The U.K. Uses COVID-19 to Justify More Nanny State Junk Food Crackdowns

by Maddog Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:28 am

The U.K. now plans a nationwide ban on television advertisements for what it calls "junk food" before 9 p.m. And that's not the only new regulation. Also on the list:

Retailers will not be permitted to offer "buy one, get one free" promotions (or similar offers) for foods the government deems unhealthy.

Retails will not be permitted to display these unhealthy foods for promotioal purposes near checkout counters, near the front of the store, or on the ends of aisles.

Retailers will not be permitted to promote unhealthy foods on the entry or landing pages of their websites.

Free refills of sugary drinks will be banned at restaurants.

https://reason.com/2020/12/29/the-u-k-uses-covid-19-to-justify-more-nanny-state-junk-food-crackdowns/

I remember saying this was around the corner years ago.
When the government is paying for your medical expenses, they will eventually interject themselves into your life in terms of how you maintain yourself.

by Maddog Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:28 am

Its almost like my signature is once again prophetic.

Now eat your vegetables. They're good for you.

by Syl Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:28 pm

People will still make their own choices, good or bad, retailers will get round the restrictions, so I doubt much will change anyone's eating habits.

Smoking ads were banned on TV in 1965 affraid

...but people are still dying of smoking related diseases today, so people will always do what they want regardless of government interference.

Obesity is at the root of many serious illnesses in the UK, and probably even more so in the US, but education, and introducing more sporting activities in school starting from an early age is the best way to tackle it....not nanny state deciding what time ads for junk food may be shown on TV.

by Syl Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:09 pm

And on second thoughts, is it such a bad thing to try to curtail the selling of crap?

Let's face it, some people are lazy, they buy fast food because it's easier than providing themselves and their families with good food, they buy their kids endless amounts of fattening, tooth rotting sugary foods to keep them quiet, the graze all day because they are addicted to rubbish.

The only beneficiary here are the multi million £££ companies that churn out the processed rubbish and 'treats'.

by Maddog Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:07 pm

Syl wrote:And on second thoughts, is it such a bad thing to try to curtail the selling of crap?

Let's face it, some people are lazy, they buy fast food because it's easier than providing themselves and their families with good food, they buy their kids endless amounts of fattening, tooth rotting sugary foods to keep them quiet, the graze all day because they are addicted to rubbish.

The only beneficiary here are the multi million £££ companies that churn out the processed rubbish and 'treats'.

I'm pro education and information.

I'm anti force.

A lot of folks need more exercise too. That doesn't mean that folks should download their activities to the government to prove they are not spending too much time watching TV.

by Maddog Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:14 pm

I also despise people that feed their kids crap.

I would support the sale of t shirts that stated "Don't feed your kids garbage you fat bastard" printed on the front and rear.

Shame can be a good motivator. Too bad its not considered PC anymore.

by Victorismyhero Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:16 pm

and Maddog I'm anti -covid information twisters....like you

the regs about fast food and sugary garbage has NOTHING....whatever to do with covid, there is nothing of sliding it in sneakily, nothing about getting it through under the cover of covid etc...The two are entirely seperate and NOT connected in any way....just another conspiracy nut jub idea. The legislation for this has been hanging for a couple of years or more, and a sugar tax was passed well back before anyone knew about Covid.

by Original Quill Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:22 pm

What is the argument? It's just people with the responsibility, trying to establish standards in an effort to protect the public.

The same people who are today pushing sugary drinks used to peddle opium and alcohol as Laudanum, to treat everything from pain and insomnia, to female disorders, to quiet crying babies. Until the Food and Drug Administration came along, there were no standards. Now there is. It's progress.

by Maddog Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:45 pm

Victorismyhero wrote:and Maddog I'm anti -covid information twisters....like you

the regs about fast food and sugary garbage has NOTHING....whatever to do with covid, there is nothing of sliding it in sneakily, nothing about getting it through under the cover of covid etc...The two are entirely seperate and NOT connected in any way....just another conspiracy nut jub idea. The legislation for this has been hanging for a couple of years or more, and a sugar tax was passed well back before anyone knew about Covid.

From the article.

"The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the fore the impact that obesity can have on people's health and health outcomes."

by Maddog Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:54 pm

Victorismyhero wrote:and Maddog I'm anti -covid information twisters....like you

the regs about fast food and sugary garbage has NOTHING....whatever to do with covid, there is nothing of sliding it in sneakily, nothing about getting it through under the cover of covid etc...The two are entirely seperate and NOT connected in any way....just another conspiracy nut jub idea. The legislation for this has been hanging for a couple of years or more, and a sugar tax was passed well back before anyone knew about Covid.

If you took the time to read the fucking article, it stated that this has been in the works for years. The virus provided some cover to ram it through.

Healthy people are more resilient to all viruses and the government is going to make you healthier whether you like it or not. Because at this point, they have taken control of your health, not you.

A lot of folks are probably happy to be relieved of that burden.

by Maddog Wed Dec 30, 2020 5:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:What is the argument? It's just people with the responsibility, trying to establish standards in an effort to protect the public.

The same people who are today pushing sugary drinks used to peddle opium and alcohol as Laudanum, to treat everything from pain and insomnia, to female disorders, to quiet crying babies. Until the Food and Drug Administration came along, there were no standards. Now there is. It's progress.

People like you claimed this was progress 100 years ago.

The U.K. Uses COVID-19 to Justify More Nanny State Junk Food Crackdowns 20201211

by Original Quill Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:06 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:What is the argument? It's just people with the responsibility, trying to establish standards in an effort to protect the public.

The same people who are today pushing sugary drinks used to peddle opium and alcohol as Laudanum, to treat everything from pain and insomnia, to female disorders, to quiet crying babies. Until the Food and Drug Administration came along, there were no standards. Now there is. It's progress.

People like you claimed this was progress 100 years ago.

It was progress. It's just that alcohol addiction was so all-consuming that it overwhelmed its legal prohibition. Prohibition wasn't wrong...just up against too powerful odds. How many people have died in alcohol-related accidents, or from alcohol-related spousal violence? Alcohol is still a problem...yet its popularity simply yielded too many votes.

But sugary drinks are no comparison to alcohol. Alcohol is chemically addictive. We caught opium before it overwhelmed us, as did alcohol. Sugary drinks are not in the same category...they are habitual, but not chemically addictive. The loss will not be missed.

by Maddog Wed Dec 30, 2020 7:13 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

People like you claimed this was progress 100 years ago.

It was progress. It's just that alcohol addiction was so all-consuming that it overwhelmed its legal prohibition. Prohibition wasn't wrong...just up against too powerful odds. How many people have died in alcohol-related accidents, or from alcohol-related spousal violence? Alcohol is still a problem...yet its popularity simply yielded too many votes.

But sugary drinks are no comparison to alcohol. Alcohol is chemically addictive. We caught opium before it overwhelmed us, as did alcohol. Sugary drinks are not in the same category...they are habitual, but not chemically addictive. The loss will not be missed.

Thats the problem with freedom eh? Folks will consume things that are not good for them.

Have you considered moving to a more progressive country in the middle east that bans the consumption of things, for the overall good of society?

by Vintage Wed Dec 30, 2020 7:26 pm

If the majority think its a good idea they'll accept it there will still be some who go their merry way, on the other hand if the general public really dislike the idea they will take no notice and buy the stuff anyway its not the stuff that's being banned is it or make it known in many ways that its not a good idea and it will not happen. It's a democratic thing.

by Syl Wed Dec 30, 2020 7:32 pm

There is a connection between obesity (caused by lifestyle in the majority of cases) and illnesses, including Covid19, because it was noticed early on that overweight males in particular, seemed to be more at risk of serious illness and death if they caught the virus.
But then they are more at risk of certain cancers, heart attacks, strokes etc, so that stands to reason....fat people are often unhealthy people, and the cure is in their own hands...put less food in your gob and take more exercise.

by Syl Wed Dec 30, 2020 7:39 pm

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:And on second thoughts, is it such a bad thing to try to curtail the selling of crap?

Let's face it, some people are lazy, they buy fast food because it's easier than providing themselves and their families with good food, they buy their kids endless amounts of fattening, tooth rotting sugary foods to keep them quiet, the graze all day because they are addicted to rubbish.

The only beneficiary here are the multi million £££ companies that churn out the processed rubbish and 'treats'.

I'm pro education and information.

I'm anti force.

A lot of folks need more exercise too. That doesn't mean that folks should download their activities to the government to prove they are not spending too much time watching TV.

It's not really forcing anyone to stop eating and feeding the kids crap though, it might make it not so easy to pick up, and if it stops companies pushing all the unhealthy stuff out before the healthier options....good.

Sometimes it's a fine line between advising and educating parents and insisting. There were huge protests by some when schools began providing healthier meals and went so far as to ban certain foods from being brought into schools.

At the end of the day they just wanted parents to feed their kids healthier food, is that so wrong?

by Tommy Monk Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:52 pm

Where I go to do vast majority of my shopping trips, the first section I see upon entry is all the fresh veg and fruit area which is filled with a huge range of delicious and nutritious healthy goodness to choose from and all easily affordable prices!

by Victorismyhero Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:53 pm

Maddog wrote:
Victorismyhero wrote:and Maddog I'm anti -covid information twisters....like you

the regs about fast food and sugary garbage has NOTHING....whatever to do with covid, there is nothing of sliding it in sneakily, nothing about getting it through under the cover of covid etc...The two are entirely seperate and NOT connected in any way....just another conspiracy nut jub idea. The legislation for this has been hanging for a couple of years or more, and a sugar tax was passed well back before anyone knew about Covid.

If you took the time to read the fucking article, it stated that this has been in the works for years. The virus provided some cover to ram it through.

Healthy people are more resilient to all viruses and the government is going to make you healthier whether you like it or not. Because at this point, they have taken control of your health, not you.

A lot of folks are probably happy to be relieved of that burden.

Ah, its a "libertarian" production.....good cause to treat it as bullshit then.......

by Maddog Wed Dec 30, 2020 10:11 pm

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I'm pro education and information.

I'm anti force.

A lot of folks need more exercise too. That doesn't mean that folks should download their activities to the government to prove they are not spending too much time watching TV.

It's not really forcing anyone to stop eating and feeding the kids crap though, it might make it not so easy to pick up, and if it stops companies pushing all the unhealthy stuff out before the healthier options....good.

Sometimes it's a fine line between advising and educating parents and insisting. There were huge protests by some when schools began providing healthier meals and went so far as to ban certain foods from being brought into schools.

At the end of the day they just wanted parents to feed their kids healthier food, is that so wrong?

It makes things more expensive, which adversely impacts people who have limited means. Artificially inflating prices often lead to black markets, which creates crime.

Nothing wrong with encouraging healthy lifestyles and eating. I thought it was cool when Michelle Obama did her gardening thing at the White House and tried to encourage healthy habits.

by Maddog Wed Dec 30, 2020 10:20 pm

Victorismyhero wrote:
Maddog wrote:

If you took the time to read the fucking article, it stated that this has been in the works for years. The virus provided some cover to ram it through.

Healthy people are more resilient to all viruses and the government is going to make you healthier whether you like it or not. Because at this point, they have taken control of your health, not you.

A lot of folks are probably happy to be relieved of that burden.

Ah, its a "libertarian" production.....good cause to treat it as bullshit then.......

A libertarian publication that carefully cites it's sources in each article, so that people so inclined can do their own research.

Sources like this from two days ago.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-and-salt-enforcement/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-and-salt-by-location-and-by-price-enforcement

by Maddog Wed Dec 30, 2020 10:31 pm

Category 1: Non-alcoholic soft drinks with added sugar which are either ready to drink or which, to be made ready to drink, must be processed.

For the purposes of this category—

(a) “added sugar” means sugar added to a drink during production which is of a type or in such quantity not naturally occurring in the other ingredients;

(b) “non-alcoholic” means with a content of not more than 1.2% alcohol by volume;

(c) “processed” means one or more of the following—

(i) diluted with water;

(ii) mixed with crushed ice;

(iii) processed to make crushed ice;

(iv) mixed with carbon dioxide;

(d) “soft drinks” means—

(i) still or carbonated water-based drinks;

(ii) milk-based drinks;

(iii) fruit or vegetable juice-based drinks;

(e) “sugar” includes all monosaccharides and disaccharides, including—

(i) all types of cane and beet sugar;

(ii) sugar from other sources such as coconut palm sugar;

(iii) crystalline sucrose, invert sugar, dextrose, molasses;

(iv) sugars in honey, treacle, malt extract and all types of syrup including malt syrup, fruit syrup, rice malt syrup, corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup, maple syrup, glucose syrup, glucose-fructose syrup;

(v) fructose, sucrose, glucose, lactose, hydrolysed lactose and galactose added as an ingredient;

(vi) sugars in all types of nectars such as coconut blossom nectar, date nectar, agave nectar;

(vii) sugars in juice concentrates.

Category 2: Crisps and other savoury snacks including all potato crisps and similar products made from potato, other vegetables, grain or pulses, including extruded, sheeted and pelleted snacks such as pitta bread based snacks, pretzels, poppadums, prawn crackers, pork scratchings, salted popcorn, and savoury crackers or biscuits which are in individually-portioned bags. This category does not include savoury snacks that are nuts, whether raw or to which other food has been added (such as salt).

Category 3: Breakfast cereals including ready-to-eat cereals, granola, muesli, porridge oats and other oat-based cereals.

Category 4: Confectionery including chocolates and sweets.

Category 5: Ice cream, ice lollies, frozen yogurt, water ices and similar frozen products.

Category 6: Cakes (including cupcakes).

Category 7: Sweet biscuits.

Category 8: Morning goods, meaning croissants, pains au chocolat and similar pastries, crumpets, pancakes, buns, teacakes, scones, waffles, Danish pastries and fruit loaves.

Category 9: Desserts and puddings, including pies, tarts and flans, cheesecake, gateaux, dairy desserts, sponge puddings, rice pudding, crumbles, fruit fillings, powdered desserts, custards, jellies and meringues.

Category 10: Yoghurt.

Category 11: Pizza (except plain pizza bases).

Category 12: Roast potatoes, potato and sweet potato chips, fries and wedges, potato waffles, novelty potato shapes (such as smiley faces), hash browns, rostis, crispy potato slices, potato croquettes.

Category 13: Products that are marketed as a meal that is ready for cooking or reheating without requiring further preparation and which include a carbohydrate accompaniment.

Category 14: Products that are marketed as a meal that is ready for cooking or reheating without requiring further preparation and which do not include a carbohydrate accompaniment, such as prepared fish, shellfish, meat, poultry and meat alternative products in a sauce, but not including fish, shellfish, meat, poultry and meat alternatives (either served plain or) in a marinade, glaze, dressing, seasoning or similar accompaniment.

Category 15: Breaded or battered fish, shellfish, meat, poultry and meat alternative products including fish fingers, fish cakes, chicken nuggets and breaded Quorn.

Jesus, there are people with nothing better to do in this world.

Need to restrict the sale of breaded Quorn.

by Original Quill Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:16 pm

Maddog wrote:Thats the problem with freedom eh? Folks will consume things that are not good for them.

If we assume the state of anarchy, yes...we see folks making mistakes. Government tries to avoid that through proper arrangement. Just as traffic needs stop signs and traffic lights, people need order, and order means organization.

It’s not a conspiracy against people; it’s an arrangement by which enlightened people achieve all of their best interests. Without proof, libertarians adopt the “divine hand” theory of human existence: leave them alone, and people will make miraculously the right choice on their own. Only, history has time and time again proven this wrong. That is because there is no divine hand, and people will each choose their own self-interest in discrete and non-integrated decisions.

Each discrete self-decision takes only the immediate self-interest into consideration, and those discrete decisions inevitably run afoul of one another. One has only to look at the behavior of people during this Covid pandemic: people sentencing themselves and their relatives to death, because they chose the pleasure of a holiday, or a night at the pub, rather than temporary isolation. Hence, the need for stop signs and red lights.

If people are not brought to intelligent, organized existence, life will be an inevitable traffic jam. In the absence of organization, people will not even be informed of what is or is not “good for them”. It is the organization of society that brings science to the people, and with it, the proper choices for them to make. Which brings us to sugary drinks and fast food.

by Maddog Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:19 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:Thats the problem with freedom eh? Folks will consume things that are not good for them.

If we assume the state of anarchy, yes...we see folks making mistakes. Government tries to avoid that through proper arrangement. Just as traffic needs stop signs and traffic lights, people need order, and order means organization.

It’s not a conspiracy against people; it’s an arrangement by which enlightened people achieve all of their best interests. Without proof, libertarians adopt the “divine hand” theory of human existence: leave them alone, and people will make miraculously the right choice on their own. Only, history has time and time again proven this wrong. That is because there is no divine hand, and people will each choose their own self-interest in discrete and non-integrated decisions.

Each discrete self-decision takes only the immediate self-interest into consideration, and those discrete decisions inevitably run afoul of one another. One has only to look at the behavior of people during this Covid pandemic: people sentencing themselves and their relatives to death, because they chose the pleasure of a holiday, or a night at the pub, rather than temporary isolation. Hence, the need for stop signs and red lights.

If people are not brought to intelligent, organized existence, life will be an inevitable traffic jam. In the absence of organization, people will not even be informed of what is or is not “good for them”. It is the organization of society that brings science to the people, and with it, the proper choices for them to make. Which brings us to sugary drinks and food.

What species is the government comprised of?

by Syl Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:30 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

Where I go to do vast majority of my shopping trips, the first section I see upon entry is all the fresh veg and fruit area which is filled with a huge range of delicious and nutritious healthy goodness to choose from and all easily affordable prices!

Same where I do my shopping, thinking about it, fresh fruit and veg is always right inside the entrance at every supermarket I visit.

One annoying trick many supermarkets use is putting sweets, cakes and chocolate near the checkouts....guaranteed to tempt the kids who are waiting with mum to pay.

by Maddog Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:53 am

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Where I go to do vast majority of my shopping trips, the first section I see upon entry is all the fresh veg and fruit area which is filled with a huge range of delicious and nutritious healthy goodness to choose from and all easily affordable prices!

Same where I do my shopping, thinking about it, fresh fruit and veg is always right inside the entrance at every supermarket I visit.

One annoying trick many supermarkets use is putting sweets, cakes and chocolate near the checkouts....guaranteed to tempt the kids who are waiting with mum to pay.

Just the kids? Cool

by Syl Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:36 am

No, but the kids then pester the mums, the mums get frazzled and pressured to give in.....I have seen it, and experienced it myself, loads of times.
It's a crafty marketing trick.

by Tommy Monk Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:51 am

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Where I go to do vast majority of my shopping trips, the first section I see upon entry is all the fresh veg and fruit area which is filled with a huge range of delicious and nutritious healthy goodness to choose from and all easily affordable prices!

Same where I do my shopping, thinking about it, fresh fruit and veg is always right inside the entrance at every supermarket I visit.

One annoying trick many supermarkets use is putting sweets, cakes and chocolate near the checkouts....guaranteed to tempt the kids who are waiting with mum to pay.

And all mum has to do is say "no"... easy really...

But why should everyone be prevented from getting the odd 2 for 1 deal etc, just because it is thought to be the case that a few fatties are only being fat because of 2 for 1 deals...?

When in reality, fatties will still carry on being fat regardless of any restrictions on 2 for 1 deals for all...

This is just more nanny state bullshit... And something I thought we had got away from since labour were kicked out of govt back in 2010.

by Maddog Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:02 am

Syl wrote:No, but the kids then pester the mums, the mums get frazzled and pressured to give in.....I have seen it, and experienced it myself, loads of times.
It's a crafty marketing trick.

Reckon the kids are pestering the moms about breaded Quorn?

I imagine that drives them wild.

by Maddog Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:08 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Syl wrote:
Same where I do my shopping, thinking about it, fresh fruit and veg is always right inside the entrance at every supermarket I visit.

One annoying trick many supermarkets use is putting sweets, cakes and chocolate near the checkouts....guaranteed to tempt the kids who are waiting with mum to pay.

And all mum has to do is say "no"... easy really...

But why should everyone be prevented from getting the odd 2 for 1 deal etc, just because it is thought to be the case that a few fatties are only being fat because of 2 for 1 deals...?

When in reality, fatties will still carry on being fat regardless of any restrictions on 2 for 1 deals for all...

This is just more nanny state bullshit... And something I thought we had got away from since labour were kicked out of govt back in 2010.

I've done my own exhaustive analysis at Chinese Buffets which were quite common pre covid.

There are a myriad of choices for people to eat. I can almost always tell what the fat people will eat, before they shovel 20 pounds of food on their plate..

Even presented with a multitude of healthy choices, they will opt for the least healthy ones. And I doubt charging them a little more for the bad choices will alter their behavior. Its just another form of a tax.

by Tommy Monk Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:42 am

Should the Chinese buffets be banned for all...?

Or should it just be the fatties who are banned from the buffets...?

by Syl Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:41 pm

Mums often do say NO, and a tantrum can follow, the last thing a frazzled mum needs, which is why the supermarkets place the sweets etc there, they know some people pick them up for peace.

I remember many years ago waiting at the checkout in Tesco, my son, around three, wanted some sweets placed at the checkout, I said No, he started with a mega tantrum....an elderly woman behind me tutted and said loudly something along the lines of...'why didn't she just get him the sweets'. I told her to mind her own bloody business, her OH appeared and joined in....a right scene ensued.

Now if those sweets hadn't been next to the check out none of that would have happened. Laughing

by Syl Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:43 pm

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:No, but the kids then pester the mums, the mums get frazzled and pressured to give in.....I have seen it, and experienced it myself, loads of times.
It's a crafty marketing trick.

Reckon the kids are pestering the moms about breaded Quorn?

I imagine that drives them wild.

Lol....in my grandsons case it was broccoli, I used to tell him if he didn't behave he wouldn't get broccoli for tea, and it always worked. Razz

by Maddog Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:55 pm

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Reckon the kids are pestering the moms about breaded Quorn?

I imagine that drives them wild.

Lol....in my grandsons case it was broccoli, I used to tell him if he didn't behave he wouldn't get broccoli for tea, and it always worked.

But broccoli isn't being regulated by these new regulations. Breaded Quorn is, because of the breading.

Go back and look at the list I posted from the government site.

by Syl Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:54 pm

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:

Lol....in my grandsons case it was broccoli, I used to tell him if he didn't behave he wouldn't get broccoli for tea, and it always worked.

But broccoli isn't being regulated by these new regulations. Breaded Quorn is, because of the breading.

Go back and look at the list I posted from the government site.

I know...I was being flippant. Rolling Eyes

He did say that though. Razz

by Original Quill Thu Dec 31, 2020 4:38 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:But why should everyone be prevented from getting the odd 2 for 1 deal etc, just because it is thought to be the case that a few fatties are only being fat because of 2 for 1 deals...?

I don't think the prohibitions run to marketing ploys, such as '2 for 1' or 'buy one, get the next at half-price', etc. The prohibitions go to specific kinds of foods and goods, which are unhealthy.

by Tommy Monk Thu Dec 31, 2020 8:03 pm

Why should everyone be denied the odd Jaffa cake or cream bun, just because of a few fatties who eat too much of everything?

by Maddog Thu Dec 31, 2020 8:05 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:But why should everyone be prevented from getting the odd 2 for 1 deal etc, just because it is thought to be the case that a few fatties are only being fat because of 2 for 1 deals...?

I don't think the prohibitions run to marketing ploys, such as '2 for 1' or 'buy one, get the next at half-price', etc. The prohibitions go to specific kinds of foods and goods, which are unhealthy.

Retailers will not be permitted to offer "buy one, get one free" promotions (or similar offers) for foods the government deems unhealthy.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 01, 2021 3:23 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I don't think the prohibitions run to marketing ploys, such as '2 for 1' or 'buy one, get the next at half-price', etc. The prohibitions go to specific kinds of foods and goods, which are unhealthy.

Retailers will not be permitted to offer "buy one, get one free" promotions (or similar offers) for foods the government deems unhealthy.

My point exactly. It's only for foods that experts determine are "unhealthy". In that event, marketing ploys that enhance the damage are prohibited. However, it's not the marketing ploy, but the unhealthy food that is prohibited.

by Maddog Fri Jan 01, 2021 3:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Retailers will not be permitted to offer "buy one, get one free" promotions (or similar offers) for foods the government deems unhealthy.

My point exactly. It's only for foods that experts determine are "unhealthy". In that event, marketing ploys that enhance the damage are prohibited. However, it's not the marketing ploy, but the unhealthy food that is prohibited.

Gotcha.

Like breaded Quorn.

Please see my signature.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 01, 2021 5:33 pm

Maddog wrote:Please see my signature:

The policy or practice on the part of people in positions of authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to them in the subordinates' supposed best interest.

That's a pretty pessimistic metaphysic, for which there is no direct evidence. It relies on interpretation of events, not events themselves. Like the bible, it asserts that "people in positions of authority" are on high...akin to the old man in the sky, while lesser beings (called angels) flit about arranging the lives of even lesser beings.

Why not just take people at their word, as they are building society(?): The people of the whole, recognizing the advantages of organization, create arrangements (called laws) that help them avoid conflicts. They set up institutions (called legislatures) that deliberate and pass laws.

They recruit the finest minds of their number (called scientists) to advise them in extenuating their conflict-resolution. These scientists develop principles of physical phenomena, and try to anticipate non-human dangers (through biology, geology and engineering, etc.), such as poisons in our food and drugs (Food and Drug Administration).

The Legislatures then enact laws so that people can live free of external obstacles, and focus in internal conflict-provokers like greed and fraud. True, the greedy and fraudulent will try to protect their fraudulent schemes and argue their validity. But this is what deliberation and legislation is all about: determining winners and losers, based upon reason.

Eventually, losing in the arena of deliberation, the greedy and fraudulent will challenge the whole nature of law-making, and laws themselves, by arguing that concepts like “freedom” and “liberty” mean they may carry on their fraudulent schemes in perpetuity (they change their name to “Libertarians”). This is in the nature of abandoning the score, and changing the goal posts. All they are doing is abandoning the peaceful means by which the people have developed reasonable arrangements, in favor of the chaos and anarchy that will permit them to continue their fraudulent schemes.

Understanding motives is key to understanding meaning.

by Maddog Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:12 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:Please see my signature:

The policy or practice on the part of people in positions of authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to them in the subordinates' supposed best interest.

That's a pretty pessimistic metaphysic, for which there is no direct evidence. It relies on interpretation of events, not events themselves. Like the bible, it asserts that "people in positions of authority" are on high...akin to the old man in the sky, while lesser beings (called angels) flit about arranging the lives of even lesser beings.

Why not just take people at their word, as they are building society(?): The people of the whole, recognizing the advantages of organization, create arrangements (called laws) that help them avoid conflicts. They set up institutions (called legislatures) that deliberate and pass laws.

They recruit the finest minds of their number (called scientists) to advise them in extenuating their conflict-resolution. These scientists develop principles of physical phenomena, and try to anticipate non-human dangers (through biology, geology and engineering, etc.), such as poisons in our food and drugs (Food and Drug Administration).

The Legislatures then enact laws so that people can live free of external obstacles, and focus in internal conflict-provokers like greed and fraud. True, the greedy and fraudulent will try to protect their fraudulent schemes and argue their validity. But this is what deliberation and legislation is all about: determining winners and losers, based upon reason.

Eventually, losing in the arena of deliberation, the greedy and fraudulent will challenge the whole nature of law-making, and laws themselves, by arguing that concepts like “freedom” and “liberty” mean they may carry on their fraudulent schemes in perpetuity (they change their name to “Libertarians”). This is in the nature of abandoning the score, and changing the goal posts. All they are doing is abandoning the peaceful means by which the people have developed reasonable arrangements, in favor of the chaos and anarchy that will permit them to continue their fraudulent schemes.

Understanding motives is key to understanding meaning.

You could have saved time and conveyed the same message by stating that you look at paternalism as a positive attribute.

That doesn't surprise me in the least, considering the long litany of character flaws I've seen you display.

by Tommy Monk Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:37 pm

But why should everyone be prevented from getting the odd 2 for 1 deal etc, just because it is thought to be the case that a few fatties are only being fat because of 2 for 1 deals...?

by Maddog Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:39 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

But why should everyone be prevented from getting the odd 2 for 1 deal etc, just because it is thought to be the case that a few fatties are only being fat because of 2 for 1 deals...?

Because I'm an attempt to protect children, the government is treating adults like children.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 01, 2021 8:50 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

That's a pretty pessimistic metaphysic, for which there is no direct evidence. It relies on interpretation of events, not events themselves. Like the bible, it asserts that "people in positions of authority" are on high...akin to the old man in the sky, while lesser beings (called angels) flit about arranging the lives of even lesser beings.

Why not just take people at their word, as they are building society(?): The people of the whole, recognizing the advantages of organization, create arrangements (called laws) that help them avoid conflicts. They set up institutions (called legislatures) that deliberate and pass laws.

They recruit the finest minds of their number (called scientists) to advise them in extenuating their conflict-resolution. These scientists develop principles of physical phenomena, and try to anticipate non-human dangers (through biology, geology and engineering, etc.), such as poisons in our food and drugs (Food and Drug Administration).

The Legislatures then enact laws so that people can live free of external obstacles, and focus in internal conflict-provokers like greed and fraud. True, the greedy and fraudulent will try to protect their fraudulent schemes and argue their validity. But this is what deliberation and legislation is all about: determining winners and losers, based upon reason.

Eventually, losing in the arena of deliberation, the greedy and fraudulent will challenge the whole nature of law-making, and laws themselves, by arguing that concepts like “freedom” and “liberty” mean they may carry on their fraudulent schemes in perpetuity (they change their name to “Libertarians”). This is in the nature of abandoning the score, and changing the goal posts. All they are doing is abandoning the peaceful means by which the people have developed reasonable arrangements, in favor of the chaos and anarchy that will permit them to continue their fraudulent schemes.

Understanding motives is key to understanding meaning.

You could have saved time and conveyed the same message by stating that you look at paternalism as a positive attribute.

But that would not be true. Contract theory is not "paternalism". When the people enter into a constitution and subsequently draft laws to organize their community, they are neither embracing nor arranging an inequitable relationship. The very fact of mutuality of contract means that the agency is between equals, not disproportionate principals.

Simply put, there is no evidence to support such a divergent relationship. Rather, there is every indication that the understanding of people is true: they acquiesce to the arrangement of government and accept the laws that come from it.

I believe that you are caught up in a conspiracy theory, born of hostility from the past (civil war) and resentment toward the authority of the present majority in your country. The south has never gotten over its past of slavery and racism, and they feel at a distance from the governing majority and the moral principles by which they reject such distasteful beliefs. The fact that racism is so distasteful in present day conversation means that you and your ilk are not able to even openly discuss your beliefs. (see, interview of Lee Atwater, released by Nation magazine, on November 13, 2012, discussing avoidance of what is really bothering southerners; https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/) Because your underlying beliefs are so morally repugnant, and because that is the prevailing moral opinion of present-day government, you must pretend nonchalance and reject government entirely so as to avoid arguing your racist beliefs. Ergo: enter Libertarianism, as your sanitized philosophe de jour. Once southerners get rid of a strong central government, it’s good-bye to freedom for black people.

Maddog wrote:That doesn't surprise me in the least, considering the long litany of character flaws I've seen you display.

A personal attack is a form of deflection…also a strategy of avoidance.

by Maddog Fri Jan 01, 2021 9:13 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

You could have saved time and conveyed the same message by stating that you look at paternalism as a positive attribute.

But that would not be true. Contract theory is not "paternalism". When the people enter into a constitution and subsequently draft laws to organize their community, they are neither embracing nor arranging an inequitable relationship. The very fact of mutuality of contract means that the agency is between equals, not disproportionate principals.

Simply put, there is no evidence to support such a divergent relationship. Rather, there is every indication that the understanding of people is true: they acquiesce to the arrangement of government and accept the laws that come from it.

I believe that you are caught up in a conspiracy theory, born of hostility from the past (civil war) and resentment toward the authority of the present majority in your country. The south has never gotten over its past of slavery and racism, and they feel at a distance from the governing majority and the moral principles by which they reject such distasteful beliefs. The fact that racism is so distasteful in present day conversation means that you and your ilk are not able to even openly discuss your beliefs. (see, interview of Lee Atwater, released by Nation magazine, on November 13, 2012; https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/) Because your beliefs are so morally repugnant, and because that is the prevailing moral opinion of present-day government, you must reject government entirely so as to avoid confessing to your racist beliefs. Ergo: enter Libertarianism, as your cleansed philosophe de jour.

Maddog wrote:That doesn't surprise me in the least, considering the long litany of character flaws I've seen you display.

A personal attack is a form of deflection…also a strategy of avoidance.

And i think you're a paternalistic and patronizing prick.

People like you were the reason behind the treatment of blacks and Native Americans in this country. People like you believed that they were not capable of making their own decisions, hence the treatment like children.

What makes people like you so dangerous is that you really think you are helping others based on your over inflated opinion of yourself. History is full of victims of people who felt they had the moral right to save others from themselves.

by Original Quill Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:51 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

But that would not be true. Contract theory is not "paternalism". When the people enter into a constitution and subsequently draft laws to organize their community, they are neither embracing nor arranging an inequitable relationship. The very fact of mutuality of contract means that the agency is between equals, not disproportionate principals.

Simply put, there is no evidence to support such a divergent relationship. Rather, there is every indication that the understanding of people is true: they acquiesce to the arrangement of government and accept the laws that come from it.

I believe that you are caught up in a conspiracy theory, born of hostility from the past (civil war) and resentment toward the authority of the present majority in your country. The south has never gotten over its past of slavery and racism, and they feel at a distance from the governing majority and the moral principles by which they reject such distasteful beliefs. The fact that racism is so distasteful in present day conversation means that you and your ilk are not able to even openly discuss your beliefs. (see, interview of Lee Atwater, released by Nation magazine, on November 13, 2012; https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/) Because your beliefs are so morally repugnant, and because that is the prevailing moral opinion of present-day government, you must reject government entirely so as to avoid confessing to your racist beliefs. Ergo: enter Libertarianism, as your cleansed philosophe de jour.

A personal attack is a form of deflection…also a strategy of avoidance.

And i think you're a paternalistic and patronizing prick.

People like you were the reason behind the treatment of blacks and Native Americans in this country. People like you believed that they were not capable of making their own decisions, hence the treatment like children.

What makes people like you so dangerous is that you really think you are helping others based on your over inflated opinion of yourself. History is full of victims of people who felt they had the moral right to save others from themselves.

You're a fookin' southern racists, admit it. I am dangerous to you because I call you out at your game.

You're lucky I only want to get you out of my country. Amexit! cheers

by Maddog Sat Jan 02, 2021 1:38 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

And i think you're a paternalistic and patronizing prick.

People like you were the reason behind the treatment of blacks and Native Americans in this country. People like you believed that they were not capable of making their own decisions, hence the treatment like children.

What makes people like you so dangerous is that you really think you are helping others based on your over inflated opinion of yourself. History is full of victims of people who felt they had the moral right to save others from themselves.

You're a fookin' southern racists, admit it. I am dangerous to you because I call you out at your game.

You're lucky I only want to get you out of my country. Amexit!

You're a paternilistic prick. You're not dangerous to me you misguided, old fool.

by Syl Sat Jan 02, 2021 1:41 pm

Nice to see you two boys continue your unrequited love for each other in the new year. The U.K. Uses COVID-19 to Justify More Nanny State Junk Food Crackdowns 2089010162

The U.K. Uses COVID-19 to Justify More Nanny State Junk Food Crackdowns 2089010162

by Maddog Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:29 pm

Syl wrote:Nice to see you two boys continue your unrequited love for each other in the new year.

Some things are just meant to be. Cool

by Syl Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:01 pm

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:Nice to see you two boys continue your unrequited love for each other in the new year.

Some things are just meant to be.

Unrequited love is never meant to be though. Sad

by Sponsored content