Liberal Bias vs Conservative Bias

[.Shane.]

Did the OP even see Super Size Me?

 

[mangxema]

...Although, even then, I honestly can't remember the scene in Super-Size Me where he argues for state intervention in controlling people's diet. Educating people about healthy eating and obliging companies to make the nutritional value of their food known, but those aren't exactly the paternal, authoritarian policies you imply.

If anything, 'Supersize Me' is the conservative/libertarian way to go about improving diets: tell people, objectively, how crappy the food is for you, and then let them eat it if they want.

Plus, in the beginning, 'the guy' (whose name I'm too lazy to look up ATM) tells you how the fast food industry has consistently denied that their food was unhealthy on the grounds that people eat lots of things, and it's impossible to attribute adverse health effects to any particular food. So 'the guy' limits his diet to McDonalds food and records what happens. That's classic scientific experimentation (which is probably where the 'liberal bias' charge comes from ). Unless, you have reason to believe that 'the guy' cheated, or that the doctors weren't really doctors, then there's really no bias whatsoever.

 

[cegman]

If anything, 'Supersize Me' is the conservative/libertarian way to go about improving diets: tell people, objectively, how crappy the food is for you, and then let them eat it if they want.

Plus, in the beginning, 'the guy' (whose name I'm too lazy to look up ATM) tells you how the fast food industry has consistently denied that their food was unhealthy on the grounds that people eat lots of things, and it's impossible to attribute adverse health effects to any particular food. So 'the guy' limits his diet to McDonalds food and records what happens. That's classic scientific experimentation (which is probably where the 'liberal bias' charge comes from ). Unless, you have reason to believe that 'the guy' cheated, or that the doctors weren't really doctors, then there's really no bias whatsoever.

Well there is reason to believe that the experiment was fudged as he only ate three meals at McD's and he consumed 5000 kCal's but if you look at the nutrition facts of Mcdonalds you would see that this shouldn't be possible with 3 meals.

I took the highest calorie items on the menu that you can order as a meal

2 x Angus Bacon & Cheese 790 calories
1580 cal

2 X Large Fry 500 calories
1000

1150 For largest breakfast meal

3630 For normal amount of food

930 for 3 soda's

4500 calories

That is what a typical person would order at McDonalds. The only reasonable way to get above 5000 calories the movie claims he ate is to drink a large amount of their shakes which can be as high as 1000 calories each. Of course many of the Meals at McD's have no where near the number of calories these meals give you.

 

[mangxema]

One thing to keep in mind is that the movie came out in 2004, and there has been a general trend toward healthier options in fast food restaurants, so I'm not sure you can use a shortfall using today's menu as proof of some sort of chicanery.

 

[choxorn]

If anything, 'Supersize Me' is the conservative/libertarian way to go about improving diets: tell people, objectively, how crappy the food is for you, and then let them eat it if they want.

True, but on the other hand, the guy who did that also did 'Religulous', so a conservative bias seems doubtful.

 

[mangxema]

No that was Bill Maher.

 

[choxorn]

Ah, must have been confusing it with something else.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Does Supersize Me actually call for more government regulation of the fast food industry, or merely try to show how bad things were? You know, the fast food industry's business model depends pretty heavily on agricultural subsidies. Without government intervention they could not turn a profit on such cheap unhealthy food, and healthier alternatives would win out based purely on price. That particular kind of government intervention is engrained enough in our society that most conservatives support it, but is abhorrent to libertarians.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Did the OP even see Super Size Me?

My idea of a liberal bias is Super-Size-Me It calls for government intervention and companies to stop doing things because people are to stupid choose good food.

Clearly not.

 

[Bill3000]

I was unaware that the ability for people to make rational decisions had anything to do with whether the government should intervene? Why on earth can't it be possible that people are too stupid to make healthy life decisions, and government policy can't solve this?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

As a consumer, I'm not an expert on food additives. I don't know the first thing about all them E-numbers and lots of other chemical ingredients, and have little desire to study those. So, does that make me stupid?

Does government regulation making sure my food doesn't have crap in it which would make me get explosive diarrhoea for 2 weeks suppose I am stupid? Is the argument, "hey, if you didn't want to spend two days hurting on the toilet, you should have informed yourself, instead of having government making that decision for you"?

Well, call me a big-government liberal, but I like not having to be a food expert and still enjoy my food without the risk of involuntary liquid bowel movements.

 

[Pokurcz]

Liberals tend to know facts better then conservatives, but the conservatives know their propaganda. That is why they get so confused in the face of truth.

(too much?)

That depends on where you live, if it is a leftist society or a right wing society.

The dominant ideology usualy would give you a large accumulation of propaganda suporting its views.

In Sweden the opposite is a better surmission compared to the USA. Here a leftist Ideology has been dominant for close to a century, so that the language has been shaped to fit the Ideology.

An interesting thing happens when you try to argue with a leftist Sweede, even if you manage to convince them of or at least make them se an inconsistency or negative effect of a leftist solution to a problem, it is very difficult not to stumble on a KEY WORD, that automaticaly awakens an indoctrinated piece of ideological propaganda, that instantly erases any previous succes on your side and you have to start all over again.

I bet that you recognize the same pattern from discorce with Republicans.

Things in Sweden often are called "The Peoples Park" or "The Peoples house", names that make outsiders think of Stalinism and Nazies. THe right wing are called burghers, as in "the rich", for outsiders a word closely associated with communism or the French revolution.

Whilst in the USA, "liberal" has become equivalent with leftist, and a new word has had to be invented (Libertarian) for its old meaning.

Of corse there are a lot of things that are good with leftist domination, people have a lot of rights and live comfortable lifes and doctors do not get murdered for performing abortions, but at the same time this has brought the general public an inability to see the correlation between work/profit and a surplus in society that can be divided amongst those that need it the most.

Just half a year ago there was a big change in Sweden when the rightwing side won a second election in a row for the first time in close to a century, a large enough amount of people finaly understood that someone has to work for the wellfare state to function.

Maybe next people will start not being ashamed for being well off.

 

[Traitorfish]

Of corse there are a lot of things that are good with leftist domination, people have a lot of rights and live comfortable lifes and doctors do not get murdered for performing abortions, but at the same time this has brought the general public an inability to see the correlation between work/profit and a surplus in society that can be divided amongst those that need it the most.

Just half a year ago there was a big change in Sweden when the rightwing side won a second election in a row for the first time in close to a century, a large enough amount of people finaly understood that someone has to work for the wellfare state to function.

Maybe next people will start not being ashamed for being well off.

See, now, this is a conservative bias. Anyone want to throw about a generic left-wing equivalent, complete the picture?

 

[El_Machinae]

Does Supersize Me actually call for more government regulation of the fast food industry, or merely try to show how bad things were? You know, the fast food industry's business model depends pretty heavily on agricultural subsidies. Without government intervention they could not turn a profit on such cheap unhealthy food, and healthier alternatives would win out based purely on price. That particular kind of government intervention is engrained enough in our society that most conservatives support it, but is abhorrent to libertarians.

It eternally frustrates me that this bipartisan, endemic problem gets zero functional response from nearly anyone. Everyone actually agrees with the problem (even if they're coming from different viewpoints) and can't be arsed to actually fix it.

Right there, sitting as a huge problem, the Farm Bill.
No one writes their politicians on this. Few people buy books discussing the problem. People ignore it.

 

[Cutlass]

I was unaware that the ability for people to make rational decisions had anything to do with whether the government should intervene? Why on earth can't it be possible that people are too stupid to make healthy life decisions, and government policy can't solve this?

But the government can change, if not all behavior, certainly a lot of it. It can plain outlaw some things, and tax into reductions of others. Many of the unhealthy eating choices America's poor make are because of lack of understanding and information. But a lot of it is also because of cost and availability. Take away the cost and availability advantage of many unhealthy alternatives, and people will eat other things.

 

[warpus]

A movie with a LOT of liberal bias is Star Wars: A new hope.

I mean, c'mon, we're supposed to be cheering for terrorists? Seriously? Who wrote this crap?

 

[Pokurcz]

It is very common to let ones ideological sensibilities come in the way of ones objectivity, especialy if one percieves someone giving a statement to be opposing a former statement by someone else. This is why Ideology often comes in the way of the greater good (a fair society).

There is an example that I have sumbled upon tha is almost perfect for illustrating this.

A swedish fellow wrote an article in Swedens leading liberal (the European kind) newspaper, about how Sweden and Swedes in general are treating immigrants like pets, basicaly helping them just to score points with their concience or whoever PC who might be watching.

Apart from the awesomenes of a Sweede realising this about his countrymen, and how right he was, the realy interesting part was peoples reactions in the comments on the webpage.
Many people did not know what to make of this but the striking part was that most of the reactions where either "finaly somebody telling the truth about those dirty foreighners" or " How can the newspaper publish something by such a racist".

THe funny part being that the author had condemned the general publics low key supremacism, but the most fervent reactions where results of ideological blindness, they were hindered by their constand strive to enterpret everything as either left or right (black or white), especially by politicaly correct people. They had payed their dues by petting the immigrants, and could not understand how that might be percieved as condescending, or that they actualy felt superior.

One could claim that I am biased towards conservativism, but if so then it is the Swedish kind, which is further left than mainstream Democrats are.

I think that you can't be truely in the middle on all issues, mostly you would have some views that are bunched up with leftwing and some that are generaly rightwing, and because of that be bunched in to one group by whoever would be watching at the moment.

Because Sweden already has all the leftwing characteristics that I want, and equite a few that I don't like, I vote on the right, because they whant to reform for a better economy and balance the country, without taking away any of the leftist things that I like. Like free health care and education, even in universeties, and the enviromentalism.

It is interesting how leftwing people accuse rightwing people of being rich and selfish and rightwing people accuse leftwing people of sloth and selfishly wanting more handouts.
The beuty of it is that both sides are wrong and right att he same time. This while both kind of ideologes want what they se as what is best for their people and their country, but are to blinded by what they percieve as the only way of doing it to even understand the other side. It is sort of like religion.

 

[Traitorfish]

It is interesting how leftwing people accuse rightwing people of being rich and selfish...

I can't recall this ever happening, at least not by anyone worth listening to. Left-wing critiques of the right generally hinge on the fact that only a very small minority of people are rich, thus implying that for such a claim to be consistent, the right would have to have far more abysmal an electoral record than it historically has.

The beuty of it is that both sides are wrong and right att he same time. This while both kind of ideologes want what they se as what is best for their people and their country, but are to blinded by what they percieve as the only way of doing it to even understand the other side. It is sort of like religion.

I would contest the general assumption that ideological commitment necessarily entails ideological dogmatism. I have seen some very effective analysis of certain positions, groups or parties by their opponents; I think the "blinkered shouting match" model of political discourse is one produced by a sensationalist media which likes bold, simplistic narratives, and, increasingly, by a homogeneous political culture trying to dress a handful of ideologically similar mainstream parties up as offering real alternatives to each other.

 

[Ajidica]

That is what a typical person would order at McDonalds

Well, there is your problem there. Spurlock specificaly said in the movie that if given the option to Supersize it, he would. I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I think most of the places he ate at gave him the option to supersize it. The 'typical person' wouldn't be supersizing all three meals of the day.

 

[negZero]

If anything, 'Supersize Me' is the conservative/libertarian way to go about improving diets: tell people, objectively, how crappy the food is for you, and then let them eat it if they want.

Plus, in the beginning, 'the guy' (whose name I'm too lazy to look up ATM) tells you how the fast food industry has consistently denied that their food was unhealthy on the grounds that people eat lots of things, and it's impossible to attribute adverse health effects to any particular food. So 'the guy' limits his diet to McDonalds food and records what happens. That's classic scientific experimentation (which is probably where the 'liberal bias' charge comes from ). Unless, you have reason to believe that 'the guy' cheated, or that the doctors weren't really doctors, then there's really no bias whatsoever.

After the movie came out several others (including real scientists) tried to duplicate his results, each of them came out better shape then they went in. One study(done by scientists and doctors under controlled conditions) even up the ante and had them eat 6000 calories outside of gaining some weight and tiredness (this is most likely due to the gain of weight and lack of exercise). After the study was done the lead scientist came up with 2 hypotheses on how Super Size Me got its results, Morgan Spurlock (the guy in the movie) has an undiagnosed liver problems or vegetarian diet may have rendered his liver poorly prepared to suddenly deal with a diet high in carbohydrates and saturated fat.