Hm, and I took you for a sensible one once, but if you think this is a "fuck the poor move", I suppose we aren't getting too far, are we?
I'll take your word that you know that all those solutions were better though. I don't want to know how you verified that, really. Would make my head hurt. I'm sure it wasn't something as trite as "Well, nothing can be worse than this".
And what do you mean "if" I'm right? The law only puts a limit to the maximum size of the portion, no limit on how many of those you can buy.
Yeah, I really do think that these solutions like what Bloomberg is proposing and what's being defended here are nothing more than "Fuck the poor so that I can pretend to help the poor" solutions. I'm not suggesting that your general motive is to fuck the poor in every situation, but I will note that both liberals and conservatives have massive blind spots here and there when it concerns doing just that. Liberal blind spots tend to focus on things like this, feel good 'let's ban meat' or whatever solutions, or the sort of hipster notion that somebody with no training or skills can take a vacation to an impoverished nation and start to randomly try to nail together houses, even though it ends up making everybody there worse off, so they can high five each other and pretend they've helped. Conservative blind spots tend to be closer to "If I make the poor miserable and sickly they'll have no choice but to spontaneously be rich. It's for their own good", like a drunk dad throwing their child into a pool so they'll appreciate swimming.
Because at best, people in favor of this are telling me "It's not really that big a deal and won't change anybody's lifestyles", which translates to "This won't make anybody less fat". Then what else will it do? It'll spread people's money thinner, when that's the last thing we need, fucking the poor. Hence we're back at what I said. We're deflating already stretched thin state budgets, damaging supply side economics and damaging demand side economics (otherwise known as fucking the poor), even if in a relatively minor way, for what gain? Pretty much none. Nobody can point out any way this will help.
At best people fall back on trying to argue why soda's as bad for somebody like crack cocaine or try to justify an extensive ban over all sodas. But it's annoying to argue both "We should ban X" and "This won't ban X, so stop bitching" at the same time when people keep switching their arguments out like theater masks.
What I meant by you being obtuse though before I still mostly stick by. I do think it's a bit painful to hear the argument that a ban isn't a ban if it's supply side. That's what I meant by saying.. if it's not a ban, then I see it doing nothing but stretching thin people's budgets. And if it is, then it's not suddenly not a ban because it's enforced on the supply side.
Why are you antagonizing me?
Why are you antagonizing Beef Razor by telling him his ideas don't measure up if he doesn't have X hours of political work, or antagonizing me with snarky shit like "I thought you were smart up until you disagreed with me on something".
"It's still a bad law, make no mistake and it's a good thing it got shot down."
In the post you quoted. How did you miss that?
Oh, another bit from me, paraphrased a bit, from either this thread, or the other one:
"You don't technically need an alternative, but your position will be a lot stronger if you have one." Look it up.
I didn't miss it. Why are you defending it then, if it's a bad law? Why are you antagonizing people who agree with you by telling them they must be "this tall politically" to have ideas?
Nope, what I'm saying here is that if you didn't do shit to propose your idea don't be surprised if it didn't make it to the table because.
I'm pretty sure 'Beef Razor' isn't a senator or legislator in New York City's assembly so I don't know why his idea becomes less valid because he somehow hasn't, without any authority to do so, proposed his legislation personally to Mayor Bloomberg.
Me neither. I don't see how that has anything to do with what I said, though.
SNAP and medical doctors, scientists and economics have put forward a ton of expert opinions on what to do but unfortunately we don't live in a world where expert opinion automatically gets elected so even if 'Beef Razor' was the world's premier authority on the economics of obesity he's not Mayor Michael Bloomberg, so I don't know why you're asking him how many actions as Michael Bloomberg has he done today?
Nope. Again nothing to do with what I said. You sure you quoted the right guy?
Like I said before I missed the point where he has the power to make any idea he proposes to any table period, because all of like 8 guys have the authority to do that. You're basically, whether or not you realize it, chastising him for not being Michael Bloomberg. But being Michael Bloomberg is a hard gig: a billion people applied for the gig the same day he did and only one guy got the part. That's a pretty heavy rejection rate.
Oh, and there's more to being politically active than circling a number on a ballot every four years.
So what? First, I don't know what the fuck the guy does for a living. Maybe he's a political canvasser. It's pretty rude to tell him he should get more involved.
Second, there's more to being politically active to voting, but I'd give about anything if everybody would do just that. Just hearing about political matters, speaking about them and voting is a billion times better than what most people do.
Also it's a pretty ad hominem attack to be like "Well, your ideas are less valid because you're lazy", especially when it's not like we know the dude or what he does.
Why are you attacking this dude personally? To vent your frustrations on others for not being up to the level of political involvement you want?
And I'm not sure how his inability or inaction to propose said solution (and the about 12,000 prior to this in the almost 8 goddamn threads this topic has opened up) somehow makes Bloomberg's idea more valid, as if a gap in his information or knowledge means that you can fill it up with whatever.
Again, nothing to do with what I said - where have I talked about validity of ideas? Care to quote me on that? Oh, that's right, that would be hard to do since I never said anything about that.
It's not a loophole, but do you have a better solution? Your criticism of the government is always stronger if you have a better solution.
Coupled with your instance on having an argument about how big a person's political penis should be, which I'm not quoting a second time as it'd be redundant.
You're accusing the government of taking the lazy path of least resistance. Why are you taking that same path yourself? ("you" as in, "the people/citizens", not you personally)
Then inferring that by not having his own solution he (or rather 'we'?) are lazy, despite the fact that you're not talking to a forum full of lawyers and people have been giving out different solutions for like 8 very repetitive boring threads on this very topic and its permutations.
You've argued your points well in the past, and on that note, I'll let this one slide. But next time, please, less aggression, less diversion, more discussion?
You know, I didn't get upset at all during this (aside from the TWICE that I hit backspace and went back a page erasing all this shit I said, but that's my goddamn fault not your), except for reading this sort of condescending thing.
Thanks for the magnanimity for 'letting this slide', boss. Except you didn't really let it slide because letting something slide implies you don't try to have the last punch in before calling a truce. I had more to say, but fuck it.