[Rob Instigator]

because eating unhealthily creates a fat, diabetic underclass that cannot afford proper healthcare and which rely on emergency rooms in the USA for critical care.

[Genteel Death]

wait what? really?

[Rob Instigator]

Nope. they are all healthy as fuck

[Genteel Death]

 

[Cunt]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

There are billions of dollars invested in developments of medicines and treatments, as well as education and public health campaigns across the country, from the street level to the school to the White House.. The bigger problem is that people are simply not caring. The "foods" that people eat that contribute to or cause diabetes are as addictive if not possibly more so than several "street" drugs. People are eating themselves into oblivion. The government then would be better suited to outright BAN most of the terrible imitation foods that we eat that cause this problem. Aids=condoms and cheap meds. Diabetes= sugar and bleached flour restrictions can solve these problems at the governmental level..

Those billions are a fraction of what these diseases cost the economy. Each dollar invested has a significant return, so what you’re saying doesn’t make any sense.

Your logic is appalling as usual:
If your daft assumption that “The bigger problem is that people are simply not caring” is right then there’s a problem with prevention, no?

Sigh.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

My point was that the info and drug campaigns aren't strong enough, and the disease is a consequence largely of bad food choices, so since the government is already able to regulate food, why not regulate bad food out of the market and reduce the disease from where it starts, and further if folks who have diabetes don't have or have limited access to the bad foods that caused their illness, would that not help treat their own disease as well as prevent others?

What is that you suggest exactly since apparently my logic is appalling as usual, because as usual you've been brave enough to shout out vociferous criticisms but lack any proactive suggestions?

[Cunt]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

My point was that the info and drug campaigns aren't strong enough, and the disease is a consequence largely of bad food choices, so since the government is already able to regulate food, why not regulate bad food out of the market and reduce the disease from where it starts, and further if folks who have diabetes don't have or have limited access to the bad foods that caused their illness, would that not help treat their own disease as well as prevent others?

What is that you suggest exactly since apparently my logic is appalling as usual, because as usual you've been brave enough to shout out vociferous criticisms but lack any proactive suggestions?

Brilliant. I’m starting to question more than your logic at this point.

As you’ve said, food and ingredients are already heavily regulated in most developed countries. How do you suggest governments should go about establishing relationships between substances and disease? Counting rhymes?

It takes SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH which is what we’re celebrating ITT.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Cunt

Brilliant. I’m starting to question more than your logic at this point.

As you’ve said, food and ingredients are already heavily regulated in most developed countries. How do you suggest governments should go about establishing relationships between substances and disease? Counting rhymes?

It takes SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH which is what we’re celebrating ITT.

Again, where is the lack of scientific research? I'm not buying it. I could care less what you think of my logic, facts are facts. Can you demonstrate that there is a lacking of investment in research and drug development? We already know the link between substances and disease in this regard, what more is there to need to study or prove?

You mentioned the government needed to do something about it. Stop appealing to emotion or even worse, relying on ad hominem fallacies. Talk about the substance of the issue here. Are you saying the government needs to invest in more research? You have to prove that the current research is inadequate which thus far you haven't. Are you saying the government needs to increase social and awareness campaigns, perhaps get more involved with doctors and hospitals, get out in the communities especially impoverished areas or places identified by the CDC as being epidemic regions for diabetes? Oh, right, ALL of that is in play, and of course all of it could and ESPECIALLY SHOULD be done more. HOWEVER, and its going full circle again, I suggested before and I will say it again, would not the government be better suited to through regulations BAN the worst offenders of "foods" that largely if not 100% contribute to this disease??

At the least, research, awareness, subsidized medical treatment should all be done in tandem with increasing regulation of the very dangerous foods which cause or contribute to this disease. Shit, we banned "street" drugs and put hundreds of thousands of people in jail for selling them, but we let "grocery" stores continue to "feed" us into oblivion

[Cunt]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Again, where is the lack of scientific research? I'm not buying it. I could care less what you think of my logic, facts are facts. Can you demonstrate that there is a lacking of investment in research and drug development? We already know the link between substances and disease in this regard, what more is there to need to study or prove?

You mentioned the government needed to do something about it. Stop appealing to emotion or even worse, relying on ad hominem fallacies. Talk about the substance of the issue here. Are you saying the government needs to invest in more research? You have to prove that the current research is inadequate which thus far you haven't. Are you saying the government needs to increase social and awareness campaigns, perhaps get more involved with doctors and hospitals, get out in the communities especially impoverished areas or places identified by the CDC as being epidemic regions for diabetes? Oh, right, ALL of that is in play, and of course all of it could and ESPECIALLY SHOULD be done more. HOWEVER, and its going full circle again, I suggested before and I will say it again, would not the government be better suited to through regulations BAN the worst offenders of "foods" that largely if not 100% contribute to this disease??

At the least, research, awareness, subsidized medical treatment should all be done in tandem with increasing regulation of the very dangerous foods which cause or contribute to this disease. Shit, we banned "street" drugs and put hundreds of thousands of people in jail for selling them, but we let "grocery" stores continue to "feed" us into oblivion

Fantastic. Facts are facts and you didn’t even bother to look them up. You want proof, but didn’t source your own claims.

In the specific case of the US I suggest you go lookup the current status of the NIH budget and study how the FDA works, I have no interest in try to reason with you.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

I did look at the NIH budget, it said that 4.5BILLION dollars was spent since 2010 and of course the NIH budget doesn't include private or international research plus that doesn't include the CDC/HSS and local investments in public health and awareness campaigns

Look, I've already agreed with you and said that we should be doing even more of what is already being done, but I still believe that it is in part a matter of public lethargy and that banning the worst offending "foods" would be a significant step in the right direction. People knew through research and awareness campaigns that smoking was bad for health, but it took those efforts matched with significant increases in regulations that finally brought smoking down. In California we're down to just 12% of population as smokers, I think the national average floats in the 20s..

[Cunt]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

I did look at the NIH budget, it said that 4.5BILLION dollars was spent since 2010 and of course the NIH budget doesn't include private or international research plus that doesn't include the CDC/HSS and local investments in public health and awareness campaigns

Look, I've already agreed with you and said that we should be doing even more of what is already being done, but I still believe that it is in part a matter of public lethargy and that banning the worst offending "foods" would be a significant step in the right direction. People knew through research and awareness campaigns that smoking was bad for health, but it took those efforts matched with significant increases in regulations that finally brought smoking down. In California we're down to just 12% of population as smokers, I think the national average floats in the 20s..

And somehow you’ve decided that means they’re overspending. BILLION is a word for a big number after all.

Fucking hell, you really are hopeless. If that figure is correct that’s less than what the Federal Government spends on printer toner over a period of three years.

[foreverasskiss]

i had the clap once. it was a piss poor version of an STD. i just held my piss really hard and tight before i 'came' piss and everything was OK. a puerto rican taught me that.

[dead_battery]

you did get it cured by a doctor right?

[foreverasskiss]

yea, of course. good ol antibiotics. they were puerto rican flavored.

as a male, i had a low chance of getting it. ran out of luck that day.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Cunt

And somehow you’ve decided that means they’re overspending. BILLION is a word for a big number after all.

When did I even remotely suggest over it was over spending? You're reading too much into this or adding things that are not for the discussion. What I said was that the government would from its be position be more effective to outright ban the the "foods" to prevent the disease in the first place to add to the current efforts.

Fucking hell, you really are hopeless.

No I'm not, but thanks for being a prick about what could have been an otherwise meaningful conversation.

 

[dead_battery]

meaninglol

[foreverasskiss]

i guess you need somewhere to start. kissing ass is one or lips wrapped around a big ol fat one.

[Cunt]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

When did I even remotely suggest over it was over spending? You're reading too much into this or adding things that are not for the discussion. What I said was that the government would from its be position be more effective to outright ban the the "foods" to prevent the disease in the first place to add to the current efforts.

No I'm not, but thanks for being a prick about what could have been an otherwise meaningful conversation.

If it’s more effective to do something else you’re implying exactly that you idiot. You seem to lack basic reading comprehension, logical reasoning and analytical thinking skills, I’m forced to bring it into the discussion.

outright ban foods

we already know everything

If you’d cared to put two seconds of thought into it or to take an informed opinion, you would’ve realised that to ban foods you need scientific support and that it takes scientific research to find healthier alternatives. You also would’ve learned that scientific agreement is not immutable e.g., trans fats were once considered healthier than saturated fats.

So no, I’m afraid this discussion would’ve never gotten more meaningful than the fact that you’re a fucking fool wasting my time.

inb4 hurr durr, I-I was just trolling you

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Cunt

If it’s more effective to do something else you’re implying exactly that you idiot. You seem to lack basic reading comprehension, logical reasoning and analytical thinking skills, I’m forced to bring it into the discussion.

No you just seem to lack basic interpersonal and social interaction skills

Why didn't you just ask me to clarrify instead of of assuming while also insulting? I never said or implied that investment in research and awareness campaigns should somehow stop just because I said that people don't seem to care about them after all we need to find ways to make people care MORE now don't we? I just suggested the government would be in a better position to ADD banning the foods in tandem. Sorry, if it ruins your whole, "Insult and degrade another human being to make an otherwise mistaken and therefore irrelevant point."

If you’d cared to put two seconds of thought into it or to take an informed opinion, you would’ve realised that to ban foods you need scientific support and that it takes scientific research to find healthier alternatives. You also would’ve learned that scientific agreement is not immutable e.g., trans fats were once considered healthier than saturated fats.

Sighs. The research is there to support the bans, foods already come with AMA warnings about how diets low in sugars can help prevent diabetes. The government just has to step up its game, which is what you previously suggested. I agreed, and offered a new suggestion of what the government can also do to add to what its currently doing.

So no, I’m afraid this discussion would’ve never gotten more meaningful than the fact that you’re a fucking fool wasting my time.

Glad you feel that way, its always great to feel valued by other humans, carry on being such a great person, we love your positive and supportive approach

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

No you just seem to lack basic interpersonal and social interaction skills

say whatever you want about his interpersonal skills, he's still dead on about your stoner logic though.

you may try to deny or distract from this fact by acting outraged, but it won't make it any less true, just more hilarious.