Abolishing traditional police and military forces

[littlelolligagged]

side item? If you honestly believe that is how its used, lets throw in an 8 pack of processed mystery meat hot dogs for 88 cents to cover the meat and turn it into the only dish.

Or hell, just jump straight to a big ol' can of pork and beans for under a buck.

Bag of dried beans, approximately a dollar.

Could probably pull off rice and beans for a family of 5 for under $5 for an entire week. Still healthier (and cheaper) than your mac n cheese and mystery meat hotdogs.

(edit: Either one sounds grim and depressing. What's our spending limit for groceries for the week here, anyway?)

[EyeKhan]

People choosing to eat the unhealthier option is nothing to do with price though and is moving to reality.

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that anyone who can afford McDonald's, Coca-Cola etc can't afford healthier options. Or take the healthier ones there even nowadays.

What do you say is the general cause for the obesity problem in the US? And do you think that dis-incentivising unhealthy supermarket, vending machine, and restaurant food with a fat tax and then using that money to incentivise (reduce the price of) healthier food would not help?

EDIT: I was listenting to a news program this morning that discussed recent research that suggests children tend to prefer the kind of food their mothers ate during pregnancy. The implication was that if you eat well while pregnant, the child will grow up to at least have a taste for those same healthy foods. Eat McDonalds while pregnant and you get the opposite result....

[RandBlade]

Laziness

[earthJoker]

The lack of physical activities is only one side of the coin, a bad died the other.

[RandBlade]

Laziness applies both to the general lack of activities/exercise as well as also people's diets. It's easier (although more expensive) to get a takeaway than make a fresh meal.

If I'm out and about early I love getting a Bacon, Egg and Cheese Bagel with a large Latte from the drive-thru.

I could cheaper and healthier make my own breakfast but I'd rather hit the snooze button.

[RandBlade]

what are you smoking?
No one is comparing soda to water but you. I'm comparing soda to juice because thats what they are marketed against. How many false juice drinks are out there?

Well you're being totally inconsistent then. You said that people had unhealthy diets because it was cheaper. Both lolli and I have demonstrated it is as cheap (if not cheaper) to have healthy diets and your response is "that's not marketed"? So now we need the healthy options not just to be cheaper and available, but marketed? Are people really that thick they can't turn a tap on and get a drink rather than buy Mountain Dew?

Soda is marketed as something to drink. I don't think I've ever seen a soda advert saying "don't buy juice buy this instead".

Its not marketed against juice any more than vodka is marketed against juice . Either way its irrelevant how its marketed, I could market a Nissan as an alternative to a Honda but it doesn't mean Nissans and Hondas are the only two motorvehicle manufacturers out there.

You've got this hardon for water, and its completely ignoring the problem here. Yes water is cheaper than soda, and juice. It doesn't mean people are purposely harming themselves by buying juice over water.
and the culture shift is the concept behind what tap water means. Its got nothing to do with soda or juice. Its the idea of bottle water, which is an entirely different problem.

There is no problem here. You're totally ignoring water just because it demolishes the myth that you're trying to propagate. You're trying to come up with a problem whereby people only drink soda as its cheaper - that is total and utter bullshit. You must realise now it was bullshit so why try and keep up this pretence?

this doesn't even make sense, even with your water tangent.

You said that water didn't have all the nutritional benefits when I said its cheaper, well neither does soda. So why should people be drinking soda over water? There is no reason except they want to.

and you are basing this conclusion solely on the concept of pottable water?

Yes obviously. When you're at home tonight at your dinner table I'm curious what drink you put next to your plate. Anything other than water fresh from the tap is more expensive and you've chosen to go with that because you want it - not because its all you can afford.

very keen observation, and irrelevant

No its not irrelevant. You're referring to soda as something people drink because its cheaper. That's just not true. Its something they buy because they want it, there are plenty of people who don't.

[Lebanese Dragon]

Isn't this an ironic time to post about abolishing the traditional police system in light of the recent riots in london.

[CitizenCain]

<blahblahsnipped>

I guess if you wanted to get away from paying taxes for health care you could move to.....huh. Where? Somalia? Afghanistan maybe?

GROW UP. Fast.

You know what, why don't you move to Somalia? You don't like paying for wars? Don't like Bush? Don't like the Patriot Act? Don't like the low level of science funding? Don't like the Tea Party? Don't like what the fuck ever else? Then why don't you piss off to so some 3rd world hell hole?

In fact, instead of ever complaining about or criticizing anything in America again, why don't you just move to Afghanistan? Because whatever it is, too bad, you can either deal with it, or move to some shithole you'd survive 7 minutes in. (To put your words to me more concisely.)

What is the law? <snip>

Well, no, not really. The law is the set of rules which we authorize the government to enforce with all necessary force, including deadly force. Every, single statute from serious ones, like prohibitions on murder, to ridiculous ones, like banning suspenders from being worn in public on Tuesdays (in whatever small town that one's from) are ultimately enforced with deadly force, if need be.

This should tell you why it's so absurd and ill-advised and evil, yes, evil, to pass laws over every little matter of personal choice. People's personal choices and private lives costing the system your kind forced on everyone too much? Proof that it was a god-awful idea in the first place, not an excuse to prevent people from choosing to eat transfat by the use of deadly force.

[GGT]

Isn't this an ironic time to post about abolishing the traditional police system in light of the recent riots in london.

Good point.

[EyeKhan]

Laziness

Seriously? That's all you got? You're old enough and worldy enough to know that nothing is that simple, especially phenomena involving half the people living in a country with the size and diversity of the United States. Talk about laziness.....

[EyeKhan]

GROW UP. Fast.

Your penchant for bathing in irony is - what? Insane? I can't believe this stuff used to piss me off so much. Eh, maybe it's the anti-depressant / anti-anxiety / alcohol mix that's got me indifferent to your Way these days.

You know what, why don't you move to Somalia?

I only suggested Somalia because its the only place I could think of where you would not have to pay taxes to fund basic humanitarian safety nets.

You don't like paying for wars? Don't like Bush? Don't like the Patriot Act? Don't like the low level of science funding? Don't like the Tea Party? Don't like what the fuck ever else? Then why don't you piss off to so some 3rd world hell hole?

The US has a fine tradition, or so it seems, of not being run by the lunacy we've had in GW, the Patriot Act and the TEA Party, as well as a fine tradition of support for all manner of basic science, and a fine tradition of not starting impressively stupid wars. (Vietnam excluded, of course). And much of the industrialized / civilized world has embraced the same principles, so finding a decent place to live that fits my ideals would hardly involve going to a third world 'hell hole.' However, the things YOU want in a government and a nation, if you can't get them in the US, would require you to move to a 3rd World 'Hell Hole.' That ought to tell you something, btw.

This should tell you why it's so absurd and ill-advised and evil, yes, evil, to pass laws over every little matter of personal choice.

I would never advocate such a thing. IMHO people ought to be able to do anything they want so long as they don't cause unreasonable harm to other people. And yes, reasonability can be defined, it's a very common legal concept.

In the case of health care, there are few people who can genuinely say they don't want their own, or their family's, injuries or illnesses treated without bankruptcy as a result. Now, lots of people could probably give a rat's ass about anyone's injuries or illnesses they don't know, but as it turns out, the only way to be sure your own medical needs are attended to also insures (ahem, ) that everyone's are attended to. That's because unless you are filthy rich, medical care has become so expensive that the average Joe Six Pack can't pay for treatments for injury/ illness out of pocket. Hence insurance.

Now, you argue that nobody should have to be in the insurance system, citing personal freedom and trivial requirements, and the plain fact is that young and healthy people, given that choice, would almost certainly tend to opt out. They'll roll the dice instead. The moral dilema of abandoning injured/ill opt-out-ees to their own devices aside, the truth is these folks are going to want to be treated, and likely will be, even though they have opted out. Furthermore, you know insurance can't work if only the people likely to need it pay into the system. So this is not a simple matter of personal freedom. It is a matter of real and unreasonable harm to everyone - you MUST pay into the system or there cannot be a system.

Furthermore, its a well observed fact that health care costs continuously rise faster than most everyone's ability to pay. So it is in everyone's interest to discourage behavior that increases one's need for health care services and encourage behavior that reduces it. I never said a word about banning anything, only using tax policy to encourage behavior that will reduce stress on the health care system. If you insist on smoking and eating Happy Meals, fine. You just have to pay a hefty cigarette and fat tax that will help offset the harm your stupidity does to the rest of the nation.

This is not about trivial laws banning trivial behavior with deadly force. Again you want an extreme black and white conflict to rage and rant at. Nothing is that simple and you either do, or should, know better.

[CitizenCain]

Your penchant for bathing in irony is - what? Insane? I can't believe this stuff used to piss me off so much. Eh, maybe it's the anti-depressant / anti-anxiety / alcohol mix that's got me indifferent to your Way these days.

Bit of an over-share there, dontcha think? By the by, it's almost a certainty that those prescriptions come with a warning against mixing them with alcohol... and as much as this revelation of your helps to explain, it's probably not in your best interests to mix booze and meds for mental disorders.

I only suggested Somalia because its the only place I could think of where you would not have to pay taxes to fund basic humanitarian safety nets. The US has a fine tradition, or so it seems, of not being run by the lunacy we've had in GW, the Patriot Act and the TEA Party, as well as a fine tradition of support for all manner of basic science, and a fine tradition of not starting impressively stupid wars. (Vietnam excluded, of course). And much of the industrialized / civilized world has embraced the same principles, so finding a decent place to live that fits my ideals would hardly involve going to a third world 'hell hole.' However, the things YOU want in a government and a nation, if you can't get them in the US, would require you to move to a 3rd World 'Hell Hole.' That ought to tell you something, btw.

In the first case, your assertion about American traditions is flat-out wrong. We didn't last even 10 years before we had a ban on "seditious" speech, and as much as you'd like it not to be the case, Bush Jr. is not some historical aberration or spawn of Satan, but is the norm, both in America and democratic politics in general. And we don't need to look past his successor, Bush v2.0 to see that.

As to the rest, right back at ya. You wanna apply it to social nets, well, it's even more applicable to expensive wars. Don't like it? Move to Somalia. And, actually, I might point out that if there's one thing the developed world agrees on more than even government-imposed entitlement programs, it's wars. So, using your metric, that just goes to show that there's something inherently moral about killing us some sandniggers, and your objections to doing so (and for bearing the cost) reveal your true colors as an immoral, freeloading coward who benefits from the hard work of the rest of us to keep the world safe from sand niggers while not doing anything to earn your safety. You should be ashamed.

I would never advocate such a thing. IMHO people ought to be able to do anything they want so long as they don't cause unreasonable harm to other people. And yes, reasonability can be defined, it's a very common legal concept.

Except that you advocate that very thing constantly. How do you think all the legislation you favor is enforced? Nor, I should point out, is it easy to think of anything more trivial than an individual taxpayer's 18 cent contribution to any given pork project.

In the case of health care, there are few people who can genuinely say they don't want their own, or their family's, injuries or illnesses treated without bankruptcy as a result. Now, lots of people could probably give a rat's ass about anyone's injuries or illnesses they don't know, but as it turns out, the only way to be sure your own medical needs are attended to also insures (ahem, ) that everyone's are attended to. That's because unless you are filthy rich, medical care has become so expensive that the average Joe Six Pack can't pay for treatments for injury/ illness out of pocket. Hence insurance.

There are also few people who can genuinely say they want don't want a Bentley, provided someone else pays for it. This is not a good reason to advocate granting everyone's wishes, and it's a particularly awful reason to try to justify making others pay for it. Might as well just legalize theft. Why else does anyone steal anything if not because they "want" whatever they're stealing? And, in fact, this policy you support is doubly evil because it actually harms those you claim to want to help by further raising the cost of health care.

Now, you argue that nobody should have to be in the insurance system, citing personal freedom and trivial requirements, and the plain fact is that young and healthy people, given that choice, would almost certainly tend to opt out. They'll roll the dice instead. The moral dilema of abandoning injured/ill opt-out-ees to their own devices aside, the truth is these folks are going to want to be treated, and likely will be, even though they have opted out. Furthermore, you know insurance can't work if only the people likely to need it pay into the system. So this is not a simple matter of personal freedom. It is a matter of real and unreasonable harm to everyone - you MUST pay into the system or there cannot be a system.

Not true at all. This only illustrates the fact that you can't get something for nothing, which is what your system tries to do. Not to mention, again, the argument you're using for wide-scale theft in support of a government-mandated health clusterfuck is even more applicable to the military interventions you oppose. So again, sorry, can't have your cake and eat it too. Pick one side - either you support forcing everyone to pay for everyone else's medical bill, and you support our military safaris to bag us some sandniggers, or you support neither. Or, I guess, option 3, you continue being all hypocritical. Gee what a surprise that you and the hundreds of millions (billions?) of evil men like you chose the hypocritical option - take what you want, for no reason other than you can, and to hell with the cost, because you satisfy your selfish desires by doing so. Hurrah! Democracy!

Furthermore, its a well observed fact that health care costs continuously rise faster than most everyone's ability to pay. So it is in everyone's interest to discourage behavior that increases one's need for health care services and encourage behavior that reduces it. I never said a word about banning anything, only using tax policy to encourage behavior that will reduce stress on the health care system. If you insist on smoking and eating Happy Meals, fine. You just have to pay a hefty cigarette and fat tax that will help offset the harm your stupidity does to the rest of the nation.

I don't smoke, jackass. And, in fact, I do all I can to help my fellow ex-smokers migrate to a tax-free alternative. It actually gives me great pleasure in watching the government programs that rely on taxing smokers suffer accelerating budgetary shortfalls, because technology triumphs over tyranny, yet again. And knowing that I'm helping to make that happen... soooo sweet. Like multiple orgasms, for the soul.

And on the subject of stupidity and health risks, we should be taxing you at punitive rates for your stupid, risky behavior of mixing alcohol and mind-altering medications. (From your first sentence there.) Seriously, it's just downright pathetic that you can't hold yourself to the same standards you want to impose on everyone else... though, not surprising, as that is the entire history of the progressive movement, when you really get down to it.

This is not about trivial laws banning trivial behavior with deadly force. Again you want an extreme black and white conflict to rage and rant at. Nothing is that simple and you either do, or should, know better.

Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. Justify it and rationalize it how ever you need to (and, apparently, also medicate yourself with powerful pharmaceuticals), but at the end of the day, you impose your wishes on millions of people who don't want what you want, forcibly extract the money to pay for those wishes from everyone else, and end up making the problem worse with your alleged solutions. That's tyranny (and you're even using the oldest argument in favor of tyranny that there is - "it's for your own good"). That's evil. And it doesn't matter how popular it is; morality is not about popularity. So, go ahead, pop s'more pills, chase 'em with s'more booze and engage in whatever semantic and logical gymnastics you need to... I can't really blame you, as I'd probably do a lot of the same things if I needed to escape the harsh reality about my fundamental morality.

[earthJoker]

Laziness applies both to the general lack of activities/exercise as well as also people's diets. It's easier (although more expensive) to get a takeaway than make a fresh meal.

You can eat healthy out too. It's just the choice of restaurant, I don't think that is laziness but preference.

[RandBlade]

You can eat healthy out too. It's just the choice of restaurant, I don't think that is laziness but preference.

Most eat-out options are not as healthy as the fresh home alternative if you're not paying attention though. You have to deliberately set out to look for the better options (which is more effort so why do that if lazy?)

EG as just one random example I drink regularly from Starbucks/Costa Coffee lately. At home I use semi-skimmed milk, which is I believe the most commonly-used type of milk here in the UK. I did not even realise until I paid more attention that the standard there is Full Fat Whole milk, although an option if you request it is skimmed. Semi is not an option. I now always ask for the skimmmed version when I go but if I was to forget to I'd automatically be given the full fat version as the default.

EDIT: Yes, semi-skimmed is the standard most popular type of milk: http://www.milk.co.uk/page.aspx?intPageID=43
EDIT2: Semi-skimmed represents 63% of sales of milk, whole milk is just 27% - so it is generally "healthier" to go for the default option at home, than the default option in the coffee shop.

[earthJoker]

Well here it's usual to see margarine next to the butter at the morning buffet.

[RandBlade]

Indeed at a buffet I'd expect to see the same here. If you get a mug of tea or coffee to go with the buffet, or a bowl of cereal, do you get 3 different variations of milk? Do you even know what type of milk you're being given?

[Flixy]

Most eat-out options are not as healthy as the fresh home alternative if you're not paying attention though. You have to deliberately set out to look for the better options (which is more effort so why do that if lazy?)

EG as just one random example I drink regularly from Starbucks/Costa Coffee lately. At home I use semi-skimmed milk, which is I believe the most commonly-used type of milk here in the UK. I did not even realise until I paid more attention that the standard there is Full Fat Whole milk, although an option if you request it is skimmed. Semi is not an option. I now always ask for the skimmmed version when I go but if I was to forget to I'd automatically be given the full fat version as the default.

EDIT: Yes, semi-skimmed is the standard most popular type of milk: http://www.milk.co.uk/page.aspx?intPageID=43
EDIT2: Semi-skimmed represents 63% of sales of milk, whole milk is just 27% - so it is generally "healthier" to go for the default option at home, than the default option in the coffee shop.

With coffee it's the default option to go with fatter milk, gives better foam, and tastes better (coffee milk is usually made from whole milk too). So most places where you get coffee, you'll get whole milk in/with your coffee. So that's a bit of a crappy complaint, because it may not be the standard milk overall, but it most definitely is the standard for anything that involves coffee. I mean, have you tried making cappuccino?

Indeed at a buffet I'd expect to see the same here. If you get a mug of tea or coffee to go with the buffet, or a bowl of cereal, do you get 3 different variations of milk? Do you even know what type of milk you're being given?

It's not exactly hard to taste.

[RandBlade]

With coffee it's the default option to go with fatter milk, gives better foam, and tastes better (coffee milk is usually made from whole milk too). So most places where you get coffee, you'll get whole milk in/with your coffee. So that's a bit of a crappy complaint, because it may not be the standard milk overall, but it most definitely is the standard for anything that involves coffee. I mean, have you tried making cappuccino?

Yes, I make cappuccino's at home. In fact, I'm you've got me tempted to go make one right now.

[Flixy]

Well, in my experience they get better with whole milk

(and feel free to make me, one, too!)