First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Post Reply Should Fast Food be banned?
Palsa 
10525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Winston-Salem, No...
Offline
Posted 4/26/16 , edited 4/28/16
It should not be banned, it should be reformed.
48409 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / AZ
Offline
Posted 4/26/16 , edited 4/28/16
Hello no.

Fast food might be bad for you but its up to the individual to decide to eat it.
7401 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / New England, USA
Online
Posted 4/26/16 , edited 4/28/16


It seems to me as though you're saying that, if we have a law against murder, but people can get away with it, then it hasn't been banned. It seems like such a strange way of thinking about it, that I'm sure I must be misrepresenting you somehow. To me, a government implementing a ban on something happens when they make a law that says 'you can't do x.' It seems like you're saying a ban is when the government says 'you can't do x,' with the requirement that they're successful in stopping it. If that's the case, then I'm not really sure the government can ban anything, which is fine, but kind of trivializes the answer to OP's question. It would be like OP making a question like 'should Spongebob Squarepants be elected president?'

When I grew up (the days of America Online, Compuserve, Genie and BBS), to be considered a ban something had to fully be removed from the equation. As in, books physically seized from store shelves, taken from the library and all copies physically burned. The same held true with alcohol during prohibition. What most people don't realize was that even prohibition, you could own as much alcohol as you wanted to, it was the distribution that got you in trouble. It was based around the actual item for sale. Speeding and murder are based around actions themselves, while a crime to commit the ban isn't against owning a "car" or making "a corpse" but the act itself. Past well known banned items have always been books, music, films, poetry, videogames, porn etc. All physical properties if you notice. If you notice though, the reason you'd never see fast foods banned is directly linked to the Soda Pop banning debacle in NY. The courts overturned the ban a very short time...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/nyregion/city-loses-final-appeal-on-limiting-sales-of-large-sodas.html?_r=0
Posted 4/26/16 , edited 4/28/16
I'd rather not have the government telling me what I can and can't eat anymore than they already do.

47860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 4/26/16 , edited 4/28/16

neugenx wrote:

When I grew up (the days of America Online, Compuserve, Genie and BBS), to be considered a ban something had to fully be removed from the equation. As in, books physically seized from store shelves, taken from the library and all copies physically burned. The same held true with alcohol during prohibition. What most people don't realize was that even prohibition, you could own as much alcohol as you wanted to, it was the distribution that got you in trouble. It was based around the actual item for sale. Speeding and murder are based around actions themselves, while a crime to commit the ban isn't against owning a "car" or making "a corpse" but the act itself. Past well known banned items have always been books, music, films, poetry, videogames, porn etc. All physical properties if you notice. If you notice though, the reason you'd never see fast foods banned is directly linked to the Soda Pop banning debacle in NY. The courts overturned the ban a very short time...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/nyregion/city-loses-final-appeal-on-limiting-sales-of-large-sodas.html?_r=0


Alright, I'm pretty confused. I thought that, at first, you were saying that 'actions' can't be banned, only 'things' can -- namely property. And that Prohibition wasn't a ban because you could still have private ownership of whatever alcohol you already owned. But then, you referred to the 'sale of large sodas' as a ban, although that clearly didn't prohibit the ownership of privately-held 'large sodas.' Either way, this is heading toward a semantic discussion that I've no desire to get into. But, I think I can get a hold of what your position is with a pretty simple question(yes or no answer is fine): should there be a ban on privately-owned nuclear weapons?
15742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/26/16 , edited 4/28/16

theYchromosome wrote:

Honestly, I think heroin ought to be legal, so you're barking up the wrong tree for this one. Persons should have the right to make themselves miserable if they want, which is even to put aside the fact that governments are less capable than individuals at knowing what makes a person happy.

Plus -- "there's zero benefit"? Did you even try to think about this one? It took me like 5 seconds to think of things like taste, price, convenience, calorie efficiency, satisfaction of hunger. It's hard to find a better balance of cheap, easy, tasty, and filling than fast food, and if that sort of stuff balances out the negatives, then fast food becomes quite valuable. And then there's the point that someone else made in an earlier post. Fast food is more than just burgers, fries, and whatever you call the stuff that passes as food at Taco Bell. Some fast food is basically fine for your health, and what's more, I'd think that most people would be willing to grant that even an occasional quintuple whopper with triple cheese is not likely to fuck you over for any longer than the day you eat it. And, man, if that's what you're craving, then I can see no reason to stop you.


Did you even read what you just said? "I think heroin ought to be legal" And you ask if I thought about it? LOL

You clearly haven't the faintest idea how bad fast food is for you.
15742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/26/16 , edited 4/28/16

holyfire11 wrote:

No, because you should let people decide whether to ruin their bodies with fast food or not. I can agree that it's bad for you, but if you make people do something like ban fast food, they're going to not likely going to follow those rules. It's better to promote healthy eating than try to ban fast food, because it'll have the opposite effect of what you want to do.


Promoting healthy eating is clearly not working though. Fast Food Businesses have a tight grip on peoples food choices. That's very bad. it reminds of when the government had to step in to stop candy cigarette from being sold. Kids had no idea what they were, they just thought it was cool to pretend to smoke them. Thus encouraging them to actually to do so. Again, very very bad.

10587 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Rabbit Horse
Offline
Posted 4/26/16 , edited 4/28/16

descloud wrote:


holyfire11 wrote:
No, because you should let people decide whether to ruin their bodies with fast food or not. I can agree that it's bad for you, but if you make people do something like ban fast food, they're going to not likely going to follow those rules. It's better to promote healthy eating than try to ban fast food, because it'll have the opposite effect of what you want to do.


Promoting healthy eating is clearly not working though. Fast Food Businesses have a tight grip on peoples food choices. That's very bad. it reminds of when the government had to step in to stop candy cigarette from being sold. Kids had no idea what they were, they just thought it was cool to pretend to smoke them. Thus encouraging them to actually to do so. Again, very very bad.



i wouldn't say food choice, but rather, the aggressive marketing that's almost impossible to avoid. a classic example is the coke ads when you go watch a movie (and of course, they won't allow you to bring your own water)
15742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/26/16 , edited 4/28/16

namealreadytaken wrote:


descloud wrote:


holyfire11 wrote:
No, because you should let people decide whether to ruin their bodies with fast food or not. I can agree that it's bad for you, but if you make people do something like ban fast food, they're going to not likely going to follow those rules. It's better to promote healthy eating than try to ban fast food, because it'll have the opposite effect of what you want to do.


Promoting healthy eating is clearly not working though. Fast Food Businesses have a tight grip on peoples food choices. That's very bad. it reminds of when the government had to step in to stop candy cigarette from being sold. Kids had no idea what they were, they just thought it was cool to pretend to smoke them. Thus encouraging them to actually to do so. Again, very very bad.



i wouldn't say food choice, but rather, the aggressive marketing that's almost impossible to avoid. a classic example is the coke ads when you go watch a movie (and of course, they won't allow you to bring your own water)


That's why I think this is one of those times the government needs to intervene. The level of influence they have needs to be toned down. People shouldn't feel like that is the only affordable option. It's ridiculous what these business are doing.
782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / The Great White N...
Offline
Posted 4/26/16 , edited 4/28/16
No, it's food.
5116 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/26/16 , edited 4/28/16
Other than the failings of the Health Care System why should you be concerned with what food I put in my body? The argument that my bad health drives up health care costs should be addressed by health care reform not banning things that aren't good for me. What you suggest is not a slippery slope to controlling people's lives. It is a direct step into doing so.
Posted 4/26/16 , edited 4/28/16
So aside from ourselves and the impact that it has on a person's health, how about the impact it has beyond just that? How much influence and support does a large fast food chain or hell even loads of local restaurants give to the outdated and highly unsustainable and perhaps unethical agricultural practices we continue to tolerate? I agree with Palsa and I think reform is needed and is a much more appropriate and realistic route to take.
10809 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 4/26/16 , edited 4/28/16

Truthfully I do. It shortens your lifespan, it causes you to have serious health issues down the road.


It is immoral to interfere with the behaviour of otherwise peaceful people.

I have every right to eat whatever diet I personally choose to eat.

Even if you COULD force me to eat a diet that would extend my lifespan and improve my health, IT IS MORALLY WRONG TO DO SO.

It's MY diet, MY lifespan, and MY health. YOU can stay the hell out of it.
7401 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / New England, USA
Online
Posted 4/26/16 , edited 4/28/16

theYchromosome wrote:


neugenx wrote:

When I grew up (the days of America Online, Compuserve, Genie and BBS), to be considered a ban something had to fully be removed from the equation. As in, books physically seized from store shelves, taken from the library and all copies physically burned. The same held true with alcohol during prohibition. What most people don't realize was that even prohibition, you could own as much alcohol as you wanted to, it was the distribution that got you in trouble. It was based around the actual item for sale. Speeding and murder are based around actions themselves, while a crime to commit the ban isn't against owning a "car" or making "a corpse" but the act itself. Past well known banned items have always been books, music, films, poetry, videogames, porn etc. All physical properties if you notice. If you notice though, the reason you'd never see fast foods banned is directly linked to the Soda Pop banning debacle in NY. The courts overturned the ban a very short time...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/nyregion/city-loses-final-appeal-on-limiting-sales-of-large-sodas.html?_r=0


Alright, I'm pretty confused. I thought that, at first, you were saying that 'actions' can't be banned, only 'things' can -- namely property. And that Prohibition wasn't a ban because you could still have private ownership of whatever alcohol you already owned. But then, you referred to the 'sale of large sodas' as a ban, although that clearly didn't prohibit the ownership of privately-held 'large sodas.' Either way, this is heading toward a semantic discussion that I've no desire to get into. But, I think I can get a hold of what your position is with a pretty simple question(yes or no answer is fine): should there be a ban on privately-owned nuclear weapons?


Your question can be answered clearly and easily. No, there should not be a ban BUT there are rightfully laws put in place for those owning such ILLEGAL materials and using them in creation of such a weapon.

The difference between a ban and "control" of an item is that the item is allowed in "certain circumstances" when controlled (i.e. handgun licenses and permits). I'm sure that scientists that work for the government as independent contractors have nuclear materials available to them in "private labs" at hand for testing. My old college had a nuclear reactor in the science department in the early 90s. Since a college is a private institution I guess you understand why i'd not considered it a ban. If it was a ban the one and only place you'd find the materials would be in a government base or lab.

Yes, it's a matter of semantics but so isn't everything in society when interpreted under the law. The ban of books from our school shelves, Tipper Gore's attempt to ban explicit music, even the ban of soda pop were all bans by "offended" groups who had no justification to "ban" anything (as the courts proved in all 3 cases).
14468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 4/26/16 , edited 4/28/16
No, just... no.

Your activity level and kilocalorie (Calorie) intake are much more important into factoring your health. Before my string of injuries I would eat what I want in portions that amounted to 4000 Calories per day. I was a lean 260lbs and had my resting heart rate into the lower 50s. Exercise is extremely important and as far as dieting goes its more important to focus on getting the right nutrients at the right time.

A helpful message I left for myself...
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.