0 calorie sweeteners aren't 0 calorie though haha. Take Splenda for instance, it has just as much calories per gram (or per pound or whatever unit you want to use) as normal sugar.

Artificial sweeteners are sweeter than sugar, so less in mass is added.

Wondering what you happen to use for testing Nymeria, wasn't aware of there being a T1 presense on here :) but I recently picked up a number of

Accu Chek Mobile, testers, the site behind them was offering the testers for free (because then you get their test cartridges for use and they make tons of cash that way via the gov) But the tester is sooo user friendly it's great, has a cartridge in it with 50 tests, just open the lid, jab finger with the lancet on the side (which contains a barrel of 6 difference lances in one) and put the drop on, then the cart rolls up another one for the next time you need to test, no messing about with bits of tin foil trying to get a test strip out when you need to check it.

I may sound like an accu chek shill... but they're really great testers.

I was talking specifically about children, if you haven't noticed. More specifically, the influence of parents over their children. I consider children to be humans, and thus, they cannot be "owned", even by a parent. People have free will concerning themselves - not upon others. Since a child does not have the required capacities to make informed decisions or to simply look after themselves, some decisions need to be made for them, and some things need to be given to them. Parents, having a natural attachment and sensibility to the vulnerability of their children, can naturally be the first to be trusted to use this power over the child in the child's best interest. It is nonetheless a reality that not all parents know (or sometimes desire) the best interest of the child at all times, which, to me, revokes their right of intervention in a child's freedom in said context. So, we can collectively agree upon rules (the function of a democratic government) that delimit what can be considered to be in a child's interest.

I know I'm being overly sensitive here so don't take me too seriously it's just that this shit pisses me off.


Why not avoid the inevitable then and turn all children over to the state after birth, the government is never wrong, food science is never revised. People are too stupid to always make good decisions so the government should just go ahead and make those decisions for them. As another poster said, baby steps, baby steps.  Stop being a fucking baby and just jump straight to the inevitable.

You're arguing with a slippery slope, that makes the debate pointless. I mean, it can work both ways. In Afghanistan some families turn their kids into opium addicts when they're 8, that's fine right? I mean, they aren't forcing the kid, and the parent can give their kid what they want.

But you never said that, so it's pointless for me to bring it up in an argument.

I'm a utilitarian, at the core - meaning, I believe in no absolute moral values (freedom, virtue, order...) but perceive all ethcial dilemmas as optimization problems, balancing different concepts to maximize global happiness (bit more complicated than that, since there are a lot of factors to consider, which is the main problem with utilitarianism.) I don't oppose freedom, I just see it as a tool to make people more satisfied, rather than something with inherent value. Removing children from their families very clearly does not improve quality of life, overall, so I'm against that. 

But a child that does not consume soft drinks has an easier time avoiding obesity (and associated cardiobascular problems), lower chances of diabetes, less problems with dental care (both for sugar and acidity), stronger bone structure and overall better health. That's positif. A utilitarian would then weigh these benefits against the instant gratification and freedom associated with allowing soda. And, perhaps, come up with an intermediate solution, allowing some freedom to purchase the products, but deincentivizing excessive consumption. 

I see the slippery slope as granting the government more and more power in our everyday lives.  The US government, like many governments, are not fond of giving up power.  We broke away from England over unfair taxation, here a couple hundred years later we are taxed nearly every time money changes hands. I believe a good deal of that is government inefficiency as it becomes bigger and bigger reaching more and more into our everyday lives.

A slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Allowing this does not necessarily open the gate to further intervention. Laws/measures are argued uppon case by case, and, if you (and a vocal majority of the electorate) are opposed to any future propositions, you still have the ability to push it through. 

The U.S. broke away from England for unfair taxation, which, if you remember correctly, was taxation without representation. This is not the case of a modern democratic government - responsible towards the population.  and therein lies part of the problem, is our government of today always acting in such a fashion or are they too busy serving corporate interests (i.e. see lining their own pockets) rather than We the People....