Consumer Choice. Two bottles of soda are pictured, one regular and one diet. Both are poison and contain diabetes and obesity from sugar or sugar substitutes.
Complete guide to a healthy diet:“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” One of the troubles is that people and circumstances vary so much: one person can smoke like a chimney and live to be 95. Another can contract lung cancer from second-hand smoke. One can survive an accident without seatbelt or airbag, another can die in spite of both in an accident not much different. Science can only tell us what the probable effects of something will be on the average person. We are all gambling with our lives and trying to play the odds. But what is true for any one individual has only a slight connection to what is true for the population as a whole, and vice versa. So, should policy makers act to do what it provably better for the population as a whole? Or leave each individual to choose and act according to his own personal degree of education, information, and wisdom, when it is demonstrable that people generally won’t act wisely, and peer pressure often makes them behave worse than if they were left to themselves? Libertarians say, let the weak in body or mind suffer the consequences of their weakness, it shouldn’t be anybody’s business but their own if they eat, drink, and smoke themselves into an early grave. Economists say that high rates of death and disease are a drag on the economy. Communitarians say that we are all in the same boat together and we should work together to help one another live better lives: the welfare of our brothers and sisters is very much our business. Libertarians can be callous, communitarians can be busibodies, and sometimes overreach (see: prohibition). But policy choices do make a difference. Seatbelt, helmet, and other safety laws have made automobiles and motorcycles safer, and tens of thousands of people are alive today who would be dead if the conditions of 1960 still prevailed. But perhaps not being penalized for riding your motorcycle bareheaded is too great a price to pay for those lives?
“Last year it was corn syrup that was evil, this year carbonated water.”I believe you’re thinking of high fructose corn syrup, and it’s been considered bad for your overall health for quite a few years.
That made me laugh. I’ve often said that modern advertising techniques could make s—- on a stick popular..“Tempus, edax rerum.” Time, consumer of all things.
Go and enjoy your favorite food, supplement, or junk food fad. What ever you do it will probably be wrong next year. I don’t know why anybody pays any attention to those health news tips on the five o’clock news. As the ancient Greek advised “Everything in moderation”
The “not” doesn’t belong in that sentence, and makes a hash of it. The point of the sentence is that: some people think that seatbelt and helmet laws are infringements of their rights. They would repeal them. They consider it no one’s business but their own. If people are wise, they say, they will take precautions, and if they aren’t, laws will not change their behavior. Yet it is demonstrable that when such laws were introduced, behavior did change, and lives were saved. Presumably, if the laws were repealed, people would go back to their old habits, and injury and fatality rates would rise back to their old levels. To me, the “repeal the safety laws” folks are saying that penalizing people for riding a motorcycle without a helmet, and thus infringing on their liberty, is too great a price to pay for saving the lives of those who are, after all, behaving recklessly. Does that make it clearer? Now I have a confession to make. I grew up never wearing a seatbelt. My brothers and I rolled around loose in the backseat of my parents’ car. I look at kids of five and six years of age now strapped into special car seats, forbidden to sit in front, wearing helmets on their tricycles, and I shake my head. Because I never had a bike helmet or wore a seatbelt as a kid, and neither I nor anyone I knew got hurt as a consequence, I can’t help wondering if all these precautions are really necessary. Even today, I often forget, or don’t bother to, belt up, much to the alarm of my conscientious spouse. Yet look at the studies and injury reports and you see that such restrictions exist for good reason. People never EXPECT to be involved in a collision, and when they happen, they happen in an instant, and without warning. That I DO know from personal experience. So, as much as I find many safety laws annoying, and probably unnecessary for the wisest among us (I’m not one of them), I would not have them repealed.
Before I was old enough to know what was going on, my family was out on a drive and found a guy who’d had an accident on his motorcycle. If I’m remembering it correctly (at second hand, of course), he didn’t make it. Nonetheless, when Dad needed transportation in the 60s, he got by for a couple of years on a Honda 90, and sometimes we’d ride behind him (one at a time).
When I met my wife-to-be, she was working for Social Security, often dealing with the families and benefits of brain-dead hulks of fierce individualists who couldn’t be troubled with motorcycle helmets.
Seems like there should be a third paragraph, bringing this to some clever rhetorical conclusion, but no. All I have is the two and a half anecdotes, and no conclusions.
My brother was riding in the left lane when a guy in the right lane decided to make a left-hand turn in front of him. My brother’s cycle was totaled: the gas tank was crushed between his knees on impact with the car’s rear door. My brother’s head went through the window. For several days he sounded like a 45 rpm record played at 33 rpm, if you know what I mean. If he had not been wearing a helmet …Motorcycle riders are generally careful; they know how vulnerable they are. Accidents are almost always someone else’s fault. That very fact should demonstrate to cyclers that they need protection. No matter how careful THEY are …
For many years I was hypoglycemic, and as the pancreas interprets “artificial sweeteners” as many times the same amount of actual sugar, and pumps out huge amounts of insulin, I had a couple bouts with insulin shock (far more likely to kill you than diabetic coma from a lack of insulin), so learned to always read labels on foods as well as drinks that might contain them, and NOT consume them. Later, was “pre-diabetic”, but took off 35 pounds, resumed adequate exercise, and that’s basically gone away.
Anyone riding a motorcycle without a helmet is an idiot, period. Same for not wearing a seat belt. Ever notice how often motorcycle racers and out racers crash, at very high speeds, and walk away? It’s because they use safety gear, which was then transferred to the civilian market, but not using such gear is just stupid. But now the auto companies are putting more distractions in the dash, instead of pushing for people to learn to actually DRIVE! Ah yes, driving while using a cell phone, or texting is dangerous and stupid, so let’s make it easier for the consumer to kill himself, and of course, sue if his/her keychain could be used as a club with all the junk on it, that turns off the ignition.
ruthkando over 9 years ago
I’m glad to see a reaction to the latest ubiquitous DIET COKE ad! It infuriates me to see it targeting young women.
Doughfoot over 9 years ago
Complete guide to a healthy diet:“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” One of the troubles is that people and circumstances vary so much: one person can smoke like a chimney and live to be 95. Another can contract lung cancer from second-hand smoke. One can survive an accident without seatbelt or airbag, another can die in spite of both in an accident not much different. Science can only tell us what the probable effects of something will be on the average person. We are all gambling with our lives and trying to play the odds. But what is true for any one individual has only a slight connection to what is true for the population as a whole, and vice versa. So, should policy makers act to do what it provably better for the population as a whole? Or leave each individual to choose and act according to his own personal degree of education, information, and wisdom, when it is demonstrable that people generally won’t act wisely, and peer pressure often makes them behave worse than if they were left to themselves? Libertarians say, let the weak in body or mind suffer the consequences of their weakness, it shouldn’t be anybody’s business but their own if they eat, drink, and smoke themselves into an early grave. Economists say that high rates of death and disease are a drag on the economy. Communitarians say that we are all in the same boat together and we should work together to help one another live better lives: the welfare of our brothers and sisters is very much our business. Libertarians can be callous, communitarians can be busibodies, and sometimes overreach (see: prohibition). But policy choices do make a difference. Seatbelt, helmet, and other safety laws have made automobiles and motorcycles safer, and tens of thousands of people are alive today who would be dead if the conditions of 1960 still prevailed. But perhaps not being penalized for riding your motorcycle bareheaded is too great a price to pay for those lives?
Jason Allen over 9 years ago
“Last year it was corn syrup that was evil, this year carbonated water.”I believe you’re thinking of high fructose corn syrup, and it’s been considered bad for your overall health for quite a few years.
Jason Allen over 9 years ago
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140917-sweeteners-artificial-blood-sugar-diabetes-health-ngfood/http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/how-some-artificial-sweeteners-might-lead-to-diabetes/1318/
emptc12 over 9 years ago
That made me laugh. I’ve often said that modern advertising techniques could make s—- on a stick popular..“Tempus, edax rerum.” Time, consumer of all things.
Theodore E. Lind Premium Member over 9 years ago
Go and enjoy your favorite food, supplement, or junk food fad. What ever you do it will probably be wrong next year. I don’t know why anybody pays any attention to those health news tips on the five o’clock news. As the ancient Greek advised “Everything in moderation”
Doughfoot over 9 years ago
The “not” doesn’t belong in that sentence, and makes a hash of it. The point of the sentence is that: some people think that seatbelt and helmet laws are infringements of their rights. They would repeal them. They consider it no one’s business but their own. If people are wise, they say, they will take precautions, and if they aren’t, laws will not change their behavior. Yet it is demonstrable that when such laws were introduced, behavior did change, and lives were saved. Presumably, if the laws were repealed, people would go back to their old habits, and injury and fatality rates would rise back to their old levels. To me, the “repeal the safety laws” folks are saying that penalizing people for riding a motorcycle without a helmet, and thus infringing on their liberty, is too great a price to pay for saving the lives of those who are, after all, behaving recklessly. Does that make it clearer? Now I have a confession to make. I grew up never wearing a seatbelt. My brothers and I rolled around loose in the backseat of my parents’ car. I look at kids of five and six years of age now strapped into special car seats, forbidden to sit in front, wearing helmets on their tricycles, and I shake my head. Because I never had a bike helmet or wore a seatbelt as a kid, and neither I nor anyone I knew got hurt as a consequence, I can’t help wondering if all these precautions are really necessary. Even today, I often forget, or don’t bother to, belt up, much to the alarm of my conscientious spouse. Yet look at the studies and injury reports and you see that such restrictions exist for good reason. People never EXPECT to be involved in a collision, and when they happen, they happen in an instant, and without warning. That I DO know from personal experience. So, as much as I find many safety laws annoying, and probably unnecessary for the wisest among us (I’m not one of them), I would not have them repealed.
Kip W over 9 years ago
Before I was old enough to know what was going on, my family was out on a drive and found a guy who’d had an accident on his motorcycle. If I’m remembering it correctly (at second hand, of course), he didn’t make it. Nonetheless, when Dad needed transportation in the 60s, he got by for a couple of years on a Honda 90, and sometimes we’d ride behind him (one at a time).
When I met my wife-to-be, she was working for Social Security, often dealing with the families and benefits of brain-dead hulks of fierce individualists who couldn’t be troubled with motorcycle helmets.
Seems like there should be a third paragraph, bringing this to some clever rhetorical conclusion, but no. All I have is the two and a half anecdotes, and no conclusions.
Doughfoot over 9 years ago
My brother was riding in the left lane when a guy in the right lane decided to make a left-hand turn in front of him. My brother’s cycle was totaled: the gas tank was crushed between his knees on impact with the car’s rear door. My brother’s head went through the window. For several days he sounded like a 45 rpm record played at 33 rpm, if you know what I mean. If he had not been wearing a helmet …Motorcycle riders are generally careful; they know how vulnerable they are. Accidents are almost always someone else’s fault. That very fact should demonstrate to cyclers that they need protection. No matter how careful THEY are …
Dtroutma over 9 years ago
For many years I was hypoglycemic, and as the pancreas interprets “artificial sweeteners” as many times the same amount of actual sugar, and pumps out huge amounts of insulin, I had a couple bouts with insulin shock (far more likely to kill you than diabetic coma from a lack of insulin), so learned to always read labels on foods as well as drinks that might contain them, and NOT consume them. Later, was “pre-diabetic”, but took off 35 pounds, resumed adequate exercise, and that’s basically gone away.
Anyone riding a motorcycle without a helmet is an idiot, period. Same for not wearing a seat belt. Ever notice how often motorcycle racers and out racers crash, at very high speeds, and walk away? It’s because they use safety gear, which was then transferred to the civilian market, but not using such gear is just stupid. But now the auto companies are putting more distractions in the dash, instead of pushing for people to learn to actually DRIVE! Ah yes, driving while using a cell phone, or texting is dangerous and stupid, so let’s make it easier for the consumer to kill himself, and of course, sue if his/her keychain could be used as a club with all the junk on it, that turns off the ignition.
Doughfoot over 9 years ago
He’s fine now. Hale and heart 65 and looking ten years younger.
vwaters over 9 years ago
Nobody gets out of here alive!