More hypocrisy from The left: Sweet-shop owning MP bashes Coca Cola

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:12 am

First topic message reminder :

Coca-Cola launched its Christmas trucks on a TV advert in 1995, but real trucks now visit cities around the world

Labour MP Keith Vaz said Coca-Cola was marketing a "real health hazard".

The diabetic MP had asked Coca-Cola not to take its Christmas truck to Leicester...

BUT he has been accused of hypocrisy as he had opened his own sweet shop in the city back in 2013!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-34744976

lol!

You couldn't make it up!!!

Lefties... the gift that keeps on giving!!!

lol!

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:02 am

Eilzel wrote:Raggs, I already said I wouldn't ban the adds- go to specsavers.

Everyone knows coke contains sugar- but many are not so aware just how much sugar.

And regardless- your way leads to a massive health crisis in the UK. Doesn't matter who is to blame, it WILL be a crisis. Perhaps you think we should legalise heroin? Since we all KNOW it is bad for us, and we can make choices right?

I think it does matter who's to blame actually - the people who are glugging the stuff. I'm tired of hearing how it's always someone else's fault.

However, it is a soft drink, and I don't think it's going to kill many people really.

Would you like to ban Coke instead of banning advertising then?

by Eilzel Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:15 am

No. I don't really know how clear I can make this.

Don't ban coke.
Don't ban advertising.

Only advertise coke (and other high sugar food and drink) post watershed or during daytime hours when kids are at school.

Have counter ads which highlight the dangers of high sugar products.
Have labels similar to cigarette casing showing the results of too much sugar in your diet.

I'm not interested in who is to blame either (hence 'regardless' in my previous post...). What I AM interested in is preventing an impending health crisis.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:19 am

I'm not too bothered about it tbh. If people are too stupid to find out what they're eating or drinking, and don't care about it, I don't see why anyone should mollycoddle them. It's like all this nonsense about "educating" people about why they're getting fat and what they should be eating. They already know, they just don't want to take any notice or they don't care enough.

by Eilzel Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:25 am

So should we bring back cigarette ads, drop warning labels and legalise all drugs? On the same grounds?

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:28 am

Eilzel wrote:So should we bring back cigarette ads, drop warning labels and legalise all drugs? On the same grounds?

I don't think Coke is in the same league really. As for drugs, I take the same view - if it's illegal then clearly people know they shouldn't take them but they still do, and then wonder why they develop problems. I do disapprove, however, of advice telling people how to take drugs "safely" - ie, if they take an E, they should drink some water, or whatever. That's just stupid.

by Guest Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:53 am

I think you are being a little naive Rags. Sugar is going to cause the NHS billions as diabetes is rising all the time and the makers of things that include a large amount of it don't give a damn about that, they just want to make money. Now it's not just rising because of sugar, but it sure doesn't help. Take two children, one brought up without ever seeing seeing an ad for coke, cakes, sweets etc, and one who has. Who do you think is going to gravite more towards coke? And coke has an undermessage in it's ads. Dink me it says, and your in with the in crowd, your having a whale of a time, I bring happiness and presents for Christmas and good times. I think you are downplaying the role advertising plays.

I was part of an experiment once, it's called subliminal advertising, it's banned now. We all watched a film. Planted in that film where frames advertising a particular sweet. Only your subconscious saw it, it was too fast to register as being there. On the way out were trays of different sweets, crisps, pastries etc. 70% of the people that saw the film went for the same bag of sweets, and it was the one advertised. That taught me a real lesson. If one frame repeated a few times can do it, what about all the hours and hours of advertising people, and especially children, see.

by eddie Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:57 am

Exactly that sassy.

Brainwashing. All the time. 24 hours a day.

by Guest Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:04 am

Yep, and look at the ads they put on when kids tv is on! Mum, you are not a good Mum if you don't buy this, or we don't eat that etc.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:26 am

sassy wrote:I think you are being a little naive Rags. Sugar is going to cause the NHS billions as diabetes is rising all the time and the makers of things that include a large amount of it don't give a damn about that, they just want to make money. Now it's not just rising because of sugar, but it sure doesn't help. Take two children, one brought up without ever seeing seeing an ad for coke, cakes, sweets etc, and one who has. Who do you think is going to gravite more towards coke? And coke has an undermessage in it's ads. Dink me it says, and your in with the in crowd, your having a whale of a time, I bring happiness and presents for Christmas and good times. I think you are downplaying the role advertising plays.

I was part of an experiment once, it's called subliminal advertising, it's banned now. We all watched a film. Planted in that film where frames advertising a particular sweet. Only your subconscious saw it, it was too fast to register as being there. On the way out were trays of different sweets, crisps, pastries etc. 70% of the people that saw the film went for the same bag of sweets, and it was the one advertised. That taught me a real lesson. If one frame repeated a few times can do it, what about all the hours and hours of advertising people, and especially children, see.

Re advertising, I have an aversion to TV adverts anyway, so I don't know why anyone would willingly watch them. Laughing

Now then, Type 2 diabetes. There is a link to obesity. Whether that's a causal link or not has not been proven, but it probably is causal because when people lose that fat, their diabetes improves. Does sugar intake lead to diabetes? Not proven. Someone could eat a lot of sugar but not put on weight because they don't eat much else, or they do a lot of exercise. There are some people who are slim who get Type 2 diabetes, but the majority are overweight.

Do you see that many overweight children? I don't. I don't see many overweight teenagers either. I do see a lot of overweight middle-aged people though. They're the ones who are mainly getting diabetes.

Perhaps the problem is that people watch too much TV, particularly ITV and all the channels with wall-to-wall advertising.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:33 am

So anyway, where do you draw the line? Do you have a law whereby all advertisers of anything with calories in it has to say it could be dangerous to your health? That would include any adverts for food or drink.

Do you ban shops from putting sweets and chocolate near the counter where people can be tempted? Do you make them put up a sign saying that those sweets can damage your health?

Do you make all cafes, pubs, and restaurants have a big sign at the door saying that puddings, fizzy drinks, or putting sugar in your tea can damage your health?

As I recall from the OP, the objection was to Coca-Cola going round with an advertising truck, not to adverts on the TV.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:34 am

eddie wrote:Exactly that sassy.

Brainwashing. All the time. 24 hours a day.

Only if you're watching TV 24 hours a day. You can avert your eyes if you see an advertising truck.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:36 am

Furthermore, do you ban children from taking anything with sugar in it to school? That's more likely to be where other children find out about this stuff.

by eddie Sun Nov 08, 2015 11:12 am

Raggamuffin wrote:Furthermore, do you ban children from taking anything with sugar in it to school? That's more likely to be where other children find out about this stuff.

Since Jamie Oliver's healthy eating plan, sweets and chocolate are banned from packed lunches.
I think crisps should be on that list too

It's not just sugar that's crap and fattening; its salt and fried foods.

by Eilzel Sun Nov 08, 2015 11:16 am

sassy wrote:I think you are being a little naive Rags. Sugar is going to cause the NHS billions as diabetes is rising all the time and the makers of things that include a large amount of it don't give a damn about that, they just want to make money. Now it's not just rising because of sugar, but it sure doesn't help. Take two children, one brought up without ever seeing seeing an ad for coke, cakes, sweets etc, and one who has. Who do you think is going to gravite more towards coke? And coke has an undermessage in it's ads. Dink me it says, and your in with the in crowd, your having a whale of a time, I bring happiness and presents for Christmas and good times. I think you are downplaying the role advertising plays.

This is the main point here raggs; whose responsibility is not the interest. In the long term if we DON'T do anything to tackle the amount of sugary foods (and other forms of junk food) people consume then it will cost us all, and our ancestors- big time in the long run, both economically and physically.

Do you want the NHS to be absolutely inundated with problems linked to unhealthy eating in the future?

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 08, 2015 11:53 am

The fatty in the supermarket had half a dozen cheap looking microwave box meals, steak bakes etc, and about 8 different bottles of fizzy pop!!!

Not a vegetable in sight... apart from his pumpkin sized head that is...

by eddie Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:17 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The fatty in the supermarket had half a dozen cheap looking microwave box meals, steak bakes etc, and about 8 different bottles of fizzy pop!!!

Not a vegetable in sight... apart from his pumpkin sized head that is...

I don't know why people would eat ready-meals. They are positively vile

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:35 pm

Eilzel wrote:
sassy wrote:I think you are being a little naive Rags. Sugar is going to cause the NHS billions as diabetes is rising all the time and the makers of things that include a large amount of it don't give a damn about that, they just want to make money. Now it's not just rising because of sugar, but it sure doesn't help. Take two children, one brought up without ever seeing seeing an ad for coke, cakes, sweets etc, and one who has. Who do you think is going to gravite more towards coke? And coke has an undermessage in it's ads. Dink me it says, and your in with the in crowd, your having a whale of a time, I bring happiness and presents for Christmas and good times. I think you are downplaying the role advertising plays.

This is the main point here raggs; whose responsibility is not the interest. In the long term if we DON'T do anything to tackle the amount of sugary foods (and other forms of junk food) people consume then it will cost us all, and our ancestors- big time in the long run, both economically and physically.

Do you want the NHS to be absolutely inundated with problems linked to unhealthy eating in the future?

I don't really care that much. You can't stop people from eating what they want anyway. If you tell them it's the fault of the advertisers or the Government - ie, anyone else's fault but their own, they definitely won't stop.

by Eilzel Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:39 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

This is the main point here raggs; whose responsibility is not the interest. In the long term if we DON'T do anything to tackle the amount of sugary foods (and other forms of junk food) people consume then it will cost us all, and our ancestors- big time in the long run, both economically and physically.

Do you want the NHS to be absolutely inundated with problems linked to unhealthy eating in the future?

I don't really care that much. You can't stop people from eating what they want anyway. If you tell them it's the fault of the advertisers or the Government - ie, anyone else's fault but their own, they definitely won't stop.

Well, the situation to today regarding smoking would strongly suggest you are wrong about that.

And very honest to say that you actually don't care- that full explains your position on the matter.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:44 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't really care that much. You can't stop people from eating what they want anyway. If you tell them it's the fault of the advertisers or the Government - ie, anyone else's fault but their own, they definitely won't stop.

Well, the situation to today regarding smoking would strongly suggest you are wrong about that.

And very honest to say that you actually don't care- that full explains your position on the matter.

Yes, it probably does. It sounds like the entire country is now brain dead and cannot have a single thought for themselves. I'm not going to care about idiots like that.

by Eilzel Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:45 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Well, the situation to today regarding smoking would strongly suggest you are wrong about that.

And very honest to say that you actually don't care- that full explains your position on the matter.

Yes, it probably does. It sounds like the entire country is now brain dead and cannot have a single thought for themselves. I'm not going to care about idiots like that.

You don't have to care about them- you might start to care when your NHS is at breaking point Laughing

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:49 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, it probably does. It sounds like the entire country is now brain dead and cannot have a single thought for themselves. I'm not going to care about idiots like that.

You don't have to care about them- you might start to care when your NHS is at breaking point

I probably won't actually.

by Eilzel Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:52 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

You don't have to care about them- you might start to care when your NHS is at breaking point

I probably won't actually.

Wow. Apathy personified. Only care about what happens to you right?

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:59 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I probably won't actually.

Wow. Apathy personified. Only care about what happens to you right?

I'm responsible for what happens to me, I'm not responsible for people who need to be told that Coca Cola contains sugar, and that it might make them fat.

by Eilzel Sun Nov 08, 2015 2:01 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Wow. Apathy personified. Only care about what happens to you right?

I'm responsible for what happens to me, I'm not responsible for people who need to be told that Coca Cola contains sugar, and that it might make them fat.

The fact you are still going on and on about the responsibility of others tells me you are either ignoring or missing the other half of the point about how the impending health crisis could affect you whether you like it or not. For that reason, I'm done.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 2:12 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm responsible for what happens to me, I'm not responsible for people who need to be told that Coca Cola contains sugar, and that it might make them fat.

The fact you are still going on and on about the responsibility of others tells me you are either ignoring or missing the other half of the point about how the impending health crisis could affect you whether you like it or not. For that reason, I'm done.

It won't affect me. The first advice for T2 diabetes is lose some fucking weight and do some exercise. That's cheap enough.

by Ben Reilly Sun Nov 08, 2015 4:51 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm responsible for what happens to me, I'm not responsible for people who need to be told that Coca Cola contains sugar, and that it might make them fat.

The fact you are still going on and on about the responsibility of others tells me you are either ignoring or missing the other half of the point about how the impending health crisis could affect you whether you like it or not. For that reason, I'm done.

It won't affect me. The first advice for T2 diabetes is lose some fucking weight and do some exercise. That's cheap enough.

Please don't bite my head off for this observation, but that's not a very Christian attitude.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 4:59 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It won't affect me. The first advice for T2 diabetes is lose some fucking weight and do some exercise. That's cheap enough.

Please don't bite my head off for this observation, but that's not a very Christian attitude.

It's a common sense attitude. Do you disapprove of common sense?

I don't really care what you think of my attitude, what with you being a terrorist supporter.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:00 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

The fact you are still going on and on about the responsibility of others tells me you are either ignoring or missing the other half of the point about how the impending health crisis could affect you whether you like it or not. For that reason, I'm done.

It won't affect me. The first advice for T2 diabetes is lose some fucking weight and do some exercise. That's cheap enough.

Suppose you have severe bilateral osteoarthritis, and cannot exercise? This is typical with the elderly, who are generally among those with T2 diabetes.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:02 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Please don't bite my head off for this observation, but that's not a very Christian attitude.

It's a common sense attitude. Do you disapprove of common sense?

I don't really care what you think of my attitude, what with you being a terrorist supporter.

Jesus--fuckin'--christ Ben. And you were only worried about being a good Christian. Laughing

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:03 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It won't affect me. The first advice for T2 diabetes is lose some fucking weight and do some exercise. That's cheap enough.

Suppose you have severe bilateral osteoarthritis, and cannot exercise? This is typical with the elderly, who are generally among those with T2 diabetes.

You mean they didn't get it by drinking Coke? At least you're not getting hysterical about a soft drink.

If they're very elderly, they'll probably die of something before the diabetes wrecks them anyway. They could always eat less if they're overweight.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:15 pm

tommy wrote:they'll probably die of something before the diabetes wrecks them anyway.

Or, you hope....don't you mean? Why do conservatives always hate people?

by Ben Reilly Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It won't affect me. The first advice for T2 diabetes is lose some fucking weight and do some exercise. That's cheap enough.

Please don't bite my head off for this observation, but that's not a very Christian attitude.

It's a common sense attitude. Do you disapprove of common sense?

I don't really care what you think of my attitude, what with you being a terrorist supporter.

I approve of a communitarian approach that promotes the health, safety and wellbeing of all members of the community. That, of course, means educating each new generation about nutrition and certainly would not support terrorism or the subjugation of one nation by another.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:19 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's a common sense attitude. Do you disapprove of common sense?

I don't really care what you think of my attitude, what with you being a terrorist supporter.

I approve of a communitarian approach that promotes the health, safety and wellbeing of all members of the community. That, of course, means educating each new generation about nutrition and certainly would not support terrorism or the subjugation of one nation by another.

So what's wrong with educating people that losing weight and doing more exercise will improve their diabetes? It's good advice, and it's almost free - apart from the doctor's time.

You do support terrorism - you support the IRA. Every time you throw my faith at me, I'll throw your support for murderers and terrorists at you.

by Ben Reilly Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's a common sense attitude. Do you disapprove of common sense?

I don't really care what you think of my attitude, what with you being a terrorist supporter.

I approve of a communitarian approach that promotes the health, safety and wellbeing of all members of the community. That, of course, means educating each new generation about nutrition and certainly would not support terrorism or the subjugation of one nation by another.

So what's wrong with educating people that losing weight and doing more exercise will improve their diabetes? It's good advice, and it's almost free - apart from the doctor's time.

You do support terrorism - you support the IRA. Every time you throw my faith at me, I'll throw your support for murderers and terrorists at you.

No, you don't get to do that. I explained that I was angry when I posted that video and that I don't support terrorism in any form, for any cause.

I'll say it again -- I don't support the IRA. I denounce their violence.

You're really not a very decent person, it seems.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:26 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So what's wrong with educating people that losing weight and doing more exercise will improve their diabetes? It's good advice, and it's almost free - apart from the doctor's time.

You do support terrorism - you support the IRA. Every time you throw my faith at me, I'll throw your support for murderers and terrorists at you.

No, you don't get to do that. I explained that I was angry when I posted that video and that I don't support terrorism in any form, for any cause.

I'll say it again -- I don't support the IRA. I denounce their violence.

You're really not a very decent person, it seems.

You don't get to use my faith against me in a sly way without me replying.

If you don't like it, ban me, or stop doing it.

I used to think you were decent, but not any more, so the feeling is mutual.

by Ben Reilly Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:32 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So what's wrong with educating people that losing weight and doing more exercise will improve their diabetes? It's good advice, and it's almost free - apart from the doctor's time.

You do support terrorism - you support the IRA. Every time you throw my faith at me, I'll throw your support for murderers and terrorists at you.

No, you don't get to do that. I explained that I was angry when I posted that video and that I don't support terrorism in any form, for any cause.

I'll say it again -- I don't support the IRA. I denounce their violence.

You're really not a very decent person, it seems.

You don't get to use my faith against me in a sly way without me replying.

If you don't like it, ban me, or stop doing it.

I used to think you were decent, but not any more, so the feeling is mutual.

Yeah, but my pointing out the anti-Christian nature of your attitude is actually substantive to the discussion. There are big long New Testament passages about caring for the sick; I can quote them if you'd like.

You just got overly sensitive about how un-Christian you are while pretending to be a member of that faith, and you lashed out and lied about me in retaliation. Again -- a very anti-Christian decision.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:34 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't get to use my faith against me in a sly way without me replying.

If you don't like it, ban me, or stop doing it.

I used to think you were decent, but not any more, so the feeling is mutual.

Yeah, but my pointing out the anti-Christian nature of your attitude is actually substantive to the discussion. There are big long New Testament passages about caring for the sick; I can quote them if you'd like.

You just got overly sensitive about how un-Christian you are while pretending to be a member of that faith, and you lashed out and lied about me in retaliation. Again -- a very anti-Christian decision.

Did you stop being a Christian so you would be able to be unpleasant without people saying "that's not very Christian of you"?

You want to change the subject of this thread? Go ahead - it just confirms what I said the other day - that most threads end up about religion and/or Christian bashing.

by Ben Reilly Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:38 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't get to use my faith against me in a sly way without me replying.

If you don't like it, ban me, or stop doing it.

I used to think you were decent, but not any more, so the feeling is mutual.

Yeah, but my pointing out the anti-Christian nature of your attitude is actually substantive to the discussion. There are big long New Testament passages about caring for the sick; I can quote them if you'd like.

You just got overly sensitive about how un-Christian you are while pretending to be a member of that faith, and you lashed out and lied about me in retaliation. Again -- a very anti-Christian decision.

Did you stop being a Christian so you would be able to be unpleasant without people saying "that's not very Christian of you"?

You want to change the subject of this thread? Go ahead - it just confirms what I said the other day - that most threads end up about religion and/or Christian bashing.

I'm obviously not bashing Christians in this thread -- I think the moral that Christians are supposed to help the sick, poor and downtrodden is a really beautiful thing, and I didn't stop being a Christian because of things like that. In some ways I never stopped being a Christian, I just don't think a supreme being is possible -- much like I don't think ghosts or leprechauns are possible.

Can you honestly say that your attitude, which can be summarized as "I only care about things that affect me," is in keeping with Jesus' teachings?

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:51 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Did you stop being a Christian so you would be able to be unpleasant without people saying "that's not very Christian of you"?

You want to change the subject of this thread? Go ahead - it just confirms what I said the other day - that most threads end up about religion and/or Christian bashing.

I'm obviously not bashing Christians in this thread -- I think the moral that Christians are supposed to help the sick, poor and downtrodden is a really beautiful thing, and I didn't stop being a Christian because of things like that. In some ways I never stopped being a Christian, I just don't think a supreme being is possible -- much like I don't think ghosts or leprechauns are possible.

Can you honestly say that your attitude, which can be summarized as "I only care about things that affect me," is in keeping with Jesus' teachings?

Yes. Telling diabetic people to lose weight and exercise more is good advice, yes? Would you prefer telling them to carry on putting on weight and sitting around so they get worse? That's not very Christian of you - even for an ex-Christian.

Why are you so obsessed with religion? Are you very bitter that you lost your faith?

by Ben Reilly Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:58 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Did you stop being a Christian so you would be able to be unpleasant without people saying "that's not very Christian of you"?

You want to change the subject of this thread? Go ahead - it just confirms what I said the other day - that most threads end up about religion and/or Christian bashing.

I'm obviously not bashing Christians in this thread -- I think the moral that Christians are supposed to help the sick, poor and downtrodden is a really beautiful thing, and I didn't stop being a Christian because of things like that. In some ways I never stopped being a Christian, I just don't think a supreme being is possible -- much like I don't think ghosts or leprechauns are possible.

Can you honestly say that your attitude, which can be summarized as "I only care about things that affect me," is in keeping with Jesus' teachings?

Yes. Telling diabetic people to lose weight and exercise more is good advice, yes? Would you prefer telling them to carry on putting on weight and sitting around so they get worse? That's not very Christian of you - even for an ex-Christian.

Why are you so obsessed with religion? Are you very bitter that you lost your faith?

Raggs, you can't pretend that the message that sugar is bad for you is nearly as prevalent as the message to drink more and more soda and consume more and more sugar. As others have said here, the advertising is everywhere.

Imagine if you lost your faith -- it would be a pretty harrowing thing in the early going. It's kind of like the shock of learning an unpleasant truth about yourself that you never realized before. It sort of upends your life.

Then you adjust to that, give up on the idea that your lost loved ones are living in paradise and that you'll see them again someday, etc. And then you think, 'what a horrible lie to tell people -- that their loved ones aren't really dead, they'll see them again and live together forever in paradise.'

Then you notice how many people try to force others to change their definition of happiness so that it conforms to the lie, and kill each other over the lie. I think you might be a bit bitter too.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:06 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. Telling diabetic people to lose weight and exercise more is good advice, yes? Would you prefer telling them to carry on putting on weight and sitting around so they get worse? That's not very Christian of you - even for an ex-Christian.

Why are you so obsessed with religion? Are you very bitter that you lost your faith?

Raggs, you can't pretend that the message that sugar is bad for you is nearly as prevalent as the message to drink more and more soda and consume more and more sugar. As others have said here, the advertising is everywhere.

Imagine if you lost your faith -- it would be a pretty harrowing thing in the early going. It's kind of like the shock of learning an unpleasant truth about yourself that you never realized before. It sort of upends your life.

Then you adjust to that, give up on the idea that your lost loved ones are living in paradise and that you'll see them again someday, etc. And then you think, 'what a horrible lie to tell people -- that their loved ones aren't really dead, they'll see them again and live together forever in paradise.'

Then you notice how many people try to force others to change their definition of happiness so that it conforms to the lie, and kill each other over the lie. I think you might be a bit bitter too.

Well perhaps you could refrain from taking out your bitterness on me. This is an interesting subject, and it's a pity to spoil it with irrelevant stuff.

The message that sugar isn't that great for you is absolutely everywhere. It's been around for ages, and it's all over the internet now. It's not really rocket science is it? Weren't you told that sugar would rot your teeth when you were young?

We were discussing the advice once people have diabetes, or are heading towards having it. Lose weight and exercise - the advice is out there if you want to look for it. I don't know why you're so dismissive of it.

However, let's go back to this idea that eating sugar causes diabetes. There's no evidence that it does. There is an association between being overweight and inactive with diabetes though. That doesn't mean that all overweight people will get diabetes, so of course people don't worry about it until they get it. Then it's up to them if they take the advice or not.

by Victorismyhero Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:03 pm

well aside from ragga and ben chewing each others heads off...

Lets look at this a bit closer.

Here in this one article is condensed 90% of whats wrong with the "lefty" and their policies

1) clearly the lefty wont be happy untill all personal choice is removed,you will only eat and drink govt "approved" food stuff, you will only carry out govt approved "hobbies" and so on (becasue as we know from their propaganda, only lefties know whats best for us all)

2) they will do this by slowly demonising first the object of their dislike, in this case sugary drinks
then they will switch to unwarranted attacks on their opponents (like calling their faith (so much for "equality) you are only "equal" if the lefty says you are))

3 in order to fully appreciate the grab for total (and BTW UNEQUAL) power one needs to understand that in order to advance their agenda they have started by destroying the old "social restraints" that helped prevent the very problem they are "claiming to "cure"" vis in their "equal world you and I (joe public) are of course judged "sixhirb" for calling a "fat bastard" a fat bastard. It is judged "bullying fot the school kids to refer to the class porker as "billy bunter" and there is thus no social shame in being a "fat bastard"

Instead they interfere and would make (in this instance) the man who likes a glass of coke here and there pay dearly for his pleasure....or remove it all together.

yet...when it comes to the "pleasure " of the lefty....most (but not all) of whom are young and tonally challenged, if i for instance, suggested banning "rap" which CAN be shown, by simple analysis of the lyrics therin contained, to be largely anti social, pro drug pro violence, there would be an entire tsunami of protest ...I would ber "labeled" anti cultural, probably racist, and "oh no we cant do that"

one thing IS for sure though, Corbyn and his troops have STILL to learn the leson that what we want is a govt that GOVERNS......NOT one that just "fiddles" and interferes....

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:13 pm

When you're younger, you can eat what you like, drink what you like, and still climb in to your 26-inch-waist trousers and zip them closed. Then you reach that age- 24, 25- your muscles give up, they wave a little white flag, and without any warning at all, you're suddenly a fat bastard

Carter USM

rabbit

by eddie Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:26 pm

Original Quill wrote:
tommy wrote:they'll probably die of something before the diabetes wrecks them anyway.

Or, you hope....don't you mean? Why do conservatives always hate people?

You just quoted something Tommy said but it was rags that said it in the post above yours? scratch

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:28 pm

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Or, you hope....don't you mean? Why do conservatives always hate people?

You just quoted something Tommy said but it was rags that said it in the post above yours?

He thinks he's being funny.

by eddie Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Or, you hope....don't you mean? Why do conservatives always hate people?

You just quoted something Tommy said but it was rags that said it in the post above yours?

He thinks he's being funny.

Well I really dislike posters doing that to other people's posts.
It's not funny.

by Ben Reilly Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:58 pm

Lord Foul wrote:well aside from ragga and ben chewing each others heads off...

Lets look at this a bit closer.

Here in this one article is condensed 90% of whats wrong with the "lefty" and their policies

1) clearly the lefty wont be happy untill all personal choice is removed,you will only eat and drink govt "approved" food stuff, you will only carry out govt approved "hobbies" and so on (becasue as we know from their propaganda, only lefties know whats best for us all)

2) they will do this by slowly demonising first the object of their dislike, in this case sugary drinks
then they will switch to unwarranted attacks on their opponents (like calling their faith (so much for "equality) you are only "equal" if the lefty says you are))

3 in order to fully appreciate the grab for total (and BTW UNEQUAL) power one needs to understand that in order to advance their agenda they have started by destroying the old "social restraints" that helped prevent the very problem they are "claiming to "cure"" vis in their "equal world you and I (joe public) are of course judged "sixhirb" for calling a "fat bastard" a fat bastard. It is judged "bullying fot the school kids to refer to the class porker as "billy bunter" and there is thus no social shame in being a "fat bastard"

Instead they interfere and would make (in this instance) the man who likes a glass of coke here and there pay dearly for his pleasure....or remove it all together.

yet...when it comes to the "pleasure " of the lefty....most (but not all) of whom are young and tonally challenged, if i for instance, suggested banning "rap" which CAN be shown, by simple analysis of the lyrics therin contained, to be largely anti social, pro drug pro violence, there would be an entire tsunami of protest ...I would ber "labeled" anti cultural, probably racist, and "oh no we cant do that"

one thing IS for sure though, Corbyn and his troops have STILL to learn the leson that what we want is a govt that GOVERNS......NOT one that just "fiddles" and interferes....

Once again, you're full of shit.

1) Liberals hate personal choice so much that we've been the vanguard of legalizing gay marriage, recreational marijuana usage, legalizing interracial marriage, women's suffrage, etc. ...

2) I enjoy sweet beverages myself, but we do need to look out for each new generation of people and make sure they aren't deceived by these global corporations into thinking their products are healthier than they really are. I'll post this link again for anyone who doesn't think they do this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/16/companies-lied-to-you_n_5318940.html

3) Do you really think kids teasing a classmate about his/her weight are doing it because they want to help the kid be healthier?! They're doing it because they're tribal little snots. It is bullying, not guidance. Kids need guidance, not bullying.

By the way, your point about rap falls flat on its face as well, seeing as efforts have been made to keep inappropriate content (whether music or movies/TV or video games) out of the hands of people too young to handle it. Nobody's trying to ban soda from being consumed by very young children.

by Ben Reilly Sun Nov 08, 2015 8:07 pm

Nobody has said yet whether they think selling candy from one shop is the same thing as spending upwards of $3 billion every year in advertising, trying to addict the world to a sugary beverage.

Do you? Because that's the entire basis of the charge that this MP is a hypocrite.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 08, 2015 8:13 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Nobody has said yet whether they think selling candy from one shop is the same thing as spending upwards of $3 billion every year in advertising, trying to addict the world to a sugary beverage.

Do you? Because that's the entire basis of the charge that this MP is a hypocrite.

It's pretty hypocritical really. I presume he actually encouraged people to come into his shop to buy sweets, and he made money off them. I'm not knocking him for that, but it's a bit silly for him to slate someone else for encouraging people to buy a fizzy drink.

by Ben Reilly Sun Nov 08, 2015 8:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Nobody has said yet whether they think selling candy from one shop is the same thing as spending upwards of $3 billion every year in advertising, trying to addict the world to a sugary beverage.

Do you? Because that's the entire basis of the charge that this MP is a hypocrite.

It's pretty hypocritical really. I presume he actually encouraged people to come into his shop to buy sweets, and he made money off them. I'm not knocking him for that, but it's a bit silly for him to slate someone else for encouraging people to buy a fizzy drink.

Do you understand scale, proportionality?

by Sponsored content