Who cares what Einstein thought? That he was brilliant in one field doesnt make him an expert in all others; for all that he did he had some well known failings.
Good grief, can we cease with the appeals to authority?
European Protestantism bore the fierce impress of Martin Luther,
Luther started the protestant reformation, but its a long stretch to try to claim that hes the sole influence. He also believed a great many things that protestants over the last century would object pretty heavily to. Its also a long stretch to try to claim that he was the sole founder of the reformation, since there were a great many who came before him like Jan Hus (Luther was, in fact, "accused" of being a Hussite).
Just because he provided the spark and had some questionable views doesnt mean you can draw a line from him to Hitler and try to place the blame in the laps of the 20th century church. Can you provide any evidence that the church of the day supported either authoritarianism OR anti-semitism?
The only reason the Church would stand up against nazism was because it was a threat to their control over the populace anyway, so it wasn't for some altruistic stand against nazism, but entirely about self-interest protectionism.
In other words, no matter WHAT the church does, you will never find anything satisfactory about it because you can always come up with some (spurious) ulterior motive for it.
Id be interested to know what the role of religion is in this government.
Biden and Ryan BOTH seemed to agree that you cannot simply excise one half of your beliefs from your political leanings, so we can just take that off the table right now.
What would you think of the moral character of someone who believed you were going to hell unless you did something, but they couldnt be bothered to warn you of that fact?
Um, the beverage company doesnt DO anything to me. It makes a beverage, offers it for sale, and after that it is my own actions that are involved (do I purchase it? Do i imbibe?)
The difference between HFCS and sugar is so insignificant that it is hillarious that people buy into this.
Sucrose: A disaccharide made up of fructose and glucose, joined by a single oxygen atom. During metabolism, it is broken down into fructose and glucose. (50/50 mix).
HFCS: A 48-52 blend of fructose and glucose. It is processed just like sucrose, except there is no intermediate step of breaking down the bond, and there is slightly more glucose.
Heres the kicker-- fructose is the unhealthy sugar. Sucrose has more fructose than the most common beverage mix of HFCS (48% fructose). Thats right: most HFCS you encounter is per-weight healthier than sucrose.
Is it possible that the blame isnt on the type of sugar used, but on the amount? Heres another hint: One can of coke has 1/10th of a lb of sugar. Try not drinking more than a can a day, that gets really unhealthy really fast. That said: diet legislation is pretty horrifying IMO.
You can't say advertising works while simultaneously thinking that it doesn't allow some form of control over people.
What youre arguing is like equating eloquence to brainwashing. Something can be persuasive without robbing you of personal volition, as is being suggested.
find it strange that there's so much coverage of a simple law designed to reduce consumption of what amounts to a cup of poison that is enormously expensive for our society in the long run.
Because its fundamentally not the job of a government to tell me how to live my life. Its job is to enforce law and order (keeping others from doing me harm), maintain basic infrastructure, and keep foreign countries from invading.
Im not sure where anyone got the idea that democracy should extend to voting on how I live my life, but that sounds awfully oppressive to me.
If people want to make bad decisions, they can. Are you trying to tell me that marketing makes someone unable to make their own decisions? Does it also absolve them of personal responsibility?
You say "we" as if people are united in desiring this. Its an odd sort of "helping me" that tells me Im not adult enough to make my own eating decisions and require approval by a panel of experts.
Sometimes the only way to make money is to spend money. Austerity is not necessarily a path to prosperity.
If someone had $500,000 in debt and told you that they were considering using the deed to their car to secure a $30,000 loan to try to start a new business from the ground up, would you say they were: A) A savvy businessman or B) Out of their mind?
Sometimes that idea of "spending to make" is utterly retarded, and one of the scenarios is when you are deep deep in the red and cannot afford the consequences of losing out on the risk you are taking.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares what Einstein thought? That he was brilliant in one field doesnt make him an expert in all others; for all that he did he had some well known failings.
Good grief, can we cease with the appeals to authority?
European Protestantism bore the fierce impress of Martin Luther,
Luther started the protestant reformation, but its a long stretch to try to claim that hes the sole influence. He also believed a great many things that protestants over the last century would object pretty heavily to. Its also a long stretch to try to claim that he was the sole founder of the reformation, since there were a great many who came before him like Jan Hus (Luther was, in fact, "accused" of being a Hussite).
Just because he provided the spark and had some questionable views doesnt mean you can draw a line from him to Hitler and try to place the blame in the laps of the 20th century church. Can you provide any evidence that the church of the day supported either authoritarianism OR anti-semitism?
The only reason the Church would stand up against nazism was because it was a threat to their control over the populace anyway, so it wasn't for some altruistic stand against nazism, but entirely about self-interest protectionism.
In other words, no matter WHAT the church does, you will never find anything satisfactory about it because you can always come up with some (spurious) ulterior motive for it.
Got it.
Id be interested to know what the role of religion is in this government.
Biden and Ryan BOTH seemed to agree that you cannot simply excise one half of your beliefs from your political leanings, so we can just take that off the table right now.
What would you think of the moral character of someone who believed you were going to hell unless you did something, but they couldnt be bothered to warn you of that fact?
The companies arent killing me. My own decision of whether to partake is what affects my health.
Heres a tip: If someone offers something for sale to me, they havent done anything TO me.
murdered
Offering simple carbohydrates for sale in beverage form is murder? Wow, someone go arrest fruit vendors, theyre peddling homocide.
Um, the beverage company doesnt DO anything to me. It makes a beverage, offers it for sale, and after that it is my own actions that are involved (do I purchase it? Do i imbibe?)
That would make HFCS MORE healthy for you than sucrose.
Most processed food HFCS is 42% fructose.
Btw, the "high fructose" has nothing to do with its relation to sucrose. There are several blends, some under 50% fructose, some over.
I would love to hear you explain why a mix of glucose and fructose is less healthy than sucrose (a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose).
If they gave free refills, I bet a LOT more people would get OJ.
Confession: I would.
Time for your mandatory 5 mile hike.
I mean, while we're passing bad laws, at least THAT one would be effective at combating obesity.
If you ask me they should just go and make a law that a single serving cannot contain more than
50% of the reference intake.
I wasnt aware that "democracy" meant "other people get to vote on your dietary habits".
Cane sugar is actually less healthy than HFCS-- sucrose has more fructose in it than HFCS does-- roughly 2%.
Think im kidding? Go look up what sucrose is, and what the beverage mix of HFCS is.
The difference between HFCS and sugar is so insignificant that it is hillarious that people buy into this.
Sucrose: A disaccharide made up of fructose and glucose, joined by a single oxygen atom. During metabolism, it is broken down into fructose and glucose. (50/50 mix).
HFCS: A 48-52 blend of fructose and glucose. It is processed just like sucrose, except there is no intermediate step of breaking down the bond, and there is slightly more glucose.
Heres the kicker-- fructose is the unhealthy sugar. Sucrose has more fructose than the most common beverage mix of HFCS (48% fructose). Thats right: most HFCS you encounter is per-weight healthier than sucrose.
Is it possible that the blame isnt on the type of sugar used, but on the amount? Heres another hint: One can of coke has 1/10th of a lb of sugar. Try not drinking more than a can a day, that gets really unhealthy really fast. That said: diet legislation is pretty horrifying IMO.
You can't say advertising works while simultaneously thinking that it doesn't allow some form of control over people.
What youre arguing is like equating eloquence to brainwashing. Something can be persuasive without robbing you of personal volition, as is being suggested.
find it strange that there's so much coverage of a simple law designed to reduce consumption of what amounts to a cup of poison that is enormously expensive for our society in the long run.
Because its fundamentally not the job of a government to tell me how to live my life. Its job is to enforce law and order (keeping others from doing me harm), maintain basic infrastructure, and keep foreign countries from invading.
Im not sure where anyone got the idea that democracy should extend to voting on how I live my life, but that sounds awfully oppressive to me.
Hear hear, which is why Im so glad "dietary regulations" were added as a governmental responsibility to the constitution in Article IX.
If people want to make bad decisions, they can. Are you trying to tell me that marketing makes someone unable to make their own decisions? Does it also absolve them of personal responsibility?
Only as a group can we fight back.
You say "we" as if people are united in desiring this. Its an odd sort of "helping me" that tells me Im not adult enough to make my own eating decisions and require approval by a panel of experts.
I don't understand why they don't just add a tax like $1/ounce for every beverage that contains carbs
I dont understand where in the constitution the founders made clear their desire that the government would regulate dietary habits.
Im still searching for the part of your post that explains why someone is absolved of their responsibility to control their diet.
If you take away all personal decisions that the government decides are "wrong" or "destructive", what will be left? Only the "right" decisions?
Stop and think about that. I dont think thats a world you want to live in.
Sometimes the only way to make money is to spend money. Austerity is not necessarily a path to prosperity.
If someone had $500,000 in debt and told you that they were considering using the deed to their car to secure a $30,000 loan to try to start a new business from the ground up, would you say they were:
A) A savvy businessman
or
B) Out of their mind?
Sometimes that idea of "spending to make" is utterly retarded, and one of the scenarios is when you are deep deep in the red and cannot afford the consequences of losing out on the risk you are taking.
Theyre too big to fail. Dont worry, they know full well that "someone" will bail them out if defaulting is on the table.