Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

No standard can impact everyone identically. Standards work and are set, regardless. It would be based on what medical professionals determine to be the norm portion size required. They can and--shock--have calculated it for MOST people. I don't care if it works for every single person. Boo hoo.

They could just order more. But then they would also pay for more. The increased cost will likely decrease consumption. Just as the increased cost of smokes did.

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

The idea they want to be jabba the hut doubles who're sickly and suffering is sufficiently rare. Often, they regret their short-sightedness, but they didn't realize it until it was too late. Other people simply lack the forethought.

I am sure some children don't want to eat the vegetables when told to, thinking it's "awesome" at the time.




This is a problem. They THINK they are acting in their own best interest at the time, but they really aren't. Reality isn't as perfect as ideal market theory pretends. People don't actually always act in their rational self interest. They are often wrong, misguided, and then regret it later. This is a distinct pattern of behaviour such that we don't need to care about every individual case.



Good, then you are now informed on it and understand then how obesity is a good example of waste and overconsumption.

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

The government runs our entire country. It is public, where as the others are private. It should treat everyone as equals. Not treat health food companies better than junk food companies. Not treat minorities better than majority, affirmative action. Not treat whites better than blacks, slavery.

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

Why cannot you show favourtism? You keep using the word "should" without actually defending your claims other than appeals to what you already assert as defacto true.

A consequenced ethic is a valid, useful ethic. It requires objective analysis of real impacts. Principles divorced from consequences make for useless ethics. Principles that cause more harm than good are moronic.

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

We certainly do need a standard, given most American portions are gigantic and relatively cheap, thus contributing to obesity. If they weren't excessive, there wouldn't be a need. Sadly, there is. It's irrelevant, again, whether it applies to everyone. It will apply to a lot of people given so many are overweight for their body type. IF it were a very tiny amount of people, it would be different. Sadly, that's not the case.




Of course we aren't. Most people don't eat hoards of healthful foods in the first place because they don't have the sugary junk food goodness that attracts people to junk food. However, the price of other foods is already going to go up, so that will help curb that problem eventually. We can just make junk food even more prohibitively high priced.

Other foods people consume too much of can be included, such as red meats and high fat content foods.

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

But companies aren't equal. A $20 billion a year major company is not equal to a mom and pops diner, so I don't see why they should be treated equally. They should be treated justly, but justly does not always mean equal, and equal is not always just.

It's a big jump from how a company is treated to how people are treated.

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

Well, If I ever ended up in charge of the world...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
sorry, lost in a day dream, where was I...
...
oh yeah,
You wouldn't have to worry about losing your meat (food that is ), I eat meat every single day.