• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No One is responsible for what you put in Your Mouth

No one besides yourself is responsible for what you put in your mouth?


  • Total voters
    43
Well, you're the one who said I was wrong. I was looking for you to provide something. We're free to harm oursleves, and I have not suggested otherwise. But I will add, a lot of these choices we make before we're adults. Few adults take up the habit. Children do. But that is another issue. ;)

When I was a child I was told 'don't do drugs, don't drink, don't smoke . . . this is what happens' and thought 'hey - that's cool' and 'why not, because you don't want me to?' Who else thought that the 'drunk goggles' was just a load of fun on the playground? I did - that's or sure.

I think parents and others push against these things and it peaks the superior undying curiosity in every child - the moment they can; they'll try it to see 'why not' . . . It's not that they *try it* when they're children / teens; it's that when they're children/teens they're merely victims of their insatiable curiosity and fall prey to their own rebellious nature.

For those who don't have these issues = they wont' suffer the consequences.

For my kids I think the death of their cousin and their grandmother at the fault of drug-abuse was iodine on the wound of the 'need to know'
 
Their is two big problem with it's only people own responsibility.

First what kind of motivation and information are broadcast to the people. My guess is that probably at least 80 % is for unhealthy food. That if people all the time get information to lure them to eat unhealthy and almost no information how to eat healthy. That can have an affect on people choices.

Also the correctness of the information people get. Take for example Diet Coke. The product is called diet and also market as healthy alternative. But resent studies have shown it can be bad for people having problem with overeating, because diet coke can increase their appetite. So is only people to blame drinking diet coke or is Coca Cola also have a responsibility for having over almost 20 years marketed the product as healthy?
We MUST have "truth in advertising".
For a fatty or a diabetic, one coke or "diet" coke per week MAY be safe..
Far better is 0.0 of this crap...
A law should prohibit the word "diet" from being so misused..
And the consumer should know better....easy for me to say....but far too many people have 0.0 education in this area.
 
Is this true?

I disagree, because food corporations are notorius for deliberately enticing and addicting its client base. This thread isn't calling for any sort of regulation. It's pointing out that food corporations, the food industry, does have some culpability and responsibility in the obesity/unhealthiness epidemic. They're a part of the problem whether they want to admit it or not imo.

My bad, I thought this thread was in the Sexuality forum. Carry on.
 
You deny it is harmful? You can enjoy your poison, but that doesn't make any less poison. And it is a great product. It taste terrible at first. You get to like it. Then it becomes hard to quit. And it steals your life a little at a time. I don't know why everyone doesn't smoke. :shrug:

Living itself steals your life a little at a time.
 
The trouble with the market is selling poison is fine. If you're willing to buy it, or too stupid, or if I'm slick enough to sell it, the market say AOK, and it is your fault you're dead. :thumbs:

Your saying poison but you mean unhealthy? Such as sugars and fats? Or cyanide? There is a difference you know.
 
Your saying poison but you mean unhealthy? Such as sugars and fats? Or cyanide? There is a difference you know.

Somethings are actually poison. Smoking, for example, poisons the lungs and harms you even when used by any means one wants to use it. Depending on the amounts, even things that are merely unhealthy can become every bit as dangerous as a recognized poison.
 
When I was a child I was told 'don't do drugs, don't drink, don't smoke . . . this is what happens' and thought 'hey - that's cool' and 'why not, because you don't want me to?' Who else thought that the 'drunk goggles' was just a load of fun on the playground? I did - that's or sure.

I think parents and others push against these things and it peaks the superior undying curiosity in every child - the moment they can; they'll try it to see 'why not' . . . It's not that they *try it* when they're children / teens; it's that when they're children/teens they're merely victims of their insatiable curiosity and fall prey to their own rebellious nature.

For those who don't have these issues = they wont' suffer the consequences.

For my kids I think the death of their cousin and their grandmother at the fault of drug-abuse was iodine on the wound of the 'need to know'

There may be some truth to that, and I don't pretend to know all the answers. But it is true the market doesn't worry all that much about it. And we can get nearly anything we want. Hell, the markets doesn't even care about legality when you get down to it. Someone will sell you anything. And someone will buy anything.

And I do truely hope you kids learned a lesson, just as I hope mind did from their uncle, but too often we see these things perpetuate themselves in families. And they all too often start young.
 
Somethings are actually poison. Smoking, for example, poisons the lungs and harms you even when used by any means one wants to use it. Depending on the amounts, even things that are merely unhealthy can become every bit as dangerous as a recognized poison.

So am I responsible for myself, in using these substances, knowing they cause health problems? Or is it still the producers fault?
 
There may be some truth to that, and I don't pretend to know all the answers. But it is true the market doesn't worry all that much about it. And we can get nearly anything we want. Hell, the markets doesn't even care about legality when you get down to it. Someone will sell you anything. And someone will buy anything.

And I do truely hope you kids learned a lesson, just as I hope mind did from their uncle, but too often we see these things perpetuate themselves in families. And they all too often start young.

You talk about the market as if it is a living being. The market is just the mechanism in which we buy that which is in demand.
 
You talk about the market as if it is a living being. The market is just the mechanism in which we buy that which is in demand.

No, I agree it si just a mechanism, but it is one people abuse. And they will abuse it as surely as the sun will come up in the morning. It, the emchanism, has and good and positive aspects, but also comes with a dark side. We shoudl be honest about that.
 
So am I responsible for myself, in using these substances, knowing they cause health problems? Or is it still the producers fault?

Both share a blame. Maybe not an equal blame. But let's say I sold you cyanide. I told you it would make you popular with chicks, knowing it was poison, why would you excuse me even if you were dumb enough to buy the lie? responsibility means being responssible, and when you are not, both as consumer and as provider, you are responsible for your actions. I'm never sure why so many see a transaction as only going in one direction.
 
One of the issues is who determines what is obese. The CDC uses the Body Mass Index (BMI) which was developed in 1832 by Belgian polymath Adolphe Quetelet in his quest to define the "normal man" in terms of everything from his average arm strength to the age at which he marries. This project had nothing to do with obesity.

I am more concerned with processed food and truth in advertising. Should a manufacturer state that a main ingredient is high fructose corn syrup rather than only show the benefits of the product in an ad? If so, would a more informed consumer still choose a product that is inferior to another one.

Ultimately, the principal of "let the buyer beware" trumps all and the consumer is responsible for what he puts in his mouth. It is incumbent upon consumers to educate themselves regarding what they are eating.
 
Last edited:
Both share a blame. Maybe not an equal blame. But let's say I sold you cyanide. I told you it would make you popular with chicks, knowing it was poison, why would you excuse me even if you were dumb enough to buy the lie? responsibility means being responssible, and when you are not, both as consumer and as provider, you are responsible for your actions. I'm never sure why so many see a transaction as only going in one direction.

If you sold something to me with a lie and knowing that is going to kill me, thats malpractice. Whats your point? Misread it hah, if i know what it is? Ah well good riddance to that moron. Of course I smoke and Ive done multiple substances that could kill me, I believe it was my choice.
 
Last edited:
I think that as long as companies are honest with the nutrition information and ingredients on their packaging, that's where their responsibility ends.
 
I can't agree that the consumer is the only person responsible. Food corporations share some culpability. Read books on the food industry and the obesity epidemic, like The Crazy Makers.

Many businesses use MSG, which is a prime factor in the addiction. If you guys read books on the issue, you'll see how these corporations deliberately find the best ways to ensnare and addict us.

Time's short today but there's more I'd like to share on this tomorrow. Death by Supermarket is another excellent book to read. The Politics of Fat is another.
 
Is this true?

I disagree, because food corporations are notorius for deliberately enticing and addicting its client base. This thread isn't calling for any sort of regulation. It's pointing out that food corporations, the food industry, does have some culpability and responsibility in the obesity/unhealthiness epidemic. They're a part of the problem whether they want to admit it or not imo.

Unless you've been deliberately decieved as to the contents or effects, yes only you are reponsible for what you eat. You already have a safety mechanism, called choice.
 
If you sold something to me with a lie and knowing that is going to kill me, thats malpractice. Whats your point? Misread it hah, if i know what it is? Ah well good riddance to that moron. Of course I smoke and Ive done multiple substances that could kill me, I believe it was my choice.

I happens daily. When you knowingly seel something that is harmful, you have a responsibility. I don't know why people want to remove responsibility from one side of the equation. Seems if I want to so something ****ty, I better be a company, as they are not responsible for their actions.
 
How much choice do you have when processed food is more affordable, but loaded with hidden sugar? They took out the fat, but replaced it with sugar to add taste.

" ...By the mid-80s, health experts such as Professor Philip James, a world-renowned British scientist who was one of the first to identify obesity as an issue, were noticing that people were getting fatter and no one could explain why. The food industry was keen to point out that individuals must be responsible for their own calorie consumption, but even those who exercised and ate low-fat products were gaining weight. In 1966 the proportion of people with a BMI of over 30 (classified as obese) was just 1.2% for men and 1.8% for women. By 1989 the figures had risen to 10.6% for men and 14.0% for women. And no one was joining the dots between HFCS and fat.

Moreover, there was something else going on. The more sugar we ate, the more we wanted, and the hungrier we became. At New York University, Professor Anthony Sclafani, a nutritionist studying appetite and weight gain, noticed something strange about his lab rats. When they ate rat food, they put on weight normally. But when they ate processed food from a supermarket, they ballooned in a matter of days. Their appetite for sugary foods was insatiable: they just carried on eating..."

Why our food is making us fat | Business | The Guardian
 
I certainly disagree with that. If someone provides a product that is not what it represents... they would be liable for damages to others in my opinion.
 
I certainly disagree with that. If someone provides a product that is not what it represents... they would be liable for damages to others in my opinion.

This is done daily, and the tobbaco industry make an industry off doing it. a
 
Both share a blame. Maybe not an equal blame. But let's say I sold you cyanide. I told you it would make you popular with chicks, knowing it was poison, why would you excuse me even if you were dumb enough to buy the lie? responsibility means being responssible, and when you are not, both as consumer and as provider, you are responsible for your actions. I'm never sure why so many see a transaction as only going in one direction.

I disagree. Unless you don't know what in the product this is false. If I tell you the cyanide would make you popular and you knew it would kill you and you took it them you are 100% guilty and I am 100% innocent. It doesn't matter what I tell you if you know the truth.
 
So far it looks like 8 voters who perhaps rode the short bus as children and are incapable of being responsible for what goes into their mouth.
 
Unless the food companies are pointing a gun at my head then I am pretty sure I am responsible for what I put into my mouth. Just because you are so simple minded to able to be hypnotized by food commercials doesn't mean everyone else is.

So if you eat salmonella tainted meat you believe it's your sole responsibility?
 
So if you eat salmonella tainted meat you believe it's your sole responsibility?

Who sells salmonella tainted meat as a product? Unless you have a valid source this argument is over...
 
IMO...

Any substance that is intended for consumption, injection, or any form of introduction into the human body...should have all of its ingredients listed on the label.

Now, if we start requiring a list of all possible effects on the human body for each and every one of those ingredients, we'll end up with small books glued to cheetos bags.
And very few would read them in any case, so doing such would have no effect on the ingestion of chemicals and/or substances that might have unwanted effects on the person consuming them.

No, what we have to do is tell people to read and understand the substance labels…
For example, there is this powdered creamer for coffee that is provided free in the break area where I work – now, I’ve examined the labels of these containers several times – one brand had some compound that included aluminum, and another a compound including titanium…Now, I’m not entirely sure what these compounds do, but I’d frankly rather drink my coffee black than consume metal derivatives…so I do. Edit: Unless some milk-based liquid creamer with no additives (well, far less) is available.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom