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
 

This is ridiculous. In the supposed land of the free, we're told what we can and cannot eat or drink? Besides that, banning big gulps or whatever doesn't seem like it'll curb much obesity... if any. I think I found a loophole though... but two drinks. This is the typical nonsensical, heavy handed approach the government tends to take to 'solve problems'. How about instead of that, we do a better job of educating people about the harmful effects of things like big gulps, processed food and other assorted crap that leads to our astounding obesity in this country. No, lets just treat the people like fucking 12 year olds, that seems like a better idea.

beef_razor:
This is ridiculous. In the supposed land of the free, we're told what we can and cannot eat or drink?

You're not, actually. The companies are told what's the largest portion they can sell you stuff in, but you can still buy, drink and eat whatever you damn well please.

So cut it out with the "Muh freedoms!" speech, it doesn't apply.

It's still a bad law, make no mistake and it's a good thing it got shot down.

Besides that, banning big gulps or whatever doesn't seem like it'll curb much obesity... if any. I think I found a loophole though... but two drinks. This is the typical nonsensical, heavy handed approach the government tends to take to 'solve problems'.

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.

How about instead of that, we do a better job of educating people about the harmful effects of things like big gulps, processed food and other assorted crap that leads to our astounding obesity in this country. No, lets just treat the people like fucking 12 year olds, that seems like a better idea.

You do have a better solution. Now get organized and put it on the law-making table. There are means in effect that allow the citizens to propose their own solutions through organized initiatives.

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)

Vegosiux:

beef_razor:
This is ridiculous. In the supposed land of the free, we're told what we can and cannot eat or drink?

You're not, actually. The companies are told what's the largest portion they can sell you stuff in, but you can still buy, drink and eat whatever you damn well please.

So cut it out with the "Muh freedoms!" speech, it doesn't apply.

It's still a bad law, make no mistake and it's a good thing it got shot down.

It's the same thing from other side. You're being purposefully obtuse here.

That's like saying that I didn't wrongfully imprison you if I built a giant electric fence around your house.

See: If you're even right here, then all this ban does is makes it so people's money stretches less far, basically putting more economic burden on people that can't really afford it as well.

And if you're wrong, then it's a terrible as shit decision for the above reasons.

Vegosiux:

Besides that, banning big gulps or whatever doesn't seem like it'll curb much obesity... if any. I think I found a loophole though... but two drinks. This is the typical nonsensical, heavy handed approach the government tends to take to 'solve problems'.

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.

People have put forward about 12 thousand better solutions but they're all a lot tougher to implement than 'fuck the poor' so I can see why nobody's retained any of them going forward.

Oh, and here's a thing: It's kind of assholish to be like "Your ideas are invalid because you didn't solve 2 problems for the price of one". That's basically the Billy O'Reilly "Tide Goes in, Tide Comes Out, Can't Explain That" troll logic. "Well, you didn't solve all problems within your theory so the tides must be caused by invisible pixies" is not a great conclusion.

I don't have to have off the top of my near minimal wage head a comprehensive reform that can completely solve obesity to tell you that your solution is a waste of time and money. I don't have to be a medical doctor capable of telling you how to cure all disease to be able to inform somebody that throwing leeches on them isn't helping them.

Vegosiux:

How about instead of that, we do a better job of educating people about the harmful effects of things like big gulps, processed food and other assorted crap that leads to our astounding obesity in this country. No, lets just treat the people like fucking 12 year olds, that seems like a better idea.

You do have a better solution. Now get organized and put it on the law-making table. There are means in effect that allow the citizens to propose their own solutions through organized initiatives.

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)

And here you're basically saying "I know you didn't do shit to propose your idea, so your idea's invalid". Who's to say he didn't go out and vote?

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.

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?

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.

Damien Granz:

It's the same thing from other side. You're being purposefully obtuse here.

That's like saying that I didn't wrongfully imprison you if I built a giant electric fence around your house.

See: If you're even right here, then all this ban does is makes it so people's money stretches less far, basically putting more economic burden on people that can't really afford it as well.

And if you're wrong, then it's a terrible as shit decision for the above reasons.

Marvelous, personal attacks and presuming my intentions right off the bat. How many milliseconds did you spend on considering what I wrote? Zero-point-five?

I have the key to the gate in that fence. I don't even have to ask you to open it for me. I just need to stop for half a second and order another drink.

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.

People have put forward about 12 thousand better solutions but they're all a lot tougher to implement than 'fuck the poor' so I can see why nobody's retained any of them going forward.

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".

Oh, and here's a thing: It's kind of assholish to be like "Your ideas are invalid because you didn't solve 2 problems for the price of one". That's basically the Billy O'Reilly "Tide Goes in, Tide Comes Out, Can't Explain That" troll logic. "Well, you didn't solve all problems within your theory so the tides must be caused by invisible pixies" is not a great conclusion.

Why are you antagonizing me?

I don't have to have off the top of my near minimal wage head a comprehensive reform that can completely solve obesity to tell you that your solution is a waste of time and money. I don't have to be a medical doctor capable of telling you how to cure all disease to be able to inform somebody that throwing leeches on them isn't helping them.

How about you read what I wrote on this topic around the forum? My exact words:

"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.

And here you're basically saying "I know you didn't do shit to propose your idea, so your idea's invalid". Who's to say he didn't go out and vote?

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.

Oh, and there's more to being politically active than circling a number on a ballot every four years.

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?

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.

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?

Vegosiux:
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.

Vegosiux:
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".

Vegosiux:
"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?

Vegosiux:
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.

Vegosiux:

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.

Vegosiux:

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.

Vegosiux:
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?

Vegosiux:

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.

Vegosiux:

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.

Vegosiux:
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.

Vegosiux:
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.

Damien Granz:
-snip-

Maybe I wouldn't be replying with "snarky shit" and "condescending things" if you weren't strawmanning me and misinterpreting me like there was no tomorrow. And since you just went and did it again, I am simply not inclined to believe that it wasn't deliberate.

How can I get this into your head - I am not telling anyone they're not allowed to have ideas unless "you're this tall politically" - I am saying that "You'll have a better chance of changing stuff if you're this active politically". If you want address what I said, then address that instead of going for a strawman.

Nor did I call anyone's ideas less valid, I actually called someone's idea better, even, so again, that's something you just made up.

The reality of the situation is that if you wan't to change something, you're simply not going to achieve it by pretending the government is some kind of a boogeyman out for your pancreas, you do need to be "this active politically" if you want to have a better shot.

But maybe you're right, fuck it. Maybe it is going to be a cold day in hell before you read what I wrote as opposed to what you wish I'd written.

Vegosiux:

Damien Granz:
-snip-

Maybe I wouldn't be replying with "snarky shit" and "condescending things" if you weren't strawmanning me and misinterpreting me like there was no tomorrow. And since you just went and did it again, I am simply not inclined to believe that it wasn't deliberate.

How can I get this into your head - I am not telling anyone they're not allowed to have ideas unless "you're this tall politically" - I am saying that "You'll have a better chance of changing stuff if you're this active politically". If you want address what I said, then address that instead of going for a strawman.

Nor did I call anyone's ideas less valid, I actually called someone's idea better, even, so again, that's something you just made up.

The reality of the situation is that if you wan't to change something, you're simply not going to achieve it by pretending the government is some kind of a boogeyman out for your pancreas, you do need to be "this active politically" if you want to have a better shot.

But maybe you're right, fuck it. Maybe it is going to be a cold day in hell before you read what I wrote as opposed to what you wish I'd written.

So basically you're saying that you just felt like lecturing some random poster, I guess? Yes, you'll change things politically faster by getting educated and voting. You'll also change things faster by metabolizing oxygen than not, but I don't see the point in ending every post with that. I'm not sure why you felt the need to randomly insert that into his post quote by quote, but my level of curiosity on the matter is basically nonexistent.

Shock and Awe:

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.

He's doing nothing at all! He's not telling you what to do with your personal life! He's telling businesses how to conduct their business. You can drink a fucking BUCKET of it at your own dinner table if you want. It's not like he's outright banning shitty food (although there's probably a very good argument for that). He's just limiting the size of the maximum serving. He's not stopping you from getting two medium ones or a refill or whatever. It's a tiiiiiiny nudge.

We have it here, I'm sure. A "Large" over in the USA is HUGE compared to a large over here. And they're only getting bigger bit by bit.

As for that bullshit about it costing thousands of dollars to replace glasswear? Pfft. That's a lie or he's a bad businessman. He can just offer half a glass!

Man Americans are paranoid as hell.

I'm just waiting for a congressman to drive over an illegally parked rich man's car in a busy city with a tank like that guy in Romania (?) did. We cheered him here- you'd probably impeach him.

Thank fuck you live a in a country where people actually have the free time and wealth to complain about fucking CUP sizes. Jesus Christ.

Storm in a fucking teacup.

A small one.

Danny Ocean:

Storm in a fucking teacup.

A small one.

Is that a UK Small or an American Small? (6oz. or half a gallon?)

Danny Ocean:

Shock and Awe:

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.

He's doing nothing at all! He's not telling you what to do with your personal life! He's telling businesses how to conduct their business. You can drink a fucking BUCKET of it at your own dinner table if you want. It's not like he's outright banning shitty food (although there's probably a very good argument for that). He's just limiting the size of the maximum serving. He's not stopping you from getting two medium ones or a refill or whatever. It's a tiiiiiiny nudge

It is a tiny nudge; a tiny nudge that shouldn't be there. The thing with these tiny laws that really don't matter is that they set a legal precedent. If this law is okay, whats to say that more extreme laws can't be enacted?

Danny Ocean:
Man Americans are paranoid as hell.

Its a cultural thing.

Shock and Awe:

It is a tiny nudge; a tiny nudge that shouldn't be there. The thing with these tiny laws that really don't matter is that they set a legal precedent. If this law is okay, whats to say that more extreme laws can't be enacted?

But if this law isn't okay what's to say that even more regulations aren't going to be abolished?

Makes just as much sense, doesn't it. Slippery slopes and all.

Vegosiux:

Shock and Awe:

It is a tiny nudge; a tiny nudge that shouldn't be there. The thing with these tiny laws that really don't matter is that they set a legal precedent. If this law is okay, whats to say that more extreme laws can't be enacted?

But if this law isn't okay what's to say that even more regulations aren't going to be abolished?

Makes just as much sense, doesn't it. Slippery slopes and all.

There are no other regulations of the sort that I am aware of. Its a limit on the container size of a legal item so as far as I'm aware there is nothing else like it.

Shock and Awe:

Vegosiux:

Shock and Awe:

It is a tiny nudge; a tiny nudge that shouldn't be there. The thing with these tiny laws that really don't matter is that they set a legal precedent. If this law is okay, whats to say that more extreme laws can't be enacted?

But if this law isn't okay what's to say that even more regulations aren't going to be abolished?

Makes just as much sense, doesn't it. Slippery slopes and all.

There are no other regulations of the sort that I am aware of. Its a limit on the container size of a legal item so as far as I'm aware there is nothing else like it.

There are no other "extreme laws" "of the sort" I can think of if "of the sort" means "putting a limit on the container size".

Seriously, if you can argue that legislation like this will lead to the government controlling what you eat and drink, then I can argue that lack of legislation like this will lead to the government letting companies poison us for their profit, and we'd both be equally wrong.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/opposition-to-soda-ban-sad-proof-that-americans-st,31658/

"The mounting opposition to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal to prohibit the sale of large-size soft drinks served as sad and sobering proof that Americans are still willing to fight for the causes they believe in, sources confirmed Wednesday. "While many argue that people in this country lack the passion and general informedness to meaningfully participate in matters of public policy, the fierce outcry against the soda ban provides depressing evidence that this is not entirely true,""

I've been putting this everywhere on the topic. What went wrong that the Onion doesn't even have to make it's own material up for this.

Regulations on food have already been in effect for years. While the whole large soda thing is unorthodox, it's nothing to get riled up about.

It's a very slippery slope. First they ban things that can cause obesity, heart attacks, and deafness, next they might go around banning harmless plants that help many people with depression as well as other issues. Well, I guess they kind of went the opposite with that.

The point being the government has banned more ridiculous things than fatty and sugary food.

That being said they are still ridiculous things to ban.

And all of this being said I would like to qualify it by stating, I am rather drunk.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked