In case Justacarolinian doesn’t come back to read this, I can sort that one out for you: He can read minds. It’s quite awesome…

During his studies, Calhoun coined the term “behavioral sink” to describe aberrant behaviors in overcrowded population density situations and “beautiful ones” to describe passive individuals who withdrew from all social interaction.

the implication of your argument has just shifted to blaming homosexuality on some “root” psychological trauma… I seriously hope that’s not the case.

Well Sh|t.

Gay marriage. You really have a tendency to jump around between issues, but I’ll give this a go. Gay marriage is an equal rights issue. Not allowing gays to get married is discrimination against law abiding Americans. We have a variety of anti-discrimination in employment measures on the books for this reason. Additionally, employers do not have to contribute towards the cost of dependent coverage as it is; contributions toward dependent coverage are voluntary, at the discretion of the employer. I work in group employee benefits so I know this for sure.

Going back to trans fats (I still can’t believe you guys are upset about this). Like I said in a previous post, prior to the ban, I didn’t have a choice to avoid trans fats, since manufacturers weren’t required to disclose them on the nutritional information panel on packaged foods, and restaurants weren’t required to tell you what kind of fat they cook with. Where is the choice in that?

Cite where trans fats are completely banned in all foods so that you can’t consume them. With regard to your positions on speed limits and drugs, well, I just don’t agree. Except for pot, pot should definitely be legalized

Honestly, sometimes it seems like people just want something to complain about.

To answer your question: The point the government stops is when the person knows the choice they can make. Also Trans fat is out lawed in countless cities and states, so yes someone took my trans fat. AND yes I can taste a difference in my Oreos!!! GOD DAMN IT!!! As I said before I’m all for less laws. I think Speed Limits are ridiculous, people don’t follow them anyway, especially on the highway. In neighborhoods and around schools yes protect the children, but on the highway, WTF? Drugs, meh if some fvcktard wants to rot his brain and body on drugs let him, just don’t come asking me for a handout. Psteurizing milk actually would be done anyhows as it allows the milk to be shelved longer, meaning less waste and more milk to be sold.

Think about this: prior to the ban, were you ever asked if you would like your food cooked with or without trans fats? Of course, the answer is no. Prior to bans, where was the choice for those who understand how badly trans fats rape you in the ass and want to avoid them? Banning trans fats is good for everyone, except that it will drive down profit margins for businesses who think it’s okay to save money by feeding their customers poison. Trans fats are not food, they’re toxic compounds that resemble fats.

Anyway, no one is taking trans fat away from anyone. Americans are still free to sit in their double-wides and cram it down their throats all day long if they like. And I’m sure that’s what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote all them fancy words about freedom.

@PB – refer to my question to Froo: when do you think the government should intervene for the public’s best interest? Should the government stop treating drinking water? After all, shouldn’t it be my choice to ingest dangerous bacteria in my water if I want too? Are you in favor of legalizing all drugs? Should we stop pasteurizing milk and setting speed limits?

With regard to your argument that these are moral issues, I concede that maybe there are those who feel the need to try to make them moral issues, but there are plenty of good reasons that these measures exist that have nothing to do with morality. Cite me some legislation on smoking or trans fat that makes reference to morality, otherwise we’re arguing about what “some people think,” and really, who cares.

School was great actually, it’s a fabulous class: The World of the Short Story. We read some Sherman Alexie, some Louise Erdrich, and some Salinger.

Hehe – I always thought that was a wonderful cop-out for xgens. They get to be as ’sinful’ as they like and it doesn’t mater, cause ‘God will forgive them’.

Vacuumhead

With regard to privatized group health care, the cost you pay is based on the morbidity/mortality of the total insured group, not just your personal use, so the health trends of all of an insurance provider’s members affect everyone’s rates.

With regard to smoking, I believe that indoor smoking bans were, for the most part, created to protect workers in those environments, who had to spend a full work day in a smoky environment whether or not it was their personal choice to smoke.

I think it’s funny that you’re so bothered by the trans fat ban – of all the things you could be worried about, you’re upset that states want to reduce heart disease? Good grief!

- Health issues aren’t inherently moral issues. The unhealthiness of trans fats isn’t a matter of “belief” – trans fats are not healthy, and obesity puts a tremendous strain on our country’s resources from a health care perspective.

- Same goes for smoking. Who thinks smoking is immoral? I have never heard even the most staunch opponent of smoking approach the topic from a moral perspective.

The rest of your post is a bit of a rant, not sure where you’re going with it.

I am actually really anti most ideas about “natural” vs “unnatural” since civilisation has turned most of that upside down or irrelevant for most imaginable discussion topics. But. If I do come across one of those who want to explain why homosexuals should be oppressed with the argument “it ain’t no natural, it ain’t”, I’d begin with probably about 50 posts back and forth on what the usable definitions of “natural” would be.

And yes, I recognised you as not being any of that sort of nutjob, so yeah – I’m just interested in the ideas of who/what is most useful for our species survival, and also the other sidetrack you and SB were discussing – what are instincts today, and when do they get rendered null, void and moot. (Or “mute”, as it were.)

2) by not publicly professing my own morals, it is unneccessary to publicly “confess” my “sins.” I feel it’s safe to assume that most people aren’t particularly interested in my own personal morals, provided I don’t expect others to abide by them.

I didn’t say that I “fail miserably on a daily basis to live up to the standard or morals that I embrace.” I said that from time to time, I’ve failed to make choices which conform to my own concept of what is right or wrong (which primarily have to do with how my actions positively or negatively affect others around me).

I’m not a christian, and I’m not a sinner, I’m merely a human being trying my best to live a positive, fulfilling life. And if “Grace” is what you have, I’ll take a pass on that, thanks.

And seriously, I am really not fighting hard for anything here, I am just discussing rather vaguely around some intriguing concepts.