Vegas Heart Attack Grill Founder: "My Food Will Kill You"

[Breakage]

Alcohol and Tobacco have not?

Have not what?

 

[Bukowski82]

Have not what?

You mentioned that sitting on your ass watching TV and using the Internet has been around for a while. I was simply saying that Alcohol and Tobacco have as well. Not that I find timeframe's relevant for this discussion... Just wanted to point it out.

 

[GrindingANARCHY]

Looks like I need to gain about another 150.

#free food

 

[daj]

Including smoking in this argument is not wise. Smoking has double negative externalities in second-hand smoke + increased health costs. There is a reason why folks who smoke or have a poor driving record face higher insurance rates. There is also reason why you can no longer smoke in the majority of bars in the U.S.

This actually boils down to an economic issue how we can truly measure the effects of obesity on our health rates. We are a democracy and these things should be voted on when the public is presented with real numbers that pro-rate the magnified costs on our healthcare system.

Sure we can allow individuals to make their own decisions, but that's what taxes are for

 

[Lustercross]

I think it would be fair to tax sugar and certain foods that go over a certain amount of sugar. Tobacco and alcohol is taxed but people still get their fix anyways.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

I don't pay higher costs for my health insurance beacause some dude is browsing reddit. It doesn't have as direct an effect on my life like people being treated for heart disease, surgeries, medication, ER visits, etc, etc.

When it starts to directly impact my life, then I absolutely think that something needs to be done to change it, or at least help to offset it. They already do it with alcohol and tobacco, I haven't seen that slippery slope you're talking about.

So your argument is that because people have access to bad food, they are likely to become fat. When they become fat, prices rise for certain goods/services, and you suffer. Is that the gist of it?

If so...who cares? How is that any different from any other scenario? If a society becomes fat and insurance rates rise, so be it; that's the cost of living in an affluent, free society (less free by the day, though, with your type of thinking). I fail to see why legislation should be introduced. When other things get too expensive, should the government come in and save you from those, too?

Adults should be able to make their own choices about what they do. Unless they are physically harming you, it's not your business. Indirectly causing prices to rise is not physically harming you, and thus it's none of your business. If you believe it is, that's your right, but you're not going to convince me to part with my principals because of a weak utilitarian argument about rising insurance prices. Welcome to the real world; prices go up, prices go down. You shouldn't ban or tax things for that reason.

P.S. Your remark about about reddit is not a fact. You think it doesn't affect you, but I'm sure it does. Everything people do, especially en masse, affects you in some way. Like I said, people browsing reddit or what have you are costing lots of money in lost productivity. That affects efficiency, and poor efficiency means you're paying higher prices.

Ban/tax leisurely browsing the internet, imo.

 

[Breakage]

You mentioned that sitting on your ass watching TV and using the Internet has been around for a while. I was simply saying that Alcohol and Tobacco have as well. Not that I find timeframe's relevant for this discussion... Just wanted to point it out.

Right, and alcohol and tobacco are both taxed pretty heavily. What's the point?

 

[Breakage]

So your argument is that because people have access to bad food, they are likely to become fat. When they become fat, prices rise for certain goods/services, and you suffer. Is that the gist of it?

If so...who cares? How is that any different from any other scenario? If a society becomes fat and insurance rates rise, so be it; that's the cost of living in an affluent, free society (less free by the day, though, with your type of thinking). I fail to see why legislation should be introduced. When other things get too expensive, should the government come in and save you from those, too?

Adults should be able to make their own choices about what they do. Unless they are physically harming you, it's not your business. Indirectly causing prices to rise is not physically harming you, and thus it's none of your business. If you believe it is, that's your right, but you're not going to convince me to part with my principals because of a weak utilitarian argument about rising insurance prices. Welcome to the real world; prices go up, prices go down. You shouldn't ban or tax things for that reason.

How is taxing something not allowing someone to make a shitty decision? They can still buy as much of it as they want.

You're acting incredibly ignorant to how big of a problem obesity is in this country.

 

[Lustercross]

So your argument is that because people have access to bad food, they are likely to become fat. When they become fat, prices rise for certain goods/services, and you suffer. Is that the gist of it?

If so...who cares? How is that any different from any other scenario? If a society becomes fat and insurance rates rise, so be it; that's the cost of living in an affluent, free society (less free by the day, though, with your type of thinking). I fail to see why legislation should be introduced. When other things get too expensive, should the government come in and save you from those, too?

Adults should be able to make their own choices about what they do. Unless they are physically harming you, it's not your business. Indirectly causing prices to rise is not physically harming you, and thus it's none of your business. If you believe it is, that's your right, but you're not going to convince me to part with my principals because of a weak utilitarian argument about rising insurance prices. Welcome to the real world; prices go up, prices go down. You shouldn't ban or tax things for that reason.

P.S. Your remark about about reddit is not a fact. You think it doesn't affect you, but I'm sure it does. Everything people do, especially en masse, affects you in some way. Like I said, people browsing reddit or what have you are costing lots of money in lost productivity. That affects efficiency, and poor efficiency means you're paying higher prices.

Ban/tax leisurely browsing the internet, imo.

How fat are you?

 

[Bukowski82]

Right, and alcohol and tobacco are both taxed pretty heavily. What's the point?

I'll have to refer you to the last post Rex just put up which pretty much sums up the problem with your argument as I see it.

 

[Breakage]

I'll have to refer you to the last post Rex just put up which pretty much sums up the problem with your argument as I see it.

Health epidemics aren't really the same as rising cable prices, but ok.

 

[Bukowski82]

How fat are you?

Oh look, an Ad Hominem attack. The last bastion of a failed argument...

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

How is taxing something not allowing someone to make a shitty decision? They can still buy as much of it as they want.

You're acting incredibly ignorant to how big of a problem obesity is in this country.

They absolutely cannot buy as much of it as they want. Taxes cost money. They affect consumer behavior. At what rate do you set the tax? Why stop with salty or sugary foods? Any food eaten in excess can cause obesity. Perhaps the gov't should start taxing people who buy large quantities of food at the supermarket unless they can provide a list of the number of people that will eat it, so we know the approved number of calories will be going to each person.

Laziness causes obesity, too. Perhaps we should tax video gaming systems or as I mentioned, time spent on a computer for non-work-related reasons. You should be outside exercising instead.

Calories in is only one half of the obesity equation. You can have a six-pack and eat like a fatass if you exercise a lot. Perhaps the government should penalize sloth, no?

You're acting incredibly ignorant of the role of government in allowing you to do what you'd like to your own body without financial punishment. We can argue all day, but the fact is we have a fundamental disagreement over the role of government, that's apparent. You can have the last word if you'd like, but it's clear that we could run around each other in circles for a lifetime and not get anywhere.

How fat are you?

Somewhere between 6'1"-6'2" and 168 pounds. So I'm pretty lanky.

Nice try, though. Nah, just kidding, it wasn't a nice try, it was bad, and you should be embarrassed.

Oh look, an Ad Hominem attack. The last bastion of a failed argument...

If he wants to imagine me as a big fat man, that's cool. I'll do the same for him since statistically, he probably is, seeing how he lives in Texas, whereas I know without a doubt that I am not.

 

[v.kevin]

Anyways, if we can interupt this episode of Crossfire, that interview was pure ownage.

If you make a habit of eating food that is prepared for you, you will not be healthy over the long haul.
But there is no such thing as bad food, only bad portions. Eat a dbl. bacon ranch burger if you want, just don't do it regularly if you want to see your great grandchildren.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Anyways, if we can interupt this episode of Crossfire, that interview was pure ownage.

If you make a habit of eating food that is prepared for you, you will not be healthy over the long haul.
But there is no such thing as bad food, only bad portions. Eat a dbl. bacon ranch burger if you want, just do it regularly if you want to see your great grandchildren.

Was I Newt?

 

[S1Z]

Just marketing

 

[Stringer Bell]

They absolutely cannot buy as much of it as they want. Taxes cost money. They affect consumer behavior. At what rate do you set the tax? Why stop with salty or sugary foods? Any food eaten in excess can cause obesity. Perhaps the gov't should start taxing people who buy large quantities of food at the supermarket unless they can provide a list of the number of people that will eat it, so we know the approved number of calories will be going to each person.

Laziness causes obesity, too. Perhaps we should tax video gaming systems or as I mentioned, time spent on a computer for non-work-related reasons. You should be outside exercising instead.

Calories in is only one half of the obesity equation. You can have a six-pack and eat like a fatass if you exercise a lot. Perhaps the government should penalize sloth, no?

You're acting incredibly ignorant of the role of government in allowing you to do what you'd like to your own body without financial punishment. We can argue all day, but the fact is we have a fundamental disagreement over the role of government, that's apparent. You can have the last word if you'd like, but it's clear that we could run around each other in circles for a lifetime and not get anywhere.



Somewhere between 6'1"-6'2" and 168 pounds. So I'm pretty lanky.

Nice try, though. Nah, just kidding, it wasn't a nice try, it was bad, and you should be embarrassed.



If he wants to imagine me as a big fat man, that's cool. I'll do the same for him since statistically, he probably is, seeing how he lives in Texas, whereas I know without a doubt that I am not.

ALL of this

 

[Hollywood Jack]

I think it would be fair to tax sugar and certain foods that go over a certain amount of sugar.

Doesn't seem practical at all. Who doesn't have sugar in their pantry? It's absolutely fine in moderation and practically a necessity. I also don't know how you can quantify a "certain amount of sugar" in practical terms. Do you not see the slippery slope that you're stepping over. Getting government bureaucracy in the way NEVER helps.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

The only tax that makes any kind of practical sense is on tobacco, IMHO. Sugar and alcohol are fine in moderation. Beneficial even. Alcohol in moderation has been linked to heart health for instance. There are times when raising your blood sugar actually helps too. And a little sugar helps people to eat bland foods that are good for them like oatmeal, etc. So taxing these things across the board seems impractical and counterproductive to me. Maybe some sort of consumption tax would make more sense. Tobacco also seems pretty bad across the board to me. But I generally support as little governmental interference into our personal affairs as necessary.

 

[Minnja]

Great interview