"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements
24/7?

How would you recommend that be accomplished? Legislation? Certainly
the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily abstain from
advertising. Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such
harmful advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making
lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming larger
corporally.

Corporations also encourage us to smoke, spend hours in front of video
games and TV, and take medications we likely don't require. There appear
to be only two solutions: personal responsibility, or the good ol' nanny
state. I prefer the former.


Now that brings us to the question... which works better? No opinions
now... just da facts.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com




When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

Seahag wrote:
"katy" wrote:

Seahag wrote:

Bill's 2ond. wife made one the dogs wouldn't eat...turned
out she didn't cook the noodles first!

hahahahaha...that's REALLY dimbulb....


Yeah, her covered roast chicken was a close second. Had
that sort of puffed blanched greasy skin with no seasoning
thing going on. Mind you, his mother invented the food
'deflavorizer'.

S


Must be some kind of distant relative to my mother, then...she doesn't
even put chili powder in chili anymore...

Maxprop wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

. . .and it doesn't convert to formaldehyde like

Nutrasweet...


Yeah, but think how well-preserved you'd be with Nutrasweet.

Max


....with Alzheimer's....

DSK wrote:
I've substituted Splenda in many recipes that I've served people and
they never knew it wasn't sugar...



Maybe they were too polite to tell you?

Nah..it was family..if they didn't like it they'd say so...vociferously...

Maybe the horrid aftertaste was
disguised by all that jalapeno

SOn't use jalepeno's...there is no horrid aftertaste with Splenda...
?


Seahag wrote:

sugar's a quick burn sort of thing. Think of the quantitudes of fats
Americans chow down at every turn. And then have to ":jog" off again.


Yep, Atkins had at least one thing right... the type of calories makes a
difference.


I had lunch at a place in Miami that the meal had to have weighed at
least 10lbs. on the plate. It was gross. What was worse was just
throwing all that untouched mountain of food away.


A lot of people have also been conditioned to not throw food away. I'm
working on not buying it in the first place... saves money too.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements
24/7?


How would you recommend that be accomplished?

I'm not sure. I have not personally examined the forces that pushed the
current system into place, so I'm not going to say how to push things in a
different direction.

.... Legislation?

Bad idea IMHO, for 2 fundamental reasons:
1- it's not likely to work all that well
2- that government is best which governs least.

Complete agreement with both points.

.... Certainly the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily
abstain from advertising.

I agree, as long as the current socio-economic-legal systems are in place.
You seem to be on the opposite spectrum from Frank B who seems to believe
that advertising is just a curious way corporations have of disposing
excess dollars.

Independent studies have demonstrated, repeatedly and for decades, the value
of advertising and other forms of marketing to a company's bottom line.
That's beyond dispute. I wonder what Frank thinks the effect on GDP would
be were advertising completely eliminated?

.... Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such harmful
advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


Depends on how it's done. If the gov't were to say "No advertising
cheeseburgers, people are too dumb to know how much is healthy" then yes,
that would be nannyism.

No essential difference from the little caveats on cigarette packages:
"Smoking may be hazardous to your health." Duh.

If OTOH advertising expenditures were to be penalized by taxation, for
example in a way similar to how research & development is encouraged by
tax rules, then that would not be nannyism and might tilt the system away
from heavy advertising.

Of course it's nannyism. The end product is to protect Americans from
themselves: nannyism. Penalizing advertising is, incidentally, a
legislative action, which you seemed to decry above. And it would not work
unless the level of punitive taxation would exceed the financial benefit to
the company in quesiton. Bad, unworkable idea.

And how would a government effect such tax penalties without appearing
prejudicial? Would it be acceptable to allow, say, Phillip Morris to
promote their 'prevent kids from smoking' website while taxing McDonalds for
pushing Big Macs? Both companies produce potentially harmful products that
become addictive.



It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making
lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming larger
corporally.


Corporations also encourage us to smoke, spend hours in front of video
games and TV, and take medications we likely don't require. There appear
to be only two solutions: personal responsibility, or the good ol' nanny
state. I prefer the former.


If you see only two solutions, then you're being intentionally obtuse, or
your blinders are strapped on a little too tight, or you're stupider than
I'd have given you credit for.

And you accuse Dave of ad hominems, particularly when they are no such
thing. This is beyond laughable, Doug. You are the cardinal hypocrite in
this NG.

Back to the issue: There are essentially only two alternatives. If the
government enacts *any* sort of program to protect us from ourselves, that
*is* nannyism. Couching such actions in the guise of selective/progressive
taxation or penalties is the most blatant from of denial. Either the
government protects us from ourselves, or it does not. How it effects such
protection is irrelevant.

Capt. JG wrote:
Now that brings us to the question... which works better? No opinions
now... just da facts.


One fact that is already on the ground is that advertising works. Personal
responsibility also works, when it is present.

Holy hypocrisy, Batman, that sure looks like just two alternatives to me.

Max

"Seahag" wrote in message
...

"katy" wrote:
Seahag wrote:
Bill's 2ond. wife made one the dogs wouldn't eat...turned out she didn't
cook the noodles first!
hahahahaha...that's REALLY dimbulb....

Yeah, her covered roast chicken was a close second. Had that sort of
puffed blanched greasy skin with no seasoning thing going on. Mind you,
his mother invented the food 'deflavorizer'.

S


Did she steam broccoli for 45 minutes?

Todd Nossel wrote:
"Seahag" wrote in message
...

"katy" wrote:

Seahag wrote:

Bill's 2ond. wife made one the dogs wouldn't eat...turned out she didn't
cook the noodles first!

hahahahaha...that's REALLY dimbulb....

Yeah, her covered roast chicken was a close second. Had that sort of
puffed blanched greasy skin with no seasoning thing going on. Mind you,
his mother invented the food 'deflavorizer'.

S



Did she steam broccoli for 45 minutes?


My mother did until I had broccoli at a friends and found out it was
supposed to be bright green...I fixed it from thereon...

Maxprop wrote:
When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous country,
but stagnant.


How provincial.

Cheers
Marty

.... Certainly the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily
abstain from advertising.

I agree, as long as the current socio-economic-legal systems are in place.
You seem to be on the opposite spectrum from Frank B who seems to believe
that advertising is just a curious way corporations have of disposing
excess dollars.


Maxprop wrote:
Independent studies have demonstrated, repeatedly and for decades, the value
of advertising and other forms of marketing to a company's bottom line.
That's beyond dispute. I wonder what Frank thinks the effect on GDP would
be were advertising completely eliminated?


Dunno, not sure I'm getting his POV... Maybe he'll continue
in this thread, I hope so.


My complaint is that advertising should be part of GDP even
though it is a "service." It does not create wealth nor
improve any thing... it's demonstrable that *some*
advertising, as an information network, helps market
efficiency. But to spend gazillions on it is a waste, overall.




.... Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such harmful
advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


Depends on how it's done. If the gov't were to say "No advertising
cheeseburgers, people are too dumb to know how much is healthy" then yes,
that would be nannyism.


No essential difference from the little caveats on cigarette packages:
"Smoking may be hazardous to your health." Duh.


If OTOH advertising expenditures were to be penalized by taxation, for
example in a way similar to how research & development is encouraged by
tax rules, then that would not be nannyism and might tilt the system away
from heavy advertising.


Of course it's nannyism. The end product is to protect Americans from
themselves: nannyism. Penalizing advertising is, incidentally, a
legislative action, which you seemed to decry above.

No, it's fiscal policy.

I guess you think that tax deductions for charity
contributions, and for legitimate R&D, etc etc, are also
nany-ism?

Face facts. The current social & economic & legal framework
within which we all function, and all businesses &
corporations too, is a result of "legislation" if you use it
as a blanket term. Why is a dollar bill worth a dollar, why
do merchants accept it? Because of legislation.

In other words, using that word as a catch-all for big bad
gummint interference (which I am also against) is friggin'
stupid. There is *alread* a huge web of rules & practices in
place, which gave rise to the situation as it exists.
Oretending they don't exist, so you can whine about how
changing already-existing policy is nannyism, is not any
effective answer.



... And it would not work
unless the level of punitive taxation would exceed the financial benefit to
the company in quesiton. Bad, unworkable idea.


I guess the current tax skews towards charity donations &
R&D are also bad unworkable ideas?


And how would a government effect such tax penalties without appearing
prejudicial?

Why worry about that? Of course it's prejudicial! The
"Medicare Reform Bill" thinly disguised bail-out for the big
pharm corps was prejudicial, as are speeding laws. Heck, the
recent Supreme Court decision to make the Treasury put
Braille on all paper money is prejudicial against people
with good vision... after all, we have to pay for it.

Did somebody promise you that life was always totally fair?
If so, I hope they gave you a lollipop too.


... Would it be acceptable to allow, say, Phillip Morris to
promote their 'prevent kids from smoking' website while taxing McDonalds for
pushing Big Macs? Both companies produce potentially harmful products that
become addictive.


Maybe we should just sue both companies... no wait, somebody
tried that.



If you see only two solutions, then you're being intentionally obtuse, or
your blinders are strapped on a little too tight, or you're stupider than
I'd have given you credit for.


And you accuse Dave of ad hominems, particularly when they are no such
thing. This is beyond laughable, Doug. You are the cardinal hypocrite in
this NG.


Hardly. I'm not pretending to be a libertarian, nor
pretending to be against nannyism while demanding that a
Race Committee protect me from too much wind.


Back to the issue: There are essentially only two alternatives.

Hardly.

.... If the
government enacts *any* sort of program to protect us from ourselves, that
*is* nannyism.

Perhaps you could look at it that way... if you go far
enough with this approach, then you might as well get rid of
gov't. After all, it's only a great big nanny to protect
those who shouldn't need it or want it if only they had
enough backbone.


... Couching such actions in the guise of selective/progressive
taxation or penalties is the most blatant from of denial.

Only if you're either too stupid to know the difference, or
profoundly prejudiced against looking at the situation
rationally.

DSK

Maxprop wrote:
When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous country,
but stagnant.



Martin Baxter wrote:
How provincial.


Agreed. But then, to Max, there are only two choices.

I really like Jarlsberg cheese, don't know if making it
notable, productive, or indicative of creativity. I think
the milk does have to stagnate first

DSK