|
Government wants to choose your lifestyle (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| quote: |
Why is the government always made out to be a faceless corporation out to harm people? Instead of being viewed as the best arrangement possible between people in a country,(any country) to try and solve the social/economic problems which crop up in life? |
Because the government is as corrupt and sometimes even more corrupt than the entities they are "protecting" us from |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Form: Not allowing somebody to use the trademark "carb options" has nothing to do with regulating claims. That's like saying that you cant be calling a soft drink "red bull" even though it's not red and does not contain any bull.
As for the "low carb" claims, thats different. But if the product can be proven to contain low carbs than why shouldnt they be allowed to claim it? Outright prohibition is not the way to go here.
As for the thread whiners. Funny how nobody used these cute little cartoons on the cigarette thread now isnt it? |
|
|
| Your Mother |
| quote: | Originally posted by d!abolic
That's ing gay. There's so much evidence to support low-card diets that it's sickening. How the hell can these people make such claims and get away with it?! |
Can you offer some real scientific proof? You know, research papers written by scientists and doctors to support this claim? Just because something helps you lose fat doesn't mean its good for you in the long term.
-Your Mother |
|
|
| avikonen |
I thought this post was titled "Guverment wants to choose your lifestyle"
:p |
|
|
| Form&Funktion |
| quote: | | Form: Not allowing somebody to use the trademark "carb options" has nothing to do with regulating claims. That's like saying that you cant be calling a soft drink "red bull" even though it's not red and does not contain any bull. |
There's an obvious difference and you know it Jay. One is a branding philosophy and one is a brand name. Let's use your Red Bull example. It is completely outside of Government to tell the company they can no longer call the product "Red Bull"....agreed. But that is not the point here...that which you are focusing on. What the feds are saying for example is that Red Bull cannot arbitrarily come out with a new brand strategy that tags the drink as the healthy choice for body conscious people. It's not the name at issue, but the branding of that name. Until it's proven and accepted, no health related claims can be advertised as a key feature on any food, drug or related item. This is standard for all food ministries everywhere in the world.
I agree with you that if the companies can prove that the low carb trend indeed provides a health benefit then yes, they have the right to represent that...but as it stands reports vary greatly
and it makes perfect sense to regulate claims until that proof is accepted. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
It is true that too many companies have gone overboard with their "carb options". It's become another fad diet, pure and simple. Cutting carbs DOES help people to lose weight, I don't need scientific proof because I've seen it several times with my own eyes - however, as Your Mother pointed out, that does not necessarily mean it's a healthy diet.
Complex carbohydrates are extremely important for anyone active - any sports nutritionist will tell you that. They are fuel for your body, pure and simple, and they are super important when it comes to building and rebuilding muscle fiber, whether those muscles are your biceps after a weight-lifting session or your heart after a long jog.
Having said that, I think that it's none of the government's business to be regulating this - people are responsible for educating themselves. I find it horrific that they can create such arbitrary rules and face virtually no opposition from this sad left-wing country. Companies cashing in on the low-carb fad is not criminal in any way or form - it's not fraudulent and it's not directly harmful. Low-carb diets may be harmful in general but so is a McDonald's diet and we don't really see that being regulated now do we?
If they really want someone to go after, I'd suggest Burger King. Has anyone seen their ridiculous new ad with the "motivational speaker" talking about the BK "diet", with the tiny fine print at the end that it's not a real diet? Talk about misleading people into poor health... I'd say that nobody is stupid enough to believe an ad like that even without the fine print, but people can be surprisingly stupid when someone peddles them easy answers. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Form&Funktion
What the feds are saying for example is that Red Bull cannot arbitrarily come out with a new brand strategy that tags the drink as [B]the healthy choice for body conscious people |
You obviously have never read a Red Bull can
:) |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| Diginut: Exacty. This low carb thing is a waste of time but the government shouldn't be deciding that for you. It's very scary that the government can get away with virtually anything without opposition. I will never understand the sheep mentality of this nation. |
|
|
| Form&Funktion |
| quote: | | You obviously have never read a Red Bull can |
I've tried but I cannot read Vietnamese.....we get ours in China-town and I've never seen the American packaging. What does it say?
Frankly to claim leftism here is overly-dramatic. We are not talking about regulating WHAT YOU CAN EAT only the conditions in which companies can make certain claims. We are a sad country because the Government is doing it's job...however tedious and seemingly micro-managed????
Shall we revolt in the streets at the unacceptable regulation of advertising unproven health claims? Where's the sense of scope here?
This will have no effect on what you can and cannot consume....if it had then I'd be with you...but it does not. |
|
|
| Superstar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
I will never understand the sheep mentality of this nation. |
Do you expect people to be enlightened by your views when you directly insult them with a statement like that?
Honestly you bring up good discussions sometimes but then you start talking about peoples' intelligence when they don't agree with you. It really doesn't help your case. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Because the government is as corrupt and sometimes even more corrupt than the entities they are "protecting" us from |
well its one of the best systems we have, and the envy of the world(most of the world). And remember, the people in the government are citizens too. They do not live outside the laws/rules of the country, even if you think otherwise. there is corruption in every proffesion, plain and simple. when a 'system' such as the government or any business is built on POEPLE, obviously there are going to be flaws. The hope is that together we can minimize the damadge and effect of those flaws, we will never escape them. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Superstar
Do you expect people to be enlightened by your views when you directly insult them with a statement like that?
Honestly you bring up good discussions sometimes but then you start talking about peoples' intelligence when they don't agree with you. It really doesn't help your case. |
To make a general statement about a society should not be an insult unless it happens to apply to you. Otherwise don't you think I'd be insulting myself as well? After all I was born and raised here as well.
Felling guilty?
LOL |
|
|
|
|
