor then the population at large), guess who pays for it?

Unfortunately, the taxpayers. That SHOULDN'T be the case, I alone should foot the entire bill.

What if you have a stroke and need costly rehabilitation? What if you have diabetes and can't afford all of the treatments that go along with that?

If your diabetes and stroke are a result of your eating habits, then too bad.

Whether it's your fault or not that you're out of shape, society has a collective responsibility to fix the problem.

No they don't. If I chose to shoot myself in the head, Uncle Sam shouldn't pay for my funeral, should he?

In an ideal situation people would make healthy choices - but in the real world they don't, and we have to frame our policy around that reality.

And my policy is that all medical issues resulting from the choice of the victim should be paid by him.