Reply With Quote
So do you understand that your "solution" of Disney stopping sales of junk food in their parks would be even less effectual and far more pointless?
the fat in meat isn't the only problem, if it's a problem at all.
"low fat" marketing scam hasn't put a dent in the rampaging greasebag epidemic.
carbs are the problem, not fats.
Then, throw in BigChem pollution such as endocrine/metabolic disruptors, and epigenetic damage passed on permanently to babies, and you get the horrible mess Americans are in.
So do you understand that your "solution" of Disney stopping sales of junk food in their parks would be even less effectual and far more pointless?
I didn't say Disney stopping sales of junk food in the parks was a solution.
ok
if they stopped selling that "lethal junk food" which causes obesity then you'd "maybe be impressed" by what and for what reasons?
because they make $Ms selling junk foods in the parks. a real loss
for the PR move of stoppig junk food advertizing on the shows, they will have other advertizers to take up the slack. no loss at all
so you're actually concerned about Disney's bottom line, not obesity.
what would you be impressed with, Disney making less money for no reason at all? Pretty stupid and emotional tbh.
you stupid
DISNEY is concerned about its bottom line (continuing to sell junk food to kids in the parks), not me.
Replacing junk food advertisers with non-junk food advertizers costs Disney nothing. It's a pure PR move, lying that Disney GAF about their kiddie watchers' health.
If Disney actually lowered its park revenues by not selling junk food to kids, that would be impressive. But it won't ever happen. Corps don't give a about the damage their products due to consumers, only about profits at any cost.
See I understand exactly what you're saying. It's just misplaced hatred. There's many reasons to question large companies. I don't blame you for doing so. But who cares if Disney sells junk food at huge prices like every other theme park and circus and concert etc in the universe?? That's not the problem. It has nothing to do with them dropping junk food advertising or its effect on their bottom line.
Like I said, you're more concerned with how Disney's bottom line is affected than whether or not an action they take is even effectual. You aren't logical in the slightest sense of the word, basically acting on a whim and numerous assumptions, such as unless Disney loses on a deal, they cannot be acting in the public interest.
Which is precisely why you brought up the theme park junk food in the first place. Not selling "overpriced" (why would this matter??) "lethal" junk food would have little effect on overall American obesity. If, by 2030, the terrible obesity epidemic has been reversed, I doubt the esteemed intellectual community would look back and say it was because you couldn't buy a mickey mouse shaped ice cream sandwich on Splash Mountain. I think that's pretty obvious. I think changing around their advertising is a move in the right direction, in fact. But since you're only concerned about whether or not they can replace their advertising, you can't see the forest for the trees.
Long story short, you are a complete hack.
Last edited by z0sa; 06-07-2012 at 12:03 AM.
"who cares if Disney sells junk food at huge prices like every other theme park"
Disney is LYING that the GAF about kids eating they advertize and sell.
"you're more concerned with how Disney's bottom line is affected"
YOU LIE
Corps ONLY priority is to make money. EVERYHING they do MUST obey that priority, and it explains EVERYTHING they do.
"not an action they take is even effectual"
YOU LIE
I don't think any one company's anti-junk-food policies will have ANY effect. BigFood/USDA/BigChem have totally and permanently ed up US food supply, beyond remediation.
I could give a about Disney's motives. It's the same way the charities I donate to don't give a whether I'm doing it out of the goodness of my heart or whether I'm just interested in the tax deduction. Regardless of motive, Disney doing something is still better than Disney doing nothing. I not only do not care if they're only doing it for PR, I hope they find a way for this move to lead to even greater profits for them.
So I really don't lie and you are a hack who can't even identify his own thought perspective. Ok."you're more concerned with how Disney's bottom line is affected"
YOU LIE
Corps ONLY priority is to make money. EVERYHING they do MUST obey that priority, and it explains EVERYTHING they do.
So, like I've said for multiple posts now, you would be impressed by Disney losing money for no reason. Your Disney comments thus far are only quite loosely and indirectly connected to the thread's subject, which is effective means of stopping and preventing obesity."not an action they take is even effectual"
YOU LIE
I don't think any one company's anti-junk-food policies will have ANY effect. BigFood/USDA/BigChem have totally and permanently ed up US food supply, beyond remediation.
Stupid and emotional of you, tbh. Eat a bad Goofy Burger in Adventureland or something?
I am sure you took chemistry at some point in your education. You ever do the lab where they dissolved things? You know: heat it up, stir it, or cut it up.
There is a direct relationship between surface area of a solute and the rate at which it dissolves. Try dissolving powdered sugar and then try dissolving a sugar cube or moreso a large sugar crystal.
"surface area of a solute"
If you chew or grind whole grains, you increase the surface area available for digestion and aborption.
The speed of absorption of "fast" carbs is what causes the damaging glucose/insulin e.
I'm not only talking only about the slow/fast carbs but mainly the empty calories the BigFarma/USDA "whole grain" marketing scam is.
no but its significantly better than powdered wheat with no fiber. when they powder it it gets reduced to the order of 100s of nanometers. you are not going to chew to anywhere near that small.
if you want to believe that insulin response of whole wheat ryes and similar larger grains is the same as powdered wheat then you go ahead.
The problem is with labeling not in the reality of metabolism.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions