True enough it's the point of gubmint to promote welfare of citizens, no matter how hard that is to understand for the dumbest people on earth.
It's okay to kill your kid prior to birth, but if you let him eat a little bit of junk food it's a crisis and big government needs to step in.
True enough it's the point of gubmint to promote welfare of citizens, no matter how hard that is to understand for the dumbest people on earth.
It's discouraging that you want to frame the discussion that way, still adding nothing but vile bile. It's idiotic to think science can't inform this issue, that's not what I'm saying at all. But you aren't interested in substance. At all.Pretty revealing you & peers never deny the substance of what makes conservatives look bad, only whine about the resulting butthurt. I mean, just look at the likeness:
How much welfare can you enjoy if you are dead?
It's discouraging that you want to frame the discussion that way, still adding nothing but vile bile. It's idiotic to think science can't inform this issue, that's not what I'm saying at all. But you aren't interested in substance. At all.
Thanks for demonstrate your sorts will forever be too dumb to grasp why gubmint might be concerned about health of citizens.
Sorry, but death is the ultimate consequence of poor health, is it not? If the government isn't allowed to step in and stop death, how are you justifying that they should be allowed to take fat kids away from their parents?
Think before you reply, please. If you can.
It's simply a fact that you're just reiterating the "unsettle science" argument from climate/evolution matters. Hardly my fault it makes you look dumb as every other degen.
Unborn fetuses aren't citizens. Also please don't make the mistake of assuming anyone has ever accused you of being thoughtful.
The fact is that there is plenty of science out there that shows that much of the the accepted nutritional wisdom needs more questioning. This has absolutely nothing to do with climate change, it's an underhanded and dishonest technique to attempt to conflate the two.It's simply a fact that you're just reiterating the "unsettle science" argument from climate/evolution matters. Hardly my fault it makes you look dumb as every other degen.
The fact is that there is plenty of science out there that shows that much of the the accepted nutritional wisdom needs more questioning. This has absolutely nothing to do with climate change, it's an underhanded and dishonest technique to attempt to conflate the two.
Do you even realize that the FDA just had a massive 180 on whether fats and salts are bad for you? After demonizing them for 50 years suddenly salt and fat is good for you again.
When they have admitted being wrong in the recent past, only an idiot would claim the science is settled.
Ah, so it's perfectly okay to murder and kill as long as they aren't citizens. Thanks for clarifying your stance.
Odd, you seemed to have a different viewpoint when we were on the subject of non-citizens who were illegal immigrants.
I don't know anything about science outside of reciting some right wing blog but that doesn't matter as long as it obstructs acting on the best consensus available
I don't have any real arguments I just play semantic games
You already said everything that needed to be said.
Because you make it ludicrously obvious that you are only interested in discrediting those you feel are a threat to your ideology, it's transparent and tiresome. The worst part is that your peers don't distance themselves from your bad behavior.How so?
Because you make it ludicrously obvious that you are only interested in discrediting those you feel are a threat to your ideology, it's transparent and tiresome. The worst part is that your peers don't distance themselves from your bad behavior.
Seriously, though, it is hilariously tragic that the suggestion that government-funded school lunches should be healthy was such a controversial idea. People on the right act as if Michelle Obama was personally seasoning their children's food with some sort of mind control drug.
No it's not. You're just a troll, and a shitty one at that. This last one doesn't even make any sense. How about actually adding something to the discussion instead of derailing every thread you enter?Pretty good parrot of basically every degenerate science denial talking point.
No it's not. You're just a troll, and a shitty one at that. This last one doesn't even make any sense. How about actually adding something to the discussion instead of derailing every thread you enter?
http://thehill.com/regulation/healthcare/331148-usda-to-ease-school-meal-standards
We need to let the market decide whether children get hypertension and diabetes or not.
Um, again, no. Let me assert here that characterizing anything outside mainstream dogma as "anti-science" can produce, in effect, a kind of chilling effect that is in itself profoundly anti-science. The medical profession in particular is very hidebound, physicians go against the orthodoxy at the risk of their careers. This is good in some ways, these are human lives they are playing with, after all. But it also make poor practices that much harder to root out. I'm pro cutting-edge science and generally anti-orthodoxy, but I don't really expect you to accept that.It's pretty easy to see that you basically read the same sources as Chiropteran et al due to a common ideology of self-interested ignorance, which "says everything that needed to be said".
As some life advice I could only recommend a better choice of company.
In Britain after the WW, the food rationing approved by nutritionists ended and rickets reappeared in children again. We feed our children crap.
Look fucko...if the govt says pizza is a vegetable, then the kids are eating healthy. End of story.Look at it this way: If enough people die of heart disease in their 50's, then we won't have to worry about those pesky Social Security and Medicare funding problems.
Seriously, though, it is hilariously tragic that the suggestion that government-funded school lunches should be healthy was such a controversial idea. People on the right act as if Michelle Obama was personally seasoning their children's food with some sort of mind control drug. That's some Alex Jones-level of crazy.
It's OK to drug test people on welfare, but the government better not feed their children something healthier than pizza in the school lunch that it's paying for.
Man, I so miss those awesome sausage, mozzarella and white cheddar rectangular pizzas served for lunch back in middle school. Nowhere near as greasy, and tasted 100x better than the hexagonal ones that were topped with orange 'cheese'.Look fucko...if the govt says pizza is a vegetable, then the kids are eating healthy. End of story.
Um, again, no. Let me assert here that characterizing anything outside mainstream dogma as "anti-science" can produce, in effect, a kind of chilling effect that is in itself profoundly anti-science. The medical profession in particular is very hidebound, physicians go against the orthodoxy at the risk of their careers. This is good in some ways, these are human lives they are playing with, after all. But it also make poor practices that much harder to root out. I'm pro cutting-edge science and generally anti-orthodoxy, but I don't really expect you to accept that.