• 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!

Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?


  • Total voters
    46
Those choices are THEIR choices. And should always remain their choices. No one elses business.

I'm considered by doctors charts to be obese myself. (hell, at my ideal weight, I'm still considered overweight by their charts) Do I seem irrational to you? Am I overweight because I'm irrational? No. Not by any means. And even if that were the reason, it's still MY doing, MY choice, MY body. And, Whose fault do you think it is that I'm overweight anyway? Whose job is it to fix it?

Answer: It's my fault. And it's my job to fix it. If I want to.

And you can still do any of that as well as add more salt to your even if the government regulates the amount of salt food manufactures use.
 
And you can still do any of that as well as add more salt to your even if the government regulates the amount of salt food manufactures use.

That's not the point. They are overstepping their boundaries.
 
Those choices are THEIR choices. And should always remain their choices. No one elses business.

I'm considered by doctors charts to be obese myself. (hell, at my ideal weight, I'm still considered overweight by their charts) Do I seem irrational to you? Am I overweight because I'm irrational? No. Not by any means. And even if that were the reason, it's still MY doing, MY choice, MY body. And, Whose fault do you think it is that I'm overweight anyway? Whose job is it to fix it?

Answer: It's my fault. And it's my job to fix it. If I want to.

I know you don't want to be overweight. And yet you still make choices that leads to an outcome that you don't want. That is irrational. If it was a few people making irrational decisions, it wouldn't bother me because that's natural in a market. When the vast majority of consumers are behaving irrationally, something is going on other than their choice.

This is not my preferred way to solve the problem. I'd prefer to stop subsidies on wheat, corn, and soy and drive up costs that way. However, since the government insists on keeping prices on junk food artificially low, something needs to be done to correct the problem they've created.
 
Suffice it to say, no one salts before tasting at my table anymore. :cool:

Mr. French complained to Uncle Bill about that issue in the show "Family Affair" back in the old days of TV....don't know why I chose to remember that...
 
I know you don't want to be overweight. And yet you still make choices that leads to an outcome that you don't want. That is irrational. If it was a few people making irrational decisions, it wouldn't bother me because that's natural in a market. When the vast majority of consumers are behaving irrationally, something is going on other than their choice.
Wrong. There's more than one outcome. I enjoy good food. I enjoy good wine. I LOVE pepsi and doritos. The outcome when I consume what I enjoy is pleasure. It's a matter of deciding which outcome is more important to me, pleasure and overweight? Or decreased pleasure and losing weight? There's nothing irrational there at all. It's a balance that we all must find for ourselves. NOT something the government needs to mandate.

There's nothing at ALL irrational with people eating and doing what makes them happy. If they are not happy being overweight, it is within their power to change it. If they choose not to, then they are obviously not that unhappy being overweight. Something else makes them happier than losing weight would. What in the world is irrational about that? For some people, living their life and enjoying what they're doing NOW is better than decreasing their enjoyment of their life so they can live an even longer, unhappier life. Personally, I'll take the shorter, happier life over the longer, unhappy one. But that's just me. I'm "irrational" that way. ;)

One of my favorite quotes: "Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body. But rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, screaming 'Holy ****, what a ride!!' "

This is not my preferred way to solve the problem. I'd prefer to stop subsidies on wheat, corn, and soy and drive up costs that way. However, since the government insists on keeping prices on junk food artificially low, something needs to be done to correct the problem they've created.
Indeed. I agree with stopping subsidies. But adding more government regulation to fix the failing government regulation really isn't the way to fix things.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. There's more than one outcome. I enjoy good food. I enjoy good wine. I LOVE pepsi and doritos. fix things.

Pepsi and Doritos? YUKKY....
Diet Dr. Pepper and Chili Cheese Fritos, now that is a good combo...:2razz:
 
Last edited:
Pepsi and Doritos? YUKKY....
Diet Dr. Pepper and Chili Cheese Fritos, not that is a good combo...:2razz:

NOOOO diet drinks. Bad bad bad sugar substitutes!

But Dr Pepper is good too. However, I could drink Pepsi day in and day out. (and I used to) Just hook me up to a Pepsi IV line. LOL There are days when I want a Pepsi so fricken bad. And, I have one. I just limit my intake to once or twice a week now as opposed to having 5 or 6 a day.

I have one day where I allow myself to eat what I really want. Sometimes, that's pepsi, doritos and chili. :)
 
NOOOO diet drinks. Bad bad bad sugar substitutes!

But Dr Pepper is good too. However, I could drink Pepsi day in and day out. (and I used to) Just hook me up to a Pepsi IV line. LOL There are days when I want a Pepsi so fricken bad. And, I have one. I just limit my intake to once or twice a week now as opposed to having 5 or 6 a day.

I have one day where I allow myself to eat what I really want. Sometimes, that's pepsi, doritos and chili. :)

See, salt is bad, but Pepsi? You clearly need the help of the nanny state to stop you from drinking that swill. :mrgreen:
 
Weird. I know the whole "state's rights" thing is important to some people, but to me a good law is a good law and everyone should follow it, no matter who it comes from.

See, now that doesn't seem logical to me.

"Good" in this context is an entirely subjective evaluation. That's why we have so many debates about what is the right thing to do. Both sides mistakenly feel that just because they think a law is a good one, it should be shoved down everyone's throat. But they differ on what they think are good laws.

This leads to disenfranchisement, which can lead to civil unrest and eventually the collapse of a society as factions develop that have the sole purpose of trying to force their will upon others uniformly eventually tear each other apart.

This is because any time one group enforces it's morality upon another, the group that is forced to adhere to that morality of the other becomes disenfranchised.

All laws are a reflection of the societal morality, but morality is fluid and subjective.

Thus, if the goal is to preserve the society, decreasing disenfranchisement is prefered to increasing it.

In order to decrease disenfranchisement, the most logical approach is to allow as much variability in legislation as possible to reflect the variability in morality. And there is quite a bit of variability in morality.

That is, of course, if the goal is to prevent discordance amongst the populous. If one is interested in increasing total discord amongst the population of a society, then the best approach is to, every four to eight years or so, continually switch back and forth between the two most prevalent morality systems and implement these rules upon th eentire population.

This will assure that the entire population is disenfranchised at some point during a decade, possibly more than once per decade.

Evidence of this is the liberal disenfranchisement during the Bush Administration compared to the conservative disenfranchisement that exists now under Obama.

And the brilliance of this system of disenfranchisement is that it assures the two factions remain in power because the very thought of the opposing side being in power causes discordance within the population. It isn't even dependent on the laws that are passed, just the threat of laws being passed. This effect can be exacerbated by rabble rousers within each faction.

What it also does is cause the very people who are being disenfranchised people to completely ignore the very simple solution to their disenfranchisement and become willing, even rabid, participants, in their own disenfranchisement.

That very simple solution was what the founders had originally intended when they designed the country. Allow variation in legislation. Don't force what you think is "good" upon those who think it is "bad" and vice versa, don't let them force what you think is bad upon you simply because they think it is good.

Every liberal that is celebrating Obama's administration is setting themselves up for their future disenfranchisement when the conservatives regain power, just as every gleeful conservative set themselves up for their current disenfranchisement by gleefully celebrating the Bush Administration.

The most ****ed up thing is that they never actually stop being disenfranchised. They admit their will is not being implemented by their preferred group adequately, but they prefer to eat the **** prepared by their favorite chefs as opposed to the **** prepared by the other guy's favorite chef.

People like me are the most disenfranchised because we see the solution, and watch as everyone ignores it in favor of nonsense.

Anyway, I know you aren't a big fan of the wordy, wall-of-text replies, so I'll just leave it at that.
 
Mr. French complained to Uncle Bill about that issue in the show "Family Affair" back in the old days of TV....don't know why I chose to remember that...

Perhaps because you were horrified by such behavior, as you should have been!
 
One time when the grandkids slept over at our house, I got up and fed them Chili Cheese Fritos for breakfast..
Think about it, is there really that much difference between fritos and corn flakes?
 
Wrong. There's more than one outcome. I enjoy good food. I enjoy good wine. I LOVE pepsi and doritos. The outcome when I consume what I enjoy is pleasure. It's a matter of deciding which outcome is more important to me, pleasure and overweight? Or decreased pleasure and losing weight? There's nothing irrational there at all. It's a balance that we all must find for ourselves. NOT something the government needs to mandate.

There's nothing at ALL irrational with people eating and doing what makes them happy. If they are not happy being overweight, it is within their power to change it. If they choose not to, then they are obviously not that unhappy being overweight. Something else makes them happier than losing weight would. What in the world is irrational about that?

You have millions of years of evolution screaming at you to eat those doritos. If it weren't for that, you would make a rational decision in regards to your long term desire to be healthy.

And again, the government is not making a choice for you. Instead, they are giving you more of a choice. Want salt? Add it yourself. Hopefully though, having to make a conscious decision will help more people make the right one.

For some people, living their life and enjoying what they're doing NOW is better than decreasing their enjoyment of their life so they can live an even longer, unhappier life. Personally, I'll take the shorter, happier life over the longer, unhappy one. But that's just me. I'm "irrational" that way. ;)

I suppose the trick is to be happy with the right decision. It's too bad food has turned into entertainment.

One of my favorite quotes: "Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body. But rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, screaming 'Holy ****, what a ride!!' "

Mine too.

Indeed. I agree with stopping subsidies. But adding more government regulation to fix the failing government regulation really isn't the way to fix things.

Sometimes we must substitute what is best for what is most possible.
 
Ahhhh now I know what to lobby the government for BWAAAA AHAHAHAHA:mrgreen:

I quit smoking (and have never felt WORSE in my life) but I will keep my pepsi, goddamnit!!! Even if it is only a couple a week.

You would seriously see this little girl turn into godzilla-ette :2razz:
 
I'd have to choke a bitch if someone took away my pepsi

You're an addict. You need help.

Seriously, this brings up an interesting point. If the government can't regulate your salt, what about drugs and alcohol?
 
You have millions of years of evolution screaming at you to eat those doritos. If it weren't for that, you would make a rational decision in regards to your long term desire to be healthy.
I have no long term desire to be healthy. I have a desire to be HAPPY and feel good.

And again, the government is not making a choice for you. Instead, they are giving you more of a choice. Want salt? Add it yourself. Hopefully though, having to make a conscious decision will help more people make the right one.
I am one of those people who salt things without tasting. ;)

I suppose the trick is to be happy with the right decision. It's too bad food has turned into entertainment.
No, the trick is to make the decision that makes you happy. I enjoy pleasure. That includes my sense of taste.

Sometimes we must substitute what is best for what is most possible.
When something isn't working, you don't add more of that something to fix it. In this case, that something is govt regulation.
 
You're an addict. You need help.

Seriously, this brings up an interesting point. If the government can't regulate your salt, what about drugs and alcohol?

The govt can only regulate the salt in prepared foods, they have no control (yet) over the salt shaker on your dinner table.....;)
 
You're an addict. You need help.

Seriously, this brings up an interesting point. If the government can't regulate your salt, what about drugs and alcohol?

What about drugs and alcohol? Should they regulate those? Absolutely not, IMO. Aside from labeling regulations. Tell me what's in it, and let me decide for myself.
 
Key word there is YET.

The slippery slope argument fails because the governemnt has always had the authority that it would be employing here. Since 1787.

This has not led to a federal salt-shaker control.

The things that will lead to said salt-shaker control are those instances when the feds usurp those powers that were not delegated to it by the Constitution.

This isn't one of those battles, but there exist many of them. I would start with those I actually fundamentally agree with but unfortunately usurp those powers.
 
Last edited:
What about drugs and alcohol? Should they regulate those? Absolutely not, IMO. Aside from labeling regulations. Tell me what's in it, and let me decide for myself.

Okay, as long as you're consistent.

What about just plain old poison? Can Pepsi put lethal doses of rat poison in the can, and list it on the inredients on the back of the can?
 
The slippery slope argument fails because the governemnt has always had the authority that it would be employing here. Since 1787.

This has not led to a federal salt-shaker control.

The things that will lead to said salt-shaker control are those instances when the feds usurp those powers that were not delegated to it by the Constitution.

This isn't one of those battles.

And we don't have an NHS yet either.
 
I have no long term desire to be healthy. I have a desire to be HAPPY and feel good.


.

I have little choice when it comes to Long Term anything. Once I get to Stage 4 of Parkinson's, I will start eating as unhealthy as I can.
I hope to die of something else before I get to stage 5....
by that time, I won't have a choice in the matter. I will have to eat what they give me...
 
Okay, as long as you're consistent.

What about just plain old poison? Can Pepsi put lethal doses of rat poison in the can, and list it on the inredients on the back of the can?

Consumers are quite able to buy rat poison right now and drink it if they want, so I see no issue with allowing yet another company to put poison in a product with appropriate labeling.
 
Back
Top Bottom