Support NeoGAF

[Parallacs]

This argument relies on a complete, fundamental misunderstanding of civil rights and their definition. I didn't realize at first exactly the level of intelligence I'd need to contend with here.

Black people can't be discriminated against on the basis of their skin color, because that's unequal. Are or should cups be a protected class of citizen? Does this law target a particular protected class? No?

This thread is depressing in many ways.

This thread was fun until:

You can still buy precisely the same amount of soda after this ban as you could before.

 

[Trey]

"Key qualifier being "order from the front", which does not restrict the negro's freedom to order their food in any way. They can order from the back and get the same food as everyone else,"





It's an analogy I'm making in a seemingly futile attempt to point out the ridiculousness of the charge this law restricts any sort of freedom. Nothing is keeping negros from ordering how ever much or how ever little food they'd like to consume. Telling me it's inconvenient to walk around to the back IS NOT a restriction of freedom. If your argument is this is a pain in the ass, fine. But leave it at that.


-Dumbass, 1955

Actually, it mirrors in essentials the argument you're attempting to make.  Explain how you think its different?  You're arguing that no rights are being restricted because you can get the same volume of soda.

Your analogy is flawed, in fundamental ways. The main issue with that law was that it targeted a certain class based on nothing other than the color of their skin and made their purchase of food unnecessarily difficult in an obtuse and demeaning manner. The main issue with this law is that it restricts the freedom of any one who wants to buy unhealthy, sugary drinks in very large quantities.

 

[Timedog]

Actually, it mirrors in essentials the argument you're attempting to make. Explain how you think its different? You're arguing that no rights are being restricted because you can get the same volume of soda.

The "right to get soda in a 22oz cup" isn't a protected right, and it's trivial to argue about it, since the purpose of the 22oz cup is to drink 22oz of soda. You can still drink whatever amount of soda you like, although at a very, very, very, very, very small inconvenience, fulfilling the purpose of a 22oz, or any sized cup.

 

[Angry Grimace]

The "right to get soda in a 22oz cup" isn't a protected right, and it's trivial to argue about it, since the purpose of the 22oz cup is to drink 22oz of soda. You can still drink whatever amount of soda you like, although at a very, very, very, very, very small inconvenience, fulfilling the purpose of a 22oz, or any sized cup.

So nothing infringes on personal freedom unless it violates some vested right? That's not called infringement of personal liberties, that's called being illegal. We're not making an argument as to the legality of restricting 22 oz. soda cups, we're making an argument whether it's philosophically inline with the role of the US Government. You're redefining the argument into one that's easier to refute.

Your analogy is flawed, in fundamental ways. The main issue with that law was that it targeted a certain class based on nothing other than the color of their skin and made their purchase of food unnecessarily difficult in an obtuse and demeaning manner. The main issue with this law is that it restricts the freedom of any one who wants to buy unhealthy, sugary drinks in very large quantities.

That's the point of an analogy, it highlights the flaw in logic. You're missing the underlying point; the logical argument has nothing to do with WHY the restriction exists, it has to do with whether a restriction is actually restrictive if the end result (you get food/drink) is the same.

This argument relies on a complete, fundamental misunderstanding of civil rights and their definition. I didn't realize at first exactly the level of intelligence I'd need to contend with here.

Black people can't be discriminated against on the basis of their skin color, because that's unequal. Are or should cups be a protected class of citizen? Does this law target a particular protected class? No?

This thread is depressing in many ways.

I'm sure the problem if that fact that we're all too dumb to understand your 5.78 oz. cup argument. Gimme a break.

 

[Parallacs]

The "right to get soda in a 22oz cup" isn't a protected right, and it's trivial to argue about it, since the purpose of the 22oz cup is to drink 22oz of soda. You can still drink whatever amount of soda you like, although at a very, very, very, very, very small inconvenience, fulfilling the purpose of a 22oz, or any sized cup.

But there are examples where this can be a big enough inconvenience. Example: sodas in the theatre. The 44oz size for gluttons will be replaced with 3 trips to the concession stand lines (two during the movie). Silly I know, but there is a consumer driven reason why theatres sell the large size.

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

So nothing infringes on personal freedom unless it violates some vested right? That's not called infringement of personal liberties, that's called being illegal. We're not making an argument as to the legality of restricting 22 oz. soda cups, we're making an argument whether it's philosophically inline with the role of the US Government. You're redefining the argument into one that's easier to refute.

you can still buy 22 1oz soda shots, chill out
MEANWHILE I STILL DONT HAVE MY 5.78OZ CUP
-kharvey, 2040

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Why stop there? Let's just make laws to control every facet of a citizen's life to force them to be better people!

 

[WanderingWind]

Not at all. But in cases where the effect of individual choice causes more harm than good to society, the government steps in. It's why we have speed limits and anti-monopoly laws. It's a fine line but it must be drawn.

Well, since you're do comfortable with drawing that line, tell us. Where should it be drawn on your habits?

 

[astroturfing]

Oh, I must have missed your post (I'm working on Statistics homework while viewing this thread, so I forget to reply at times).

Yes, The Journal of Alzheimer's is a creditable source. Though, I would like to see some criticism articles before truly deeming this as extremely viable. But for the moment, with the knowledge presented, it is up to the individual to decide whether to heed or ignore it.

yeah, one study shouldn't fully sway anyone. BUT from what i read it was very convincing. and extremely alarming... an epidemic of Alzheimer's would be devastating in so many ways.

if study after study shows that it is indeed the case, that a high calory diet can lead to Alzheimer's, some drastic measures should be taken to prevent that IMO. even at the expense of certain personal freedoms.

Well, since you're do comfortable with drawing that line, tell us. Where should it be drawn on your habits?

the lines should be drawn by the people that are voted to have that power. a democracy or something.

 

[fluffydelusions]

Why stop there? Let's just make laws to control every facet of a citizen's life to force them to be better people!

Let's all wear nametags!






/Seinfeld joke

 

[rCIZZLE]

Not a bad idea, we should regulate how many hours a day one can view the television or play video games in my view (not a harsh ban but anything over 4 hours is just ridiculous and should not be done). I believe everyone should have a requirement for at least weekly community service.

lol

 

[teruterubozu]

It's such an illusory ban that means nothing except a token nod to "healthiness".
Political maneuvering to pacify the public at its finest. To even call it a "step in the right direction" is absurd. It's just elaborate hoodwinking.

 

[mooooose]

I've had one soda in the past two months. It was like some huge stupid XXXXXXL from Wendys that I wanted so bad but I drank probably three sips and threw it out. Unlike me, I saw plenty of people drink the entire thing.

I live on LI. I support this. I wish soda was regulated to the max. I wish you couldn't even buy more than 16oz anywhere, and that restaurants could cut off refills. It's liquid calories. It doesn't fill you. It destroys your teeth and insides. It's horrible for you. It should barely exist.

How anyone can drink soda daily baffles me. I want to see someone who is a regular soda drinker and in good shape with pearly whites. That is an anomaly.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm sure the problem if that fact that we're all too dumb to understand your 5.78 oz. cup argument. Gimme a break.

An ad hominen argument would be that you're wrong because you're dumb. I'm not making that argument. Any other well established term you'd like to misuse for us?

It's such an illusory ban that means nothing except a token nod to "healthiness".
Political maneuvering to pacify the public at its finest. To even call it a "step in the right direction" is absurd. It's just elaborate hoodwinking.

Do you understand what their reasoning behind the ban is or did you not bother to look?

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

Pepsi Next to be allowed 32 oz cups confirmed

 

[Parallacs]

It's called pop.

I spent a year in Texas and everything was coke. It doesn't matter since I love coke anyways, just annoying to have to say coke twice.

Interestingly, it looks like some "coke" drinkers are up north:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/07/map-day-soda-vs-pop-vs-coke/2522/

 

[Angry Grimace]

An ad hominen argument would be that you're wrong because you're dumb. I'm not making that argument. Any other well established term you'd like to misuse for us?



Do you understand what their reasoning behind the ban is or did you not bother to look?

.

"This argument relies on a complete, fundamental misunderstanding of civil rights and their definition. I didn't realize at first exactly the level of intelligence I'd need to contend with here."

 

[teruterubozu]

Do you understand what their reasoning behind the ban is or did you not bother to look?

A ban is a ban. Reasoning? LOL. I don't need propaganda.

 

[KHarvey16]

"This argument relies on a complete, fundamental misunderstanding of civil rights and their definition. I didn't realize at first exactly the level of intelligence I'd need to contend with here."

You posted that like it refuted what I said. Which is weird.

A ban is a ban. Reasoning? LOL. I don't need propaganda.

You see, a simple no would have been so much shorter.

 

[Trey]

But there are examples where this can be a big enough inconvenience. Example: sodas in the theatre. The 44oz size for gluttons will be replaced with 3 trips to the concession stand lines (two during the movie). Silly I know, but there is a consumer driven reason why theatres sell the large size.

I know no one who finishes those things and go back for more. That's a niche demographic that is comprised of people who will very likely buy those drinks anyways.

So nothing infringes on personal freedom unless it violates some vested right? That's not called infringement of personal liberties, that's called being illegal. We're not making an argument as to the legality of restricting 22 oz. soda cups, we're making an argument whether it's philosophically inline with the role of the US Government. You're redefining the argument into one that's easier to refute.



That's the point of an analogy, it highlights the flaw in logic. You're missing the underlying point; the logical argument has nothing to do with WHY the restriction exists, it has to do with whether a restriction is actually restrictive if the end result (you get food/drink) is the same.



I'm sure the problem if that fact that we're all too dumb to understand your 5.78 oz. cup argument. Gimme a break.

It is restrictive. Of anyone who wants to buy or sell pop in those large quantities. It's within the role of the govt to restrict things that prove harmful to society. It is no great loss to anyone to not be able to purchase 22oz pop. But it's a potential gain in the effort to curtail the very serious health issues that sugary drinks contribute to.

 

[McLovin]

Do you have small hands?

No, I don't need or want that much soda. And I'm a big dude.

 

[Timedog]

But there are examples where this can be a big enough inconvenience. Example: sodas in the theatre. The 44oz size for gluttons will be replaced with 3 trips to the concession stand lines (two during the movie). Silly I know, but there is a consumer driven reason why theatres sell the large size.

If a potentially large net benefit to society as a whole < not having to buy multiple sodas at once or having to go to the concession stand at a movie for you, that's fine.

But I feel that it is an abhorrent, anti-social view. I contend that things that benefit society > minor, minor inconveniences to you making extremely poor health choices.

The thread isn't about the freedom to make a choice, it's about the freedom to make a choice without very minor inconvenience vs. benefitting society as a whole.

 

[teruterubozu]

You see, a simple no would have been so much shorter.

I'm not as snippy and curt as you are, I guess.

 

[J10]

They should ban high fructose corn syrup.

 

[Parallacs]

You posted that like it refuted what I said. Which is weird.

You called the people in this forum "dumb" rather than continuing to "argue" with us. That is an ad hominen attack. I think both sizes of the debate on this forum can agree with Angry Grimace's charge.

 

[Angry Grimace]

You posted that like it refuted what I said. Which is weird.



You see, a simple no would have been so much shorter.

You posted a completely nonsensical argument which was debunked by about five people, and then in response you stated that I'm too dumb to understand your point (as though the problem was understanding, as opposed to your argument being flat out wrong). Then you argued that it wasn't an ad hominem, when it totally was. Your argument is just as invalid as it was before for the reasons plastered all over the last page. Whether I'm stupid or not is irrelevant.

If a potentially large net benefit to society as a whole < not having to buy multiple sodas at once or having to go to the concession stand at a movie for you, that's fine.

But I feel that it is an abhorrent, anti-social view. I contend that things that benefit society > minor, minor inconveniences to you making extremely poor health choices.

The thread isn't about the freedom to make a choice, it's about the freedom to make a choice without very minor inconvenience vs. benefitting society as a whole.

If you're going to justify this by applying some permutation of a burden vs. harms test (which sounds a bit like Learned Hand's formula for the "Calculus of Negligence," actually), there would need to be some kind of coherent evidence that states that the benefit to society is greater than the harm. Given that you guys are actually arguing it doesn't restrict anything, I'm not seeing how you can argue both at the same time.

 

[WanderingWind]

the lines should be drawn by the people that are voted to have that power. a democracy or something.

And, of course, these people should be given carte blanche over your existence. After all, they were voted in. Just like the TSA, the Patriot Act and all sorts of wonderful other initiatives that we disagree with on a daily basis.

 

[KHarvey16]

You posted that like it refuted what I said. Which is weird.

You called the people in this forum "dumb" rather than continuing to "argue" with us. That is an ad hominen attack. I think both sizes of the debate on this forum can agree with Angry Grimace's charge.

You posted a completely nonsensical argument which was debunked by about five people, and then in response you stated that I'm too dumb to understand your point (as though the problem was understanding, as opposed to your argument being flat out wrong). Then you argued that it wasn't an ad hominem, when it totally was. Your argument is just as invalid as it was before for the reasons plastered all over the last page. Whether I'm stupid or not is irrelevant.

I implied a couple of you were dumb for comparing my analogy to civil rights and then I explained why your position was dumb rather completely. Ad hominem means attacking your reasoning only by suggesting you are dumb. Are we gonna have to go over definitions continuously here?

 

[Parallacs]

I know no one who finishes those things and go back for more. That's a niche demographic that is comprised of people who will very likely buy those drinks anyways.

perhaps, but do you agree that 16oz may be too little for a 2 hour movie with a large bucket of salted popcorn?

 

[Parallacs]

I implied a couple of you were dumb for comparing my analogy to civil rights and then I explained why your position was dumb rather completely. Ad hominem means attacking your reasoning only by suggesting you are dumb. Are we gonna have to go over definitions continuously here?

Maybe just don't imply people on a GAF forum are dumb?

 

[KHarvey16]

Maybe just don't imply people on a GAF forum are dumb?

Maybe they shouldn't make dumb arguments? Don't hurt yourself carrying them goal posts.

 

[Alucrid]

Eh, my parents had really small coke bottles, like half the size you would normally get, and I drank one after not having soda for a few months and I have to say I don't see why you would need more than even that. Satisfied me enough.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

They should ban high fructose corn syrup.

Corn lobby says NEVAAAAAAAAAH!!!!

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

Maybe they shouldn't make dumb arguments? Don't hurt yourself carrying them goal posts.

:T

 

[WanderingWind]

Maybe they shouldn't make dumb arguments? Don't hurt yourself carrying them goal posts.

You also implied people simply didn't understand your points. After all, if they understand, than how could they disagree? The civil rights thing was obviously a bad analogy, but not everybody who disagrees with you is an idiot.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I implied a couple of you were dumb for comparing my analogy to civil rights and then I explained why your position was dumb rather completely. Ad hominem means attacking your reasoning only by suggesting you are dumb. Are we gonna have to go over definitions continuously here?

But your counterargument to that point was wrong. The fact that it had to do with civil rights was irrelevant; the comparable logic was being forced to go buy a product in an entirely different manner is a burdensome restriction even if you get the same product in the end.

 

[Timedog]

perhaps, but do you agree that 16oz may be too little for a 2 hour movie with a large bucket of salted popcorn?

Somehow it worked in the not so distant past before everyone got super fat. You really shouldn't be eating a large bucket of salted popcorn to yourself. Popcorn is not a meal. But if you want to be that unhealthy, it would probably be a good idea to get out of your seat and walk a little bit. Or at least have the smarts to buy multiple drinks at the beginning of the movie.

 

[KHarvey16]

You also implied people simply didn't understand your points.

And I maintain that.

After all, if they understand, than how could they disagree? The civil rights thing was obviously a bad analogy, but not everybody who disagrees with you is an idiot.

I haven't suggested either of these things.

But your counterargument to that point was wrong. The fact that it had to do with civil rights was irrelevant; the comparable logic was being forced to go buy a product in an entirely different manner is a burdensome restriction even if you get the same product in the end.

...in an entirely different manner because they were black! Hello? Are we speaking different languages?

 

[Angry Grimace]

Somehow it worked in the not so distant past before everyone got super fat. You really shouldn't be eating a large bucket of salted popcorn to yourself. Popcorn is not a meal. But if you want to be that unhealthy, it would probably be a good idea to get out of your seat and walk a little bit. Or at least have the smarts to buy multiple drinks at the beginning of the movie.

That's neither here nor there. What does it matter if people actually bought 28 oz. tubs of popcorn when they were admittedly not actually available? The point isn't whether people will "get by," its whether its the government's job to microregulate on the grounds of public health, when the condition itself is completely arbitrary.

And I maintain that.



I haven't suggested either of these things.



...in an entirely different manner because they were black! Hello? Are we speaking different languages?

What does their being black have to do with whether it was restrictive to have to buy food in the back? That counter argument only makes sense if you're attempting to argue having a dark skin color itself somehow makes the difference in process more onerous.

 

[KHarvey16]

What does their being black have to do with whether it was restrictive to have to buy food in the back?

Goal posts on the move! Being restrictive was not at issue, rights were. Rights and freedoms are violated in that instance because the characteristic used to determine who ordered where was skin color. If everyone needed to buy food in the back it can remain restrictive(or inconvenient, to preserve the language used most frequently here) yet violate no one's rights or freedoms.

 

[WanderingWind]

And I maintain that.

I haven't suggested either of these things.

I mean, yeah you did.

Do you understand what their reasoning behind the ban is or did you not bother to look?

You can maintain it all you'd like. You're incorrect though. I understand you. I just think you're wrong, in this case.

 

[gdt]

Don't drink soda, and don't even live in NYC, but this seems like a good move, but it also feels really icky at the same time.

People should stop drinking soda though, of course.

 

[KHarvey16]

I mean, yeah you did.

First he demonstrated he didn't look at the city's reasoning and then confirmed it when he responded to me. It was clear from reading his post not because he disagreed but by the manner in which he did so.

 

[Parallacs]

Somehow it worked in the not so distant past before everyone got super fat. You really shouldn't be eating a large bucket of salted popcorn to yourself. Popcorn is not a meal. But if you want to be that unhealthy, it would probably be a good idea to get out of your seat and walk a little bit. Or at least have the smarts to buy multiple drinks at the beginning of the movie.

A lot of things people shouldn't be doing. But going to the movie theatres is a voluntary past-time.

I will say though that the theatres create the large sizes because thats what people want, along with their large popcorn. The seats are made comfy so people don't want to get up and disrupt the theatre. People can chose to see a terrible movie and eat terrible food/drink. They are the paying customers.

If the sodas are fountain though, I have a little issue with buying multiple drinks. People are so clumbsy when walking out of a row. Where do you put that second drink?

 

[bob page]

As a New Yorker, I approve of this. People will forget about the sizing restrictions after a few months / year and won't even notice.

People can call him Nanny Bloomberg all they want, but all of his health initiatives have been really successful so far. In fact, the calorie listing requirement he enforced in NYC is going nationwide next year.

 

[Timedog]

If you're going to justify this by applying some permutation of a burden vs. harms test (which sounds a bit like Learned Hand's formula for the "Calculus of Negligence," actually), there would need to be some kind of coherent evidence that states that the benefit to society is greater than the harm. Given that you guys are actually arguing it doesn't restrict anything, I'm not seeing how you can argue both at the same time.

When did I argue that it didn't restrict anything? It doesn't restrict that amount of soda you can drink. It restricts you from being free from a minor, minor inconvenience. There is almost no harm here, a little tiny bit, but almost none.

That's neither here nor there. What does it matter if people actually bought 28 oz. tubs of popcorn when they were admittedly not actually available? The point isn't whether people will "get by," its whether its the government's job to microregulate on the grounds of public health, when the condition itself is completely arbitrary.

The comment I was responding to was "neither here nor there" by your standards, it was more of an aside. I wasn't responding to you, so please read what we're talking about before responding to me.

A lot of things people shouldn't be doing. But going to the movie theatres is a voluntary past-time.

I will say though that the theatres create the large sizes because thats what people want, along with their large popcorn. The seats are made comfy so people don't want to get up and disrupt the theatre. People can chose to see a terrible movie and eat terrible food/drink. They are the paying customers.

If the sodas are fountain though, I have a little issue with buying multiple drinks. People are so clumbsy when walking out of a row. Where do you put that second drink?

Lots of unhealthy things get restricted or banned, it happens all the time, for the good of society. You put the extra drink in a drink carrier.

 

[WanderingWind]

First he demonstrated he didn't look at the city's reasoning and then confirmed it when he responded to me. It was clear from reading his post not because he disagreed but by the manner in which he did so.

If you continue to call people "dumb" or imply that they "don't understand," then you're likely to be correct eventually. Doesn't mean it's a constructive avenue for debate. For anybody...for those doing the same on the other "side."

 

[KHarvey16]

If you continue to call people "dumb" or imply that they "don't understand," then you're likely to be correct eventually. Doesn't mean it's a constructive avenue for debate. For anybody...for those doing the same on the other "side."

He dismissed the basis of the law entirely without even attempting to know what that basis is. Again it was clear he did this, and not simply because he disagrees with the ban.

Also I'll point out I didn't imply he was dumb because of this. I suggested he either did not read or did not understand the theory behind the law.

 

[WanderingWind]

He dismissed the basis of the law entirely without even attempting to know what that basis is. Again it was clear he did this, and not simply because he disagrees with the ban.

Also I'll point out I didn't imply he was dumb because of this. I suggested he either did not read or did not understand the theory behind the law.

Hair-splitting at it's finest. If you suggest that somebody doesn't understand something, you're implying they're dumb or at the very least, not as smart as yourself. Again, maybe you'd just be better off just...not doing that. Or continue. Either way.

 

[KHarvey16]

Hair-splitting at it's finest. If you suggest that somebody doesn't understand something, you're implying they're dumb or at the very least, not as smart as yourself. Again, maybe you'd just be better off just...not doing that. Or continue. Either way.

No, his post made it clear he didn't acknowledge the city's reasoning. This can be because he saw it and did not comprehend it, or because he didn't look at it. It was clear from his post that he did not simply read the reasoning and disagree. He was unaware of it which, again, is explained by one of the two options I offered.