Is this right?
Yes
13.2% (7)
13.2% (7)
No
84.9% (45)
84.9% (45)
Why can
1.9% (1)
1.9% (1)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Big Sodas and Nanny States

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

As I'm sure most everyone around here has heard already, New York Mayor Bloomberg's ban on big sugary drinks kicks in in a few days. My question for everyone around here is probably pretty obvious. Is this right? Should government be able to nudge people in the right direction on personal choices or should people be free to do it on their own?

To me this seems like Bloomberg trying to make a nanny state. The government should not be down at such a level telling people what to do with their personal lives. I have to agree with people calling this a slippery slope. Bloomberg has previously legislated the removal of transfats and now hes going after ear buds. I'll be the first to say that this shit is indeed bad for you, but people should run their own lives. To me this is not just a governmental problem its a cultural problem. If people can't learn to make their own decisions about little things how the hell can they learn to make big ones?

I'm all for forcing companies to give all the information about products like Fast Food restaurants have been recently. It does nothing more then lets people be aware if whats in the product so they can make an informed decision. To me thats the route we should use, not just saying "no you can't have that".

http://cnnradio.cnn.com/2013/03/08/prepping-for-nycs-ban-on-large-sugary-drinks/?hpt=us_t4

I don't see a problem with a government banning things that would harm society/members of society, that's sorta what it is there for.

However, passing ill-conceived laws like this is certainly a problem. It won't stop people from consuming sugar, nor is consuming sugar such a terrible thing. Health and fitness are a lot more complicated than pop culture makes them out to be.

It's mostly a cultural problem, i.e. how do we change it without pissing people off.

As far as I'm aware, Europe has a ban on high-fructose corn syrup because very few to none of the things I buy here actually have it in their list of ingredients. The US should do the same. I'm aware that it's hard to do that now that it'll piss companies off, but you gotta make some sacrifices.

As for if it's "right", well, I'm not going to comment on whether it's morally good or bad since it looks like a grey area to me. My opinion is that it's not the right approach.

poiumty:
It's mostly a cultural problem, i.e. how do we change it without pissing people off.

As far as I'm aware, Europe has a ban on high-fructose corn syrup because very few to none of the things I buy here actually have it in their list of ingredients. The US should do the same. I'm aware that it's hard to do that now that it'll piss companies off, but you gotta make some sacrifices.

As for if it's "right", well, I'm not going to comment on whether it's morally good or bad since it looks like a grey area to me. My opinion is that it's not the right approach.

That's another pointless ban though because your ass can't really tell the difference between sugar cane sugar and corn sugar, only your wallet can.

Banning bad foods does nothing to make good foods more appealing or cheaper.

I said in another thread about something similar, that this sort of move is faux compassion or faux solution, the sort where you can pretend like you're helping people out by reducing both a complex social problem and a complex biological problem into the shortest dumbest answer possible so you can pretend to be on top of the problem.

It's easy to say 'People are fat? Let's ban fat!' and make pretend like you're doing something.

Not to mention that 'banning this for your own good' has been used to justify just about every terrible thing done to people ever. If I had a dime for every time somebody said that say, being gay should be banned because it's a 'health risk', I'd be a billionaire.

Shock and Awe:
As I'm sure most everyone around here has heard already, New York Mayor Bloomberg's ban on big sugary drinks kicks in in a few days. My question for everyone around here is probably pretty obvious. Is this right? Should government be able to nudge people in the right direction on personal choices or should people be free to do it on their own?

To me this seems like Bloomberg trying to make a nanny state. The government should not be down at such a level telling people what to do with their personal lives. I have to agree with people calling this a slippery slope. Bloomberg has previously legislated the removal of transfats and now hes going after ear buds. I'll be the first to say that this shit is indeed bad for you, but people should run their own lives. To me this is not just a governmental problem its a cultural problem. If people can't learn to make their own decisions about little things how the hell can they learn to make big ones?

I'm all for forcing companies to give all the information about products like Fast Food restaurants have been recently. It does nothing more then lets people be aware if whats in the product so they can make an informed decision. To me that's the route we should use, not just saying "no you can't have that".

http://cnnradio.cnn.com/2013/03/08/prepping-for-nycs-ban-on-large-sugary-drinks/?hpt=us_t4

It's an economic problem, really. Banning McDonalds has never once made a Wholefoods cheaper.

It's legislation in violation of the harm principle, hence it is wrong.

Probably completely inefficient as well, but that's beside the point. The state doesn't have any more business at the dinner table than it does in the bedroom. Inform about the potentially harmful effects of excess sugar intake to your heart's content, and let people make an informed choice.

"Nudging" - a euphemism for manipulation - in general isn't something the state should engage in, as it'll only be a matter of time before the experiences more or less consciously find themselves into how the voting process is structured. Place the ballots there or there, and this or this demographic will vote the most and so forth.

Imperator_DK:
It's legislation in violation of the harm principle, hence it is wrong.

Probably completely inefficient as well, but that's beside the point. The state doesn't have any more business at the dinner table than it does in the bedroom. Inform about the potentially harmful effects of excess sugar intake to your heart's content, and let people make an informed choice.

"Nudging" - a euphemism for manipulation - in general isn't something the state should engage in, as it'll only be a matter of time before the experiences more or less consciously find themselves into how the voting process is structured. Place the ballots there or there, and this or this demographic will vote the most and so forth.

It's not even nudging. If it was some comprehensive legislation to make sure that broccoli was cheaper as a 'nudge' towards eating more of it, or some labor law that enforced that somebody be given a stable enough work schedule to actually plan meals around or enough wages to eat something other than a 10,000 calorie wax paper, that might actually be fine, even though it'd be 'nudging' you to eat the right things.

poiumty:
I'm aware that it's hard to do that now that it'll piss companies off, but you gotta make some sacrifices.

Not to mention that the massive corn subsidies means they're producing so much of the stuff they don't know where to put it. As far as I'm aware that's basically the reason they put it in everything: It's incredibly cheap to make high-fructose corn syrup because it's so heavily subsidized and farmers produce way more than is needed for normal consumption.

Why shouldn't the government be able to restrict harmful behavior? As we spend more and more on healthcare, it only makes sense to ban unhealthy foods and stop people from listening to music in public (it reduces situational awareness and leads to people walking out in front of cars/being more easily mugged/etc). Of course we're only scratching the surface right now. Society will be much better off when we censor all violent media, make premarital sex illegal, and start taxing people more based on their demographics (Homosexual men, for example, have a much higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases and those of African descent face higher risk of sickle cell anemia). It's really what's best for everyone.

Damien Granz:

That's another pointless ban though because your ass can't really tell the difference between sugar cane sugar and corn sugar, only your wallet can.

Less people will buy the more expensive products (or buy less of them), companies will use less sugar and so on. Don't just assume nothing will change except people will be poorer. We're not machines.

captcha: mimsy borogoves. I dunno, do the mole raths outgrobe? Because you can't have mimsy borogoves without some outgrobin', that's for sure.

Governments can ban porn and free speech. The only difference here is that they're using the excuse of health.

The idea of a Nanny state isn't that it takes care of you but it invades your personal space and influences your range of personal choices.

poiumty:

Damien Granz:

That's another pointless ban though because your ass can't really tell the difference between sugar cane sugar and corn sugar, only your wallet can.

Less people will buy the more expensive products (or buy less of them), companies will use less sugar and so on. Don't just assume nothing will change except people will be poorer. We're not machines.

captcha: mimsy borogoves. I dunno, do the mole raths outgrobe? Because you can't have mimsy borogoves without some outgrobin', that's for sure.

Then wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just cut corn subsidies? Thats one of the main reasons corn syrup is so cheap.

I'm in the camp of people who think that government shouldn't be allowed to ban foods. Now banning overly large drinks is a bit of a grey area. You can still drink as much of the pop as you would before, but you just can't get it in one giant cup. So morally I guess there's no real harm there, but I don't think they should do it since it's really just wasting government resources on a false solution to a real problem. Banning large drink sizes isn't going to do squat to curb obesity and is a complete waste of time and money when better steps on the road to a solution could be pushed instead.

But in a more general sense, I find the idea of government taking any stand on what we can and can't eat or drink somewhat troubling. In large part because their decades of instilling fear of saturated fat in the population and extolling the virtues of diets based on grains has made problems such as obesity and heart disease worse, not better. Sure, government taking steps to ban things that cause harm sounds good in theory, until you realize that they can get things wrong and make things worse. I'd rather look into the available research myself when it comes to deciding what to put into my body, as well as track my own results with various foods and exercise regimens to see what works. And if I wish to indulge in eating some pizza or french fries now and again I will do so and be responsible for my own moderation and self control. Government can stay out of it thank you very much.

My problem with sodas is the misinformation surrounding them. Most people underestimate the risks and that's why the government needs to step in. So i agree with the sentiment of bloomberg but his methods are dodgy at best. A better thing to do would be start ad campaigns to inform people and ban advertisement for soda's (like they did with tobacco over here) or force soda ads to mention the risks of drinking them (like alcohol ads). This way the consumers will still have a choice but will make their choices better informed.

poiumty:
It's mostly a cultural problem, i.e. how do we change it without pissing people off.

As far as I'm aware, Europe has a ban on high-fructose corn syrup because very few to none of the things I buy here actually have it in their list of ingredients. The US should do the same. I'm aware that it's hard to do that now that it'll piss companies off, but you gotta make some sacrifices.

As for if it's "right", well, I'm not going to comment on whether it's morally good or bad since it looks like a grey area to me. My opinion is that it's not the right approach.

Believe it or not the ban has much less to do with health than it has to do with money, one of the income sources of the EU are sugar levies, these are not "import" taxes per say, but levies which are payed by the producers. Since corn syrup is not produced in Europe, they much rather you use other types of sugar for which due levies are payed.
From pure medical/nutritional aspect there is no difference between fructose sugars made out of say corn(which is popular in the food industry since it serves both as a coagulating agent and as a source of sugars) and say your everyday "grape" sugar which is old in every "health" department/organic food store.
I also find it odd that people have no issue banning coke, but don't ban the same size juices(which have about 20-25% higher calorie count per given unit than sodas), not to mention all those smoothies and "health" shake which have any where between 50 and 300% more calories than your normal fizzy drink.
Those giant fruit shakes that they sell you are the gym on average have about 90-130 calories per 100ml(w/o the protein powder), yeah they might have some more vitamins in them but besides that its only water and sugars nothing more.
Now I'm not saying we should ban fruit juice because it's not healthy, everything can be healthy or non-healthy depending on the amount, overall diet, and other factors. But replacing coke with orange juice will not make any one consume less sugars, if any thing it might actually increase the amount of sugar they consume if they keep to the same amounts.

Shock and Awe:

Then wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just cut corn subsidies? Thats one of the main reasons corn syrup is so cheap.

I guess? I'm no expert, there's probably better ways of reducing the prevalence of sugars in US food than I'm suggesting here. The idea remains though: I'd rather regulate the producers than the population.

Verbatim:

Believe it or not the ban has much less to do with health than it has to do with money, one of the income sources of the EU are sugar levies, these are not "import" taxes per say, but levies which are payed by the producers. Since corn syrup is not produced in Europe, they much rather you use other types of sugar for which due levies are payed.

I didn't suggest it necessarily had anything to do with health, but it has some effect nevertheless. Interesting info there, still.

No this is not right. The nanny sate is one of the worst things to happen to our society, it needs to end and people need to learn to take care of themselves. Who cares how much soda they want to consume, the government has no right to ban this.

poiumty:

Shock and Awe:

Then wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just cut corn subsidies? Thats one of the main reasons corn syrup is so cheap.

I guess? I'm no expert, there's probably better ways of reducing the prevalence of sugars in US food than I'm suggesting here. The idea remains though: I'd rather regulate the producers than the population.

Verbatim:

Believe it or not the ban has much less to do with health than it has to do with money, one of the income sources of the EU are sugar levies, these are not "import" taxes per say, but levies which are payed by the producers. Since corn syrup is not produced in Europe, they much rather you use other types of sugar for which due levies are payed.

I didn't suggest it necessarily had anything to do with health, but it has some effect nevertheless. Interesting info there, still.

The problem is not the amount of sugars in your food is the amount of sugars in your diet.
Sending your kid with orange juice instead of coke to school would not do him any better, there are no such things as "healthy" foods. Your average muesli/froyo has pretty much the same amount of calories from sugars and fats as your average Ice cream sunday, your granola bar has no less sugar(and in most cases corn syrup) in it than your KitKat...
Banning sodas while technically serving the same amount of calories, and more importantly sugars and fats to a generation of kids which is much less physically active is just a pointless political stunt.
If you want to treat obesity as a health problem treat it's root causes, soda's are not one of those. Fizzy drinks have been with us for a century now, and i can assure you that can of coke is much less of a health risk than that ice cream Malt you used to get after school in the 50's. The only difference is that back then you would probably walk to school for about a mile, and after it went out to play with your friends instead of raiding in WoW.

The only 'benefit' to choice is being able to make the wrong one.

The Government should have the authority to tell it's constituents how to live, sure. Especially when those poor choices affect other people, too. 'ello, Healthcare and taxes.

Kopikatsu:
The only 'benefit' to choice is being able to make the wrong one.

The Government should have the authority to tell it's constituents how to live, sure. Especially when those poor choices affect other people, too. 'ello, Healthcare and taxes.

I don't know if anyone has informed you recently, but people really don't like being told what to concerning their personal lives. The ability to make one's own choices is the main benefit of living in a free society.

Shock and Awe:

poiumty:

Damien Granz:

That's another pointless ban though because your ass can't really tell the difference between sugar cane sugar and corn sugar, only your wallet can.

Less people will buy the more expensive products (or buy less of them), companies will use less sugar and so on. Don't just assume nothing will change except people will be poorer. We're not machines.

captcha: mimsy borogoves. I dunno, do the mole raths outgrobe? Because you can't have mimsy borogoves without some outgrobin', that's for sure.

Then wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just cut corn subsidies? Thats one of the main reasons corn syrup is so cheap.

Agriculture and beef industries need to have these subsidies and will lobby against it.

Verbatim:

The problem is not the amount of sugars in your food is the amount of sugars in your diet.
Sending your kid with orange juice instead of coke to school would not do him any better, there are no such things as "healthy" foods. Your average muesli/froyo has pretty much the same amount of calories from sugars and fats as your average Ice cream sunday, your granola bar has no less sugar(and in most cases corn syrup) in it than your KitKat...
Banning sodas while technically serving the same amount of calories, and more importantly sugars and fats to a generation of kids which is much less physically active is just a pointless political stunt.
If you want to treat obesity as a health problem treat it's root causes, soda's are not one of those. Fizzy drinks have been with us for a century now, and i can assure you that can of coke is much less of a health risk than that ice cream Malt you used to get after school in the 50's. The only difference is that back then you would probably walk to school for about a mile, and after it went out to play with your friends instead of raiding in WoW.

Err... yes there are such things as healthy foods, what the hell are you talking about. Your average generic muesli has about 6 times less fat and half the calories of an ice cream sundae, and that's just from a quick glimpse at the internet.

Verbatim:

poiumty:

Shock and Awe:

Then wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just cut corn subsidies? Thats one of the main reasons corn syrup is so cheap.

I guess? I'm no expert, there's probably better ways of reducing the prevalence of sugars in US food than I'm suggesting here. The idea remains though: I'd rather regulate the producers than the population.

Verbatim:

Believe it or not the ban has much less to do with health than it has to do with money, one of the income sources of the EU are sugar levies, these are not "import" taxes per say, but levies which are payed by the producers. Since corn syrup is not produced in Europe, they much rather you use other types of sugar for which due levies are payed.

I didn't suggest it necessarily had anything to do with health, but it has some effect nevertheless. Interesting info there, still.

The problem is not the amount of sugars in your food is the amount of sugars in your diet.
Sending your kid with orange juice instead of coke to school would not do him any better, there are no such things as "healthy" foods. Your average muesli/froyo has pretty much the same amount of calories from sugars and fats as your average Ice cream sunday, your granola bar has no less sugar(and in most cases corn syrup) in it than your KitKat...
Banning sodas while technically serving the same amount of calories, and more importantly sugars and fats to a generation of kids which is much less physically active is just a pointless political stunt.
If you want to treat obesity as a health problem treat it's root causes, soda's are not one of those. Fizzy drinks have been with us for a century now, and i can assure you that can of coke is much less of a health risk than that ice cream Malt you used to get after school in the 50's. The only difference is that back then you would probably walk to school for about a mile, and after it went out to play with your friends instead of raiding in WoW.

The major problem isn't so much the amount of sugars in the diet, but the type of sugars.

One of the worst side-effects of High Fructose Corn Syrup is that in inhibits your liver's Leptin production. Leptin is very important in regulating appetite since it's the hormone that basically tells your brain when you've had enough to eat, which in turn makes you "feel full".

In very basic terms, the more HFCS someone consumes, the more their body will "feel hungry" despite having eaten enough, which leads to overeating and obesity.

If you really want to tackle obesity in the US, you have to cut out HFCS from the national diet, as you can't really blame people for fulfilling the basic urge to eat, a basic biological urge that becomes problematic when the US's favourite sugar substitute is making them believe they need to eat more food than they need to.

It's a great shame that a nation of individuals who value personal freedom above all else and won't allow the Government to tell them how much soda they can drink in one serving, are, by the mass acceptance and consumption of Government subsidised HFCS, allowing the Government and companies like Monsanto to bypass their conscious decision making powers and fool their brains into thinking they need to eat more food than is healthy, all for the sake of bottom line and profits of some private corporations and the expanding wealth a small percentage of rich individuals.

Verbatim:

The problem is not the amount of sugars in your food is the amount of sugars in your diet.
Sending your kid with orange juice instead of coke to school would not do him any better, there are no such things as "healthy" foods. Your average muesli/froyo has pretty much the same amount of calories from sugars and fats as your average Ice cream sunday, your granola bar has no less sugar(and in most cases corn syrup) in it than your KitKat...
Banning sodas while technically serving the same amount of calories, and more importantly sugars and fats to a generation of kids which is much less physically active is just a pointless political stunt.
If you want to treat obesity as a health problem treat it's root causes, soda's are not one of those. Fizzy drinks have been with us for a century now, and i can assure you that can of coke is much less of a health risk than that ice cream Malt you used to get after school in the 50's. The only difference is that back then you would probably walk to school for about a mile, and after it went out to play with your friends instead of raiding in WoW.

But isn't the amount of sugar in your food going to affect the amount of sugar in your diet? In order to have a steady diet you need a certain intake of magnesium, iron, proteins, vitamins, etc. So even if you eat an icecream sunday you'll still need to eat muesli, a steak, vegetables, whatever. So while muesli (to use your example) can have quite some calories it also has lots of other nutrients too, on the other hand if you take sugar intensive food you'll probably need to go way past your recommended sugar intake if you want to have the other nutrients as well.

And that's why soda's are so bad. They replace water which has little to no calories but doesn't give you any other nutrients which would allow you to cut back on other food with calories.

Jamash:

Verbatim:

poiumty:
I guess? I'm no expert, there's probably better ways of reducing the prevalence of sugars in US food than I'm suggesting here. The idea remains though: I'd rather regulate the producers than the population.

I didn't suggest it necessarily had anything to do with health, but it has some effect nevertheless. Interesting info there, still.

The problem is not the amount of sugars in your food is the amount of sugars in your diet.
Sending your kid with orange juice instead of coke to school would not do him any better, there are no such things as "healthy" foods. Your average muesli/froyo has pretty much the same amount of calories from sugars and fats as your average Ice cream sunday, your granola bar has no less sugar(and in most cases corn syrup) in it than your KitKat...
Banning sodas while technically serving the same amount of calories, and more importantly sugars and fats to a generation of kids which is much less physically active is just a pointless political stunt.
If you want to treat obesity as a health problem treat it's root causes, soda's are not one of those. Fizzy drinks have been with us for a century now, and i can assure you that can of coke is much less of a health risk than that ice cream Malt you used to get after school in the 50's. The only difference is that back then you would probably walk to school for about a mile, and after it went out to play with your friends instead of raiding in WoW.

The major problem isn't so much the amount of sugars in the diet, but the type of sugars.

One of the worst side-effects of High Fructose Corn Syrup is that in inhibits your liver's Leptin production. Leptin is very important in regulating appetite since it's the hormone that basically tells your brain when you've had enough to eat, which in turn makes you "feel full".

In very basic terms, the more HFCS someone consumes, the more their body will "feel hungry" despite having eaten enough, which leads to overeating and obesity.

If you really want to tackle obesity in the US, you have to cut out HFCS from the national diet, as you can't really blame people for fulfilling the basic urge to eat, a basic biological urge that becomes problematic when the US's favourite sugar substitute is making them believe they need to eat more food than they need to.

It's a great shame that a nation of individuals who value personal freedom above all else and won't allow the Government to tell them how much soda they can drink in one serving, are, by the mass acceptance and consumption of Government subsidised HFCS, allowing the Government and companies like Monsanto to bypass their conscious decision making powers and fool their brains into thinking they need to eat more food than is healthy, all for the sake of bottom line and profits of some private corporations and the expanding wealth a small percentage of rich individuals.

And once you ban the HFCS, what do you do with all the fucking corn? We will still have more of it than can be consumed by the whole world, let alone the U.S.. And all kinds of food messes with such things. Plus everything in our culture pushes us to buy more and more food. It isn't just this one chemical, far from it really. Virtually every part of the food industry uses every type of influence they can. Specifically calling out HFCS is odd.

From what I know, they aren't banning large drinks, but rather large cups. I guess the government thinks my 44oz Coke Zero is going to make me too fat.

Not only that, but the law is stupid because even if you agree with the premise, the method is ineffective. They law puts no restriction on how much sugary soda an individual can have, simply how much you can get in a single cup.

I totally disagree with "sin taxes" and "for you own good laws", and as such, I totally agree with this. That being said, you really shouldn't be drinking sugary soda anyway. I would just be pissed of if they passed such laws here, banning me from having a jumbo diet soda, which seems pointless.

Jamash:
snip
The major problem isn't so much the amount of sugars in the diet, but the type of sugars.

One of the worst side-effects of High Fructose Corn Syrup is that in inhibits your liver's Leptin production. Leptin is very important in regulating appetite since it's the hormone that basically tells your brain when you've had enough to eat, which in turn makes you "feel full".

In very basic terms, the more HFCS someone consumes, the more their body will "feel hungry" despite having eaten enough, which leads to overeating and obesity.

If you really want to tackle obesity in the US, you have to cut out HFCS from the national diet, as you can't really blame people for fulfilling the basic urge to eat, a basic biological urge that becomes problematic when the US's favourite sugar substitute is making them believe they need to eat more food than they need to.

It's a great shame that a nation of individuals who value personal freedom above all else and won't allow the Government to tell them how much soda they can drink in one serving, are, by the mass acceptance and consumption of Government subsidised HFCS, allowing the Government and companies like Monsanto to bypass their conscious decision making powers and fool their brains into thinking they need to eat more food than is healthy, all for the sake of bottom line and profits of some private corporations and the expanding wealth a small percentage of rich individuals.

doesn't regular sugar do the same thing though. Just flipping though some articles and no one really claims 1 is worse than the other. http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ijo2012157a.html

Shock and Awe:

Kopikatsu:
The only 'benefit' to choice is being able to make the wrong one.

The Government should have the authority to tell it's constituents how to live, sure. Especially when those poor choices affect other people, too. 'ello, Healthcare and taxes.

I don't know if anyone has informed you recently, but people really don't like being told what to concerning their personal lives. The ability to make one's own choices is the main benefit of living in a free society.

Which ties into that whole 'People make terrible choices' thing.

What most people don't seem to realize is that you don't live for you. You live for society. That's more true now than ever before because of how specialized everything is. Don't believe it? Quit your job (because that's contributing to that horrible society thing), and start growing your own food and filtering your own water. Sustenance living, detached from society. Chances are, the government will reposes your shit right quick for tax evasion.

If you want to live and function within a society, you need money. To get money, you need a job. A job, by definition, is you being paid for the benefit of your service(s). The reason that your services are required are because society demands in. Wal-Mart hires a greeter because it will (hypothetically) increase sales and return rates, benefiting those customers. A slaughterhouse will hire a butcher to increase productivity, allowing them to produce more beef (among other things), to sell to more stores for them to sell to more consumers.

If all Butchers suddenly vanished tomorrow, could you take up that profession? Statistically speaking, probably not. Most people wouldn't have the skill, knowledge, and/or stomach for it. You rely on others to feed you, because you do not produce food yourself. The food producers rely on others to produce the machinery they use because they can't make them themselves. You must work, because you must pay your expenses. Including taxes, which goes into roads and law enforcement and such- things that provide a societal benefit at the expense of the individual.

The only value a human life has is that of how much they contribute to the wellbeing of society in general. This is why we throw criminals in prison, because they harm society- and so they are considered to have less worth than the average citizen. Laws are created by weighing individual freedoms with societal protections. We already accept that, fundamentally, the government is allowed to restrict freedoms for the protection of society as a whole. Because if you didn't accept that, you would be an anarchist. And the purpose of law is to protect and regulate, even against the will of it's constituents. People who break the law are obviously unhappy with it, no? But such things are necessary in the end.

Kopikatsu:

Shock and Awe:

Kopikatsu:
The only 'benefit' to choice is being able to make the wrong one.

The Government should have the authority to tell it's constituents how to live, sure. Especially when those poor choices affect other people, too. 'ello, Healthcare and taxes.

I don't know if anyone has informed you recently, but people really don't like being told what to concerning their personal lives. The ability to make one's own choices is the main benefit of living in a free society.

Which ties into that whole 'People make terrible choices' thing.

What most people don't seem to realize is that you don't live for you. You live for society. That's more true now than ever before because of how specialized everything is. Don't believe it? Quit your job (because that's contributing to that horrible society thing), and start growing your own food and filtering your own water. Sustenance living, detached from society. Chances are, the government will reposes your shit right quick for tax evasion.

If you want to live and function within a society, you need money. To get money, you need a job. A job, by definition, is you being paid for the benefit of your service(s). The reason that your services are required are because society demands in. Wal-Mart hires a greeter because it will (hypothetically) increase sales and return rates, benefiting those customers. A slaughterhouse will hire a butcher to increase productivity, allowing them to produce more beef (among other things), to sell to more stores for them to sell to more consumers.

If all Butchers suddenly vanished tomorrow, could you take up that profession? Statistically speaking, probably not. Most people wouldn't have the skill, knowledge, and/or stomach for it. You rely on others to feed you, because you do not produce food yourself. The food producers rely on others to produce the machinery they use because they can't make them themselves. You must work, because you must pay your expenses. Including taxes, which goes into roads and law enforcement and such- things that provide a societal benefit at the expense of the individual.

The only value a human life has is that of how much they contribute to the wellbeing of society in general. This is why we throw criminals in prison, because they harm society- and so they are considered to have less worth than the average citizen. Laws are created by weighing individual freedoms with societal protections. We already accept that, fundamentally, the government is allowed to restrict freedoms for the protection of society as a whole. Because if you didn't accept that, you would be an anarchist. And the purpose of law is to protect and regulate, even against the will of it's constituents. People who break the law are obviously unhappy with it, no? But such things are necessary in the end.

You're making two terrible comparisons here. You're mixing together laws and norms and you are equating prevention of violations of the harm principle with limitations of liberty.

Revnak:

You're making two terrible comparisons here. You're mixing together laws and norms and you are equating prevention of violations of the harm principle with limitations of liberty.

Laws and norms go hand in hand. If you act deviantly, then you're probably breaking a law and will go to jail. (Note: Deviant behavior is not illegal in and of itself. Having a pet chicken and taking her for walks is deviant, but not illegal. Flashing passerbys, however, is both deviant and illegal.) Anyway, the point I'm making is that there are no laws (that are enforced) prohibiting behavior that is considered normal.

How are those not equatable? Laws are a matter of restricting freedom in favor of protection. They do not serve any other purpose. I'm sure many people would argue that, say, laws prohibiting gay marriage are arbitrary. But for those that enacted them and their constituents, they're protecting themselves from gay marriage and all that comes with it. Laws are not made for funsies, they serve a purpose.

Kopikatsu:

Revnak:

You're making two terrible comparisons here. You're mixing together laws and norms and you are equating prevention of violations of the harm principle with limitations of liberty.

Laws and norms go hand in hand. If you act deviantly, then you're probably breaking a law and will go to jail. (Note: Deviant behavior is not illegal in and of itself. Having a pet chicken and taking her for walks is deviant, but not illegal. Flashing passerbys, however, is both deviant and illegal.) Anyway, the point I'm making is that there are no laws (that are enforced) prohibiting behavior that is considered normal.

You clearly have never driven on any road in America have you? The fact of the matter is that norms and laws are in no way equatable. In fact, it's hard to truly say that laws are really a type of norm. In a general sense maybe, but ultimately, the two are completely different things.

How are those not equatable? Laws are a matter of restricting freedom in favor of protection. They do not serve any other purpose. I'm sure many people would argue that, say, laws prohibiting gay marriage are arbitrary. But for those that enacted them and their constituents, they're protecting themselves from gay marriage and all that comes with it. Laws are not made for funsies, they serve a purpose.

No. Laws can exist for any number of reasons, any kind of purpose. They are not at all ultimately about trading freedom for some type of protection. And preventing violations of the harm principle is not limiting your freedom, it is in fact protecting it. No man has the right to kill another. In fact every man has the right to not be killed by another. When a law is drafted to prevent murders it is in fact preventing the violation of your liberties.

If you really want a lot to drink, can you not just buy two bottles or something? I'm not really seeing the, "OMG the government are trying to control everything about our lives!"

Revnak:

You clearly have never driven on any road in America have you? The fact of the matter is that norms and laws are in no way equatable. In fact, it's hard to truly say that laws are really a type of norm. In a general sense maybe, but ultimately, the two are completely different things.

You're going to have to expound on that, because just saying 'Nuh-uh!' repeatedly isn't very convincing.

No. Laws can exist for any number of reasons, any kind of purpose. They are not at all ultimately about trading freedom for some type of protection. And preventing violations of the harm principle is not limiting your freedom, it is in fact protecting it. No man has the right to kill another. In fact every man has the right to not be killed by another. When a law is drafted to prevent murders it is in fact preventing the violation of your liberties.

And yet, there are some people that I would very much like dead, but I do not kill them because the law expressly forbids it. It's limiting my right to off whoever I want. Society says that not being killed is of greater value than killing, and so your rights are restricted to protect yourself and others.

Kopikatsu:

Revnak:

You clearly have never driven on any road in America have you? The fact of the matter is that norms and laws are in no way equatable. In fact, it's hard to truly say that laws are really a type of norm. In a general sense maybe, but ultimately, the two are completely different things.

You're going to have to expound on that, because just saying 'Nuh-uh!' repeatedly isn't very convincing.

I break the speed limit by at least ten miles an hour at virtually all times. I am joined in this behavior every time I do it. It is "normal" to drive faster than the speed limit, "normal" to break the law. In many communities it is "normal" to steal, rape, or assault others despite how illegal it is. conversely, there is no law regulating which urinal a man should pee in, but I can tel you when somebody chooses the wrong one quite easily.

No. Laws can exist for any number of reasons, any kind of purpose. They are not at all ultimately about trading freedom for some type of protection. And preventing violations of the harm principle is not limiting your freedom, it is in fact protecting it. No man has the right to kill another. In fact every man has the right to not be killed by another. When a law is drafted to prevent murders it is in fact preventing the violation of your liberties.

And yet, there are some people that I would very much like dead, but I do not kill them because the law expressly forbids it. It's limiting my right to off whoever I want. Society says that not being killed is of greater value than killing, and so your rights are restricted to protect yourself and others.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. Never. Never. Never. Never. Never. Outside of the most extreme philosophies, nobody argues that a human being has the right to violate the rights of another without their consent. This includes killing them, robbing them, assaulting them, and any other number of crimes. Let me repeat this. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

Revnak:

Kopikatsu:

Revnak:

You clearly have never driven on any road in America have you? The fact of the matter is that norms and laws are in no way equatable. In fact, it's hard to truly say that laws are really a type of norm. In a general sense maybe, but ultimately, the two are completely different things.

You're going to have to expound on that, because just saying 'Nuh-uh!' repeatedly isn't very convincing.

I break the speed limit by at least ten miles an hour at virtually all times. I am joined in this behavior every time I do it. It is "normal" to drive faster than the speed limit, "normal" to break the law. In many communities it is "normal" to steal, rape, or assault others despite how illegal it is. conversely, there is no law regulating which urinal a man should pee in, but I can tel you when somebody chooses the wrong one quite easily.

What communities are these?

The speed limit is another good example of my earlier claim. It's restricting your right to go what speed you feel is right in order to ensure the protection of yourself and others. This is why you should have been pulled over and should have been given a ticket, but sadly we don't have enough LEOs to catch all offenders.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. Never. Never. Never. Never. Never. Outside of the most extreme philosophies, no human being has the right to violate the rights of another without their consent. This includes killing them, robbing them, assaulting them, and any other number of crimes. Let me repeat this. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

Arbitrary distinction. If I were to pick up my shotgun right now, go next door, and shoot my neighbor...nothing would happen. I would not be struck down by lightning, nor would the gun fall apart in my hands because I dared point it at another human being. Human rights mean little because they are not preventative, but reactive. I would go to jail, but my neighbor would still be just as dead. The fact that you claim he had a right to life won't retroactively revive him.

Humans have killed each other since before recorded history, for a variety of reasons. Killing is not objectively wrong. You believe it's wrong because that's the conclusion you came up with as a combination of your experiences and your society's morals. I believe it's readily justified for the same reason. Human life has no inherent value, so there can be nothing inherently wrong with murder. There are over seven billion humans in the world, but not nearly enough resources to support those numbers for long. It's not as though humans aren't expendable- they are. To a ridiculous degree.

Allow me to give you a random example. Westley Allan Dodd. Dodd raped and murdered three young boys. He was brought before the court and asked what he would do if they sent him to prison. He said that he would do whatever it took to kill as many security guards as possible and try to escape. If he escaped, then he would go right back to raping and murdering boys. And so, he was executed. But no, according to you, it's never right to kill another human, so we should have let Dodd live. Yeah. Right.

Kopikatsu:
Human life has no inherent value, so there can be nothing inherently wrong with murder.

Allow me to give you a random example. Westley Allan Dodd. Dodd raped and murdered three young boys. He was brought before the court and asked what he would do if they sent him to prison. He said that he would do whatever it took to kill as many security guards as possible and try to escape. If he escaped, then he would go right back to raping and murdering boys. And so, he was executed. But no, according to you, it's never right to kill another human, so we should have let Dodd live. Yeah. Right.

See i usually use this line of thinking.

You havnt killed yourself. So obviously youve decided you have value. You probably wouldnt sacrifice yourself for something you deemed to have value: Money your house ect, so if this is the case you have decided you own life has greater value to you than these.

Since ive yet to see any evidence that im significantly genetically or psychologically unique and special from the next person ive extended "My life has value because i like being alive, i am human" to "Peoples lives have value because they like being alive, they are human". If i can use the justification "I like being alive" to convince myself that my life has value thus avoiding suicide others using the same argument have presented as much evidence as i that their lives have value. Since i take value in myself i extend it to others. It isnt innate or constant no. Its just reasoned from my own opinions.

Its extremely rarely right to kill another human being. Im usually against the death penalty because of the innate issues of institutionalizing killing and palming off said responsibility to a government. But ill concede there are cases where executions are morally justifiable when it defends more people, that man there being a special exception. If evidence is clear cut and the person will NEVER stop being a danger i cant say execution is morally wrong. I can say that instituting killing on a clinical and governmental level is ALWAYS going to have some negative consequences.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked