The Freedom To Be Fat..Does Government Have The Right To "Outlaw" Unhealthy Foods?

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
burgertime2010 said:
Everything is aggressive to you. Science made up my mind about these 2 products and avoiding them is healthier....bottom line. If you like soda just say so, whatever. Your passive attitude is essentially saying nothing and does not aim to do anything. Its' lazy....
Click to expand...

No, not everything is aggressive to me. Leaving others alone if they are leaving you alone is not aggressive. Bottom line, if you want to control others, or have government do it for you, just say so.

I don't have a passive attitude. I have a liberty attitude, you apparently do not. Hey! put that soda down!
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
burgertime2010 said:
But, I am confused.....where am I aggressive?
Click to expand...
Sometimes it's first level, but most often "good citizens" are second or third level aggressors. If you're paying for the man to catch the pot heads and and to be droning foreign babies, you don't actually qualify for first level aggressor, that would be the people that actually do it. In that instance you'd be more of a second or third level.

And yes, I agree, you are confused.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
burgertime2010 said:
Usually, the theme I see from Rob here is that everything is a violation of his utopia. He distrusts any legal protection and that is fine, but I share little with his analogies.
Click to expand...
There are two kinds of people. Those that don't think it is acceptable to tell other peaceful people what to do and those that do. I'm the first kind, you are the second kind.

No, I'm not a pacifist. There are many "legal" protection rackets, which one were you referring to?
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Sometimes it's first level, but most often "good citizens" are second or third level aggressors. If you're paying for the man to catch the pot heads and and to be droning foreign babies, you don't actually qualify for first level aggressor, that would be the people that actually do it. In that instance you'd be more of a second or third level.

And yes, I agree, you are confused.
Click to expand...
You are also paying for the goverment to protect you from people trying to take your shit.
But you ignore that


Try Somalia or wait till you go thru puberty before you post on the internet
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
burgertime2010 said:
And will not admit that restriction does not work, at all. - this was the double neg, Cigarettes are not as big as they were when I was a kid. plus they are 2x the cost don't ask me. The laws and all the hype I would imagine are part of it. I don't remember my 1st beer....my dad used to let me taste his and I didn't care for it.....besides that 11 or so. Cigs 12. I am a bad example as I was way younger than the people I hung with and grew up fast. Ganja is basically legal here but as a teen not a lot of people got baked and there was a criminal element that some wouldn't shake. It was a drug. I think it is not clear exactly why cigs took a dive and more people smoked ganja....smart move I say. The laws are effective to those who follow them. Limiting availability is more effective
Click to expand...
Ah. So you do get the point. The laws don't work. Death sticks are only out of fashion, because they are death sticks.

Sugars deathsticks? A long stretch there.
 
burgertime2010

burgertime2010

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
No, not everything is aggressive to me. Leaving others alone if they are leaving you alone is not aggressive. Bottom line, if you want to control others, or have government do it for you, just say so.

I don't have a passive attitude. I have a liberty attitude, you apparently do not. Hey! put that soda down!
Click to expand...
The argument is the same every time, liberty over logic...I am inclined to act on what is sensible at this time in the US. I don't need anything you can offer, if control over you is what I desired you would never know it
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
althor said:
I think they have plenty of right to say food stamps can only be used on certain basic foods, since it is the government's (our) money.
Click to expand...
Where do the "authorities" get the right to acquire the money to redistribute in the first place?

If they have the right to SOME of your money without your consent, do they have the right to ALL of your money? What is the "correct" percent for them to stop taking at...when does it become theft and when is it "not theft" ?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
You are also paying for the goverment to protect you from people trying to take your shit.
But you ignore that


Try Somalia or wait till you go thru puberty before you post on the internet
Click to expand...
You're not real bright are you? When a person or entity takes your shit against your will and then says we're doing this so the OTHER guy doesn't. Guess what, somebody just took your stuff. The shit taking HAS happened, it is just the who DID the shit taking that changed. Who ignores the obvious now?

What difference does it make if a guy named Vito makes you an offer you can't refuse or the extorter is a self inflated "official" ? Speaking of inflating, your blowup doll wife ever leak at the erm wrong time? Cause I think that glue you used to patch her up might be affecting your thought process.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
burgertime2010 said:
The argument is the same every time, liberty over logic...I am inclined to act on what is sensible at this time in the US. I don't need anything you can offer, if control over you is what I desired you would never know it
Click to expand...
Liberty is logic.

I haven't offered you anything, but if I did it would be with respect for your ability to accept or deny the offer. Your "offers" are uni-lateral and backed by force or the threat of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top