-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Busy Execs now dining at McDonalds
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Capt Caveman
Lifer
😕 Your immune system allowed you to contract it. You've incurred higher health costs than me. I've never been hospitalized. What's your definition of health? Immune system? Blood profile (cholesterol, triglycerides, etc), blood pressure, resting heart rate, bmi, athletic accomplishments (marathons run, NORBA MTB racer position, etc)?
moshquerade
No Lifer
somebody is toying with karma. . .
IHateMyJob2004
Lifer
Because McDonalds doesn't have salads? They also serve wraps I think. And a chicken sandwich isn't the end of the world.
I get a kick out of people that think cold cut sandwiches are so healthy (loaded with salt)
InflatableBuddha
Diamond Member
Of course McDonalds has salads and wraps. These are often healthier options, but for the most part, these items are more expensive items than the cheeseburgers and Big Macs. This is the crux of my argument - the healthier foods cost more, so people are disinclined to purchase them.
Any of these foods (salads, burgers, sandwiches) can be healthy or unhealthy, depending on their ingredients - creamy dressings, breaded vs. grilled chicken, mayo, etc. I am aware of the high levels of sodium and nitrates in cold cuts, so I avoid them.
EMPshockwave82
Diamond Member
Clearly you've never had the taste for something ruined by a good bout of vomiting...
There are several things I wont eat anymore because I had the pleasure of throwing it back up later that day and still seeing it whole. Kinda ruins the drive to eat it again.
InflatableBuddha
Diamond Member
Nope. But thanks for playing.
What I am proposing does not restrict people's freedoms. Again, the choices are still there. People should be able to eat what they want, smoke and consume whatever drugs they want, drive the type of vehicle they want, etc. But when it has a negative impact on me and others (through the health care system, etc.) that's when people need to be responsible for the costs of their actions.
I'm not talking about morality. The types of media people choose to consume doesn't cost me socially or economically, so there is no need for restrictions.
I'm talking about actions which have direct and indirect economic and social costs on me and others. That is the difference between actions such as eating junk food versus sexuality.
I have already explained why junk food is a negative externality. In sum, it causes harm to those who consume it, increasing the potential for diseases which cause costs to the economy through increased health care needs and lost work productivity. There is no "burger condom" which protects you when you eat a Big Mac.
Sexuality is not a negative externality. This is because there is the potential for education and protection to limit harmful outcomes. When people are educated about the risks of their activities and take measures to protect themselves, they can still engage in sexual activities they choose. It's like wearing a seatbelt when you drive your car.
The religious right seeks to restrict sexual activity on moral grounds. Bullshit, I say. Wrap it properly and the risk of STI transmission is almost eliminated.
By bringing up morality, you are derailing the debate. I am discussing the impact of economic and social costs, which you apparently have no counterpoints for.
ViviTheMage
Lifer
GF likes McDonalds 1$ coffee actually, saving some good money by just getting that.
Amused
Elite Member
Again you fail. When the goverenment places economic penalties on products it deems "bad" you lose freedom. It may just be economic freedom, but you still lose freedom.
Again, "cost to society" and "think of the children" are going to wind up being the marching tune to which we lose our freedoms.
One sexual encounter can get you an STD. But I can eat a Big Mac a week for life and never suffer.
Shall we tax sex too?
It's funny how you try and twist all around to make distinctions between the two when there is NONE. Both seek to save you from yourself and save society from your "irresponsibility" or from yourself.
The "morality" behind the RR's sex controls is based on the SAME argument you use for food. The "cost to society."
Nice try, but serious failure.
Amused
Elite Member
InflatableBuddha,
What you are not understanding here is your own personal bias.
You want to tax what YOU deem unhealthy and risks you do not take.
Well, I guarantee there are risks you DO take that someone else could tax.
Again, EVERYONE takes risks in their lives. Be it food, sports, or chemicals. We ALL do. What you may think is a reasonable risk, I may not because I don't do that. So do I get to tax you more for that activity?
Of course not.
You find "unhealthy" foods an unreasonable risk because you're a health food fanatic. Fine. But that does not give you a right to tax others for eating those foods simply because of "cost to society" when you are not willing to pay for the risks you take.
I used sex as an example because it is a fact that pre/extramarital sex IS linked to higher health-care costs. Yet you argue against that idea because, well, you LIKE sex.
Try, just for a minute to see past your own bias here and realize that EVERYONE takes risks and just because you don't take a risk, doesn't mean that risk is unreasonable and should be taxed/limited/banned.
What you are not understanding here is your own personal bias.
You want to tax what YOU deem unhealthy and risks you do not take.
Well, I guarantee there are risks you DO take that someone else could tax.
Again, EVERYONE takes risks in their lives. Be it food, sports, or chemicals. We ALL do. What you may think is a reasonable risk, I may not because I don't do that. So do I get to tax you more for that activity?
Of course not.
You find "unhealthy" foods an unreasonable risk because you're a health food fanatic. Fine. But that does not give you a right to tax others for eating those foods simply because of "cost to society" when you are not willing to pay for the risks you take.
I used sex as an example because it is a fact that pre/extramarital sex IS linked to higher health-care costs. Yet you argue against that idea because, well, you LIKE sex.
Try, just for a minute to see past your own bias here and realize that EVERYONE takes risks and just because you don't take a risk, doesn't mean that risk is unreasonable and should be taxed/limited/banned.
meltdown75
Lifer
Amused always wins the McD's threads. if you hang around here long enough you realize that 😛
InflatableBuddha
Diamond Member
Actually, it's not the government who should determine which products or activities are harmful on a macro scale, although you're correct that they would implement the taxes. I would defer to peer-reviewed scientific studies to determine which products and activities are harmful, how they are harmful, and to what degree. Measured quantifiably, not based on ambiguous political definitions of morality.
You may lose some economic freedom, but think of the upsides. For example, say I introduce a carbon tax which impacts highly polluting vehicles. It will encourage businesses to adapt by producing less polluting vehicles with similar levels of utility. The wealthy minority who buy Ferraris won't give a shit because they can still easily afford those vehicles, so they will continue to buy them. But for the rest of us, we will have a shift to cleaner vehicles which still meet our needs.
These are costs to society, and I'm glad that people are finally starting to recognize them as such. But please stop with the "think of the children" propaganda. This is not about the children. This is about lessening negative impacts on everybody.
Of course this is true, but you're referring the outlying anomalies. The statistical probability is that it takes many sexual encounters, without protection, to be infected with an STI. Statistically, someone who eats Big Macs (or other junk food) regularly, is at an increased risk for certain diseases, such as heart disease and hypertension.
Calculations would consider the probability of harm and the actual economic cost of that harm, when assessing a reasonable taxation rate for something like junk food.
Impossible to enforce taxation on what occurs in one's home/car/local park etc. This would only be possible with legalized prostitution.
I am for legalized prostitution in order to provide safer working conditions for sex workers, but it should not be taxed. It should be considered an occupation, like any other.
This is another topic entirely.
The RR's morality is based on politics and propaganda. In none of my posts am I arguing for a political or moral approach for these taxes. I am basing my arguments on economics and science, and choosing whatever costs society the least.
Again, how are you drawing any similarities? Politics and morality != Economics and science.
InflatableBuddha
Diamond Member
Amused,
I appreciate your viewpoints, but I think we're arguing using different metrics.
I absolutely agree with you that we all take risks in life, myself included. Our experiences and personalities determine what each one of us thinks is an acceptable risk.
But outside of our personal biases of what is acceptable and unacceptable, it is possible to measure how much risk is involved in many activities. It is also possible to measure the economic costs if an activity results in an undesirable outcome.
I don't agree with using sex as an example because there are steps you can take to mitigate the risk and still perform the activity.
Similarly, skydiving scares me, but I wouldn't stop anyone else from doing it. In fact, it's a relatively safe activity if you do it with a licensed instructor and proper equipment.
I think junk food is different because as I mentioned before, you can't mitigate the risks if you eat it. It is as it is. If you want to eat it, fine, but you need to be aware of the risks.
I wouldn't want to stop people from smoking, since they have a right to choose that, even if I don't. But it is correct that they should pay more through increased insurance costs because their activity is scientifically demonstrated to be at higher risk.
Amused
Elite Member
Again, you don't want your bull gored, but you want to gore the bulls of others.
Premarital sex is, scientifically demonstrated to increase healthcare costs. It can be mitigated through taking precautions JUST AS the risk of "unhealthy food" can be mitigated by moderation.
Quite simply, you are wrong. You are trying to socially engineer people's behavior through rule of law using the "cost to society" argument. If it's used against something you enjoy, it's anti freedom. If it's used against something you don't approve of, it should be taxed/limited.
Seriously. Your bias is glaring here. How about we let people be free and make their own choices without government penalty?
Finally, this is why socialism is anathema to freedom. I do not want to lose my freedom or be financially punished for taking risks with my own body. Don't like the risks I take? Don't pay for them. It's that simple.
Amused
Elite Member
Socialism always ends up as fascism, especially when it's the taxpayer who gets to make the rules since they are paying the bills.
You can't have a parent without having rules over your head. Making the government and taxpayer your parent is about the WORST thing you could do for your freedom.
Amused
Elite Member
No, but sin taxing foods is directly related to the "cost to society" argument in that it costs the government money to care for those who injure themselves. Well, when a socialist health care program is what you have, you have the rule of law limiting what you can and cannot do eventually.
InflatableBuddha
Diamond Member
Come on, be serious! Socialism != fascism. They're on opposite sides of the political spectrum!
This is the definition of communism, an extreme version of socialism.
And you're right, "sin-taxing" does not affect the production or supply of fast food. Those who really want to eat it will eat it, so there will always be some demand.
Amused
Elite Member
Fascism is an authoritarian (that's you) nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems (that's what you're trying to do)that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence.
You are doing this very thing using the argument of "cost to society." Your "cost to society" argument stems from your lamenting that people's "bad" actions cost our socialist programs money. Hence, the existence of socialism LEADS people like you to fascism.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
