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

[Nebor]

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

Fo' rizzle, I even agree with him on this one and I can't stand to read them. They're typically barely tangential to the topic, and instead attempt to draw some broad conclusion about how the left is good and the right is screwing things up again, which is even less appealing an argument in this caes, where there's broad opposition from both sides.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

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

Of course. If you're going to post a lengthy reply to someone, why bother to read what they wrote first? I mean, if you did that, why, a rational discussion might result and we certainly can't have that.

Yes, you can, and indeed he did.

That's not supported by the text of his post. For the Nth time, he was using reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate that your specific argument -- "if it makes people drink less soda then it's okay!" -- is fallacious.

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'.

It wasn't an analogy.

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

You are indeed wasting your time, because you're off in left field. (Not that you seem to have any shortage of time.)

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

Yes, it's a relevant analogy for the scenario posited. It's just not relevant to this discussion, for reasons that are rather obvious: he wasn't making an analogy.

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.

Fascinating story. Again, not even remotely relevant to the subdiscussion under contention.

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?

I honestly have no idea why we are discussing tobacco or bombs at all.

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.

Once again, you are out in left field. I'll try one more time.

Nobody is saying that killing people is equivalent to restricting their soda intake. What he was saying is that if the only standard you are going to use is "it works!" then you can justify anything.

So, you support a law restricting soda size because you think it will lead to healthier living. Great -- once you've used that, what else can you justify?

Why not ban soda altogether? It will lead to healthier people.
In fact, let's ban sugar completely.
And fat -- fat is bad for you. Let's ban all products with added fat.
And white flour, too. Nasty stuff. Shut down all bakeries.
And people need more exercise. So we need mandatory laws forcing people to exercise three times a week, with government "facilitators" to enforce the mandate.

Etc.

If you can justify restricting soda size simply by pointing out that "it works", then you can justify anything else as well. Saying "you can fight obesity by shooting people" isn't saying "restricting soda size is like shooting people", it is saying "you cannot justify restricting soda size based on the outcome, because doing so allows you to justify pretty much anything". It's a deliberately exaggerated example.

That's just what happened.

No, it's not. You're extremely confused.

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.

Ah, you're almost getting it now. The entire point was to say that we must assess actions based on whether or not they are wrong, and not just based on whether or not they work. Of course shooting people is wrong. But many people also think that telling others what they can drink is wrong. That doesn't mean both are equally wrong, just as stealing 50 cents as not as wrong as stealing $5,000. But they are both wrong.

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?

To point out that your "it will work!" argument is flawed.

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'.

Okay.

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

No.

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.

Well, good thing I didn't do that! LOL

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.

That's correct, it doesn't. What it says is that the standard of "it accomplishes a goal" is insufficient.

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

Gosh golly, one more chance! I hope I did okay. Are you gonna ground me or something, dad?

 

[Craig234]

Of course. If you're going to post a lengthy reply to someone, why bother to read what they wrote first? I mean, if you did that, why, a rational discussion might result and we certainly can't have that.

No, sometimes it's clear from the beginning of a post it's a waste. Case in point.

Another waste of a post, I said you won't get it, you don't, time to move on.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No, sometimes it's clear from the beginning of a post it's a waste. Case in point.

Another waste of a post, I said you won't get it, you don't, time to move on.

Concession accepted.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Concession accepted.

I can't believe you wasted so much time on craig's walls of drivel. Though it has been fun watching you make a fool of him. Bravo, my hat's off to you.

 

[cybrsage]

What if the child you take also has 50 cents in his pocket?

 

[SagaLore]

This is just insane, now the government is telling you how much soda you are allowed to buy at one time.

Think both sides of it.

The companies are encouraging over-consumption of beverages that highly contribute to diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay. They're not demanding you drink it, but they're subconsciously making you drink it. As consumers we tend to purchase the "better deal", and then once we have it in our possession, we tend to consume it all to "not be wasteful". Its built into our habits, and very successful marketing targets this habit.

Fortunately, even without the government, there is already a market shift to cater to the more conscientious consumer and provide smaller size drinks. But I think the impulsive buyers still outnumber the conscientious buyers quite a bit.

The government is NOT limiting how much you can consume. They're just limiting the size of the individual beverages, giving the consumer more awareness of the number of units of something he/she is consuming.

So fatty mcfatty can still purchase a 6 pack of smaller sized drinks and drink them all in one go.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Because one set of regulations has resulted in a de facto ban, and the other is nowhere even remotely close. In Kansas for example, the legislature passed so many regulations that it denied licensing to every single abortion provider in the entire state. It took federal courts to block their regulations in order to restore abortion services to the state. (and in that case to only a single provider if I'm not mistaken) Attempting to compare forcing people to buy two 16oz sodas to such an obviously onerous and oppressive regulatory scheme is not valid.

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.

It's not a matter of degree. One of those regulations limits the packaging of soda you can purchase. Another regulation requires a violation of your body's integrity by a probe in a procedure that serves no medical purpose... just so that you can receive a service you have a legal right to. One of those is a violation of your rights to your body, one is not.

Just because Craig's reasoning is terrible doesn't make the comparison between abortion rights and soda buying rights any better.

 

[michal1980]

Think both sides of it.

The companies are encouraging over-consumption of beverages that highly contribute to diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay. They're not demanding you drink it, but they're subconsciously making you drink it. As consumers we tend to purchase the "better deal", and then once we have it in our possession, we tend to consume it all to "not be wasteful". Its built into our habits, and very successful marketing targets this habit.

Fortunately, even without the government, there is already a market shift to cater to the more conscientious consumer and provide smaller size drinks. But I think the impulsive buyers still outnumber the conscientious buyers quite a bit.

The government is NOT limiting how much you can consume. They're just limiting the size of the individual beverages, giving the consumer more awareness of the number of units of something he/she is consuming.

So fatty mcfatty can still purchase a 6 pack of smaller sized drinks and drink them all in one go.

In fact you are saying is that adults are stupid and goverment needs to make them more aware of how much they are drinking?

If its about being fat, then why are they not limiting sizes of juice? If fatty is so stupid he doesn't know that 5 gallons of soda makes him fat, is he smart enough to know that 5 gallons of juice will also make him fat?

What about beer? That has a similar number of calories, but I can buy 5 gallons of it and get a nice gut.


At the end of the day, there is no good reason for BloomBitch to tell people how much soda they can buy when they are eating at mcdonalds.

 

[waggy]

I can't believe you wasted so much time on craig's walls of drivel. Though it has been fun watching you make a fool of him. Bravo, my hat's off to you.

i know. i was watching and laughing. only time you can convince crieg he is wrong is if you point out he is arguing FOR the GOP.

 

[monovillage]

Think both sides of it.

The companies are encouraging over-consumption of beverages that highly contribute to diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay. They're not demanding you drink it, but they're subconsciously making you drink it. As consumers we tend to purchase the "better deal", and then once we have it in our possession, we tend to consume it all to "not be wasteful". Its built into our habits, and very successful marketing targets this habit.

Fortunately, even without the government, there is already a market shift to cater to the more conscientious consumer and provide smaller size drinks. But I think the impulsive buyers still outnumber the conscientious buyers quite a bit.

The government is NOT limiting how much you can consume. They're just limiting the size of the individual beverages, giving the consumer more awareness of the number of units of something he/she is consuming.

So fatty mcfatty can still purchase a 6 pack of smaller sized drinks and drink them all in one go.

It's so nice to see that the authoritarian/fascist meme is still alive and living here in the States.

 

[waggy]

lol more i read about this law the dumber i think it is.

it has no use in restaurants or the home (where most get soda and such). It really is no use in other high calorie drinks such as alcohol or those fruity parfet/ice cream things.

Only time this will have any effect is the guy going into the gas station to get a soda with his gas.

pretty much a useless law

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Because one set of regulations has resulted in a de facto ban, and the other is nowhere even remotely close. In Kansas for example, the legislature passed so many regulations that it denied licensing to every single abortion provider in the entire state. It took federal courts to block their regulations in order to restore abortion services to the state. (and in that case to only a single provider if I'm not mistaken) Attempting to compare forcing people to buy two 16oz sodas to such an obviously onerous and oppressive regulatory scheme is not valid.

Only because you are comparing the sum effect of a large number of laws to a single law. When the first "abortion hurdle" regulation was instituted, I guarantee that the exact same reasoning was used as is being used by leftists here: "it works and it's good for society and you can still get abortions", just like we have clowns saying "it works and it's good for society and you can still get soda".

It's not a matter of degree. One of those regulations limits the packaging of soda you can purchase. Another regulation requires a violation of your body's integrity by a probe in a procedure that serves no medical purpose... just so that you can receive a service you have a legal right to. One of those is a violation of your rights to your body, one is not.

There are other regulations that don't involve violating body rights but still make abortion more difficult or unpleasant -- waiting periods, being forced to make two visits, having to listen to the doctor say this or that, etc.

Again, these measures are defending in the exact same way: by saying that they don't prevent you from getting an abortion but they discourage it, and the ends justify the means.

Just because Craig's reasoning is terrible doesn't make the comparison between abortion rights and soda buying rights any better.

Craig's reasoning is typical of those on the left defending these nanny-state meaures, and that's why it is worth unpacking.

 

[PhoKingGuy]

As a future health provider, I support this.

As an American, I hate this.

I think that's how most people feel about this issue.

 

[Craig234]

Just because Craig's reasoning is terrible doesn't make the comparison between abortion rights and soda buying rights any better.

Except it's not, and you have not shown any flaw whatsoever, making your own 'reasoning' absent - but just as bad as the people comparing abortion and soda rights. Prove it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Except it's not, and you have not shown any flaw whatsoever, making your own 'reasoning' absent - but just as bad as the people comparing abortion and soda rights.

Actually, I've laid out the flaws in your reasoning in detail.

You chose to throw a temper tantrum rather than respond reasonably, which is your right, but that doesn't change the fact that the post is right there and everyone can see it.

 

[Craig234]

Think both sides of it.

The companies are encouraging over-consumption of beverages that highly contribute to diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay. They're not demanding you drink it, but they're subconsciously making you drink it. As consumers we tend to purchase the "better deal", and then once we have it in our possession, we tend to consume it all to "not be wasteful". Its built into our habits, and very successful marketing targets this habit.

Fortunately, even without the government, there is already a market shift to cater to the more conscientious consumer and provide smaller size drinks. But I think the impulsive buyers still outnumber the conscientious buyers quite a bit.

The government is NOT limiting how much you can consume. They're just limiting the size of the individual beverages, giving the consumer more awareness of the number of units of something he/she is consuming.

So fatty mcfatty can still purchase a 6 pack of smaller sized drinks and drink them all in one go.

I hadn't really considered this issue, but I do notice a lot of fast food places will price drinks where the size might skyrocket, something like 12/20/32 ounces, and br priced something like $1.79, $1.99 and $2.19. Who doesn't like to 'spend a little more' when you get a lot more, who doesn't feel a bit 'ripped off' to save a tiny bit and get a lot less?

So why do that? I'm wondering if it doesn't help make consumers feel they're 'getting a bargain' making them happy to pay $2.19 - not noticing it's for 4 cents worth of product.

If that's the case, it's one more reason for this - where the sellers are increasing their profits without concern for the effects on consumers.

 

[Craig234]

Actually, I've laid out the flaws in your reasoning in detail.

You chose to throw a temper tantrum rather than respond reasonably, which is your right, but that doesn't change the fact that the post is right there and everyone can see it.

You've posted idiocy, not even worth a response, and responded like a child. Go away.


No insults or personal attacks in P&N.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You've posted idiocy, not even worth a response, and responded like a child. Go away.

Post #252 explains in detail the flaws in your reasoning. It awaits your rebuttal.

Or, you can just throw more temper tantrums.

Incidentally, if the government can prohibit me from buying large cups of soda to protect me from myself, why shouldn't it also ban any or all of the following?

- Alcohol.
- Fried foods.
- Riding lawn mowers (encourages laziness)
- Mountain-climbing (dangerous!)
- Waterskiing
- Surfing
- Motorcycles
- Living in big cities (pollution, traffic accidents)
- Chainsaws (people get hurt)
- Amusement parks (dangerous and unnecessary)

I could literally rattle off 100 more, and there's not a single argument you can make in favor of this ban that I couldn't make for the vast majority of them.

For that matter, why not force people to go in for government weigh-ins monthly? And if they're obese, we can force them to wear activity monitors and fine them if they don't exercise enough.

Since you have no principles and only care about "end results", you can justify anything.

 

[Craig234]

Post #252 explains in detail the flaws in your reasoning. It awaits your rebuttal.

Or, you can just throw more temper tantrums.

Incidentally, if the government can prohibit me from buying large cups of soda to protect me from myself, why shouldn't it also ban any or all of the following?

- Alcohol.
- Fried foods.
- Riding lawn mowers (encourages laziness)
- Mountain-climbing (dangerous!)
- Waterskiing
- Surfing
- Motorcycles
- Living in big cities (pollution, traffic accidents)
- Chainsaws (people get hurt)
- Amusement parks (dangerous and unnecessary)

I could literally rattle off 100 more, and there's not a single argument you can make in favor of this ban that I couldn't make for the vast majority of them.

For that matter, why not force people to go in for government weigh-ins monthly? And if they're obese, we can force them to wear activity monitors and fine them if they don't exercise enough.

What part of 'go away' do you not understand?

However, I think what I'll do is this. Your argument is so pathetic, someone who can stand to read the nonsense should easily rebut it.

If no one else does, sad as that would be, I might bother. You haven't understood or provided any response of any substance to the previous posts, though; you won't again.

So, let's see who can point out a difference between large sodas and amusement parks?


No insults or personal attacks in P&N.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What part of 'go away' do you not understand?

The "you're not in charge here and I'm not going anywhere" part.

However, I think what I'll do is this. Your argument is so pathetic, someone who can stand to read the nonsense should easily rebut it.

Yes, no doubt it will be trivially simple. Especially for someone with your considerable intellect.

So, let's see who can point out a difference between large sodas and amusement parks?

I'll give you a simpler one. If they can ban large sized sodas, why not large sizes of any number of other foods? Potato chips, popcorn boxes at movie theaters, double cheeseburgers, large boxes of fries, appetizers with more than X calories at restaurants, etc.

I suppose you are in favor of banning all of those too?

 

[ShawnD1]

I could literally rattle off 100 more, and there's not a single argument you can make in favor of this ban that I couldn't make for the vast majority of them.

Yeah but that's different because chainsaws are involved in accidental death. Obesity is different because it's intentional death. We need to prevent people from killing themselves intentionally. When you die should be left up to God.

I'll give you a simpler one. If they can ban large sized sodas, why not large sizes of any number of other foods? Potato chips, popcorn boxes at movie theaters, double cheeseburgers, large boxes of fries, appetizers with more than X calories at restaurants, etc.

Liberals hate Costco and the values for which it stands. 4L jug of mayonnaise? That should be illegal and punished by castration.

 

[Craig234]

Liberals hate Costco and the values for which it stands. 4L jug of mayonnaise? That should be illegal and punished by castration.

95% of what's said about liberals here is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.

Anyone who can explain to the guy who needs one, big soda versus amusement park?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yeah but that's different because chainsaws are involved in accidental death. Obesity is different because it's intentional death. We need to prevent people from killing themselves intentionally. When you die should be left up to God.

Obesity is not "intentional death". With the exception of a few with eating disorders, nobody overeats as a form of suicide.

Obesity is a side-effect of poor life decisions and/or unlucky health issues. And if someone wants to make those decisions and die as a result, it is no different than the person deciding to climb Mt. Everest and dying as a result.

 

[Aikouka]

While drinking 64oz of soda is a horrifyingly bad health decision, this is not a good answer to it. I'm a much bigger fan of the calorie posting requirements and things like that.

It might help to also explain what the calories mean. Perhaps a "simplified" chart showing how much exercise it would take for someone weighing 100, 200 and 300 pounds to run off the calories. Obviously, there are a ton of variables in there (speed, etc.), but I think a modest idea of calories to effort required to burn off would be good. I've mentioned it before, but at least my high school health class failed to teach any of that. If it wasn't against drugs, alcohol, tobacco or sex, they didn't teach it.