dimreepr

I have no doubts that starvation kills children but that’s only one side of your claim. “Obesity only kills the aged” I also need a citation for this claim, along with another that supports: “More live-years are lost.”

Are you sure about that? I look forward to reading your citations. edit. whatever the source.

On top of the advertising are the outright lies, like promoting lean products as healthy; when a product that contains half the fat, in order to make it palatable, also contains twice the sugar. Also the label, due to lobbying, displays a percentage of recommended daily intake for everything other than sugar (ergo their trying to hoodwink).

So it’s the addicts fault? Their moral fortitude is the problem rather than the advertising designed to get them hooked early and once hooked surround them with more advertising and product placement. In a free bar, they can't escape, how many alcoholics do you think would stay sober? http://metro.co.uk/2011/09/22/world-now-has-more-people-dying-from-obesity-than-malnutrition-160264/ http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/news/article3630642.ece It maybe unclear, that sugar is addictive, in your terms but it does seem a reasonable explanation for the obesity epidemic. http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781134365654_sample_535837.pdf http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272523109000471 http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/WeightManagement/Obesity/Understanding-the-American-Obesity-Epidemic_UCM_461650_Article.jsp http://www.theobesityepidemic.org/

On reflection/hindsight I realise the topic title was a mistake (my apologies), since my intention has been neatly captioned by iNow (thank you), a more appropriate title maybe “More people die from obesity than starvation”. I struggle to understand why people are willing to allow industry to buy rewrites to important government documents like the McGovern report or be allowed to self regulate when, we all know, nothing will change (other than more child targeted adverts)?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9742960/Obesity-killing-three-times-as-many-as-malnutrition.html http://metro.co.uk/2011/09/22/world-now-has-more-people-dying-from-obesity-than-malnutrition-160264/ https://fullfact.org/factchecks/first_year_that_more_people_worldwide_died_obesity_malnutrition-28558 http://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reasons-why-sugar-is-bad/

That may well be true but it doesn’t stop me thinking that way; I therefore maintain my position. We think what we think because we think it, whatever the reason; we act on that thinking for a reason and that’s the difference.

“Sugar is a dose dependant chronic hepato toxin” so fuel yes but only in the right amount. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/05/07/the-sweetener-that-is-more-dangerous-than-alcohol.aspx http://imgur.com/gallery/qnMLBt2 I’m not trying too (someone else did) I just use it for emphasis.

Well when I see a pretty shapely young lady, I may think, wouldn’t it be great if I could have sexual congress with her without the moral and legal consequences? That doesn’t mean I would, even with her insistence, because any reasonable person understands the moral imperative to resist, not mentioning the legal consequences. Unvirtuous isn’t necessarily the antipode of virtuous. IOW my actions are virtuous whilst my thoughts, sometimes even disgusts me “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”; honesty with others is but a mask and meaningless but honesty with yourself is crucial.

A thought isn’t unvirtuous acting on the thought certainly is.

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2015/02/26/study-sugar-is-eight-times-more-addictive-than-cocaine/ And just, if not more, dangerous to our health, yet one is illegal and the other is freely advertised/promoted ubiquitously throughout the world. Is the mighty dollar really so powerful as to seduce the world with such a drug and are we all equally culpable; given our collective need to accumulate imagined wealth?

Fair point. I think it is the whole point but I don’t think the cheerleaders mind, given the clothes girls of this age choose to wear, and even enjoy that kind of sexual attention (don’t we all) it only becomes a problem when the attention is inappropriate.

You surely aren’t trying to suggest the leotard has no sexual aspect? Does not the male version exaggerate maleness?

Whilst I realise there’s an extra layer of titillation, with the short skirts, vies-a-vie the school girl look; a gymnast’s clothing could easily be less titillating, it’s not like the hips aren’t exaggerated with the design of most leotards. If the girls get pleasure from their “sport” I say good luck to them; I’m sure some women got pleasure from looking at some of the guys in my rugby team.

You seem to make a habit of missing the point; do you really imagine you’ll see them coming?

“Your paranoid fantasies about fighting a rebellion against a theoretical future fascist government takeover” The arguments moot anyway, given that any authoritarian government, worth its salt, will seek out and eliminate any potential threat to its governance.

Not in a thread entitled "every day, 20 US children hospitalized w/Gun injury (6% die)". Think again.

What about this question? Worth a try I suppose. I haven’t given away my rights; I have merely accepted my right to a firearm comes with a condition that means a gun isn’t just given to people that are unable, through mental illness or ignorance, to comprehend the dangers. Your inability to come to terms with the above just shows how selfish you are; you’d rather people die than submit to a simple test, your shame is pitiable, whereas I wear your pity with pride. I have little doubt you’ll fail to understand that, so yet another reason for my pity.

What about the right of today’s dead child, to life? America may be a developed nation but while this blatant disregard for human life is not addressed, it can’t call itself a civilised nation. If you can’t see that the right to life trumps your right to a gun, I pity you.

Care to answer my question?

Recent modern rulings that are based on an ancient document and a general refusal to believe an amendment can be amended (a logical fallacy BTW); also noted is the lack of a significant response to my accusation of your selfishness in maintaining this, obviously (to the outside world), ridicules argument.

A country where the culture is heavily influenced by a media pushing the idea that revenge is good and good and bad are black and white with no grey and with almost free access to fire arms for all. With that considered I think the citizenry should be congratulated, for their basic decency, because the death toll could be so much higher. Just a thought.

This zealous adherence to words written down centuries ago, for selfish reasons and at the expense of others suffering, reminds me of something... hmmm... what could it be? I know I’ll kick myself. Now I remember, doh , it's a religious extremist.

So what is it you fear about them exactly, the cost, the need to be accurate (thus not shooting random strangers) or, since your level of ignorance seems roughly equal to your level of compassion, the knowledge (of what direction is safe)? Maybe you should read the topic title again and pray your attitude doesn’t mean you have to mourn one of your own children (family or friend).

I do, certainly in terms of your collective responsibility due to the fact that you’re arguing to maintain the current system. So why are you afraid of a test to show you’re as competent as you think you are. This argument is scraping the bottom of the barrel, isn’t it, but so what? You can’t legislate against mental breakdown but you can legislate to restrict the number of guns in the system and thus limit the damage when they do go postal. Again so what? That can be changed. TBH I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this, especially as these kind of events don’t tend to happen in England. Ha ha ha do you really think a few lessons on responsible gun ownership make people more dangerous?