I don't see how it can be effective. I think he wants to do something about or make a statement concerning the reality of how people are eating themselves to death. It is the truth though that the freedoms allow people to eat, drink... themselves to death and advertisers and corporations get rich from it. I know some corporations are mad at him for this move too. Perhaps he thinks he is saving lives.
NYC Mayor Bloomberg Wants To Ban Soda
- Thread starter SifuPhil
- Start date
Sugarhill
Active Member
Well, if you feel that it's okay to use the words "retarded," "gay," and "ghetto" as catch all phrases, then there really isn't much that we need to discuss either. If a person has enough of a vocabulary to regularly post 25-50 word posts and chooses to waste their words on ones that do offend versus coming up with a better way to express themselves, that is on them. I don't have to waste my words in conversation with them.
So, I guess this might be where we also say, "goodbye"?
So, I guess this might be where we also say, "goodbye"?
Esperahol
Active Member
1.) classicnyer and I are not the same person.
2.) I didn't say I use those words, I said that in popular culture those have become catch all phrases.
3.) Is it really that serious? That's why I replied before - I mean there is no reason to stress either yourself or others out. However, I totally understand that you want nothing to do with me and my internet-posted words. It's cool.
SifuPhil
Member
The First Lady did a pretty quick about-face on the issue yesterday. Typical politician - say a lot without saying anything.
Sugarhill
Active Member
I realize that the two of you are not the same person. You should realize that classicnyer isn't a person that you should want to align yourself with or defend. For just as easy as it is for someone like classicnyer to toss around the word, "ghetto" and randomly group the people that they believes falls into that classification, someone could come by, see their post and all of the people that tacitly approve that mindset and call them "ignorant."
Just because something has become a catch all phrase, doesn't mean that you have to give up your option to reveal yourself as intelligent and above such limited vocabulary and thinking by also spewing such stupidity.
It should be that serious for you, because what you speak/type is a reflection of what you think and feel. If you have no problem with what people deduce about you from such language being uttered from your mouth/hands, then what more can be said?
dashboardc33
Member
I think the entire idea is ridiculous. It is just another way for the big government to control us. We should be able to eat and drink what we want to eat and drink. It should not be regulated by the government. If we want to eat unhealthy, then we should be able to do this. Pretty soon we are going to be told what we are allowed to wear. I really hope this does not pass. It is just one more step to a controlling government.
classicnyer
Member
I happen to live in the ghetto, as a matter of fact, and I didn't mean the term as an insult to poor people like myself. In fact, the phrase "people in the ghetto" doesn't use any pejoratives (or any adjectives, for that matter) to describe the people in question. It simply states that we are in the ghetto, which we are. Would it have made you happier had I said "people in the inner city" or "people in the poor part of town"?
I used the third person rather than the first not because I'm distancing myself from the ghetto, but because I don't go to the movies, and as such I didn't fall into the specific group of the people I was describing.
The ghetto is not a "catch-all." The ghetto is the ghetto.
If you really thought that I was insulting poor people by using the word "ghetto" to describe our living situation, then you did not really read my comment before reacting to it, and I would consider that to be much more ignorant than my use of the word was.
Oh, and gay people use the word "gay" to describe themselves all the time as well. This doesn't make it an insult.
Sugarhill
Active Member
I'm glad that you've taken the time that you needed to come up with a way to wiggle out of your initial faux pas, but I'm not buying it. But, if you have no problem with the carelessness of your words, then I have no problem ignoring or dismissing most of what you say.
Oh, and you know that using the word, "gay" to sexually identify yourself is completely different from using the word "gay" to belittle a thing or activity. Come on, now. If you know what the word "pejorative" means, then you also know an example of a word being used as one. Don't play games.
Oh, and you know that using the word, "gay" to sexually identify yourself is completely different from using the word "gay" to belittle a thing or activity. Come on, now. If you know what the word "pejorative" means, then you also know an example of a word being used as one. Don't play games.
twinsmommy
Member
Banning super sized drinks in restaurants and movies isn't going to solve anything. Are they going to stop selling the gigantic sized boxes of candy that are sold along side those drinks? Are they going to stop selling the huge over sized burgers that are sold alongside the drinks in restaurants? I think not. Obese people are going to still eat what they want so this nonsense ban is not going to stop people from being overweight.
artistry
Member
What we have in this country is an epidemic of obese children, with a high increasing incidence of diabetes. Reportedly 1/3 of the counry's children are diabetic. Which is a serious disease, that one has to deal with the rest of their lives. It is no joke, and can leave you blind, if not controlled. What the Mayor is doing is trying to help in some small way, to curb the sugar intake of these kids. If people could understand the harm that is being done to the nation's children, by them eating sugery cereals and other junk foods, until their bodies are laden with layers of fat, contributing to early heart disease, high blood pressure and the sort, they would thank the Mayor for trying to help. Because no one else seems to care. The first lady is trying to get people interested in healthier eating, she gets criticised for meddling. So I say carry on, because medication for diabetes and getting so fat that you cut your life span short, is pretty darn serious. We need to help the children. Although for 1/3 of them it is too late. Think!
JudithFunnie
Member
I don't think banning large sugary drinks would work. As mentioned by several posters, people can just ask for a refill if they want more to drink. I'm really curious about how they are going to try to pull this off. I admire them for trying, but there's nothing they can really do. Being healthy is a personal choice, nobody is forcing people to eat unhealthy foods and not exercise. I feel that laws shouldn't have to be established for people to take control of their diets.
classicnyer
Member
You literally didn't read what I wrote did you?
I didn't use the word "ghetto" to belittle a thing or activity. I used the word "ghetto" to NAME a thing, and that thing is the ghetto. Saying "people in the ghetto will tend to do x activity" is an observation, not an insult. Calling the ghetto the ghetto is not an insult. Calling it anything other than the ghetto doesn't make it anything other than the ghetto.
Your condescending tone doesn't mask your obviously poor reading comprehension skills.
Furthermore, the fact that you seem to be so rankled by the mere fact of the use of the word, so much that you couldn't even take the time to understand how the word was being used, is quite telling. People who live, work, or go to school in the ghetto have no problem hearing about it. If the word "ghetto" makes you so uncomfortable, it's probably because the concept of the ghetto makes you uncomfortable. If that's the case, self-righteous political correctness does nothing to solve the socio-economic issues that created and sustain the ghetto. More simply put, verbally tiptoeing around the ghetto doesn't make it not the ghetto.
I didn't post for a few days because I hadn't been on the computer in those few days. One of the perks of living in the ghetto is that I don't have computer access at home.
What's even more ludicrous about this is that you seem to have completely missed my original point, which is that the ban on large-quantity drinks is way too easily circumvented to ever be effective.
beckyv1265
Member
I say if we are concerned about fat children then we as parents need to start feeding our kids a healthier diet. My kids don't drink soda. Most of the fat kids in my neighborhood also don't drink soda. They drink Kool-aid because its cheaper. They also eat cheap fatty takeout or prepackaged conveince food. Dose the Government plan to ban these as well. Its also cheaper to feed kids empty calories than it is to buy good quality food. Mant poor people don't have a lot of options in what they can afford to feed them.
Lyra
Member
But the problem with trying to solve the problem by criminalizing foods is that we don't actually know what is causing the obesity epidemic. You may think, at first blush, that the reasons are obvious, but it is not as simple as saying, "People drink too much soda at a sitting." Personally, I believe that it is a food supply problem. Most of our foods are processed and I think chemical additives and HFCS and the like are at the root of the epidemic. I don't know what legislation is going to change the fact that our lives are structured around having access to processed convenience foods. It takes a lot of time and effort to eat a whole foods diet, because every meal has to be prepared instead of thrown in the microwave or handed through a window.
classicnyer
Member
I agree with you: the problem has more to do with a mindset, and there's no way to legislate a mindset.
Actually, there is one way: we could make it illegal for food companies to insert addictive additives in the food. But then, this would take money away from big business, which would then take money away from politicians who are in bed with big business, and so it's not going to happen that way.
But in any case, the "addictive" qualities of processed foods are not so severe that they can't be overcome with good old-fashioned will power, and will power can't be legislated.
SifuPhil
Member
Actually sugar does not cause the onset of diabetes - that's one of the long-standing myths of the disease. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetic or lifestyle factors; Type 2 by being overweight. Yes, excessive sugar consumption may cause high caloric intake and therefore becoming overweight and more susceptible to becoming diabetic, but it isn't a direct cause. In fact, most overweight people never develop diabetes.
artistry
Member
Lyra, what the Mayor is doing is like a drop in the bucket. But at least it gets people to talk and think about what is going on. Who have you seen discussing the problem of obesity in the children and trying to solve it? It's scattershot at best. People get up in arms if they think someone is trying to tell them what to do with their lives, what to eat, what not to eat. It's your life, eat and drink what you will. After the drinks in NY. are reduced in size, or not, then what, the chatter dies down and people go back to business as usual. Our health care system is going to go bankrupt having to pay for the care of people who need treatment for the variety of diseases brought on by obesity. No one is working on how to stop it, it just gets bigger and bigger, literally. This is a travesty. May the force be with you,.
Esperahol
Active Member
The problem I have with people saying that it's the food is that the food hasn't gotten much worse (and may in fact have gotten better) since the 50s. The things that have really changed is the activity levels of people as well as the sleep schedules and stress levels of the average American. The children don't have playground time like they use to, the adults go to work and then go home, and everyone is stressed out about something. In other words you can blame the food, but it's the overall lifestyle that needs a rehaul.