WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Think of the cost! It's not just good for her, it's good for all of us!
That's a taxin'
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New York City Approves Large Sugary Drinks Ban
- Thread starter Jhoan
- Start date
- Status
Think of the cost! It's not just good for her, it's good for all of us!
That's a taxin'
shadowsdarknes
Member
Well I believe you have a poor opinion on gun ownership, and on personal freedom. How about instead of banning soda, soda companies are forced to use healthier methods and ingredients for their products? Or spend money to raise awareness about the health risks of soda consumption?
There is nothing wrong with restricting freedom and using regulation to control people from harming themselves to an extent, however when making such a drastic decision so against American values a leader must carefully deliberate all and the best courses of action. Here, Bloomberg did not.
Policy makers make such lazy decisions like this: Soda is attributed to obesity, obesity is bad, therefore by banning soda everyone will not be obese. Nothing about this policy seems thoroughly thought through.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
"Many" scientists also believe that climate change is a myth. A number of scientists also put out a study arguing the cause of Alzheimer's was aluminum cookware.
I for, one, welcome our new Governmental Nannybot overlords.
astroturfing
Member
ummmm, not comparable at all. read up on it, i think there's good science behind the claim.
i read about it from a publication that would never publish climate change denial garbage (New Scientist). in fact i think it was their lead story last week or the week before that...
what, you think everyone is an individualist? i think of myself as a member of society first, a small part in a collective.
i'm an individual second. my rights are not as important as the well-being of society. i believe there is a strong tradition in this type of thinking, especially in the East. it shouldn't be so shocking.
New Scientist's creditability is shoddy.
A quick Google search would have revealed your beloved source has some possibile creditability issues.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
The one guy is proposing some kind of bizarre Command-based social structure which I can't even comprehend, much less attach a label to. Like, its far to the left of Communism.
Yes it does, because your theory has no accepted scientific basis...oh wait, YOU READ AN ARTICLE?! This changes everything.
Even if it was the most credible source in the world, one study doesn't prove anything. As I said, at one point aluminum cookware was considered responsible for Alzheimer's. Guess what? It wasn't.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
I'm pretty damned "liberal" and I think this law is horseshit.
Oh, I fully agree with you.
The point of my post was to destroy Astro's source.
Both of you are doing a poor job in portraying your argument, using faulty sources, and saying really dumb things.
Two 16 ounce cups, one full and the other not. You can customize to your heart's desire.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
How about 128 oz?
perfectchaos007
Member
For an extra, and completely unnecessary, cost...
Did you picket mcdonalds when they took away your supersize?
Follow up: Why not?
astroturfing
Member
ehh, so they had a questionable cover designed to attract more readers. every commericial magazine does that... very lame though, i agree. but that's capitalism for ya.
and i know they are not a peer-reviewed journal or anything, but most of the stuff they publish is regurgitating stuff that was already in Nature or Science or other reliable sources, so it's mostly good. AND if they have articles that are speculative, they do state that. the Alzheimer's/Diabetes link was not presented as 100% fact, but it nevertheless convinced me enough that i think it's likely.
gotta wait for more studies i guess, i'm sure they are being done. haven't even checked if better sources had anything on this though.. might do that now ->
edit: ahh, it was a study published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, which apparently is a peer-reviewed publication. good enough source for you to take the claim seriously and perhaps look into it?
8 16 ounce cups, obviously.
And? Not having the freedom to and not having the money to are not the same thing.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
that doesn't happen up here. though Staten Island continues to exist, we're civilized folks. besides, wouldn't it be cheaper just to go to a supermarket and buy 2-ilter bottles and empty them in?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Isn't that the problem many people have with the law?
It's a pointless law that doesn't change anything and just adds additional costs and inconveniences.
I dont think it gets much more slippery than Demo man :lol
The law is based on the premise most people only drink so much soda because it's there, and that if they buy 16 ounces they won't feel the need to go and refill or to buy more. I'm nearly certain this will be found to be the case once the law is in effect.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Except it's not Dredd.
It's really easy to just type up a post and say 'this is a slippery slope argument.' Quite...convenient you're just making a blanket assertion the only possible counter arguments must fall into this hated category.
A lack of understanding of basic psychology?
Except for the fact its irrelevant which movie it came from, its still lubed up to the point of no friction...
Bingo. Who cares about the soda. What's going to be down the road is what's scary. They're just going to use this as a bridge to ban other things. Why should the government get involved with my eating habits?
In all reality it's not going to solve anything, just create more havoc. Just stirring the pot.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
It isn’t the government’s role to paternally regulate each and every possible action which may cause some generalized harm to itself or some other person.
People wouldn't need a nanny if they proved that they were competent enough to make healthy choices. The reality is that childhood obesity and diabetes only put more strain on our already troubled healthcare system. It's is an epidemic that needs to be curtailed by all means necessary, props to Mr. Bloomberg for putting together this bill.
EDIT:
Meh. All this doom and gloom talk is ridiculous. The government has a responsibility to maintain a healthy population for the betterment of the nation. And no, I'm not a socialist but I firmly believe that this is something that the government is on the right track about.
EDIT:
Meh. All this doom and gloom talk is ridiculous. The government has a responsibility to maintain a healthy population for the betterment of the nation. And no, I'm not a socialist but I firmly believe that this is something that the government is on the right track about.
They wrote an article stating Darwin being wrong and needing a new evolution paradigm.
It's a little more than a "questionable cover."
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
I don't drink that much. My only use for soda is to add flavor to cheap alcohol.
yep, and it goes hand in hand with other Bloomberg efforts to increase the number of healthy food options for those in poverty, including extra subsidies for those who use their EBT cards at farmers markets and greater coordination and transparency with a slate of anti-hunger groups like NYCCAH, Food Bank for NYC, etc.
you weave a very interesting tapestry of your life.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
There is a social value in the freedom to make personal choices which eclipses the harm to society from large sodas.
astroturfing
Member
i haven't read that article so i can't say anything about it, my guess is that it was just proposing some new ideas and new angles from which to look at evolution, or something. they most certainly weren't advocating creationism or anything, that's for sure
anyway, forget New Scientist. what about the actual, original source of the study that i mentioned in the edit of my last comment, if you missed it: the peer-reviewed Journal of Alzheimer's. good enough?
edit: thanks for that link though, i'll read it later. interesting to see if there's any crazy claims there or not.
You have not lost a single personal choice in regards to large sodas, you might actually have more choices now..
This does not deprive a person of choices. It's an inconvenience at most and no one has a right to be free of inconvenience, especially weighed against the potential public health benefits and healthcare costs savings.
I think this is one of the things that bothers me most about the whole thing. If it was a voter supported petition or a congressional bill I might be more open to it. It is a measure by the board of health and had no democratic function.
I don't feel that my right to make a personal choice is affected when harmful products are taken off the market. Surprise, I'm into gun control.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
See, the thing about freedom to choose is that its not based on the arbitrary determinations of guskicksbus322.
fluffydelusions
Member
Kind of sucks they banned all soda. I drink diet coke which is sugar free =\
This is a brilliant move. The people spouting about people making their own decisions would be right on point if people weren't continuously making stupid ones. No one ever needs a large sugar drink, and people know that yet do it.
Quite honestly, the government stepping in and stopping restaurants from enabling obesity is the kind of response new Yorkers deserve when they can't control themselves. In a perfect world, there would be no need for a ban in large sugar drinks because no one would ever buy them.
Quite honestly, the government stepping in and stopping restaurants from enabling obesity is the kind of response new Yorkers deserve when they can't control themselves. In a perfect world, there would be no need for a ban in large sugar drinks because no one would ever buy them.
What if I want to buy a cup that holds exactly 5.78 ounces of soda? Does the fact it doesn't exist deprive me of a choice?
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
You're making an entirely different argument from the one you were making before. And the option that you have "more choices," is the kind of logic Ben Kenobi used to defend telling Luke his dad was actually killed by Darth Vader. It wasn't actually true at all, but hey, if you apply totally tortured, nonsensical logic, sure I guess.
We're in a losing battle, Grimace. People like to be told what to do with their lives. :-(
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Again, anybody espousing this belief really ought to give us a complete rundown of their diet, lifestyle and personal hygiene habits so that we can figure out exactly how much harm they're doing to society.
It really would be best for all of us. Help us, help you.
You aren't being told what you can do with your life. You both want to talk about tortured logic perhaps you need to examine your own words.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked