You Will Obey

Southern Man said:
You know where I draw the line Damo, yet you enjoy misrepresenting my position. As long as what a person does doesn't impact the freedom of others, then the government should stay out of it.
Click to expand...
Except when it is their freedom to choose how to use their own property to attract the customers they choose to attract. I don't misrepresent, I simply point out another dichotomy in your position. It is freedom to allow you to choose not to eat at a restaurant where they allow things you do not like, it is not freedom to limit the ability of a private business to attract the customers they want to attract.
 
Southern Man said:
When my son was younger and toothpick-skinny I used to joke that we should follow a fat person around in the supermarket and buy whatever they buy. :cof1:
Click to expand...

As an experiment, I decided to cut most easily identifiable sugars out of my diet (i.e., cookies, cakes, candy, icecream). I decided not to go too far overboard and as long as there wasn't more than 7 grams of sugar listed in the ingredients, I would forego them for a month. I also cut out breads, processed foods, and white pastas. I ate lots of lean meats (yes, red meat on occasion) chicken, eggs, and tons of green vegetables in unlimited quantities.

I am in good shape. I eat well and exercise. Coupled with my exercise workout and cutting these items out of my diet, I noticed a tangible difference in my energy, but more importantly in my toning.

I also noticed that once I subsituted white sugar with real sugars found in fruits and vegetables I hardly ever craved the occaisional cookie, piece of cake, brownie, or icecream scoop.

I still love all of these sweets, but I needed to train myself to appreciate other natural sweets and at first my body revolted. I also stopped drinking artificially sweetened sodas (Diet Coke, Diet Mt Dew).

Sugar is an insidious substance and addiction that slips in and grabs you by the throat. It can be found in so many things, including salt! Just cutting back on the known sugars and backing away dramatically from high levels of sugar in certain items made a marked difference in the way I felt and how I toned up with exercise.

I still keep it up and the payoff is feeling good and staying in shape. Once in a while I have the piece of cake, cookie, or scoop of icecream, but for the most part I have retrained myself to like the foods that are better for me and don't pack on the pounds.
 
Damocles said:
Sure it does, it tempts Suzy, it's a gateway liquid. Clearly the Mayor must remove it because nobody can resist its lure.

Nor does smoke that you chose not to inhale by not giving money to a business ever impact your health.
Click to expand...

Actually, the employer would have a valid reason for removing the unhealthful snacks from the vending machines. Since the cokes and pepsis have an adverse effect on the employee's health, the employer could claim removing them is in the best interest of his business.

I disagree with that sort of thinking, but it makes more sense than some of the arguments.
 
WinterBorn said:
Actually, the employer would have a valid reason for removing the unhealthful snacks from the vending machines. Since the cokes and pepsis have an adverse effect on the employee's health, the employer could claim removing them is in the best interest of his business.

I disagree with that sort of thinking, but it makes more sense than some of the arguments.
Click to expand...
I'm not objecting to it. I'm just trying to see where SM specifically draws the line. It is okay to ban something from somewhere he frequents by choice, but somehow this wasn't okay because it limits his choice... :dunno:
 
usaloyal2theend said:
Get ready overweight people. Your weigh-ins prior to entering the supermarket beckon on the horizon...

No more Haagen-Daz and Cheetos for you!

If cigarettes are offensive and known to factually kill people, then grossly fat, smelly bodies, and heart disease (#1 Killer of Americans), which can be directly tied to obesity, shouldn't be exempt either!
Click to expand...

Done anything about that funk that surrounds you everytime you appear in public?
 
Damocles said:
I'm not objecting to it. I'm just trying to see where SM specifically draws the line. It is okay to ban something from somewhere he frequents by choice, but somehow this wasn't okay because it limits his choice... :dunno:
Click to expand...

I understand.
 
Damocles said:
Except when it is their freedom to choose how to use their own property to attract the customers they choose to attract. I don't misrepresent, I simply point out another dichotomy in your position. It is freedom to allow you to choose not to eat at a restaurant where they allow things you do not like, it is not freedom to limit the ability of a private business to attract the customers they want to attract.
Click to expand...
Again, I also advocate that business can be private in order to cater to smokers, so no such dichotomy exists.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, I also advocate that business can be private in order to cater to smokers, so no such dichotomy exists.
Click to expand...

That is merely arguing that people be allowed to jump thru hoops to avoid gov't interference that should not exist in the first place.

Either the gov't should control what we can consume on private property or it should not. In the case of the vending machines in the OP, they are on gov't property.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, I also advocate that business can be private in order to cater to smokers, so no such dichotomy exists.
Click to expand...
I think the right of the property owner extends to public accommodations, like restaurants. Why shouldn't the smoker have an option to go to a place that caters to his needs while you get the option not to go to that same place? Since there are myriad restaurants your "inconvenience" is only that you can't force a business owner to accommodate only what you want. Nobody should be allowed to attract customers that they choose, they can only work within your specific limitations. That isn't "freedom", far from it.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
As an experiment, I decided to cut most easily identifiable sugars out of my diet (i.e., cookies, cakes, candy, icecream). I decided not to go too far overboard and as long as there wasn't more than 7 grams of sugar listed in the ingredients, I would forego them for a month. I also cut out breads, processed foods, and white pastas. I ate lots of lean meats (yes, red meat on occasion) chicken, eggs, and tons of green vegetables in unlimited quantities.

I am in good shape. I eat well and exercise. Coupled with my exercise workout and cutting these items out of my diet, I noticed a tangible difference in my energy, but more importantly in my toning.

I also noticed that once I subsituted white sugar with real sugars found in fruits and vegetables I hardly ever craved the occaisional cookie, piece of cake, brownie, or icecream scoop.

I still love all of these sweets, but I needed to train myself to appreciate other natural sweets and at first my body revolted. I also stopped drinking artificially sweetened sodas (Diet Coke, Diet Mt Dew).

Sugar is an insidious substance and addiction that slips in and grabs you by the throat. It can be found in so many things, including salt! Just cutting back on the known sugars and backing away dramatically from high levels of sugar in certain items made a marked difference in the way I felt and how I toned up with exercise.

I still keep it up and the payoff is feeling good and staying in shape. Once in a while I have the piece of cake, cookie, or scoop of icecream, but for the most part I have retrained myself to like the foods that are better for me and don't pack on the pounds.
Click to expand...

I pretty much did the same thing, but on a more casual level and over a longer period of time. Even as a kid I didn't put sugar on my cereal, and that was back before sweetened cereals and it was common to have a sugar bowl on the table next to the salt and pepper. I rarely even drink a diet cola, as the artificial sweetener is too sweet for my taste.

As a result I was downright slim until I hit 40. I'm in relatively good shape now, although I can't seem to get rid of my little beer gut though. Beer and whiskey are just too good to give up completely.
 
Damocles said:
I think the right of the property owner extends to public accommodations, like restaurants. Why shouldn't the smoker have an option to go to a place that caters to his needs while you get the option not to go to that same place? Since there are myriad restaurants your "inconvenience" is only that you can't force a business owner to accommodate only what you want. Nobody should be allowed to attract customers that they choose, they can only work within your specific limitations. That isn't "freedom", far from it.
Click to expand...
Again, the private club loophole accommodates the smoker and those who choose to cater to them.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, the private club loophole accommodates the smoker and those who choose to cater to them.
Click to expand...

And the numerous other places employees can buy pepsi and coke products doesn't accomodate them?

The mayor has not banned them in the building. He just eliminated one source. There are many other sources.



It seems to me, if you are in favor of gov't banning smoking in privately owned restaurants and bars, you would be in favor of the ban the mayor of S.F. put in place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top