True, but like I said before... people don't really know what they're getting themselves into.
They do. All I have to say is that this burger is not healthy at all. In fact they have the internet in their hands. No excuse. It should be left up to the consumer to decide. Everybody does not exceed the size of a 16oz soda.
I can drive 10 miles down my nearest highway and I will see all fast food restaraunts, with the exception of a few different local restaraunts. The options that are provided to our communities aren't good.
That doesn't help your case. You are in favor for the state to act as am aggressor and make decision for the public as if we were a mere simulation. Each person is born with inalienable rights in America. Liberty is a right found universally. It is the ability to make choices. Placing restrictions on that will bring the nation into a parental state. This statement you have provided does not help your case.
Do you own a hybrid vehicle
No. Our family either drives an electric vehicle or rides a bike so what is your point? We choose to because we have the liberty to. Are you going to be in favor of restrictions on that as well? Do you wish to know the name of my car?
Do you know many people who do?
In fact I do. Every since my sister became so environmentally oriented we noticed more and more hybrid vehicle being driven. Many Prii (plural for multiple prius) , many Nissan Leafs, etc.
actually don't know anyone who owns a hybrid. The fact of the matter is, you could ride a bike but driving is easier. You could pack your lunch, but buying a dollar cheeseburger is easier. Fast food chains feed off of our laziness and impatience.
That is their marketing strategy. Are you going to kill a business that makes money off of that because people made bad decisions? Let's tell Sony that they must hold back the PS4 because kids will be distracted from their homework. They will not care. They are a business. If you make that poor decision thats on you. You make the choice. Not the business.
But they use certain techniques to lure in the customer. Like for example, they use the color red to stimulate your appetite. Think of how many fast food restaurants have the color red in their logo. Techniques like this are good for business but bad for the customers, because they're actually messing with your brain. Before you know it, you're eating a meal that contains "putty and cosmetic petrochemicals".
Marketing is marketing. Resistance to marketing is always an option. If you choose to eat something that is your right.
Did you know that they do not have to legally list trans-fats if the food contains less than 0.5 grams of it? Trans-fats aren't healthy.
I am aware. However, you are still placing restrictions on the liberties of the populace and the company. The state has no business doing so.
Should we ban all soda because water is better? Should we ban cigarettes because not smoking is so much better? Should we ban alcohol because it is harmful? Should we ban hamburgers because turkey burgers are better? Should we ban fried foods because baked foods are better? No. All of these are options selectable by voluntary action by the individual. The state is simply acting as an aggressor and trying to control the populace.
You don't think the people who pollute the air know what they're doing? Driving your car is voluntary. Just like fast food, your positive options are very limited.
Your initial statement of air pollution focused on companies air pollution. Not the pollution of the public. Cars are being made better and better anyways. That is not a problem.
You do realize, that in a way, the fast food industry is basically killing their customers, right?
Not at all. The choice is up to the consumer not the producer.
They abuse our trust.
How? They make a product and people purchase it with the foreknowledge of it's affects. It does not involuntarily affect us. It is a voluntary action.
the government tried to cut down the amount of pollution, would you argue that it is the deprivation of choice to not allow a company to pollute the air?
That is completely different. Air pollution would be involuntary
The public would not want it. However, with soda that is a voluntary purchase which the state should not interfere in.
Obesity is steadily rising.
That is the fault of the people. Not the fast food companies. They do not force us to purchase their products. We choose. It is our right to choose.
It's clear that neither the fast food chains nor the customer's are going to try and find a remedy for this issue, so the government needs to step in.
That is absolutely false. Fast food companies are already finding methods to make their food healthier. Places like subway for example always advertise the healthy quality of their food. At the same time many people within the public exercise and their are many people selling exercise videos. The state has no business regulating what a person may eat or drink unless it harms more people than the individual. People can always choose to exercise of not. People cannot choose to remove pollution from the air. That is the difference. Air pollution is not something the population causes. Obesity, in most cases, is. It is a voluntary thing. Air pollution is in voluntary.
I understand you. However, you are missing the critical point in mu argument. It is the deprivation over the liberty of personal and individual choice. The state is using coercion to force the public to drink in a manner it deems fit. Simply because the state thinks people show drink to their liking doesn't mean that we must. It impede your liberty to purchase.
It is the deprivation of liberty. Taking away the choices that the state has no business to. A man should be able to voluntarily purchase a soda larger than 16oz from any local provider he deems fit and well enough to suit his demands. When that option is taken away you are using coercion to control the populace's body types to which the populace should has total control of as long as they only control their own individual bodies. The state has no business intervening in business affairs and the health of the public if the public wishes to do this to themselves.
This is just another example of the state invading the right of individual liberty over choice. There is no need to do so. This may even hinder sales for companies that profit from selling large sodas. The state is just being a nanny.
So does that mean yes for you look at a girls ass in yoga pants? Alright. What about the other two questions?
Why am I not on top like a queen bitch? Why the fuck am I on the bottom?
If you make a serious debate we will be serious. If you make a semi serious debate we will be semi serious.
Lol I didn't mind. I tried it with Lizzie's first. Once hers worked I started doing it with mines.
Go with what you feel. Debate well and be funny and you will be liked. Some users will like you automatically though.
Oh I do. It's as funny as hell when you look at their faces.
Yep. I use it too much. I got that waterproof G4 so I trick my friends by tossing it in their pool.
Is that a candle in the background? I think I may want that candle.
Hahahahaha wow now that would be fucking hilarious. Jealous of a girls ass? Lol.
Big tits or small tits?
Big booty or small booty?
Do you ever look at a girls ass when she wears yoga pants?
Won't there be a lot of health issues anyways with the child?
I don't think medicine can dull out the pain from a baby of that size.
