The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Free Markets hard at work

Derid, instead of ideological trolling, address below:

Its not ideological trolling. I think a society where people are told they are and are treated in effect as imbeciles, is not a society worth having. Have you fully fleshed out your solution or considered for the enormous social, psychological and practical downsides? So far you have something you consider to be a problem, and a very vague solution.

Maybe if you clarified your proposed solution I would understand it better. Right now all I see is a very lopsided, top-down society with very little individual autonomy.

You edited in that above quote to a prior post - but my response is unchanged. Inform people, so that their behavior may change. There is no need to use force.

If people in end decide that they like eating sweets, regardless of whether or not you approve - then you should respect their decision to do so as they should respect your decisions regarding your own life and diet.

Humans are sovereign individuals, not groups or herds. The way Govt interacts with the populace should reflect that.

You think someone decides to get obese, diabetic, and die early?

Humans are social animals, we evolved in packs and tribes and our ability to build societies is a result of this. Individualism to a degree that you espouse is nothing short of anarchy.

Not hardly, it is the current status quo and has been for centuries. I hardly consider this anarchy.

Though the way I understand you plans, is more akin to the drug war than anything. Spending lots of effort and lots of money, infringing on civil and personal liberty... mostly to keep people from "harming themselves". Sure, in some regards there are addicts whose problems spill over to affect others. But the solution has still been far worse than the problem.

And yes, people choose to engage in unhealthy behavior all the time knowing full well the implications.

So Derid, you wouldn't object if I add crack into drinking water and then when people get addicted charge everyone 10k/month in utilities? After all, if they don't want to get addicted they wouldn't drink tap water.

Sini, that's a ridiculous extreme and you know it. However, please test your theory, as doing so will land you some VIP treatment in one of your favorite BIG GOVERNMENT resort locations. Just don't drop the soap.

Stubs, but that would be evil guberment enacting violence on business transactions! /sarcasm

Can you explain the difference between

addicting people to sugar via normal consumption patterns and then profiting from selling them more

AND

addicting people to crack via normal consumption patterns and then profiting from selling them more

False equivalence, unless you really think that without the current state of the "War on Drugs" that adding crack to the water supply would somehow have flown. Which you dont.

I asked you to go into more detail, but from the info you have thus far dispersed... you are proposing a New War on Drugs. Using the same justifications.

You have established there is a "problem". OK.

What you have not established, is that your solution would not be worse.

Crack is illegal, sugar isn't, so there's that. Not that it matters to you liberals, the only thing you know is your own delusional reality. In which it is apparently ok to dump crack into the water supply.

Its a choice dude. How hard is that for you to grasp. I know Burger King burgers are worse then A burger I grilled at home, you know what I was in a hurry tonight and so I made the choice to grab a whopper and fries.

I choose to buy ORIGINAL JELLO pudding and jello, not that gross sugar and/or fat free stuff. Its only bad for you if it is all you eat or drink. To much of anything is bad for you.

STOP TRYING TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT DO FOR/TO/WITH MYSELF. You people are crossing lines, and one day you're going to go to far and there's going to be problems that talking alone won't fix.