New York To Ban Sugary Drinks Over 16 Oz - Update - Stopped by courts 3/11

[ShawnD1]

Personally, Id just tax the shit out of soda. Let the fatties pay for their diabeetus

But doing that would make artificial sugars cause cancer. That's how god works. He's ironic like that.

 

[Craig234]

Congratulations: you just made the exact same argument used by people who want women to be vaginally probed before they get an abortion.

No, I didn't. Any more than red lights are the same things as Soviet Gulags.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

They really aren't in any way, shape, or form. Republicans are actually explicitly attempting to engage in a marijuana stamp tax type of regulation in which getting an abortion becomes so onerous that it acts as a de facto prohibition. This has in fact been repeatedly stated by numerous Republican lawmakers. They brag about it.

Well, the fact that they are bragging means they are idiots. But really, most of these prohibitions don't act as a de facto prohibition. They just want to make it difficult to discourage people from doing it.

I don't see how that is not in "any way shape or form" different from making it difficult for people to drink 32 ounces of soda. In both cases, you can do what you want, but the government makes you endure hassle because they want to tell you what to do with your body.

The most recent one that I can think of was the vaginal ultrasound. This of course was absolutely a violation of someone's control over their body because it mandated someone jamming something into it for no medical purpose before they could engage in legal medical procedures.

Well, it is certainly more onerous than this, but it's a matter of degree. There are other "abortion discouragement" laws that aren't as obviously nasty, and they can be justified using similar "good for society" arguments.

I like your posts. I think this forum needs more well reasoned, insightful people like you. This is not a good argument though.

Appreciate that, thanks.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No, I didn't. Any more than red lights are the same things as Soviet Gulags.

Here's what you wrote:

Hm, so you just made Bloomberg's argument for him. You'd choose to buy less soda.

Sounds like incentives 101.

They tax cigarettes more in part to incent not buying them. People smoke less.

They limit soda servings to 16 ounces. People limit their sodas to one 16 ounce glass.

I guess you disagree with your fellow righties 'THIS WILL NOT WORK AND HAVE NO EFFECT'

This is the exact same argument used to rationalize annoyances and hassles and restrictions placed on abortion: it leads to less abortion, and that's good for society, so the means are justified by those ends.

 

[Craig234]

You could also cure the obesity epidemic by shooting all the fat people, that's wrong too.

5 year olds are better at analogies than you are.

You're just embarrassing yourself - soda quantity and mass murder, really.

And it's a real mystery why people say the tea party type are nutjobs who lack common sense and support paranoid radical things so much.

 

[irishScott]

5 year olds are better at analogies than you are.

You're just embarrassing yourself - soda quantity and mass murder, really.

And it's a real mystery why people say the tea party type are nutjobs who lack common sense and support paranoid radical things so much.

They're also better at deciphering them then you.

I never related soda restrictions to mass murder, I related the general concept that they both were morally wrong. I even explicitly stated this, read much?

But your last line is revealing. You read what you wanted to read in typical Craig234 fashion, and lumped me in with the tea party to make it easier on yourself. If you knew anything about me at all affiliating me with the tea party would be laughable. As in actual tea partiers, that I personally know, have laughed at me as I facepalmed IRL.

God I'm rubbing a lot of sand in liberal vaginas today.

 

[Craig234]

They're also better at deciphering them then you.

I never related soda restrictions to mass murder, I related the general concept that they both were morally wrong. I even explicitly stated this, read much?

But your last line is revealing. You read what you wanted to read in typical Craig234 fashion, and lumped me in with the tea party to make it easier on yourself. If you knew anything about me at all affiliating me with the tea party would be laughable. As in actual tea partiers, that I personally know, have laughed at me as I facepalmed IRL.

God I'm rubbing a lot of sand in liberal vaginas today.

I didn't say you are affiliated with the tea party. I said that your argument has the same flaws theirs do. Your response just shows again you don't understand even what you said.

You did relate soda restrictions to mass murder. Shoplifting a candy bar and the Holocaust were both 'morally wrong', but making that point implies they're somehow comparable.

You directly implied they're somehow similar in how 'wrong' they are, and then deny it.

It's not surprising, a lot of confused people like you say things and don't understand what you said.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You did relate soda restrictions to mass murder.

No, he didn't. He was not saying they were comparable. He was making the (rather straightforward) point that a measure being effective doesn't mean that it is reasonable or justifiable, using an extreme example.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It's not surprising, a lot of confused people like you say things and don't understand what you said.

LMAO!!!!! Most in here feel that way about you and your posts/wall of text.

 

[her209]

This is on the same level of stupidity as banning courts from considering non-US laws in deciding cases.

 

[Craig234]

No, he didn't. He was not saying they were comparable. He was making the (rather straightforward) point that a measure being effective doesn't mean that it is reasonable or justifiable, using an extreme example.

For it to have any relevance, he had to compare them. To say 'the wrong in this one is enough like the wrong in the other one, to be relevant to the first one being a bad idea'.

You don't understand what he said, either.

If the mass murder analogy had NOTHING TO DO in being compared to the soda sizes, then how is it relevant to them? Why isn't the wrong in mass murder a totally separate issue?

An analogy saying 'one thing is wrong, and so is this second thing', is only relvant in arguing why the first thing is wrong if the wrongs are being compared.

Let's say that a police department wants to start searching citizens at random for bombs. You say that's ridiculous and a violation of their rights.

I say "what if they had hard evidence the people have bombs and are about to blow up a school? Then they could search them."

You say, 'but that's a totally different situation! You can't compare the justification for searches between just feeling like doing it, and when you have hard evidence!'

I say, 'I didn't compare them. I only made the point that when they have hard evidence, they're justified.'

So let's review that exchange.

I deny having made any claim that they are comparable - and yet I made the analogy defending why the random searches should be allowed. What's the connection?

If they're REALLY not related as I claim, then it's a pointless example having nothing to do with random searches.

But the implicit argument is that I'm saying since the searches are allowed in the second case, that it has some bearing that they're ok in the first case.

That's what he argued - that if mass murder is wrong so we shouldn't do it, that has some relvance to soda size limits being wrong and we also shouldn't do it. Just like my example saying searches are ok in the hard evidence scenario having some relvance to claiming they're ok in random cases.

Now, you don't understand that's what he said and neither does he.

Just as the hard evidence scenario has nothing to do with justifying random searches because the issues are very different, so does mass murder having nothing to do with soda.

I bet this will not have any impact on you, but I made the effort and others I'm sure get the point.

 

[michal1980]

Who the fuck is Bloombitch to tell anyone how much they soda they can buy? Who elected him to be a nanny?

 

[irishScott]

I didn't say you are affiliated with the tea party. I said that your argument has the same flaws theirs do. Your response just shows again you don't understand even what you said.

You did relate soda restrictions to mass murder. Shoplifting a candy bar and the Holocaust were both 'morally wrong', but making that point implies they're somehow comparable.

You directly implied they're somehow similar in how 'wrong' they are, and then deny it.

It's not surprising, a lot of confused people like you say things and don't understand what you said.

Fine, since you're pressing me into semantics: I did relate them, I did not equate them. I pointed out, as CharlesKozierok said, that "just because a method is effective doesn't make it right." That is the entirety of the point that you just spent

futile

double

spaced

walls

of

text

trying to explain away.

I'm sorry you have such a poor grasp of the english language. CharlesKozierok understood it without even trying, and he used proper paragraphs too. Some remedial lessons at his elementary school might do you some good.

It's not surprising, an extremely small number of people like you exist; apparently to make the rest of us laugh.

 

[shortylickens]

In the state of Virginia, it is against the law to advertise, "cold", or "ice cold", beer. You can sell it that way, you just can't advertise it.

Gee thats funny cuz I live in Virginia and I never noticed that.

In fact I think my local Hooters has a Blue Moon banner that says Ice Cold. Will have to go back and see.

 

[Craig234]

Fine, since you're pressing me into semantics: I did relate them, I did not equate them. I pointed out, as CharlesKozierok said, that "just because a method is effective doesn't make it right." That is the entirety of the point that you just spent

futile

double

spaced

walls

of

text

trying to explain away.

I'm sorry you have such a poor grasp of the english language. CharlesKozierok understood it without even trying, and he used proper paragraphs too. Some remedial lessons at his elementary school might do you some good.

It's not surprising, an extremely small number of people like you exist; apparently to make the rest of us laugh.

You're the one who doesn't understand what you said wrongly. You dont understand it after it's explained, either.

Either you are saying the wrong in soda sizes is similar enough to the wrong in mass murder that they should be treated the same, or you are bringing up an irrelevant topic.

You can't have it both ways.

Remainder of idiocy not responded to.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

For it to have any relevance, he had to compare them. To say 'the wrong in this one is enough like the wrong in the other one, to be relevant to the first one being a bad idea'.

You can compare two things without saying that one is as bad as another.

For example, it's wrong for me to take $5,000 from my neighbor without permission. It's also wrong for me to take 50 cents from my neighbor without permission. My neighbor very likely will care about the first and not about the second, but they are both wrong.

You don't understand what he said, either.

That's fascinating, because he seems to think I understood what he said. But I guess you know better than he does?

If the mass murder analogy had NOTHING TO DO in being compared to the soda sizes, then how is it relevant to them? Why isn't the wrong in mass murder a totally separate issue?

People such as you say that because something works, it is justified. The point is to show that LOTS of things "work", and just because they work, that doesn't mean they are right.

It's a pretty simple concept, actually.

That's what he argued - that if mass murder is wrong so we shouldn't do it, that has some relvance to soda size limits being wrong and we also shouldn't do it.

You're ... confused.

He's not judging the relative "wrongness" of soda restrictions and mass murder. He's refuting your "ends justify the means" argument by giving an example of another means that wouldn't be justified by the ends.

So, no, he's not saying "limiting sodas to 16 ounces is like killing people!". He's saying "you need a better argument to justify this action than 'it works', because there are any number of things that work that people find unacceptable".

I bet this will not have any impact on you, but I made the effort and others I'm sure get the point.

Playing to mythical audiences of silent supporters went out of vogue on Usenet in the 90s.

Either you are saying the wrong in soda sizes is similar enough to the wrong in mass murder that they should be treated the same, or you are bringing up an irrelevant topic.

Here's another possibility: you don't understand what he said and are too stubborn to reconsider.

 

[davmat787]

I didn't say you are affiliated with the tea party. I said that your argument has the same flaws theirs do. Your response just shows again you don't understand even what you said.

You did relate soda restrictions to mass murder. Shoplifting a candy bar and the Holocaust were both 'morally wrong', but making that point implies they're somehow comparable.

You directly implied they're somehow similar in how 'wrong' they are, and then deny it.

It's not surprising, a lot of confused people like you say things and don't understand what you said.

Why don't you simply tell us why you feel the soda size limit is a good idea, rather than telling us who feel it is not how flawed we are. Can you try that? Unless I missed a post, I have not read why you think this IS a good idea.

 

[VirtualLarry]

This is on the same level of stupidity as banning courts from considering non-US laws in deciding cases.

Why would US courts use anything other than US laws (or state laws) to try cases? Enlighten me.

 

[Craig234]

I'm not going to read your whole tedious response, but for reasons I can't justify will respond to the first bits.

You can compare two things without saying that one is as bad as another.

Yes, you can, and indeed he did.

What you can't do is raise one as an analogy for another in order to say 'because of the second one, it implies what should be done in the first', and still say 'oh I didn't compare'.

I'll even give you one more analogy, which will again waste my time.

EXAMPLE 1:

Should the government have the right to ban tobacco?

An argument might be, "yes; the government has the right to ban marijuana, and tobacco has many of the same issues.

Even they don't have the exact same cancer causing levels, or the same effects in terms of harm and safety, the marijuana analogy shows precedent for the power to ban it."

That's an example of bringing up a RELEVANT analogy, that's COMPARABLE though not exactly equivalent.

Now let's say someone instead argued "yes; the government can ban you from taking bombs on planes, so it should be able to ban tobacco. Both are banning dangers."

In that one, I might say 'those two are so different, that it's outreagous to say that the dangers of bombs on planes has anything to do with the dangers in tobacco."

You then would say the same things you have about how you didn't equate them, you only pointed out that the government sometimes bans dangerous things.

What you don't understand you said is that you DID compare them, for the bombs to have any relvance. If they have NOTHING TO DO with tobacco, why mention them?

That's just what he and you did and are clueless you did.

EXAMPLE 2:

Should we be able to execute people for smoking pot?

You could argue, "yes; we execute people for being mass murderers, and they're both crimes, so they can execute you for breaking the law on marijuana'.

I could point out 'the issues with mass murder are so different you can't compare them for justifying execution on one because of the other.'

You could then respond you didn't say they're equal, but you were just proving that you can execute people for crimes.

Same issue - either you ARE comparing them to justify executions for pot because of executions for mass murder, or it's irrelevant so why bring it up?

That's just what happened.

HE made the analogy about how mass murder would reduce obesity, but we don't do that because it's wrong; implying that the wrong os limiting soda size is comparable enough that the same issue is involved and it's also wrong to limit soda size for the same reason. Either he IS comparing the wrongs as similar enough for one to say what should be done in the other; or he's not and they're so different that mass murder is irrelevant, so why bring it up?

But you don't get that's the issue. The fact that there is SOMETHING in common in the three situations above isn't the issue; it's whether they're comparable enoough to be relevant, so that the issue in the second one has anything to do with how we should address the other one. His implication is he thinks yes, they're similar enough, that because of the wrong in mass murder making us not do it, the wrong in limiting soda size is similar enough to the wrong in mass murder we shouldn't do that as well. But he doesn't know it.

For example, it's wrong for me to take $5,000 from my neighbor without permission. It's also wrong for me to take 50 cents from my neighbor without permission. My neighbor very likely will care about the first and not about the second, but they are both wrong.

Now let's make this closer to the situation at hand - let's compare you taking 50 cents and taking your neighbor's child. That's like 'limiting soda size' and 'mass murder'.

Are the same policies appropriate for taking 50 cents and taking his child? The same amounts of investigation, the same punishments?

Of course not. So if someone suggests having something to do with 50 cents, it doesn't make sense for you to respond 'but here's what we'd do if his child is taken', as if it had anything to do with the 50 cents. Totally different situations, even though both are 'wrong'. Similarly, the situations with limiting soda size and mass murder are totally different, even if 'both are wrong', in his opinion. So what's appropriate regarding mass murder DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING about what's apppropriate for limiting soda size.

Is it appropriate to bring in police with guns, to put you in jail, over taking his child? Yes. So does that mean it says anything about it being appropriate to bringing in police with guns or putting you in jail over 50 cents? No, even though 'both are wrong'. And just because we don't kill people who drink soda, it doesn't mean we shouldn't limit soda size. He brought up a totally irrelevant analogy, even if 'both are wrong' in his opinion.

Totally different issues, so maybe we SHOULD not kill people but limit soda size - just saying 'we shouldn't kill people' says nothing about the other issue.

Now, I know this is all totally wasted on you, but you got one more chance.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Gotta love authoritarians. They know what's best for you and you had better listen especially when they have guns and badges. Nice.

 

[Craig234]

Why would US courts use anything other than US laws (or state laws) to try cases? Enlighten me.

Because sometimes, international norms are relevant to US law, rarely, as in the case the right didn't understand and went nuts about he refers to.

Recent cases where the court has done this involve broad matters of rights, and mankind's opinions on those rights - rights which are human rights,not unique to American law.

The main cases have involved capital punishment - such as executing people who are retarded - and homosexuality, noting Britain's ending of legal discrimination.

These things become relevant when evaluating phrases such as 'cruel and unusual punishment', or other global, universal issues they are required to judge.

When they have to judge the issue of whether executing the innocent violates human rights and principles, 'mankind's views' can be relevant.

Our own Declaration of Independance specifically said the US is a nation that has "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind", and cited that as the reason for the declaration being written, to explain to the world, whose opinions we respected, why we were dong what we were doing:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Now, I know today's Republicans would not use that language, but they disagree a lot with the founders.

No one is saying US law should be compromised by, overriden by, dictated by, other countries' laws - that's only the simplistic straw man by Republicans who don't get it.

 

[Craig234]

Why don't you simply tell us why you feel the soda size limit is a good idea, rather than telling us who feel it is not how flawed we are. Can you try that? Unless I missed a post, I have not read why you think this IS a good idea.

I didn't say you're flawed, I said the arguments made are. And you're right otherwise, I haven't commented on the issue.

So, I think it's probable that on balance, the health issues involved here will get enough benefit by ending accidents of marketing that lead to people buying huge sodas and having problems, to outweigh the 'reduction in freedom' of having drinks come 16 ounces at a time. I noticed someone agreed with my position, Bill Clinton:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-clinton-defends-bloombergs-soda-ban-these-are-very-serious-problems/

In other words, there are big benefits practically, with trivial cost in 'freedom'.

 

[xj0hnx]

LOL@fail234 rationalizing his love for the totalitarian nanny state with Wall's o' Text no one reads.

 

[irishScott]

I'm not going to read your whole tedious response, but for reasons I can't justify will respond to the first bits.



Yes, you can, and indeed he did.

What you can't do is raise one as an analogy for another in order to say 'because of the second one, it implies what should be done in the first', and still say 'oh I didn't compare'.

I'll even give you one more analogy, which will again waste my time.

EXAMPLE 1:

Should the government have the right to ban tobacco?

An argument might be, "yes; the government has the right to ban marijuana, and tobacco has many of the same issues.

Even they don't have the exact same cancer causing levels, or the same effects in terms of harm and safety, the marijuana analogy shows precedent for the power to ban it."

That's an example of bringing up a RELEVANT analogy, that's COMPARABLE though not exactly equivalent.

Now let's say someone instead argued "yes; the government can ban you from taking bombs on planes, so it should be able to ban tobacco. Both are banning dangers."

In that one, I might say 'those two are so different, that it's outreagous to say that the dangers of bombs on planes has anything to do with the dangers in tobacco."

You then would say the same things you have about how you didn't equate them, you only pointed out that the government sometimes bans dangerous things.

What you don't understand you said is that you DID compare them, for the bombs to have any relvance. If they have NOTHING TO DO with tobacco, why mention them?

That's just what he and you did and are clueless you did.

EXAMPLE 2:

Should we be able to execute people for smoking pot?

You could argue, "yes; we execute people for being mass murderers, and they're both crimes, so they can execute you for breaking the law on marijuana'.

I could point out 'the issues with mass murder are so different you can't compare them for justifying execution on one because of the other.'

You could then respond you didn't say they're equal, but you were just proving that you can execute people for crimes.

Same issue - either you ARE comparing them to justify executions for pot because of executions for mass murder, or it's irrelevant so why bring it up?

That's just what happened.

HE made the analogy about how mass murder would reduce obesity, but we don't do that because it's wrong; implying that the wrong os limiting soda size is comparable enough that the same issue is involved and it's also wrong to limit soda size for the same reason. Either he IS comparing the wrongs as similar enough for one to say what should be done in the other; or he's not and they're so different that mass murder is irrelevant, so why bring it up?

But you don't get that's the issue. The fact that there is SOMETHING in common in the three situations above isn't the issue; it's whether they're comparable enoough to be relevant, so that the issue in the second one has anything to do with how we should address the other one. His implication is he thinks yes, they're similar enough, that because of the wrong in mass murder making us not do it, the wrong in limiting soda size is similar enough to the wrong in mass murder we shouldn't do that as well. But he doesn't know it.



Now let's make this closer to the situation at hand - let's compare you taking 50 cents and taking your neighbor's child. That's like 'limiting soda size' and 'mass murder'.

Are the same policies appropriate for taking 50 cents and taking his child? The same amounts of investigation, the same punishments?

Of course not. So if someone suggests having something to do with 50 cents, it doesn't make sense for you to respond 'but here's what we'd do if his child is taken', as if it had anything to do with the 50 cents. Totally different situations, even though both are 'wrong'. Similarly, the situations with limiting soda size and mass murder are totally different, even if 'both are wrong', in his opinion. So what's appropriate regarding mass murder DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING about what's apppropriate for limiting soda size.

Is it appropriate to bring in police with guns, to put you in jail, over taking his child? Yes. So does that mean it says anything about it being appropriate to bringing in police with guns or putting you in jail over 50 cents? No, even though 'both are wrong'. And just because we don't kill people who drink soda, it doesn't mean we shouldn't limit soda size. He brought up a totally irrelevant analogy, even if 'both are wrong' in his opinion.

Totally different issues, so maybe we SHOULD not kill people but limit soda size - just saying 'we shouldn't kill people' says nothing about the other issue.

Now, I know this is all totally wasted on you, but you got one more chance.

Wow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

Only in Hal9000's threads have I ever seen such a straight-forward and fanatical example. Congratulations.

 

[Perknose]

The People of New York weigh in!

New York may be the world’s greatest city, but it abounds with menaces to the public health and well-being. So when Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg proposed banning the sale of large sugary drinks at restaurants and other places, City Room took the opportunity to ask readers to suggest other things that ought not to be allowed.

Here are a few of the nearly 300 substances, practices and persons you earmarked for prohibition. For which we thank you.

Car alarms

Crocs

Bad pizza

Lower back tattoos on women

Unemployment

Passing gas on the subway

Pedestrians with umbrellas that are wider than they are tall

Sidewalk preachers

Fedoras

Applying makeup while driving

Lax oversight of expensive city contracts

Movie ads, in subways and on billboards, that prominently feature guns

Investing city pension assets in the secondary security market

Using the East Side Heliport on weekends

Horseback riding

Republicans

Democrats

Children

Dogs

James Dolan

Kenny G.

Patchouli

Psychics

Eating, if you’re fat

Not eating, if you’re skinny

Plastic shopping bags

Cell yell

Traffic enforcement agents’ cars blocking traffic to write tickets

Cheap plastic fluorescent backlit signs

Killing animals in shelters

Lethal ammunition in the firearms of police officers on patrol

Scam sexual enhancement pills at bodega checkouts

Cab drivers asking you what route you want to take and then debating your choice

Waiters and waitresses sharing their personal feelings about chosen menu items

Ugly doors on architecturally significant schools and public buildings

Public nose picking

Jorts

Ketchup at hot-dog stands

Handbags designed to carry dogs

Stopping to converse in the middle of a busy sidewalk

Transit officials who don’t depend on public transportation enacting route changes and fare hikes

Anyone the mayor met at a cocktail party from running a city agency

Sitting in the window of Starbucks with a laptop, headphones and wearing sunglasses during normal, weekday business hours.

Yankees caps in the colors of other teams

Bottled water

Telemarketing calls to cellphones.

Storefront teeth-whitening shops

Grocery store fliers

Sealed windows in office buildings

Motorcycles without mufflers

Large restaurant entrees

Fat shoelaces

Unprovable statistics

Strollers on public transit

Seventh grade

Sex

Fish with bones in them

Getting old

Poverty

Sarcasm

After-shave

News conferences

Stupid laws

Self-financing of campaigns for public office

Doughnuts

Third terms for mayors