Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Paying the healthcare costs of obesity
Options
Replies
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"
They do owe, because their action (freely venting poisonous gases) caused harm.
Can we apply this to food manufacturers? Let's say wheat is conclusively proven to cause autism... i dunno... can farmers and the company that makes wonder bread be held to blame for the autism treatment? Can Kroger be partially to blame for selling the wheat products?
Yes, but only if they continued to produce and sell it, and hid the information from the public, after it was made known that there was a definitive, and undisputed link. No conjecture, no "well maybe it kinda does in some people".
That part in the middle is why I opposed the tobacco companies being sued for damages acquired after a certain point in time. It's been common knowledge for a veeeeery long time that smoking would kill you. Hell, there was even a popular song about it in the 1920s. However, that's a wee bit more forgivable, given how slow information traveled until about 25 years ago.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"
They do owe, because their action (freely venting poisonous gases) caused harm.
Can we apply this to food manufacturers? Let's say wheat is conclusively proven to cause autism... i dunno... can farmers and the company that makes wonder bread be held to blame for the autism treatment? Can Kroger be partially to blame for selling the wheat products?
Yes, but only if they continued to produce and sell it, and hid the information from the public, after it was made known that there was a definitive, and undisputed link. No conjecture, no "well maybe it kinda does in some people".
That part in the middle is why I opposed the tobacco companies being sued for damages acquired after a certain point in time. It's been common knowledge for a veeeeery long time that smoking would kill you. Hell, there was even a popular song about it in the 1920s. However, that's a wee bit more forgivable, given how slow information traveled until about 25 years ago.
Good point about the "continues to produce it after conclusive evidence and hides it from the public." Surely, no conclusive evidence linking sugar to obesity has been established. But if one reads the blogosphere, there sure are a lot of articles trying to link them!0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"
They do owe, because their action (freely venting poisonous gases) caused harm.
Can we apply this to food manufacturers? Let's say wheat is conclusively proven to cause autism... i dunno... can farmers and the company that makes wonder bread be held to blame for the autism treatment? Can Kroger be partially to blame for selling the wheat products?
Yes, but only if they continued to produce and sell it, and hid the information from the public, after it was made known that there was a definitive, and undisputed link. No conjecture, no "well maybe it kinda does in some people".
That part in the middle is why I opposed the tobacco companies being sued for damages acquired after a certain point in time. It's been common knowledge for a veeeeery long time that smoking would kill you. Hell, there was even a popular song about it in the 1920s. However, that's a wee bit more forgivable, given how slow information traveled until about 25 years ago.
Good point about the "continues to produce it after conclusive evidence and hides it from the public." Surely, no conclusive evidence linking sugar to obesity has been established. But if one reads the blogosphere, there sure are a lot of articles trying to link them!
Everyone has some kind of axe to grind. Fortunately, they usually get slapped down by the cold hand of science. Then the ones with hardcore denial just turn into conspiracy theory nutters, and we all get to laugh at them.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"
They do owe, because their action (freely venting poisonous gases) caused harm.
Can we apply this to food manufacturers? Let's say wheat is conclusively proven to cause autism... i dunno... can farmers and the company that makes wonder bread be held to blame for the autism treatment? Can Kroger be partially to blame for selling the wheat products?
Yes, but only if they continued to produce and sell it, and hid the information from the public, after it was made known that there was a definitive, and undisputed link. No conjecture, no "well maybe it kinda does in some people".
That part in the middle is why I opposed the tobacco companies being sued for damages acquired after a certain point in time. It's been common knowledge for a veeeeery long time that smoking would kill you. Hell, there was even a popular song about it in the 1920s. However, that's a wee bit more forgivable, given how slow information traveled until about 25 years ago.
Good point about the "continues to produce it after conclusive evidence and hides it from the public." Surely, no conclusive evidence linking sugar to obesity has been established. But if one reads the blogosphere, there sure are a lot of articles trying to link them!
Everyone has some kind of axe to grind. Fortunately, they usually get slapped down by the cold hand of science. Then they just turn into conspiracy theory nutters, and we all get to laugh at them.
When I'm awake at night with no new links on reddit to read, my mind wanders towards "following the money." Whenever I see wacky opinions from otherwise reasonable-seeming individuals, I try to follow the money, as in SOMEONE is making money from you having this viewpoint (or is protecting money they already have). So I often look at arguments and try to analyze (1) who makes money from the policy as it currently is and (1a) do they stand to lose money if policy changes. and (2) who stands to make money from the policy change.
So if we take obesity... who makes money right now from obesity as the US policies currently stand? For every alternate "solution" I like to look at where the balance of money-making changes to.
I dunno, if I keep it up it might lead me to become more of a Koch Brothers conspiracist than I should be.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"
They do owe, because their action (freely venting poisonous gases) caused harm.
Can we apply this to food manufacturers? Let's say wheat is conclusively proven to cause autism... i dunno... can farmers and the company that makes wonder bread be held to blame for the autism treatment? Can Kroger be partially to blame for selling the wheat products?
Yes, but only if they continued to produce and sell it, and hid the information from the public, after it was made known that there was a definitive, and undisputed link. No conjecture, no "well maybe it kinda does in some people".
That part in the middle is why I opposed the tobacco companies being sued for damages acquired after a certain point in time. It's been common knowledge for a veeeeery long time that smoking would kill you. Hell, there was even a popular song about it in the 1920s. However, that's a wee bit more forgivable, given how slow information traveled until about 25 years ago.
Good point about the "continues to produce it after conclusive evidence and hides it from the public." Surely, no conclusive evidence linking sugar to obesity has been established. But if one reads the blogosphere, there sure are a lot of articles trying to link them!
Everyone has some kind of axe to grind. Fortunately, they usually get slapped down by the cold hand of science. Then they just turn into conspiracy theory nutters, and we all get to laugh at them.
When I'm awake at night with no new links on reddit to read, my mind wanders towards "following the money." Whenever I see wacky opinions from otherwise reasonable-seeming individuals, I try to follow the money, as in SOMEONE is making money from you having this viewpoint (or is protecting money they already have). So I often look at arguments and try to analyze (1) who makes money from the policy as it currently is and (1a) do they stand to lose money if policy changes. and (2) who stands to make money from the policy change.
So if we take obesity... who makes money right now from obesity as the US policies currently stand? For every alternate "solution" I like to look at where the balance of money-making changes to.
I dunno, if I keep it up it might lead me to become more of a Koch Brothers conspiracist than I should be.
Hmmm. They're heads of a secret society of cannibals, progressively fattening us up, because fat is delicious?2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"
They do owe, because their action (freely venting poisonous gases) caused harm.
Can we apply this to food manufacturers? Let's say wheat is conclusively proven to cause autism... i dunno... can farmers and the company that makes wonder bread be held to blame for the autism treatment? Can Kroger be partially to blame for selling the wheat products?
Yes, but only if they continued to produce and sell it, and hid the information from the public, after it was made known that there was a definitive, and undisputed link. No conjecture, no "well maybe it kinda does in some people".
That part in the middle is why I opposed the tobacco companies being sued for damages acquired after a certain point in time. It's been common knowledge for a veeeeery long time that smoking would kill you. Hell, there was even a popular song about it in the 1920s. However, that's a wee bit more forgivable, given how slow information traveled until about 25 years ago.
Good point about the "continues to produce it after conclusive evidence and hides it from the public." Surely, no conclusive evidence linking sugar to obesity has been established. But if one reads the blogosphere, there sure are a lot of articles trying to link them!
Everyone has some kind of axe to grind. Fortunately, they usually get slapped down by the cold hand of science. Then they just turn into conspiracy theory nutters, and we all get to laugh at them.
When I'm awake at night with no new links on reddit to read, my mind wanders towards "following the money." Whenever I see wacky opinions from otherwise reasonable-seeming individuals, I try to follow the money, as in SOMEONE is making money from you having this viewpoint (or is protecting money they already have). So I often look at arguments and try to analyze (1) who makes money from the policy as it currently is and (1a) do they stand to lose money if policy changes. and (2) who stands to make money from the policy change.
So if we take obesity... who makes money right now from obesity as the US policies currently stand? For every alternate "solution" I like to look at where the balance of money-making changes to.
I dunno, if I keep it up it might lead me to become more of a Koch Brothers conspiracist than I should be.
Hmmm. They're heads of a secret society of cannibals, progressively fattening us up, because fat is delicious?
oops second link got lost
0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"
They do owe, because their action (freely venting poisonous gases) caused harm.
Can we apply this to food manufacturers? Let's say wheat is conclusively proven to cause autism... i dunno... can farmers and the company that makes wonder bread be held to blame for the autism treatment? Can Kroger be partially to blame for selling the wheat products?
Yes, but only if they continued to produce and sell it, and hid the information from the public, after it was made known that there was a definitive, and undisputed link. No conjecture, no "well maybe it kinda does in some people".
That part in the middle is why I opposed the tobacco companies being sued for damages acquired after a certain point in time. It's been common knowledge for a veeeeery long time that smoking would kill you. Hell, there was even a popular song about it in the 1920s. However, that's a wee bit more forgivable, given how slow information traveled until about 25 years ago.
Good point about the "continues to produce it after conclusive evidence and hides it from the public." Surely, no conclusive evidence linking sugar to obesity has been established. But if one reads the blogosphere, there sure are a lot of articles trying to link them!
Hmm. I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic here or not.
There IS a link between added sugar and obesity, of course -- probably correlation, not causation, however.
But there's no legal cause anyway (proximate cause) because of the crucial intervening cause -- the person choosing to eat the food while knowing (or being on notice such that he or she knows) that it has lots of calories. And you have a major problem isolating one part of the overall diet anyway. Impossible claim.
Also, I've lost the connection with the topic of the thread--are states going to sue Hostess to pay for increased health care costs?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"
They do owe, because their action (freely venting poisonous gases) caused harm.
Can we apply this to food manufacturers? Let's say wheat is conclusively proven to cause autism... i dunno... can farmers and the company that makes wonder bread be held to blame for the autism treatment? Can Kroger be partially to blame for selling the wheat products?
Yes, but only if they continued to produce and sell it, and hid the information from the public, after it was made known that there was a definitive, and undisputed link. No conjecture, no "well maybe it kinda does in some people".
That part in the middle is why I opposed the tobacco companies being sued for damages acquired after a certain point in time. It's been common knowledge for a veeeeery long time that smoking would kill you. Hell, there was even a popular song about it in the 1920s. However, that's a wee bit more forgivable, given how slow information traveled until about 25 years ago.
Good point about the "continues to produce it after conclusive evidence and hides it from the public." Surely, no conclusive evidence linking sugar to obesity has been established. But if one reads the blogosphere, there sure are a lot of articles trying to link them!
Hmm. I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic here or not.
There IS a link between added sugar and obesity, of course -- probably correlation, not causation, however.
But there's no legal cause anyway (proximate cause) because of the crucial intervening cause -- the person choosing to eat the food while knowing (or being on notice such that he or she knows) that it has lots of calories. And you have a major problem isolating one part of the overall diet anyway. Impossible claim.
Also, I've lost the connection with the topic of the thread--are states going to sue Hostess to pay for increased health care costs?
If we're talking about MY personal beliefs, I'd say that the obesity problem is too massive to pinpoint on one individual or one industry. Again, when we've gotten to the point where 35% or whatever of adults meets the BMI definition of obese, I think there's a problem. I think "we're all" to blame, since we can't possibly just sue Little Debbie to pay for it (the way we sorta sued the tobacco companies).1 -
The riparian rights discussion is fascinating0
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"
You kinda can't choose which air you breathe without moving away.
You CAN choose quite easily what and how much of it you eat.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"
You kinda can't choose which air you breathe without moving away.
You CAN choose quite easily what and how much of it you eat.
Even in a food desert?1 -
It shouldn't be. Healthcare is a right but abusing it by eating too much or bad stuff for 20 years and then expecting other people to pay for your bad choices is wrong and should not be tolerated.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
0 -
I'm sure it's been talked out, but what about the High Fructose Syrup they're putting in foods to make people fatter? Things that don't need to be added that they put in foods to experiment with on people and don't say anything about it? It would be different if our foods hadn't changed over the years, but if you look at food ingredients 20 years ago until know, America's food has way too many chemicals in it. In fact, there are so many different chemicals in food that they make you pay more for foods that DON"T have all these chemicals in them (certified organic). So, obesity is the residuals of all the unnecessary additives in our foods. So in that respect, we shouldn't be taxed for junk food, because "junk" is in all of the food that is being served nowadays unless you pay more to have less "junk" in it.0
-
Yes, you have a decent amount of choice even in a food desert. Certain types of choice are harder to exercise.
Rather than trying to sue someone, the public policy response to food deserts ought to be to try to fix the issue. There's some encouraging stuff about Whole Foods (yes, I know) locating in places like Englewood (neighborhood on the south side of Chicago) and Detroit and so on, and offering stuff at cheaper prices than elsewhere (land costs being lower) and also providing jobs and selling some locally-created products. (The one here isn't in yet, so I know the plans, not how it will work.)
There are also some cool projects with urban gardens, and a bunch else that can be done.0 -
It shouldn't be. Healthcare is a right but abusing it by eating too much or bad stuff for 20 years and then expecting other people to pay for your bad choices is wrong and should not be tolerated.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
But what if I wanted to eat too much bad stuff for 20 years? Shouldn't I be able to do that? Wouldn't that be more of a basic right than healthcare?0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?1 -
It shouldn't be. Healthcare is a right but abusing it by eating too much or bad stuff for 20 years and then expecting other people to pay for your bad choices is wrong and should not be tolerated.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
But what if I wanted to eat too much bad stuff for 20 years? Shouldn't I be able to do that? Wouldn't that be more of a basic right than healthcare?
By that same token, shouldn't I be allowed to opt out of this healthcare right to prevent other people from paying for my bad choices? And if I opt out of the benefit, shouldn't I be able to opt out of the payment as well?1 -
I'm sure it's been talked out, but what about the High Fructose Syrup they're putting in foods to make people fatter?
There's no evidence that it has any difference than cane sugar -- it's basically the same, 55% fructose, 45% glucose vs. 50/50 for sucrose (table sugar).
The main difference is that HFCS can be used more conveniently in some processed products (because it's liquid, if memory serves), and -- especially -- is insanely cheap, in part because we subsidize it. (Which has been discussed upthread or maybe in the tax thread.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, you have a decent amount of choice even in a food desert. Certain types of choice are harder to exercise.
Rather than trying to sue someone, the public policy response to food deserts ought to be to try to fix the issue. There's some encouraging stuff about Whole Foods (yes, I know) locating in places like Englewood (neighborhood on the south side of Chicago) and Detroit and so on, and offering stuff at cheaper prices than elsewhere (land costs being lower) and also providing jobs and selling some locally-created products. (The one here isn't in yet, so I know the plans, not how it will work.)
There are also some cool projects with urban gardens, and a bunch else that can be done.
Speaking of Michigan, your comment about Detroit makes me think about the water issue in Flint. That the world was so outraged about the water situation there and how people are getting sick, but those same kids are getting sick from our food supply. Is the Red Cross and the National Guard trucking in broccoli for them? Sorry to talk about water again, I know everyone hated the comparison...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 978 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions