Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

A skeptical look at medical practices
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6813
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:55 pm

me. me, me, me..........Me, ME, Me..........................MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMM..............MMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Sorry..... just warming up.

Scott: Three easy techniques to stay disconnected and firmly within your own bubble: create your own language, never answer a direct question, retreat to arguments of logic. IOW: you avoid coming to grips with the yawning gaps of facts and values contrary to what you perceive as your own. A childs approach to life.

7 pages in and you still think its valid to ask:

1. How does sugar stand to represent something AFFECTING OTHERS?

2. What justifies "....for people's own good."?

as if both questions haven't been the core of the discussion ((off point to the OP, but still close enough)) and answered directly and indirectly repeatedly?

Scott: YOU ARE DISHONEST.

Correct your perfidy just once: is there a problem in the Western diet of too much sugar being consumed?..... or not.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:55 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:me. me, me, me..........Me, ME, Me..........................MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMM..............MMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Sorry..... just warming up.

Scott: Three easy techniques to stay disconnected and firmly within your own bubble: create your own language, never answer a direct question, retreat to arguments of logic. IOW: you avoid coming to grips with the yawning gaps of facts and values contrary to what you perceive as your own. A childs approach to life.

7 pages in and you still think its valid to ask:

1. How does sugar stand to represent something AFFECTING OTHERS?

2. What justifies "....for people's own good."?

as if both questions haven't been the core of the discussion ((off point to the OP, but still close enough)) and answered directly and indirectly repeatedly?

Scott: YOU ARE DISHONEST.

Correct your perfidy just once: is there a problem in the Western diet of too much sugar being consumed?..... or not.

Yes, I hear you crying that it IS all about YOU...YOU, YOU, YOU.

:notme:

I accepted that a while ago. Is that honest enough for you?
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6813
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:06 am

Well Scott: just print out various thread and remove the names. Put the papers away and a year from now read them as if new to you. If you forget who wrote them, the self referencing characteristic of many if not most of your posts should be apparent. Its called: objectivity. A skill that can be developed.

I don't care if I agree or disagree with your points. I don't care if your points are right or wrong or responsive or not. WHAT THEY ARE: is very self centered.

Just look.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:27 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Well Scott: just print out various thread and remove the names. Put the papers away and a year from now read them as if new to you. If you forget who wrote them, the self referencing characteristic of many if not most of your posts should be apparent. Its called: objectivity. A skill that can be developed.

I don't care if I agree or disagree with your points. I don't care if your points are right or wrong or responsive or not. WHAT THEY ARE: is very self centered.

Just look.

And what you crying about? :cry2:

You seem to be like a bored kid screaming for attention. I'd give you a cookie but, ...well... :posting:
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8015
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:42 am

The thing here is that Scott has taken a position against governments acting to protect their people. I wonder, if so, what is the function of a government. The original function was defence against invaders. Then this was extended to law enforcement. The government protected the people by arresting those who would do harm. But now Scott has said that a fence to protect people from a cliff edge is unjustified. So by extension, a government cannot protect people from law breakers or military invaders either.

Personally, I do not put limits on how much a government may protect the people. I think that saving lives is important. Limiting sugar saves lives. So I cannot agree with Scott, who would like to release government from its duty to protect.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:03 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The thing here is that Scott has taken a position against governments acting to protect their people. I wonder, if so, what is the function of a government. The original function was defence against invaders. Then this was extended to law enforcement. The government protected the people by arresting those who would do harm. But now Scott has said that a fence to protect people from a cliff edge is unjustified. So by extension, a government cannot protect people from law breakers or military invaders either.

Personally, I do not put limits on how much a government may protect the people. I think that saving lives is important. Limiting sugar saves lives. So I cannot agree with Scott, who would like to release government from its duty to protect.

Actually you are taking a 'conservative' view of what government does. This opinion is derived from the traditional view that private rights to property and to the collective members of such are all that matters in society. This is not the people but the aristocracy of landowners and the wealthy who, of course, wanted to 'protect' what is theirs against the masses of people who threaten their dominance.

The philosophy I take is of the classical liberalism's, "to grant as much liberty to the people so that they have as much right to do what they want, when they want, as long as it does not INFRINGE upon other's right to the same freedom." This to me means that for issues that do not directly have any concern beyond the collective needs, one's private rights to free behaviors on an Earth we all share is rightfully ours. It only differs among people to determine which things are personal or not. You seem to take a form of moralistic stance of the traditionalist who wants to control my mind and personal behavior to suit what you BELIEVE is harmful to some 'God', considering the private things we do are precisely the kinds of things some god might be able to see and judge.

I don't know how you think that what I take in my body BY MY PERSONAL CHOICE is something that should require your concern in the least where it has no affect on you. Can you please enlighten me on the details of this thinking? I already know you THINK you should because you believe you are doing something 'right' for an individual. What I'm asking is how does this have anything to do with the function of some collective management (government) that is intended to do even what the classical conservative feudalism stood for. Sugar is not a gun that threatens others; it doesn't FORCE you to require taking it. Others are NOT forcing you to eat it or products containing it. So I don't get it. ??
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6813
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:45 am

Scott: as always: you can't see why society should not be organized as per your desires....to the point you confuse your own desires with so called liberty. If sugar is banned in ketchup or more highly taxed... YOUR FREEDOM is not affected. I assume sugar banned in products that don't "need it" like ketchup, and I've read but not seen some brands of salt, can be remedied by you simply adding sugar to it after you buy it. But you act as if society wide bans restricts your freedom. It doesn't..... unless everything is YOU, YOU, YOU. Which by definition, society is not.

The General Welfare Clause. What a concept.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Walter
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:01 pm

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Walter » Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:08 pm

Scott might remember what others conveniently ignore.

There exists today one thing which did not exist a half century ago. That was a low fat / fat free industry. The federal government started that industry with its scare mongering about saturated animal fat. I try to avoid calling it 50 years of scientific fraud because I would never want to be accused of being judgmental.

That wonderful government experiment, all in the name of taking care of the ignorant peasants, provided us with beautiful type II diabetes and obesity. The government has now passed all that caring to the pharmaceutical industry.

By the way, I grew up in the 50s and 60s eating all the vegetables, fruit, processed food and animal fat known to man.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 14403
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:35 pm

Thanks for ignoring me, Walter. :-P


(Altho, I wouldn't call it "fraud" but an educated misunderstanding...)

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:52 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Scott: as always: you can't see why society should not be organized as per your desires....to the point you confuse your own desires with so called liberty. If sugar is banned in ketchup or more highly taxed... YOUR FREEDOM is not affected. I assume sugar banned in products that don't "need it" like ketchup, and I've read but not seen some brands of salt, can be remedied by you simply adding sugar to it after you buy it. But you act as if society wide bans restricts your freedom. It doesn't..... unless everything is YOU, YOU, YOU. Which by definition, society is not.

The General Welfare Clause. What a concept.

"Ketchup" is defined AS tomato + sugar + vinegar. This is a great example of the ignorance you don't seem to get. By taking OUT some ingredient in some product, this imposes YOUR {!#%@} SELFISH WISH to have things reduced to some lowest denominator. If you want "ketchup" minus sugar, then buy {!#%@} tomatoes and simply add the vinegar. No doubt we might discover vinegar too to be harmful. Would you then suggest we just simply demand all foods to be RAW, even with the pretense of those things they used to be defined as? Instead of Heinz Ketchup to be what it is now, it'll be just a tomato with a recipe to make the actual original product. We'll have to line up at the Sugar Board store to get that ingredient, then to the Vinegar Board store to get the vinegar, because these will be controlled substances just as alcohol and tobacco. HOW is the ones being selfish here?

It is YOU and others here who are being arrogant to demand that EVERYONE ELSE be the ones to make normal added valued things be minimized OR to then demand the rest of us contribute extra taxes as a penalty beyond the cost of the added value of the product already. YOU ARE LAZY if you think that the rest of us should require all pizzas to be made through all restaurants identical and with no added toppings.

You are religious if you think it is evil for us to HAVE sugar, like one who is Jewish who thinks it is evil to have yeast in bread! You are trying to con the rest of the world to reverse the ways so that all products fit in with your LIMITED non-democratic 'Kosher'-like diets. You no doubt are the spoiled kid who complains about their mother's cooking and cries if it has green peppers on it and now as an adult you find yourself disappointed that you no longer have mommy around to take those peppers off for you. So you want us all to require making things FOR YOU without the things you HATE by default.

Give me a break, man!
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6813
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:20 pm

False equivalency. So self centered.... you can't tell the difference.

But, "to the issue" please do tell us how adding sugar to tomato sauce is not the exact issue of concern? IOW: other than feeding the addict, WHY DOES TOMATO SAUCE HAVE SUGAR IN IT? To everyone but YOU.....its freaking OBVIOUS!!!!!!

............and yes, I'm yelling.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8015
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:33 am

I am all for personal liberty. If someone wants to exercise that liberty by adding extra sugar to their food, that is fine. But if a villain wants to force that extra sugar down their throats in order to make money, that is different. When a manufacturer of food or drink pours extra sugar in, without making it clear that is what they have done, so that customers pay for that food or drink to make the manufacturer rich, and at the expense of the consemer's health, that is wrong.

A single can of cocal cola has more sugar in that one can than is recommended as total intake for 24 hours. So easy for coca cola to reduce the sugar, and thus boost people's health. So why not?

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:43 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:False equivalency. So self centered.... you can't tell the difference.

But, "to the issue" please do tell us how adding sugar to tomato sauce is not the exact issue of concern? IOW: other than feeding the addict, WHY DOES TOMATO SAUCE HAVE SUGAR IN IT? To everyone but YOU.....its freaking OBVIOUS!!!!!!

............and yes, I'm yelling.

PROVE that one's own (not simply my own, as you seem to like to target) behaviors in their OWN PRIVATE SPACES that have ZERO effect (the conditional requirement) has any right or yours to DICTATE?

So do you believe that there are ANY such thing as one to have PRIVATE SPACES?
WHAT then, if you do, is the DEMARCATION between what is or is NOT PRIVATE?

You have to PROVE, not me, that taking sugar personally imposes on YOUR right or anyone else's for choosing NOT to by your own free will. You have to prove that to anything you could shop for, that ALL THINGS IMPOSE SUGAR UPON YOU for all available options.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:56 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:I am all for personal liberty. If someone wants to exercise that liberty by adding extra sugar to their food, that is fine. But if a villain wants to force that extra sugar down their throats in order to make money, that is different. When a manufacturer of food or drink pours extra sugar in, without making it clear that is what they have done, so that customers pay for that food or drink to make the manufacturer rich, and at the expense of the consemer's health, that is wrong.

A single can of cocal cola has more sugar in that one can than is recommended as total intake for 24 hours. So easy for coca cola to reduce the sugar, and thus boost people's health. So why not?

PROVE your claim.

ALL Soda pops (THAT WE LIKE) derive from a BASE of sugar. It is also FALSE THAT sodas are simply pure sugar. Your own ignorance may be precisely from the nature of businesses that sell them to have proprietary secrets of HOW they make their products precisely. The laws that DO require presenting ingredients like "sugar" may make you think that that is ALL that is in it. But if you think this is 'true', try making a soda precisely using ONLY sugar to see whether you can make a product like Coca Cola, and then differentiate that from other such products.

If you take the sugar OUT, the drink becomes a "spritzer" or a product we completely differentiate from those products. If you take out sugar out of products like Coca Cola, it is NO LONGER Coca Cola! Thus what you are IMPOSING on us all is to beg that those who CHOOSE to buy pop are not allowed to have Coca Cola any longer, among all the other popular sodas. YET, does Coca Cola IMPOST upon you to REQUIRE drinking it as though it is in the water supply? Do you even have a water supply that forces you to buy only Coca Cola?

See the questions above that I asked Bob. It is YOUR onus to PROVE how there is some universal imposition that forces you to require buying products with sugar. AND if you think it is about some 'degree' of sugar you don't like, PROVE that even those companies that make sodas don't continue to make products to appeal to your own preference.

You guys make it sound that we've been tampered of our water supply to some poisonous sugar making us all addicted. Yet I've also argued why we are already DEFAULT to be 'addicted' because we are DEFINED by our bodies to make sugar. To impose controls universally upon sugar is more self-serving to yours or some other 'hidden' purpose (like the desire to PROFIT off of the ADDED tax controls upon this product uniquely) to some purpose.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8015
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:28 pm

http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/faq/how-much ... -coca-cola

Scott
As the reference above shows, a 330 ml can of coca cola has 7 teaspoons of sugar. 6 is the recommended daily maximum (World Health Organisation). The reference also discusses coca cola with less sugar. The sugary drink companies are waking up to the need to reduce sugar, but far too slowly.

No one has said that a soft drink is just sugar. Coca cola, for example, began as an extract of coca leaves, and had cocaine in it. Today, it still has coca leaf extract for flavor, though the cocaine is not there any more. Instead it has lots of caffeine, which is still a lot less harmful than the sugar.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:13 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/faq/how-much-sugar-is-in-coca-cola

Scott
As the reference above shows, a 330 ml can of coca cola has 7 teaspoons of sugar. 6 is the recommended daily maximum (World Health Organisation). The reference also discusses coca cola with less sugar. The sugary drink companies are waking up to the need to reduce sugar, but far too slowly.

No one has said that a soft drink is just sugar. Coca cola, for example, began as an extract of coca leaves, and had cocaine in it. Today, it still has coca leaf extract for flavor, though the cocaine is not there any more. Instead it has lots of caffeine, which is still a lot less harmful than the sugar.

I'm aware of Coca cola's history in detail. The main ingredient is still sugar even in Dr Pemberton's original syrup. Kola nuts too are a function of its flavoring. But it is the sugar that makes us tolerate certain things we eat with attraction that would normally be unattractive without.

You are welcome to "educate" others so that they can selectively CHOOSE to either resist such things OR to opt to reduce or even purposely diminish the concentration. The very fact these companies OFFER options like 'sugar free' colas prove they are also adapting to those like yourself who prefer NOT to have those things. Personally, while they have successfully been able to find some alternative chemicals to replace the same effect that sugar provides, I still can't stand most of those 'sugar free' beverages, whether they are manipulated to supposedly have replacements or not. I would simply OPT NOT to have any than to have to choose to have a beverage I don't like by TASTE!! We don't today drink things like Coca Cola FOR its sugar NOR caffeine as a start, unlike things such as beer or cigarettes, that are default unattractive without its 'drug' content.

Nor are the corporations intrinsically 'at fault' for doing what the law proscribes legitimate by the nature of corporations. This is what and why even Trump was apparently 'illogically' blaming Hillary for NOT attending to for his own choices in business. That one should attend to the actual SOURCE of the fault, should be the issue. That 'source' for supposed Industries AREAS, like 'tobacco' or 'sugar' or even those you APPROVE of are merely being glossed over precisely because many still want to have their cake and eat it too. The problem resides with the nature of "corporate law" in the cases of abuses just mentioned, NOT to the actual product or service. So if you want to target what you sincerely believe is some targeted con by the companies selling them, target the particular laws that are equally causing the same problem even in things we 'think' are mundane or harmless.

As to the actual products and services, if we find something wrong with them, education with the science is sufficient to tackle. But to impose harm to those who either sell or consume something they like, we have to be fair to not simply REPLACE these abuses with some other relative one, which is being proven to the extremes when or where we default to assuming an exclusive response to either ABANDON or PENALIZE the other. [like the exclusive choices, "Capital" versus "Corporal" punishment, rather than the moderate options to 'correct' that get dismissed.]
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8015
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:49 pm

Scott

When you say the fault is corporate law, I have to agree. The law should set limits for sugar in drinks, and thus save millions of people from obesity and type II diabetes.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6813
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:51 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:PROVE that one's own (not simply my own, as you seem to like to target) behaviors in their OWN PRIVATE SPACES that have ZERO effect (the conditional requirement) has any right or yours to DICTATE?.


Scott, your self centeredness has become comical. So self involved you can't tell {!#%@} from shinola. You are so hysterically blind to anything but your own mania............shouuld I go for a Fourth restatement???? Ha, ha.

Your sentence above shows you can't track a thought from anyone else...I suspect not even your own thoughts. So: here's my proof on which I'm sure you will spasmodically disagree: Its already been stated you can add all the sugar you want to in your private domain: turn tomato sauce into ketchup as you desire. Do the same with soft drinks if they got regulated the same. IE: no one in this thread except YOU talk about limiting the freedom of individual people.

WHAT IS AT ISSUE......is the regulation of BIG FOOD to put unneeded sugar into products.

So now, tell the truth..........when you thought and posted about interference in "their OWN PRIVATE SPACES"....were you thinking about YOURSELF, or were you thinking about HEINZ CORPORATION AND GENERAL FOODS?

Such a silly hooman being.

Just look.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:00 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Scott

When you say the fault is corporate law, I have to agree. The law should set limits for sugar in drinks, and thus save millions of people from obesity and type II diabetes.

No, Corporate Law, not specific products or services that a corporation serves. There's a difference.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9779
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:03 pm

Maybe people engaging in self-destructive behaviours should pay higher health care premiums to cover the additional health care costs to the system. Then no one's rights are violated. We could also put a tax ding in there for the businesses who advocate for self-destructive behaviours. Win-Win.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6813
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:06 pm

The people coverage is done to some degree with life insurance...but so far, not in the health arena which makes sense.

The corporate ding is what the sin tax does..... the very subject of this thread.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:10 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:PROVE that one's own (not simply my own, as you seem to like to target) behaviors in their OWN PRIVATE SPACES that have ZERO effect (the conditional requirement) has any right or yours to DICTATE?.


Scott, your self centeredness has become comical. So self involved you can't tell {!#%@} from shinola. You are so hysterically blind to anything but your own mania............shouuld I go for a Fourth restatement???? Ha, ha.

Your sentence above shows you can't track a thought from anyone else...I suspect not even your own thoughts. So: here's my proof on which I'm sure you will spasmodically disagree: Its already been stated you can add all the sugar you want to in your private domain: turn tomato sauce into ketchup as you desire. Do the same with soft drinks if they got regulated the same. IE: no one in this thread except YOU talk about limiting the freedom of individual people.

WHAT IS AT ISSUE......is the regulation of BIG FOOD to put unneeded sugar into products.

So now, tell the truth..........when you thought and posted about interference in "their OWN PRIVATE SPACES"....were you thinking about YOURSELF, or were you thinking about HEINZ CORPORATION AND GENERAL FOODS?

Such a silly hooman being.

Just look.

I can't tell if you are actually serious or not, bobbo. I think your own interpretation or misinterpretation, if serious, should be to hold back with the insult parts of your posts to glean precisely your own logical points against me here. Can you at least try?

The part you have actual content in says that since you believe that I agree that we CAN opt to ADD what we want, your imposition to limit things to their basics should be a default.

If you take this appropriately to their extremes though, you are suggesting that the default to any food company is to sell RAW foods. Certainly if I am 'free' to make anything I want from raw ingredients, you treat my own 'freedom' to do so justified to make whatever I want. BUT....are you already prevented by default to buying tomatoes, sugar, and vinegar, as 'free' products on the market?

NO.

Yet, you are supporting the idea to prevent companies from making products that DO have added value for MY 'freedom' to buy based on MY 'free' demand. Thus YOU, and not ME, are demanding a limit on MY freedom for what purpose?
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:12 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:Maybe people engaging in self-destructive behaviours should pay higher health care premiums to cover the additional health care costs to the system. Then no one's rights are violated. We could also put a tax ding in there for the businesses who advocate for self-destructive behaviours. Win-Win.

This is better sense. I don't want to accept reading into what precisely you might have in mind in WHAT is the particulars or HOW to do this, but agree in principle.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6813
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:22 pm

Repetitious.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5561
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby TJrandom » Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:28 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:Maybe people engaging in self-destructive behaviours should pay higher health care premiums to cover the additional health care costs to the system. Then no one's rights are violated. We could also put a tax ding in there for the businesses who advocate for self-destructive behaviours. Win-Win.


We have a version of this in Japan. Each city tracks obesity of their population, and the disability insurance premium is set accordingly for the city.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9779
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:30 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:Maybe people engaging in self-destructive behaviours should pay higher health care premiums to cover the additional health care costs to the system. Then no one's rights are violated. We could also put a tax ding in there for the businesses who advocate for self-destructive behaviours. Win-Win.

This is better sense. I don't want to accept reading into what precisely you might have in mind in WHAT is the particulars or HOW to do this, but agree in principle.

Yeah, the how to do it could be problematic for the health premiums part.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6813
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:37 pm

TJrandom wrote:We have a version of this in Japan. Each city tracks obesity of their population, and the disability insurance premium is set accordingly for the city.


That is fascinating: "Japan is different." Group rating makes sense as it is statistically valid...but I'd think rating by occupation would be more accurate?....Not to mention rating by body weight of the individual...if that doesn't go to a different kind of insurance scheme.

Good to know what various cultures have come up with.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:53 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Repetitious.

Answer the question at issue then. You even seem to agree that the insults involved in politics from the other thread is NOT appropriate to the issues at hand.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:02 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:Maybe people engaging in self-destructive behaviours should pay higher health care premiums to cover the additional health care costs to the system. Then no one's rights are violated. We could also put a tax ding in there for the businesses who advocate for self-destructive behaviours. Win-Win.

This is better sense. I don't want to accept reading into what precisely you might have in mind in WHAT is the particulars or HOW to do this, but agree in principle.

Yeah, the how to do it could be problematic for the health premiums part.

My concern is to what we may define by "self-destructive"? Is the "self", a function of society as a whole or to its individual members? And to what degree?

If for instance, my LIFE is somehow essential for the well-being of society as a whole, does the 'whole' have the superior right to dismiss my personal comfort as an individual regardless? This goes back to that dilemma of the trolleys again. If you have one loved one on one track and a billion on the other to which you may also have complete distaste for (right or wrong by some holistic standard), do you save the one you love or the billion {!#%@}? Is number itself alone a valid concept if you are not OF that number? [Reminds me of that "Oh when the Saints" song where they treat the worthy of the minimal select few to be 'saved' and begs to be one of that 'number']
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5561
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby TJrandom » Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:24 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
TJrandom wrote:We have a version of this in Japan. Each city tracks obesity of their population, and the disability insurance premium is set accordingly for the city.


That is fascinating: "Japan is different." Group rating makes sense as it is statistically valid...but I'd think rating by occupation would be more accurate?....Not to mention rating by body weight of the individual...if that doesn't go to a different kind of insurance scheme.

Good to know what various cultures have come up with.


Yes - we also have mandatory participation national single payer health insurance, so there are plenty of opportunities for the system to determine your weight/BMI, or approximate it for any who would simply refuse to stand on the scale.

Our (also mandatory participation for everyone over age 60) disability insurance rates are high. I pay about $650/year, and again the same for my wife - even though we are in relatively good shape. By setting the tax rate by residence, they impose a community fat-shame. I`d prefer that they tax the obesity drivers if not the individual - much as they do with tobacco and alcohol.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6813
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:38 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Repetitious.

Answer the question at issue then. You even seem to agree that the insults involved in politics from the other thread is NOT appropriate to the issues at hand.

"repetitious" means you have asked the SAME QUESTIONS repeatedly here and they have been answered repeatedly. If you aren't CONSCIOUS of this behavior on your part....its all a part of your self centered mania. Of interest: you might note YOU are the only one I make such charges against...although Paulie is about 50/50 in that department on a close issue, not him, him, him put the kneejerk way in which he responds to and passes along talking points that with any introspection at all he would quickly realize he doesn't really agree...but he, like you, is trapped within his rut.

I make the comment not to "attack you" but because as stated repeatedly: IT IS SO OBVIOUS....and really obnoxious because YOU PREVENT the discussion from progressing. The dialectic is always railroaded back to the same complaint: YOU and what you want. The most infantile first steps of becoming a human being. Why don't you progress?

Here's a challenge....even if just for yourself. Whine as you will but then reread your post before submitting and see if you can make a point without including the word "me" in it. Try it. When you fail, it should speak volumes to yourself: GET OUT of your own private reference and join......a more objective discussion/analysis.

As if.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:48 pm

TJrandom wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
TJrandom wrote:We have a version of this in Japan. Each city tracks obesity of their population, and the disability insurance premium is set accordingly for the city.


That is fascinating: "Japan is different." Group rating makes sense as it is statistically valid...but I'd think rating by occupation would be more accurate?....Not to mention rating by body weight of the individual...if that doesn't go to a different kind of insurance scheme.

Good to know what various cultures have come up with.


Yes - we also have mandatory participation national single payer health insurance, so there are plenty of opportunities for the system to determine your weight/BMI, or approximate it for any who would simply refuse to stand on the scale.

Our (also mandatory participation for everyone over age 60) disability insurance rates are high. I pay about $650/year, and again the same for my wife - even though we are in relatively good shape. By setting the tax rate by residence, they impose a community fat-shame. I`d prefer that they tax the obesity drivers if not the individual - much as they do with tobacco and alcohol.

Japan has also a tendency to have a strong fascination with beauty or 'cuteness' to the extreme. Is this too a standard to which can or is taxed there beyond just obesity?

I'm not against our tendency towards liking something over another, even beauty. But may it be the perception of many that by seeing one who IS obese in a climate of struggle just a form of prejudice against those who appear to LITERALLY have more than their fair share? We don't seem to penalize the same "fat" cats who are obsessively wealthy beyond the average, especially when it appeals to our sense of "beauty". Yet they get PROPPED up as being virtuous when it is they who tend to be MORE of the very cause of those who end up being 'fat' on the bottom of the reality-scale.

That is, to many who ARE 'selectively' obese, their volition to become as such is as much due to the impoverishment I arguer earlier. If you cannot find happiness no matter what you do simply for being born more privileged, why are they deemed either at fault for eating too much OR to the suppliers? These extremes are representative of the problems I'm pointing to. But the hypocrisy most is about those who are NOT of some nature related to those in poverty who lack the choices, but to the wealthier ones who simply hate those most representative figuratively of themselves in physique as being a bane on society.

Believe me, I understand the disdain of people who are obese. But I don't blame them as anyone below me as I might have when I was a youth. I am 'fortunate' NOT to have a problem with weight. But I had at least the later reflection that I too am at fault.

Taxing one proportionately is fine based on one's potential to impose some burden upon the 'free health care' being provided universally. But it better also respect the 'freedom' of those to use their FAT wallets to access those things that those with less cannot access by proportionately taxing them to keep them on par with the rest of us EQUALLY. There is no NEED, for instance, to have one who is free to inherit genetically or environmentally MORE than the next guy.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6813
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:54 pm

"Believe me, ...." //// Ha, ha.

Yes...obese people. The very subject of this thread and the why of it: excessive sugar and carbs ("white foods") in their diet. Personal choice and freedom in your world.

Silly Hooman.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:11 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Repetitious.

Answer the question at issue then. You even seem to agree that the insults involved in politics from the other thread is NOT appropriate to the issues at hand.

"repetitious" means you have asked the SAME QUESTIONS repeatedly here and they have been answered repeatedly. If you aren't CONSCIOUS of this behavior on your part....its all a part of your self centered mania. Of interest: you might note YOU are the only one I make such charges against...although Paulie is about 50/50 in that department on a close issue, not him, him, him put the kneejerk way in which he responds to and passes along talking points that with any introspection at all he would quickly realize he doesn't really agree...but he, like you, is trapped within his rut.

I make the comment not to "attack you" but because as stated repeatedly: IT IS SO OBVIOUS....and really obnoxious because YOU PREVENT the discussion from progressing. The dialectic is always railroaded back to the same complaint: YOU and what you want. The most infantile first steps of becoming a human being. Why don't you progress?

Here's a challenge....even if just for yourself. Whine as you will but then reread your post before submitting and see if you can make a point without including the word "me" in it. Try it. When you fail, it should speak volumes to yourself: GET OUT of your own private reference and join......a more objective discussion/analysis.

As if.

You've pointed this out 'repetitively' to which I respect to some degree. You have to understand that (a) you don't speak for everyone simply because you may think you share some common appeal and (b) that I'm as reflective upon myself as I am among others for HOW I write; I am my own best critic and while welcoming your own input of me personally, you don't give up on your obsession to offend me at every turn rather than to focus on the subject at hand. Yes, I will use my own experiences and speak of HOW I relate to the subject matter. That is just my style. (c) as to subjects on topic, I am what might be called in court, a "closer". I believe in drawing closure to things and not merely stating (like a tweet) some opinion that I believe should grant balanced 'time' to others simply out of some communal 'etiquette'. This is a "forum" of discussion, not merely some place to make friends who think in sync about some issue or another. And I refuse to simply give in to something based most specifically on the nature of those who opt to remain merely anonymous, as though I own YOU some form of unbridled respect more.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5561
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby TJrandom » Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:17 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
TJrandom wrote:We have a version of this in Japan. Each city tracks obesity of their population, and the disability insurance premium is set accordingly for the city.


That is fascinating: "Japan is different." Group rating makes sense as it is statistically valid...but I'd think rating by occupation would be more accurate?....Not to mention rating by body weight of the individual...if that doesn't go to a different kind of insurance scheme.

Good to know what various cultures have come up with.


Yes - we also have mandatory participation national single payer health insurance, so there are plenty of opportunities for the system to determine your weight/BMI, or approximate it for any who would simply refuse to stand on the scale.

Our (also mandatory participation for everyone over age 60) disability insurance rates are high. I pay about $650/year, and again the same for my wife - even though we are in relatively good shape. By setting the tax rate by residence, they impose a community fat-shame. I`d prefer that they tax the obesity drivers if not the individual - much as they do with tobacco and alcohol.

Japan has also a tendency to have a strong fascination with beauty or 'cuteness' to the extreme. Is this too a standard to which can or is taxed there beyond just obesity?

I'm not against our tendency towards liking something over another, even beauty. But may it be the perception of many that by seeing one who IS obese in a climate of struggle just a form of prejudice against those who appear to LITERALLY have more than their fair share? We don't seem to penalize the same "fat" cats who are obsessively wealthy beyond the average, especially when it appeals to our sense of "beauty". Yet they get PROPPED up as being virtuous when it is they who tend to be MORE of the very cause of those who end up being 'fat' on the bottom of the reality-scale.

That is, to many who ARE 'selectively' obese, their volition to become as such is as much due to the impoverishment I arguer earlier. If you cannot find happiness no matter what you do simply for being born more privileged, why are they deemed either at fault for eating too much OR to the suppliers? These extremes are representative of the problems I'm pointing to. But the hypocrisy most is about those who are NOT of some nature related to those in poverty who lack the choices, but to the wealthier ones who simply hate those most representative figuratively of themselves in physique as being a bane on society.

Believe me, I understand the disdain of people who are obese. But I don't blame them as anyone below me as I might have when I was a youth. I am 'fortunate' NOT to have a problem with weight. But I had at least the later reflection that I too am at fault.

Taxing one proportionately is fine based on one's potential to impose some burden upon the 'free health care' being provided universally. But it better also respect the 'freedom' of those to use their FAT wallets to access those things that those with less cannot access by proportionately taxing them to keep them on par with the rest of us EQUALLY. There is no NEED, for instance, to have one who is free to inherit genetically or environmentally MORE than the next guy.


Scott, there is no need to add such complexity. Our national health care costs, particularly when taken in the context of our aging population (with their additional burdens), are a becoming a threat to the economy. As with `social security pensions`, the current working class largely pays for the care of those who no longer work, so it makes sense to find ways to reduce their burden. Taxation at source (sugary drinks, tobacco, alcohol, automotive safety inspections) all help to reduce the costs which otherwise must be spread across the population, even though taxation of the broader population is easier to implement.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6813
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:10 am

I, me, my.

totally insensate.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5561
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby TJrandom » Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:48 pm

VOX has a good article on the `sugar tax battle` that is being waged as we, erm... slurp. There are a few initiatives on the upcoming ballot, and many millions of $ being spent to confuse the issues, as well as clarify them.

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2 ... erg-arnold

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6813
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Oct 24, 2016 9:35 pm

Actually, the incessant whining of Scott has raised an interesting "issue" in my mind. Until just now, I've only thought and posted about the tax/regulation issues in a general sense. In general: society not only can but SHOULD regulate the amount of sugar or anything else in manufactured foods for the public. Whether by tax or regulation, how much and so forth to be decided issue by issue.

What we have i think is an excellent example of generalities being accepted by all with the disputes to come at more specific issues of implementation. Say for instance, putting sugar in tomato sauce and calling it KETCHUP. Should ketchup even be a "legal" product???? Until Scott said so and I confirmed with google, I didn't realize that "by definition" ketchup was tomato sauce with added sugar. I stumble a bit at thinking ketchup should be outlawed.... then with more time, I think....why not?

Its fun to think about...especially as the issue collides with various issues of health and safety and so forth. I can see two products side by side: one at 80 cents called Tomato Sauce and the same size container called ketchup with a Sugar Warning label with a product description recommending to use Tomato Sauce at the price of One Dollar. I buy ketchup all the time as I do make spreads and soups out of it as well as for its usual purpose. I know given the choice I would at least try the tomato sauce. I've actually done this already and have found the taste of it totally acceptable but right now sauce is thinner making ketchup the preferred condiment...I've even thought from time to time to heat the sauce to thicken it up...then I find that it rots in the refrigerator before it gets used ((reminding me that sugar is a preservative...if that is what is going on)).

I won't look for any analysis by some "Economic Freaks" on the cost of ketchup to society...but it seems to me that a thick tomato sauce sold and labeled as such would save individuals and society money and increase their food appreciation? I'm thinking I actually am a victim of Big Sugar....I think ketchup is a good product...but its just a sugar delivery device.

OHHHHHHH the humanity. Freedom. Which should prevail??? Freedom to poison ourselves, or freedom to eat good unadulterated food? Labeling is certainly an option. so is the sin tax.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Matthew's attempt to malign me...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:09 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:Who's quote is this?
Hmmmm.....let's read the quote again together

"As the President of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council then admitted to a legislative committee, “there is no question that consumption is down measurably over the last five years, and there is no question that taxes have been a significant factor.”


Hmmmm.....I'm pretty sure it is The President of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council. Let me know if you are still confused by this quote.

Scott Mayers wrote: What quote is this referencing of some 'lie' I had fostered?
No Scott. Your lie was fabricating the statement "That is not so here". when it was so. You simply lied. :lol:

Now you ARE being deliberately deceptive, Matthew.

The context of the discussion on the sugar thread was to the nature of any overall taxation on essential products that bias the poor and I argued that the way tobacco is taxed affects the poor as sugar would too if taxed. So I am asking you to treat me with respect and stop calling me some 'liar' as this entails some deliberate deception when I just showed you above links regarding this fact from the World Health Organization. Our Country would not normally present stats that show how the very governments are taxing with injustice against the poor, considering the bias against it is universal across all parties. So that you don't attempt to hide your own insincerity here, please source EVERYTHING you say of me with the particular link AND the exact quote in question.

Also, I'm allowed to say things of MY opinion of FACT in my own life and place. I don't require providing YOU with your demands of some statistic of irrelevance. I watch my local news and discuss things all over with this understanding shared by others here. Your clear behavior is to pounce on some irrelevant factor when my argument was to defend some assumption that taxing all people should help the poor of which some in that thread felt would benefit from that as it would, by THEIR claims (you, among them), that the poor WOULD quit drug-related vices through higher taxes.

And I quote with more force.
Tobacco and poverty have become linked in a vicious circle, through which tobacco exacerbates poverty and poverty is also associated with higher prevalence of tobacco use. Several studies from different parts of the world have shown that smoking and other forms of tobacco use are much higher among the poor. [World Health Organization, site source: http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/economics/rationale/poverty/en/]


From Washington post, "Why the wealthy stopped smoking while the poor didn't":
"We've won the war on cigarette smoking" is a mantra among health-conscious middle and upper class Americans. But within the remarkable half-century long public health success story of declining overall rates of smoking is a disturbing subplot: Those still puffing away are a substantially more disadvantaged group than ever before.


The last linked article even explains in more depth why supporting my positions in sync with earlier commenting above.
[NOTE: I responded to this from a thread derailed by Matthew's false accusation of me being a liar at http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=27626&p=549091#p548829]
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23590
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Scott gets caught lying.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:40 am

Scott Mayers wrote:Who's quote is this?
Matthew Ellard wrote:Hmmmm.....let's read the quote again together

"As the President of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council then admitted to a legislative committee, “there is no question that consumption is down measurably over the last five years, and there is no question that taxes have been a significant factor.”


Matthew Ellard wrote:Hmmmm.....I'm pretty sure it is The President of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council. Let me know if you are still confused by this quote.
Scott Mayers wrote:Now you ARE being deliberately deceptive, Matthew.
No Scott. You directly lied and said that increasing the price of cigarettes did not reduce reduce consumption. You ran away when I asked you produce evidence for your obvious fabrication.


Return to “Healthcare”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest