It's... unfortunate that R's tied themselves so strongly to the anti-abortion thing. Compared to a Big Mac, a baby would be a lot more significant. *sigh*
"Research has shown that people will change eating habits when different foods are offered, but cost is a key factor in poor communities, said Kelly D. Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity." ^ Anyway, NYC seems to have a more reasonable response to this: they had some green initiative, like opening a farmers market in Harlem, encouraging food co-ops, etc to try to get the affordable healthy food into the community. (Not that it's a panacea, sure, but def more constructive than just banning things, and avoids that slippery slope the blogger's afraid of.)
Whoever posted that is a little short-sighted. I am pro-choice, but to defend the opposing faction, pro-lifers are obviously not concerned about the mother's body itself, but they want to protect what they consider to be a human life living inside of her
( ... )
Oh, I guess the discussion is going on over here instead.
(copy-pasta'd from facebook)
Ignoring the false dilemma in paragraph one, it has been demonstrated that people with smaller incomes eat more poorly in terms of nutrition per calorie than those with higher incomes. The cause for this has yet to be completely clarified, but proposed theories include poor education coupled with lack of convenient, local, and affordable good food choices. So yes, they are technically removing choice, but then again, depending on the make-up of the neighborhood, food choice may not have properly existed in the first place.
The very concept of only giving people 'proper choice' is completely antithetical to what I believe. People should be allowed to shoot heroine into their eyeballs if they see fit. Not only because you or I have no right to tell people what to do with their bodies, but also because attempts to remove this 'improper' choice ends up causing more problems than it solves.
The only caveat is this: If you shoot heroine into your eyeball, don't expect me to solve all your problems you've caused by doing that.
You get to make your choices, you get to bear the burdens of your choices.
They aren't removing the 'improper choice' in this case; the restaurants in question aren't being forced out. The city is merely (attempting to) foster an environment that will allow the growth of more choice in their locality.
They certainly are removing 'improper choice'. Just because they didn't shut down all the fast food restaurants doesn't mean what they are doing is wrong
( ... )
I'm a little bit confused here why they're talking about California like its the only place that passes dumb laws and allows abortions. As for the fast food restaurants, they only recently passed the transfat law, however due to the diligence of concerned citzens, cities have been banning its use in restaurants and even major food makers have been removing it from their products, go to the grocery store and tell me you can't find several different food companies touting right on the front of their products no transfat
( ... )
It is a fluffy law that doesn't mean shit. If you read the article closely, they are banning fast food places with drive-thrus or no tables. So you can serve bars of pure trans fat at a walk in place and it's a-ok
( ... )
Comments 20
"Research has shown that people will change eating habits when different foods are offered, but cost is a key factor in poor communities, said Kelly D. Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity."
^ Anyway, NYC seems to have a more reasonable response to this: they had some green initiative, like opening a farmers market in Harlem, encouraging food co-ops, etc to try to get the affordable healthy food into the community. (Not that it's a panacea, sure, but def more constructive than just banning things, and avoids that slippery slope the blogger's afraid of.)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
He's fucking crazy, I think he might do it.
Reply
(copy-pasta'd from facebook)
Ignoring the false dilemma in paragraph one, it has been demonstrated that people with smaller incomes eat more poorly in terms of nutrition per calorie than those with higher incomes. The cause for this has yet to be completely clarified, but proposed theories include poor education coupled with lack of convenient, local, and affordable good food choices. So yes, they are technically removing choice, but then again, depending on the make-up of the neighborhood, food choice may not have properly existed in the first place.
Reply
The only caveat is this: If you shoot heroine into your eyeball, don't expect me to solve all your problems you've caused by doing that.
You get to make your choices, you get to bear the burdens of your choices.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment