The Swamp

Pruitt wrote:No one should be surprised that Canada - and specifically Ontario - has been held hostage by radical pussifiers for quite some time.

It's now the law in Ontario that ...

food service providers with 20 or more locations in the province -- such as restaurants, coffee shops, convenience stores, grocery stores and movie theatres -- to include the number of calories for each food and beverage item on their menus, labels or tags.

Gunpowder wrote:

Pruitt wrote:No one should be surprised that Canada - and specifically Ontario - has been held hostage by radical pussifiers for quite some time.

It's now the law in Ontario that ...

food service providers with 20 or more locations in the province -- such as restaurants, coffee shops, convenience stores, grocery stores and movie theatres -- to include the number of calories for each food and beverage item on their menus, labels or tags.

Holy shit, they have to tell you what shit is in their shit?

brian wrote:"Nanny-stating" would be charging more taxes on something because it has more calories or something like that. Information isn't a bad thing.

sancarlos wrote:

brian wrote:"Nanny-stating" would be charging more taxes on something because it has more calories or something like that. Information isn't a bad thing.

And of course San Francisco and Oakland voters approved hefty new taxes on soda pop in the recent election, to attempt to curb consumption. Berkeley already had it.

brian wrote:

sancarlos wrote:

brian wrote:"Nanny-stating" would be charging more taxes on something because it has more calories or something like that. Information isn't a bad thing.

And of course San Francisco and Oakland voters approved hefty new taxes on soda pop in the recent election, to attempt to curb consumption. Berkeley already had it.

Right and I don't agree with that. But I don't see how posting calorie counts is a bad thing or "pussification".

Shirley wrote:Posting calorie counts doesn't seem like the kind of thing I want my government enforcing, though. That's the sort of thing that should spread more like peer pressure - the better restaurants do it, then customers at the other places start asking for them. Then, it's up to each restaurant to decide if they want to. I can't see how it rises to the level of law.

brian wrote:

Shirley wrote:Posting calorie counts doesn't seem like the kind of thing I want my government enforcing, though. That's the sort of thing that should spread more like peer pressure - the better restaurants do it, then customers at the other places start asking for them. Then, it's up to each restaurant to decide if they want to. I can't see how it rises to the level of law.

You could have made the same argument about mandatory seat belts in the 1970s (the better car companies will include them and people will want to be safe so it doesn't matter if the car costs an extra hundred dollars. Let the market decide!).

Sometimes the government interest is to get involved for the general well-being of its people, especially when you're talking about something as picayune as posting calories on a menu. It's not like there's some onerous financial burden on restaurants made to do so.

Shirley wrote:Posting calorie counts doesn't seem like the kind of thing I want my government enforcing, though. That's the sort of thing that should spread more like peer pressure - the better restaurants do it, then customers at the other places start asking for them. Then, it's up to each restaurant to decide if they want to. I can't see how it rises to the level of law.

brian wrote:Most fast food and major chains already have that data available. I'll grant that it's probably more onerous for the "mom and pop" type places.

Shirley wrote:

brian wrote:

Shirley wrote:Posting calorie counts doesn't seem like the kind of thing I want my government enforcing, though. That's the sort of thing that should spread more like peer pressure - the better restaurants do it, then customers at the other places start asking for them. Then, it's up to each restaurant to decide if they want to. I can't see how it rises to the level of law.

You could have made the same argument about mandatory seat belts in the 1970s (the better car companies will include them and people will want to be safe so it doesn't matter if the car costs an extra hundred dollars. Let the market decide!).

Sometimes the government interest is to get involved for the general well-being of its people, especially when you're talking about something as picayune as posting calories on a menu. It's not like there's some onerous financial burden on restaurants made to do so.

Well, there's a much shorter, direct line between seat belts and death than with food calories. And this isn't legislating lower calorie meals (I wouldn't be for that either).

I do wonder about the cost and process of obtaining the calorie numbers. I guess they have to send their finished, cooked meals out to some sort of testing facility? Pretty lucrative gig for them, I'd think.

Gunpowder wrote:

brian wrote:Most fast food and major chains already have that data available. I'll grant that it's probably more onerous for the "mom and pop" type places.

They aren't mom and pop, though - they have >20 locations in Ontario.

Nonlinear FC wrote:And a LOT of folks suffer from the 'betes.

A near-century-old outdoor recreation club will now refrain from going outside because it is too dangerous out in the wilderness, according to officials at Penn State University.

The Penn State Outing Club, originally founded in 1920, announced last week that the university will no longer allow the club to organize outdoor, student-led trips starting next semester. The hiking, camping and other outdoors-focused activities the student-led club has long engaged in are too risky, the university's offices of Student Affairs and Risk Management determined.

testuser2 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:16 am Wilderness is too risky for outdoors clubs

A near-century-old outdoor recreation club will now refrain from going outside because it is too dangerous out in the wilderness, according to officials at Penn State University.

The Penn State Outing Club, originally founded in 1920, announced last week that the university will no longer allow the club to organize outdoor, student-led trips starting next semester. The hiking, camping and other outdoors-focused activities the student-led club has long engaged in are too risky, the university's offices of Student Affairs and Risk Management determined.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:11 am It would seem to me that this InCel flag belongs here in the pussification of America.

Boohoo life is fucking hard. You'll get yours if you make yourself into an interesting person.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:11 am It would seem to me that this InCel flag belongs here in the pussification of America.

Boohoo life is fucking hard. You'll get yours if you make yourself into an interesting person.

Giff wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:32 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:11 am It would seem to me that this InCel flag belongs here in the pussification of America.

Boohoo life is fucking hard. You'll get yours if you make yourself into an interesting person.

That was Canada, man.

A_B wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:33 am

testuser2 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:16 am Wilderness is too risky for outdoors clubs

A near-century-old outdoor recreation club will now refrain from going outside because it is too dangerous out in the wilderness, according to officials at Penn State University.

The Penn State Outing Club, originally founded in 1920, announced last week that the university will no longer allow the club to organize outdoor, student-led trips starting next semester. The hiking, camping and other outdoors-focused activities the student-led club has long engaged in are too risky, the university's offices of Student Affairs and Risk Management determined.

That...angers me. Mostly because I wish I had done more stuff like that back in my college days.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:54 pm

Giff wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:32 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:11 am It would seem to me that this InCel flag belongs here in the pussification of America.

Boohoo life is fucking hard. You'll get yours if you make yourself into an interesting person.

That was Canada, man.

To be fair, the whole root of that movement was that asshole in Santa Barbara and I assume there's lots of adherents in the US. That said, yeah I see the desire to clarify a bit.

I went to a cobbler
To fix a hole in my shoe
He took one look at my face and said
"I can fix that hole in you."

A_B wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:25 pm Doesn't see the link between football and CTE, either.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 2:26 pm The dude is the embodiment of an actual fedora come to life.

A_B wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:25 pm Doesn't see the link between football and CTE, either.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:24 pm

A_B wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:25 pm Doesn't see the link between football and CTE, either.

I asked football if it contributes to cases of CTE, and it powerfully told me no. And I can't see why it would, so I believe football over all of the evidence.


BTW, Bronto is going to get killed over this line: " And other democracies function just fine without American football being a staple of the sports landscape."