The Possible Ban on Fast Foods

[ArtDrake]

I should have you know that this is the Socratic method at work. It requires asking a few questions that seem irrelevant or to even not make sense in order to try to get the one who argues the opposite side to say something he'll regret.

Are you trying to put yourself above my questions by discrediting me as one who knows nothing, thereby dodging them?

Or do you truly not see sense in any of them?

If the latter is the case, I can only conclude that you did not read through all of my questions, as some are so straightforward as to be to the point of oversimplicity.

[Deagonx]

If the latter is the case, I can only conclude that you did not read through all of my questions, as some are so straightforward as to be to the point of oversimplicity.

It really is a bit conceited to conclude someone did not read all your questions, simply because you view them as straightforward.

And, what does being nonsensical have to do with straightforwardness?

[SmartyPants]

I should have you know that this is the Socratic method at work. It requires asking a few questions that seem irrelevant or to even not make sense in order to try to get the one who argues the opposite side to say something he'll regret.

I understand you were trying to use the Socratic debate and I would humor you with answers if you could do it correctly.  For the Socratic debate, one needs to sensibly think of relevant questions in order to find contradictions in the answers. You just list every question that pops in your head, so you don't have to think of a reasonable argument.  

I will answer your nonsense to prove how pointless they are.

Do you know what the grounds are for limiting sodium?
Can you salt your food?
What is the strict definition of candy?
Does candy play a role in education?
Must you buy your Hershey's chocolate bar at school?
Can you not bring your own?

Q1: Sodium (like transfat) in large amounts is bad for one's health.  Because some people make bad choices by routinely eating high-sodium foods, the NY government thinks they need to punish everyone (including people who only eat high-sodium foods occasionally) by removing sodium from foods and consequently making the food not taste as good.
Q2: You could salt your food, but most people don't have salt shakers with them when they buy potato chips from a vending machines.
Q3: a confection made with sugar and often flavoring and filling
Q4: Teachers use to give out candy as a reward, so kids want to know and answer questions correctly.  Now teachers are forbidden from using candy as a reward.
Q5: No, but I also don't have to buy lunch at school.  The reason I buy lunch and chocolate at school is because I want and deserve them.
Q6: I could have brought a chocolate bar to school if I didn't mind my pocket or backpack being covered in melted chocolate.

[ArtDrake]

My use of the Socratic method simply asks questions that seek a given outcome through an occasionally very long path. We'll get there, I promise (unless you cut the debate short). I ask questions about points I disagree with, and hope to reduce apparent contradictions to basic disagreements which cannot be resolved or basic errors which can, on the part of either party. You can answer as many or as few of these questions as you wish, as long as you answer some questions such that the discussion may continue.

Why do you insist that the New York legislature wishes to punish? Could they not simply wish to improve overall health?
Are vending-machine products subject to this limitation on sodium?

To what extent to these confections have to be made from sugar to qualify as candy? (For example, are fruit strips candy?)
Are there not other forms of motivated learning that are less... caloric? Should students require motivation of this sort to learn?

Can people who want and deserve lunch and chocolate not bring them to school?
Are icepacks not a common phenomenon in Houston? Can't you put your candy bar in a chilled lunchbox?

Is needing to do so a punishment, or only a method by which the government can reduce the amount of candy consumed by those who do not "want and deserve" it?

What makes you different from other people in your desire and deservingness of candy?

[SmartyPants]

*Why do you insist that the New York legislature wishes to punish? Could they not simply wish to improve overall health?
*Are vending-machine products subject to this limitation on sodium?
*To what extent to these confections have to be made from sugar to qualify as candy? (For example, are fruit strips candy?)
*Are there not other forms of motivated learning that are less... caloric? Should students require motivation of this sort to learn?
*Can people who want and deserve lunch and chocolate not bring them to school?
*Are icepacks not a common phenomenon in Houston? Can't you put your candy bar in a chilled lunchbox?
*Is needing to do so a punishment, or only a method by which the government can reduce the amount of candy consumed by those who do not "want and deserve" it?
*What makes you different from other people in your desire and deservingness of candy?

Q1: New York legislatures are elitist who think they need to make decisions about the food people eat, because the average person is too dumb to make the responisble decesion themselves.  The NY legislature's incorrect, elitist views punish the average person who makes responsible decesions.
Q2: Do vending machines have food with sodium that is sold in NY?
Q3: How am I suppose to know the exact qualifications to make something candy?  I am not Willy Wonka.
Q4: How do you suggest to motivate children?  Do you the fun of math will motivate most children to participate in class?
Q5: Again, chocolate melts in the Texas climate.  Also, one can't bring a warm meal from home.
Q6: No, chilled lunchboxes are for elementry children.  Anyone who uses them after that are ridiculed.  Plus, the ice packs still melt too quickly and leave everything soggy and wet.
Q7: Punishment
Q8: I told you already.  People who exercise and eat modestly shouldn't be punished, because of the lazy fatties who eat to excess and never exercise.

[ArtDrake]

I think that you're using the loaded word "punished" too liberally. Punishment implies a punitive action in response to a misdeed, and there have been no misdeeds in our issue. Action to ban unhealthy foods is not punitive, but preventative, and being fat is not a crime.

[SmartyPants]

Looks like you failed at the Socratic method, because the answers weren't what you desired.

[ArtDrake]

I was imprecise. The Socratic method does require someone who is not deliberately being obstinate, and I merely question beliefs that I believe are flawed. I would argue your points, but I believe it futile. You ignore my questions and say what your opinion on the general matter is.

I ask again: What makes you different from other people in your desire and deservingness of candy?

[SmartyPants]

I ask again: What makes you different from other people in your desire and deservingness of candy?

Can you reword that?  I have some similarities to other people, and I have differences to other people.  "Other people" is too vague for me to answer.

[ArtDrake]

Sure! I was thinking that that was a might bit vague...

Q5: No, but I also don't have to buy lunch at school.  The reason I buy lunch and chocolate at school is because I want and deserve them.

Why do you think that you deserve candy when others do not?
Who, in particular, were you saying doesn't deserve candy?

[SmartyPants]

Why do you think that you deserve candy when others do not?
Who, in particular, were you saying doesn't deserve candy?[/

I believe people who exercise and eat in moderation are more deserving of candy then overwieght and obese people.


It really doesn't matter who I think is more deserving, since I (or the government) don't have the right to say who can and can't eat certain foods. 

[Ertxiem]

Here is my opinion about the possible ban on fast food:

1. Nothing that only hurts the individual should be banned.

2. Considering that things that hurt the individual end up affecting the society, at least the estimated cost to the society should be included in the price of that good. (Call it the unhealthy tax, if you will.)
The costs to the society that I'm thinking about include education and health care costs through their entire life (even if they end up choosing such private services). The estimated (or average) probability of creating an health problem by ingesting such a quantity of the product would be factored in the amount to increase the price.

3. This includes (some types of) fat, sugars, salt, etc.

Regarding salt, I was speaking with a Nutritionist (or a Dietitian) that told me that there is no need to add salt to the food. Our taste was educated to have excessive salt in our food. Salt is only used as a flavour enhancer and other spices can be used with the same effect and without creating the heart problems that salt creates.

[SmartyPants]

When a government so involved in a person's life that it literally says what you can and can't eat, then I think the government is a step too close towards totalitarianism.

[ArtDrake]

I don't suppose that goes for marijuana, too? It can be eaten...

[Ertxiem]

Duckling: I balance in favour of decriminalization of soft drugs, as I stated in another thread...

Smarty: My point is: people can do whatever they want. They just have to compensate for any damage they happen to do. Since it's hard to pay after you're dead, then the amount to pay while you're alive is computed using the probability of dying and applied to the cost of taking a certain action (like eating unhealthy stuff).
Do you think that forcing people to wear a seatbelt is totalitarianism?

And what do you think about forcing restaurants to cook food using clean tools? If they didn't have to wash their tools, the food price could be lower, since less water, detergent, washing machines, electricity and even employees would be needed. And, who knows, perhaps the food flavour would be better.