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 PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

BiscuitTrouser:

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 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.

Your line of logic is faulty. Committing suicide would be going out of my way. In that instance, I would have to assign my life a negative value, because I would consider it a bad thing. I rate life at 0. There have been two times in my life when a Doctor has told me that if I don't take X mediciation or go through with X treatment, I would die in a few years. I do not feel as though life is worth struggling so hard for, and so I ignored his advice. Eight years later, and I'm just as healthy as ever.

If someone were to kill me, I would not bare a grudge against them. I would accept death, because that is simply the nature of things. Death is assured to all who live. I fail to see why someone dying X number of years before they were 'predestined' to makes a significant difference.

Kopikatsu:

Revnak:

Kopikatsu:

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.

Colleges for example encourage many types of illegal activities.

And I like how you ignored my point that in this very clear instance it is in no way normal to follow the law (speed limits). Laws and norms are in no way equatable. If it suddenly became the law for everyone to wear polka dotted underwear it would not also suddenly become a norm to do so. If it is ridiculously strongly enforced, then it might, but it is likely that instead it will never become a norm and people will simply avoid discovery. Laws may influence nroms, but they are in no way norms in and of themselves.

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.

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.

You appear to have no understanding of human rights. That makes this more difficult than it's worth. Somebody else can argue with you about this. Also, how did you draw the conclusion that human life has no inherent value? At least I'm arguing within the framework of centuries of social contract theory, you're just jumping out and a limb and making absolute claims here.

And I never said it was never right to kill a man. I said you never have the right to. There is a distinct difference. Still, I universally oppose the death penalty anyway. It's a massive waste of money to be honest, among a number of other issues.

Edit- Having seen your reply to Biscuit Trouser, I think I'm done arguing with you about the value of human life altogether. You scare me.

Revnak:

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.

While I'm fully on the side of legislating against killing, this part does have an important little detail...

"Outside of the most extreme philosophies, nobody argues that a human being has the right to violate the rights of another without their consent."

Philosophies are an artificial construct, as is pretty much any other thing we ever created and/or thought up, there is no such thing as "natural rights" at all. If some weird paradigm shift happened in our society, I don't know, if the Warp opened next to Earth and everyone suddenly started worshiping Khorne for some reason, I doubt that "the right to not be killed" would survive.

So to play the devil's advocate a little bit...yes, it's true you have no right to kill another human being. However, that is not true because "that's just the way it is", but because "that's the current societal (social?) consensus."

Let's hope the possibilities of it changing are at least as unrealistic as my example.

Kopikatsu:

Your line of logic is faulty. Committing suicide would be going out of my way. In that instance, I would have to assign my life a negative value, because I would consider it a bad thing. I rate life at 0. There have been two times in my life when a Doctor has told me that if I don't take X mediciation or go through with X treatment, I would die in a few years. I do not feel as though life is worth struggling so hard for, and so I ignored his advice. Eight years later, and I'm just as healthy as ever.

If someone were to kill me, I would not bare a grudge against them. I would accept death, because that is simply the nature of things. Death is assured to all who live. I fail to see why someone dying X number of years before they were 'predestined' to makes a significant difference.

My line of logic isnt faulty if we start from my given premise of "I give my own life value above zero". For the rest of your example if your life is zero i could promise you something you DO give value (for example i give 10 pence to your family who you value personally) and you just let yourself starve to death (no effort) in return.

I do not find it plausable that you put ZERO effort into self preservation and are still alive. You are eating. I assume you get said food by purchasing it. I assume to afford such a thing you work a job or rely on those who do. All of these things are effort and simply ceasing them would end your life fairly shortly if we include drinking. Eating is effort while not eating is easier. Ergo you are making some action to preserve yourself. I imagine you have stopped at cross lights and driven in a way that involves the slightest bit of caution. Anyone TRUELY uncaring of their own demise and taking ZERO effort to preserve it would either starve or die in traffic by not moving out the way of a car.

Vegosiux:

Revnak:

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.

While I'm fully on the side of legislating against killing, this part does have an important little detail...

"Outside of the most extreme philosophies, nobody argues that a human being has the right to violate the rights of another without their consent."

Philosophies are an artificial construct, as is pretty much any other thing we ever created and/or thought up, there is no such thing as "natural rights" at all. If some weird paradigm shift happened in our society, I don't know, if the Warp opened next to Earth and everyone suddenly started worshiping Khorne for some reason, I doubt that "the right to not be killed" would survive.

So to play the devil's advocate a little bit...yes, it's true you have no right to kill another human being. However, that is not true because "that's just the way it is", but because "that's the current societal (social?) consensus."

Let's hope the possibilities of it changing are at least as unrealistic as my example.

Philosophy is, ideally, not artificial. You wouldn't call science or the rules of science artificial would you? Well, the same, ideally, goes for philosophy, as science is a branch of philosophy. Well, some branches of philosophy at least. Others are quite happy to remain artificial. It is understandable that within its current state philosophy is not entirely "truth," entirely "real." Such things take time.

I also don't think I agree with the idea that my rights exist independently of me. It just doesn't quite seem right. I don't feel like I can argue it, so I won't, but... I just don't like the idea of it.

Revnak:

Colleges for example encourage many types of illegal activities.

And I like how you ignored my point that in this very clear instance it is in no way normal to follow the law (speed limits). Laws and norms are in no way equatable. If it suddenly became the law for everyone to wear polka dotted underwear it would not also suddenly become a norm to do so. If it is ridiculously strongly enforced, then it might, but it is likely that instead it will never become a norm and people will simply avoid discovery. Laws may influence nroms, but they are in no way norms in and of themselves.

I didn't ignore it, I simply don't feel it's worth bringing up. You say it's not normal to follow the law, but I rarely see people speed and do not speed myself. I never go above 40mph even when the speed limit is set higher (The one exception being the highway). An anecdotal claim to match an anecdotal claim. And so you see the problem.

You appear to have no understanding of human rights. That makes this more difficult than it's worth. Somebody else can argue with you about this. Also, how did you draw the conclusion that human life has no inherent value? At least I'm arguing within the framework of centuries of social contract theory, you're just jumping out and a limb and making absolute claims here.

And I never said it was never right to kill a man. I said you never have the right to. There is a distinct difference. Still, I universally oppose the death penalty anyway. It's a massive waste of money to be honest, among a number of other issues.

What good is an invalid? They contribute nothing and are only a drain on resources. We have limited resources. Ergo, they are worse than useless- they're actively harmful. Similarly, if you do produce more than you need, and thus are a net benefit to society, then you are valuable. I never claimed that human life has no value, simply that it has no inherent value. Your personal worth is what you make of it. I concede that society assigns value a bit differently than I do. Regardless of what he does, the President has hundreds of people working to ensure that he's protected at all times- including having cars with bulletproof windows and such. Do you have that? Of course not. Society does not value your life as much as the President's. If you (in a general sense) died, you'd get a small blurb in the obituaries. If the President died, it would rock the nation and be the focus of the news for quite some time, as well as being recorded in the history books for future generations. If you kill an average man, you get 25-life. If you kill the President, they hang you.

BiscuitTrouser:

Kopikatsu:

Your line of logic is faulty. Committing suicide would be going out of my way. In that instance, I would have to assign my life a negative value, because I would consider it a bad thing. I rate life at 0. There have been two times in my life when a Doctor has told me that if I don't take X mediciation or go through with X treatment, I would die in a few years. I do not feel as though life is worth struggling so hard for, and so I ignored his advice. Eight years later, and I'm just as healthy as ever.

If someone were to kill me, I would not bare a grudge against them. I would accept death, because that is simply the nature of things. Death is assured to all who live. I fail to see why someone dying X number of years before they were 'predestined' to makes a significant difference.

My line of logic isnt faulty if we start from my given premise of "I give my own life value above zero". For the rest of your example if your life is zero i could promise you something you DO give value (for example i give 10 pence to your family who you value personally) and you just let yourself starve to death (no effort) in return.

I do not find it plausable that you put ZERO effort into self preservation and are still alive. You are eating. I assume you get said food by purchasing it. I assume to afford such a thing you work a job or rely on those who do. All of these things are effort and simply ceasing them would end your life fairly shortly if we include drinking. Eating is effort while not eating is easier. Ergo you are making some action to preserve yourself. I imagine you have stopped at cross lights and driven in a way that involves the slightest bit of caution. Anyone TRUELY uncaring of their own demise and taking ZERO effort to preserve it would either starve or die in traffic by not moving out the way of a car.

Your premise is still faulty. As mentioned above, I did not say that life has no value. It just has no inherent value. I get building permits for companies, so that they can build outlets and sell their merchandise to consumers who are in need of it. In that way, I benefit society- and thus my life has value. I don't feel as though that it's valuable enough to go very far out of the way to preserve it, but I'm not going to curl up in a corner and rot away either.

As for the traffic regulations, I follow them because the law dictates that I should. I have never broken any law, nor do I ever plan to. That includes obscure laws, like how it's illegal to preform anything but missionary sex or copulate with someone that you're living with if you're not married in Florida. Both are second degree misdemeanors.

Edit: To clarify, although what I said doesn't contradict your premise, the reason I call it faulty is because of how you came to that conclusion. Having zero inherent value and having zero actual value are different. But even if your life has zero actual value, that doesn't mean you should have zero self-preservation. Having zero actual value means that you contribute the same as you take...which is fine. Having a negative value is entirely different, but a value of zero is not inherently bad. I would consider children to have a value of zero. They are not at a point where they can yet contribute, but they cannot contribute without first passing through that point either.

Kopikatsu:

Your premise is still faulty. As mentioned above, I did not say that life has no value. It just has no inherent value. I get building permits for companies, so that they can build outlets and sell their merchandise to consumers who are in need of it. In that way, I benefit society- and thus my life has value. I don't feel as though that it's valuable enough to go very far out of the way to preserve it, but I'm not going to curl up in a corner and rot away either.

As for the traffic regulations, I follow them because the law dictates that I should. I have never broken any law, nor do I ever plan to. That includes obscure laws, like how it's illegal to preform anything but missionary sex or copulate with someone that you're living with if you're not married in Florida. Both are second degree misdemeanors.

Edit: To clarify, although what I said doesn't contradict your premise, the reason I call it faulty is because of how you came to that conclusion. Having zero inherent value and having zero actual value are different.

I think i misunderstood you here because i agree it has no INNATE value given by god or any objective force. I just feel on a subjective level that others lives are as valuable as my own. I feel that just by making others lives better, by making them happy, by smiling at them and improving their day, by contributing to society in ways beyond my current retail job i give my life value. Not inherent value no but given value just by doing general "good" for others. Since most if not basically all people fulfill this and make others happy i give them value. Those that do NOTHING but harm to EVERYONE are similar to the one you quoted. I misunderstood and equated inherent and actual value. My mistake for mistaking terms. I assumed you concluded your life and everyones life have zero value innate or otherwise regardless of anything they might do. That was my mistake.

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

What makes it the wrong choice?

BrassButtons:

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

What makes it the wrong choice?

When risk/cost greatly outweighs the benefit, it's a poor choice. Such as eating two Big Macs every day for a month straight.

Kopikatsu:

BrassButtons:

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

What makes it the wrong choice?

When risk/cost greatly outweighs the benefit, it's a poor choice. Such as eating two Big Macs every day for a month straight.

How do you know the risks outweigh the benefit? Isn't that a matter of value judgement, and thus something that will differ from person to person?

EDIT: Also, why do you feel the need to make the issue sound even more ridiculous (eating two Big Macs a day for a month) instead of simply dealing with the actual topic (whether or not people should be able to buy a single large soda)?

BrassButtons:

Kopikatsu:

BrassButtons:

What makes it the wrong choice?

When risk/cost greatly outweighs the benefit, it's a poor choice. Such as eating two Big Macs every day for a month straight.

How do you know the risks outweigh the benefit? Isn't that a matter of value judgement, and thus something that will differ from person to person?

...No. It's not.

America has the highest rate of obesity in the world. In the WORLD. They obviously can't handle being allowed to decide their own diet.

Edit for your edit: Carbonated sodas have a lot of calories and sugar. Which also means that they're a big factor in diabetes (weight and blood glucose levels).

Kopikatsu:

BrassButtons:

How do you know the risks outweigh the benefit? Isn't that a matter of value judgement, and thus something that will differ from person to person?

...No. It's not.

How is it not? What makes the risk of health problems from drinking soda outweigh the benefits the person gets from it? How can you determine that?

Edit for your response to my edit: you didn't actually address the question. Why bring up a more ridiculous scenario instead of just discussing the issue at hand?

BrassButtons:

Kopikatsu:

BrassButtons:

How do you know the risks outweigh the benefit? Isn't that a matter of value judgement, and thus something that will differ from person to person?

...No. It's not.

How is it not? What makes the risk of health problems from drinking soda outweigh the benefits the person gets from it? How can you determine that?

Probably because there is no benefit from drinking soda.

A 12-ounce can of soda can have 150+ calories. Soft drinks often have high levels of phosphates, which leech calcium from your bones and cause osteoporosis later in life. Sugar raises blood glucose and when combined with the high calorie content, raises the risk of developing diabetes. If you take a diet soda instead to avoid the sugar, then you're getting Aspartame, which has been linked to brain tumors and blood toxicity.

Kopikatsu:
Probably because there is no benefit from drinking soda.

Well that's clearly false, or else nobody would do it. They certainly wouldn't spend money for it. Now there may not be any health benefits to drinking soda, but health benefits are not the only benefits. Some of us think soda tastes good--that's a benefit. Drinking soda makes some people happy--that's a benefit. Some people like the small caffeine boost--another benefit.

So how do you determine if the benefit outweighs the risk? How do you know if someone is not made happy enough by a soda for it to outweigh the health risks?

BrassButtons:

Kopikatsu:
Probably because there is no benefit from drinking soda.

Well that's clearly false, or else nobody would do it. They certainly wouldn't spend money for it. Now there may not be any health benefits to drinking soda, but health benefits are not the only benefits. Some of us think soda tastes good--that's a benefit. Drinking soda makes some people happy--that's a benefit. Some people like the small caffeine boost--another benefit.

So how do you determine if the benefit outweighs the risk? How do you know if someone is not made happy enough by a soda for it to outweigh the health risks?

Oh, well, if it tastes good then obviously it's amazing and everyone should do it!

Let's all spread the crystal meth around, too. Feels good, and that's the only thing that matters!

I fail to see how brain tumors, diabetes, obesity, and blood toxicity are justified by liking the taste of a drink that's gone in a minute or less. Should I once again remind you that the US has the highest obesity rate in the world? They don't need the help.

Kopikatsu:

Oh, well, if it tastes good then obviously it's amazing and everyone should do it!

Let's all spread the crystal meth around, too. Feels good, and that's the only thing that matters!

I fail to see how brain tumors, diabetes, obesity, and blood toxicity are justified by liking the taste of a drink that's gone in a minute or less. Should I once again remind you that the US has the highest obesity rate in the world? They don't need the help.

You're not answering my questions. You've stated that a ban on large sodas is acceptable because the risks of such drinks outweighs the benefits. You say that you know this because there are no benefits. I have now told you some of the benefits some people get from such drinks. How do you determine that those benefits are outweighed by the risks? How do you determine what a person's happiness is worth?

BrassButtons:

Kopikatsu:

Oh, well, if it tastes good then obviously it's amazing and everyone should do it!

Let's all spread the crystal meth around, too. Feels good, and that's the only thing that matters!

I fail to see how brain tumors, diabetes, obesity, and blood toxicity are justified by liking the taste of a drink that's gone in a minute or less. Should I once again remind you that the US has the highest obesity rate in the world? They don't need the help.

You're not answering my questions. You've stated that a ban on large sodas is acceptable because the risks of such drinks outweighs the benefits. You say that you know this because there are no benefits. I have now told you some of the benefits some people get from such drinks. How do you determine that those benefits are outweighed by the risks? How do you determine what a person's happiness is worth?

Happiness is worth nothing because it's a subjective measure. You would be happy if you got to drink 20oz sodas, like what's being banned. I, and Bloomberg, would be happy if nobody got to drink them.

Brain tumors, diabetes, obesity, and blood toxicity are not subjective. They are actual, physical things, thus, they have weight. Happiness does not.

Kopikatsu:

Happiness is worth nothing because it's a subjective measure.

OK, so any time a person does something because it makes them happy, their happiness cannot outweigh the risks of the activity?

[Edited for clarity]

BrassButtons:

Kopikatsu:

Happiness is worth nothing because it's a subjective measure.

OK, so nothing that a person does because it makes them happy can outweigh the risks of the activity?

Happiness alone cannot be weighed against a number of serious and pervasive medical conditions, no.

Eating the two Big Macs a day for a month would probably be healthier than a large soda a day. At least with the burgers, you're getting protein and some small amount of fructose.

Kopikatsu:

BrassButtons:

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

What makes it the wrong choice?

When risk/cost greatly outweighs the benefit, it's a poor choice. Such as eating two Big Macs every day for a month straight.

Or not following the advice of your doctor. Why didn't you take their advice? Is that because you do not like being told what to do? Let me guess, of course not. Judging by how this started off about sodas and from there got pretty thick quite rapidly, I'm guessing you think you just know better than anyone else.

Take everyone else's choice away but mine because I know better to make the right ones. You may not have said it, but it's more or less where you're standing right now.

Kopikatsu:

BrassButtons:

Kopikatsu:

Happiness is worth nothing because it's a subjective measure.

OK, so nothing that a person does because it makes them happy can outweigh the risks of the activity?

Happiness alone cannot be weighed against a number of serious and pervasive medical conditions, no.

That wasn't the question. The question was whether happiness can ever outweigh the risks of an activity. I deliberately did not specify what those risks were.

xDarc:

Kopikatsu:

BrassButtons:

What makes it the wrong choice?

When risk/cost greatly outweighs the benefit, it's a poor choice. Such as eating two Big Macs every day for a month straight.

Or not following the advice of your doctor. Why didn't you take their advice? Is that because you do not like being told what to do? Let me guess, of course not. Judging by how this started off about sodas and from there got pretty thick quite rapidly, I'm guessing you think you just know better than anyone else.

Take everyone else's choice away but mine because I know better to make the right ones. You may not have said it, but it's more or less where you're standing right now.

As Bloomberg is pushing the ban and not myself, I would say that government as a whole knows better than it's constituents. The point of government is, after all, to govern. It is also why we have the SCOTUS. While they also keep Congress in line, their other purpose is to prevent majority opinion from swaying the nation down an undesirable path. That is, they're there to prevent the tyranny of the majority. The majority of the citizens can say that they'd prefer to have soda than not, but they've proven themselves incapable of making smart choices. I once again point to the obesity statistic. Apparently, I do know better than at least ~35% of the US population.

As for the Doctors... I had eleven close relatives when I was first born. I'm down to one. All ten died either under the knife, or because of something they contracted while at a hospital. The only possible exception is my Uncle, because although he died in ER, he was admitted because he'd cracked his head open in a motorcycle accident.

Anyway, no. I would say that ignoring a Doctor's advice is probably the best thing to do for yourself.

Kopikatsu:

Anyway, no. I would say that ignoring a Doctor's advice is probably the best thing to do for yourself.

So we should all be drinking large amounts of soda?

BrassButtons:

Kopikatsu:

BrassButtons:

OK, so nothing that a person does because it makes them happy can outweigh the risks of the activity?

Happiness alone cannot be weighed against a number of serious and pervasive medical conditions, no.

That wasn't the question. The question was whether happiness can ever outweigh the risks of an activity. I deliberately did not specify what those risks were.

You're going to point to something like, say, video games. Recreation is different, because taking a break every so often actually increases productivity, among other things. That's not to say recreation gets a blank slate (Taking crystal meth for funsies is still a poor choice), but as the goal of recreation is relaxation/fun, it's looser. There are also not health risks assigned to recreation as a concept.

You cannot objectively state that the supposed 'happiness' brought by soda somehow offsets the serious medical conditions that are associated with it.

BrassButtons:

Kopikatsu:

Anyway, no. I would say that ignoring a Doctor's advice is probably the best thing to do for yourself.

So we should all be drinking large amounts of soda?

I'm not a Doctor, nor is the FDA. Should I have specified MDs?

Kopikatsu:

You're going to point to something like, say, video games. Recreation is different, because taking a break every so often actually increases productivity, among other things. That's not to say recreation gets a blank slate (Taking crystal meth for funsies is still a poor choice), but as the goal of recreation is relaxation/fun, it's looser. There are also not health risks assigned to recreation as a concept.

You cannot objectively state that the supposed 'happiness' brought by soda somehow offsets the serious medical conditions that are associated with it.

Two things. First, you still are not answering the question. Second, I don't need to be able to objectively state that happiness brought on by soda offsets the associated medical risks, because my entire point is that it's a subjective judgement.

Kopikatsu:

I'm not a Doctor, nor is the FDA. Should I have specified MDs?

Where do you think the knowledge that soda has health risks comes from? And many people are told specifically by their doctors to avoid soda. If those people listen to your advice they should ignore what their doctors have said, which means they should drink soda.

Kopikatsu:
I'm not a Doctor, nor is the FDA. Should I have specified MDs?

The FDA board is made up entirely of people with PHds and MDs. I'm not even sure I understand what you are getting at anymore.

Ignore doctors because they don't know what they're talking about but trust in the government to make the right choices? Are you kidding me? We could spend all night listing the poor choices the American government has made- just in the last 10 years even.

Besides, the point of the government is not to govern- that's nonsense; it's not a monarchy where it's point is to rule. It exists democratically to reflect the will of the people, to protect them from foreign and domestic threats- but the minute they start telling you it's for your own good, we're protecting you from yourself, they've overstepped their bounds.

It's for that very same reason that your doctor requires your informed consent, and cannot simply strap you down to a gurney because it's for your own good. You have a choice. Who would go see a doctor if they knew they had no choice in their treatment? Likewise, who would participate in society or obey the government if they had no choice?

The system doesn't work without it. It's only because of the few choices people do get to make every day that we don't see others choosing to park trucks full of fertilizer soaked in diesel fuel at federal buildings on a weekly basis. Let government just make all the choices for you without regard and that's the situation you'll find yourself in, in a big hurry.

Revnak:

I also don't think I agree with the idea that my rights exist independently of me. It just doesn't quite seem right. I don't feel like I can argue it, so I won't, but... I just don't like the idea of it.

Not that the rights exist independently of you, they can't. But that your rights stem not from your existance in and of itself, but from your existance within a certain framework that is our society. The "basic human rights" we have exist not because it's "natural" for them to exist, but because we collectively decided and agreed that they should exist.

If you were suddenly tossed into the interstellar void of the next spiral arm, even assuming you can survive in outer space, there's nothing around you those rights would even apply to and thus become meaningless. And assuming you can't, well, the universe doesn't particularly care.

So while I do not agree with Kopikatsu that rights are "arbitrary" (because they most definitely aren't the result of someone just waking up one day and tossing a coin which just happened to land tails up), I still think that we have no rights simply by virtue of our extistance, but from the consensus that we should have them.

I'm not really sure how this all translates into limits on soda cups though. I personally think that if the powers that be have to mandate something, they might as well mandate mandatory exercise for people, I don't know. I'm also all for calling out the government on stupid nonsense - not because HURR DA GUB'MENT IS AN EVIL CONCLAVE OF ALIENS DURR but because stupid nonsense is stupid and should therefore be called out.

Vegosiux:

Revnak:

I also don't think I agree with the idea that my rights exist independently of me. It just doesn't quite seem right. I don't feel like I can argue it, so I won't, but... I just don't like the idea of it.

Not that the rights exist independently of you, they can't. But that your rights stem not from your existance in and of itself, but from your existance within a certain framework that is our society. The "basic human rights" we have exist not because it's "natural" for them to exist, but because we collectively decided and agreed that they should exist.

If you were suddenly tossed into the interstellar void of the next spiral arm, even assuming you can survive in outer space, there's nothing around you those rights would even apply to and thus become meaningless. And assuming you can't, well, the universe doesn't particularly care.

So while I do not agree with Kopikatsu that rights are "arbitrary" (because they most definitely aren't the result of someone just waking up one day and tossing a coin which just happened to land tails up), I still think that we have no rights simply by virtue of our extistance, but from the consensus that we should have them.

I'm not really sure how this all translates into limits on soda cups though. I personally think that if the powers that be have to mandate something, they might as well mandate mandatory exercise for people, I don't know. I'm also all for calling out the government on stupid nonsense - not because HURR DA GUB'MENT IS AN EVIL CONCLAVE OF ALIENS DURR but because stupid nonsense is stupid and should therefore be called out.

I think I can agree to that to a certain degree, but more as a sort of final defense of the concept of rights rather than saying that natural rights do not exist, as I would rather not rule out such a possibility.

In this topic: Slippery slope fallacies, MUH FREEDOMS, willful ignorance of basic nutrition, and people conflating smaller serving sizes with some Orwellian dystopia.

Look, we allow the government to "control" our personal lives all the time. There are warning labels (and indeed legally-enforced age restrictions) on tobacco and alcohol. When we drive we have to keep to speed limits, follow road signs and make sure our license plate and lights are unobscured. I'm not allowed to walk into many government buildings without permission. Not to mention the positively fascist rule that I need to be clothed at all times when I'm in public. Open your eyes, sheeple, we're dancing monkeys on a hamster wheel under the jackboot of the Zionist Illuminati oppressors, maaan...

The biggest soda I could find evidence of was a 64-ounce (1.9 litre) size. If that was standard coke, that would be 201g of sugar and 798 calories. And that's sold as a beverage, either to accompany food or just as a refreshment. Many people -especially in the US - are woefully ignorant about sensible daily intake and there's a self-evident liability here for people to overconsume.

No, nobody's taking away your right to literally drown yourself in soda if you so wish. But surely there's some merit in making it a bit less easy?

Batou667:

No, nobody's taking away your right to literally drown yourself in soda if you so wish. But surely there's some merit in making it a bit less easy?

Indeed. There's a simple idea here: if something is there to freely eat/drink, people will tend to eat/drink it.

What this means is that if they only want 500ml of drink but the drinks come in 1l size, many will end up consuming the full litre. It is also the case that the packaging deals work out so that the cost efficiency for larger quantities is frequently much better: say 500ml drink and 1l popcorn for 5, or 1l drink and 1.5l popcorn for 6.50. Or perhaps they just want the 1.5 popcorn, but that costs 5, so why not add the drink? These sorts of systems induce people to buy the bigger product by making the smaller one seem like an unpalatable bad deal.

Restricting portion sizes is therefore a simple way to encourage people to cut down. It's hardly tyrannical, simply because anyone who wants more can still buy two or more portions.

senordesol:

A slippery slope? Perhaps. But if there is anything our Founders wanted us to have more than anything: it was a healthy distrust and suspicion of the government, and a broad imagination in all the ways it could screw you. Chances are you'll be more right than wrong every time.

While it's always iffy business to talk about what some long-dead people wanted and present it as fact, I will concede that those guys likely by no means wanted the nation to become blindly obedient to any kind of government. That'd be stupid.

But assuming that the government is some kind of "necessary evil" that's out to screw you at any turn it gets is a tad too much on the cautious side. My suggestion? People should get informed about why certain laws were passed instead of just raging against the government. Put yourself into their shoes for a bit, and think about "If I was the government, what would my reasoning be to do this?" Then maybe read up on it. Then, when you are confident you know what kind of an issue it's supposed to tackle, form a collective effort to suggest alternatives. And "Ain't nobody got time for that" is a choice, not an inevitability.

As I said, I'm all in favor of calling out the elected representatives on nonsensical decisions they make, but your ground is much more solid if you have an organized alternative, as well. Plus, you're more likely to be taken seriously that way.

Vegosiux:

senordesol:

A slippery slope? Perhaps. But if there is anything our Founders wanted us to have more than anything: it was a healthy distrust and suspicion of the government, and a broad imagination in all the ways it could screw you. Chances are you'll be more right than wrong every time.

While it's always iffy business to talk about what some long-dead people wanted and present it as fact, I will concede that those guys likely by no means wanted the nation to become blindly obedient to any kind of government. That'd be stupid.

But assuming that the government is some kind of "necessary evil" that's out to screw you at any turn it gets is a tad too much on the cautious side. My suggestion? People should get informed about why certain laws were passed instead of just raging against the government. Put yourself into their shoes for a bit, and think about "If I was the government, what would my reasoning be to do this?" Then maybe read up on it. Then, when you are confident you know what kind of an issue it's supposed to tackle, form a collective effort to suggest alternatives. And "Ain't nobody got time for that" is a choice, not an inevitability.

As I said, I'm all in favor of calling out the elected representatives on nonsensical decisions they make, but your ground is much more solid if you have an organized alternative, as well. Plus, you're more likely to be taken seriously that way.

Well, the Founders weren't exactly mum on the subject "The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants", "A government with the power to give you anything you want can take everything you have"...those sorts of things.

One enters into government because they wish to have power. Be it benevolent or malignant, that is always true: they want the ability to change society into an image they find satisfactory. That does not necessarily coincide for what you or I want. Suffice it to say, speaking personally, at the very least the People should require the power-seekers who enter government to continually earn their trust. That anything and everything it does -particularly if it infringes on personal liberties- should be scrutinized, debated, and examined against a series of worst-case scenarios.

While I agree that it is more productive to fashion alternatives, rather than spotting problems; spotting problems itself can be productive (and part of the solution). There is no need to accept the notion that we must continue on a given course unless a better one presents itself; particularly if the road one is to travel is a dangerous one (and will take us nowhere).

generals3:
My problem with sodas is the misinformation surrounding them. Most people underestimate the risks and that's why the government needs to step in.

They actually do? They don't recognize soda as junk food? O_o

In Australia they just made the fast food put the calories / kilojoules on each menu item (and your daily recomended intake).

Was very informative, changed a few of my choices.

I did not know orange fanta (~13 C / Oz) had ~30% more calories than coke / sprite (~10 C / Oz).

There is a food rating called 3R (>1 is good for you)

Big Mac 0.6
Salad 12.6

Regular / Diet Soda 0.0
Low fat milk 1.1
Coffee 0.3
Pre-pack fruit juice 1.9 (higher if fresh or no added sugar)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked