New York City Approves Large Sugary Drinks Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
KHarvey16 said:
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?
Click to expand...
I'm failing to see what this is designed to prove and its both logically invalid and factually wrong anyways. Fill up any given cup to 5.78 ounces.
 
KHarvey16 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I personally want 5.79oz of soda in my bottles. However us two aren't who pick the sizes. Supply and demand states that manufacturers will create sizes based on the most popular choices by consumers. A lot of those choices are larger than 16oz in America!
 
Good, large sizes are way too big. It really pisses me off when I ask for a small or medium and they give me a big ass cup.
 
Angry Grimace said:
I'm failing to see what this is designed to prove and its both logically invalid and factually wrong anyways. Fill up any given cup to 5.78 ounces.
Click to expand...

No I want the cup size to be 5.78 ounces. Or does freedom only allow for larger drinks and not smaller ones? See you can inconvenience me by making me measure 5.78 ounces just as we can inconvenience you by making you refill your 16 ounce cup when you're done and want more soda. What choice is being stripped away in either scenario?
 
KHarvey16 said:
No I want the cup size to be 5.78 ounces. Or does freedom only allow for larger drinks and not smaller ones? See you can inconvenience me by making me measure 5.78 ounces just as we can inconvenience you by making you refill your 16 ounce cup when you're done and want more soda. What choice is being stripped away in either scenario?
Click to expand...

Except there isn't a law preventing the sale of 5.78 oz. cups. That has nothing to do with the law, that has to do with the fact there's no market for 5.78 oz. cups. You have the option to purchase such a cup because it is not illegal to do so. You're making an extremely irrelevant, nonsensical point.
 
Angry Grimace said:
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.
Click to expand...

What is it exactly that you could have before that you cant now?

Youre not pissed off about the govt regulating what you can and cant consume, your complaining they are regulating the cups it comes in...
 
KHarvey16 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What do you think the ban on sodas larger than 20 oz supposed to mean? New York is telling its people not to drink beverages above 20oz. Sooner or later, a domino effect will happen, and I'll see this shit come over to Florida, which will affect me.
 
Angry Grimace said:
Except there isn't a law preventing the sale of 5.78 oz. cups. That has nothing to do with the law, that has to do with the fact there's no market for 5.78 oz. cups. You're making an extremely irrelevant point.
Click to expand...

You're completely missing the point. Absolutely no choice has been removed. None. You can drink just as much soda.
 
Angry Grimace said:
See, the thing about freedom to choose is that its not based on the arbitrary determinations of guskicksbus322.
Click to expand...

As it should not be. However, where would Angry Grimace draw the line on freedom to choose? Should we allow people to choose whatever they desire (drugs, kiddie porn)? Extreme comparison, I know, but I think we can agree that there have to be rules at some point...
 
Angry Grimace said:
Except there isn't a law preventing the sale of 5.78 oz. cups. That has nothing to do with the law, that has to do with the fact there's no market for 5.78 oz. cups. You have the option to purchase such a cup because it is not illegal to do so. You're making an extremely irrelevant, nonsensical point.
Click to expand...

Well said. The funny thing is that this point has been brought up several times in this thread. It's like people think that soda manufacturers are making large sizes for fun and we are being subjected to them.
 
guskicksbus322 said:
As it should not be. However, where would Angry Grimace draw the line on freedom to choose? Should we allow people to choose whatever they desire (drugs, kiddie porn)? Extreme comparison, I know, but I think we can agree that there have to be rules at some point...
Click to expand...

Against government regulation into something that harms only yourself, and only if taken to an extreme?

KIDDY PORN!

guskickbus322, please.
 
Angry Grimace said:
I want to buy 22 oz. of soda in a single cup.
Click to expand...

And I want to buy a 5.78 ounce cup. We can add qualifiers to anything and play word games, but the point remains. You have no less freedom the day after the ban goes into effect. You can drink your 22 ounces and I can drink my 5.78 ounces.
 
KHarvey16 said:
And I want to buy a 5.78 ounce cup. We can add qualifiers to anything and play word games, but the point remains. You have no less freedom the day after the ban goes into effect. You can drink your 22 ounces and I can drink my 5.78 ounces.
Click to expand...

There is no law specifically restricting a 5.78 ounce cup. Your point is wholly and utterly irrelevant and without context to anything happening in real life.
 
KHarvey16 said:
You're completely missing the point. Absolutely no choice has been removed. None. You can drink just as much soda.
Click to expand...

LMFAO. Seriously? Grim already pointed out the critical flaw in your post.


KHarvey16 said:
And I want to buy a 5.78 ounce cup. We can add qualifiers to anything and play word games, but the point remains. You have no less freedom the day after the ban goes into effect. You can drink your 22 ounces and I can drink my 5.78 ounces.
Click to expand...

My head is in pain right now.
 
Hey Doomberg, if you really want everyone to be healthier, how about you mandate a 40-hour work week for all companies in NYC? This would lead to far lower stress levels, more time to shop for and prepare healthy meals etc.

But something tells me that won't happen...
 
WanderingWind said:
There is no law specifically restricting a 5.78 ounce cup. Your point is wholly and utterly irrelevant and without context to anything happening in real life.
Click to expand...

But I can't get one. I can still drink 5.78 ounces of soda, just as you or anyone else can drink 22 ounces or 220 ounces at a restaurant if you'd like.
 
KHarvey16 said:
But I can't get one. I can still drink 5.78 ounces of soda, just as you or anyone else can drink 22 ounces or 220 ounces at a restaurant if you'd like.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can. You're not even attempting to make any sort of real point. This is literally nonsense.
 
shadowsdarknes said:
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.
Click to expand...

You think forcing companies to use healthier ingredients isn't going to see similar backlash? Who the hell do you think is funding these stupid "beverage choice" ads, which are, hilariously enough, most prominently plastered on the side of soda delivery trucks? You want to see money dumped into raising awareness about health risks of soda consumptions? Sure. Simply type in NYC obesity ads and you too can witness the avalanche of anti-soda ads that's been plastered all over the city and has been for years. What is the response of you and every other person in this thread when other similar limp-wristed advocacy doesn't work? Shrug your shoulders and stay quiet, continuing providing zero solutions and never to post about the subject again? No thanks.

No see, this right here is why this back and forth about some stupid perceived infringement on freedom and other slippery slope horseshit is so goddamn aggravating. The government/board of health aren't the ones making lazy decisions and not thinking the policy through, you lot are. Bloomberg, through all the goods and bads of his administration, has been moving towards an increasingly data-driven policy format; this is to no small extent driven by the proliferation of the technology startup world that's been growing in this city. I'm not some insider on the formulation of this particular policy but anyone with half a wit about them can interpret what the policy is trying to induce: a default bias of smaller servings and the introduction of friction into the buying process of larger portions of sodas. There's a fucking reason why the only options "banned" are certain sizes in certain venues; because they're trying to encourage soda drinkers, particularly kids and young adults, to default to a certain size of drink and put more effort into acquiring more soda at a certain sitting. No one, not the government, not the soda companies, gives a flying fuck about your stupid ass "freedom" to drink soda.

You think it won't work? What the hell do you think the idea of introducing purchase friction in the context of consumer psychology applied to everything from retail placement to rebate offers have been fucking doing all of these years? It's the same goddamn mentality that causes things right in front of your face to be purchased more often and rebates to generate high amounts of profit and revenue from consumers not cashing them in. If you want to yammer about your stupid exclamations of lost freedom, do feel free to continue. But kindly understand that both the governments and the soda companies are operating with clear understanding of exactly what I said above and quite frankly your stupid slippery slopes and "freedoms" mean little to nothing here other than the background noise that's being harnessed for tools for PR.
 
KHarvey16 said:
And I want to buy a 5.78 ounce cup. We can add qualifiers to anything and play word games, but the point remains. You have no less freedom the day after the ban goes into effect. You can drink your 22 ounces and I can drink my 5.78 ounces.
Click to expand...

The difference isn't the actual availability of said cup, it's the legal option to do so. The critical distinction is that we aren't talking about mere availability, we're talking about the role of government in society. In other words, you're comparing two things that are nominally similar but are not actually similar at all. Economics dictate that people don't sell 5.78 oz. cups versus the fact that the government legally restricts the sale of 22 oz. of soda in a single cup.
 
Necrovex, did you see my posts?

would you consider a study in the peer-reviewed Journal of Alzheimer's on the link between Alzheimer's and diabetes (or rather that Alzheimer's IS a form of diabetes) to be believable enough, that it should be taken seriously?
 
KHarvey16 said:
I can get a 5.78 ounce cup? Really?
Click to expand...

You have a link to a ban on the same? If you can provide one, I'll admit that you're making some sort of sense. Until then, you may want to rethink how you're approaching this. It's not a cogent position you're currently holding.


Trey said:
The rest of us have to pay for the healthcare in those "extreme" cases. Very few things in our society only have an impact on oneself.
Click to expand...

And of course, everything in your life is completely healthy, right?
 
Angry Grimace said:
The difference isn't the actual availability of said cup, it's the legal option to do so. The critical distinction is that we aren't talking about mere availability, we're talking about the role of government in society. In other words, you're comparing two things that are nominally similar but are not actually similar at all. Economics dictate that people don't sell 5.78 oz. cups versus the fact that the government legally restricts the sale of 22 oz. of soda in a single cup.
Click to expand...

Key qualifier being "in a single cup", which does not restrict your freedom to drink 22 ounces of soda in any case.
 
KHarvey16 said:
But I can't get one. I can still drink 5.78 ounces of soda, just as you or anyone else can drink 22 ounces or 220 ounces at a restaurant if you'd like.
Click to expand...

Dude, you can start a cup making company: "KHarvey's Cupz" you can specialize in 5.78oz or any other cup size. Until six months from now, you can sell your cupz to anyone in the world to anyone crazy enough to buy them. I bet your standard cup sizes: 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, 42oz will sell the best because that is where the demand is.

After the ban goes into effect, boom, anything over 16oz is illegal. You can still make 5.78oz though! I fail to see what point you are trying to make about not being able to buy a 5.78oz cup being the reason why choice isn't valid.
 
KHarvey16 said:
Key qualifier being "in a single cup", which does not restrict your freedom to drink 22 ounces of soda in any case.
Click to expand...

Except for the tiny fact that you're redefining the argument to one you think you can win, i.e. claiming it's about the ability to drink 22 ounces of soda, when what I just said was it was the option to drink 22 oz. of soda in a single cup. Guess what? I don't have that option.
 
WanderingWind said:
You have a link to a ban on the same? If you can provide one, I'll admit that you're making some sort of sense. Until then, you may want to rethink how you're approaching this. It's not a cogent position you're currently holding.
Click to expand...

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 preventing you from drinking how ever much or how ever little soda you'd like to consume. Telling me it's inconvenient to refill a cup IS NOT a restriction of freedom. If your argument is this is a pain in the ass, fine. But leave it at that.
 
KHarvey16 said:
Key qualifier being "in a single cup", which does not restrict your freedom to drink 22 ounces of soda in any case.
Click to expand...

"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,"



KHarvey16 said:
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 preventing you from drinking how ever much or how ever little soda you'd like to consume. Telling me it's inconvenient to refill a cup IS NOT a restriction of freedom. If your argument is this is a pain in the ass, fine. But leave it at that.
Click to expand...

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
 
KHarvey16 said:
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 preventing you from drinking how ever much or how ever little soda you'd like to consume. Telling me it's inconvenient to refill a cup IS NOT a restriction of freedom. If your argument is this is a pain in the ass, fine. But leave it at that.
Click to expand...

It's an extremely poor analogy.
 
Angry Grimace said:
Except for the tiny fact that you're redefining the argument to one you think you can win, i.e. claiming it's about the ability to drink 22 ounces of soda, when what I just said was it was the option to drink 22 oz. of soda in a single cup. Guess what? I don't have that option.
Click to expand...

Oh stop acting like that means anything to anyone other than people trying to mock up an imaginary demand. Food and beverage companies have often changed their serving sizes in incremental amounts before. Any outrage back then? Anyone actually noticed the difference? No?

Kindly stop pretending that anyone gave a shit about DIRNKING X AMOUNT OF BEVWAGE IN Y SIZED CUP in the history of anything.
 
Parallacs said:
Dude, you can start a cup making company: "KHarvey's Cupz" you can specialize in 5.78oz or any other cup size. Until six months from now, you can sell your cupz to anyone in the world to anyone crazy enough to buy them. I bet your standard cup sizes: 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, 42oz will sell the best because that is where the demand is.

After the ban goes into effect, boom, anything over 16oz is illegal. You can still make 5.78oz though! I fail to see what point you are trying to make about not being able to buy a 5.78oz cup being the reason why choice isn't valid.
Click to expand...

Angry Grimace said:
Except for the tiny fact that you're redefining the argument to one you think you can win, i.e. claiming it's about the ability to drink 22 ounces of soda, when what I just said was it was the option to drink 22 oz. of soda in a single cup. Guess what? I don't have that option.
Click to expand...

No one has the right to all the soda they want in a single cup! That's isn't freedom! Hitching your definition on something that can just as easily be dictated by market forces(like my desire for a 5.78 ounce cup) completely trivializes the meaning of the word. This is completely ridiculous.
 
OK, this thing says large sodas and other sugary drinks so what if something does not have sugar. Can we still get a big ass cup or what? This is all kind of silly because I can still just go to the corner and get a big soda.
 
Jim E. Rossler said:
"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,"

-Dumbass, 1955
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with civil rights and protected classes? Terrible attempt here.
 
KHarvey16 said:
What does this have to do with civil rights and protected classes? Terrible attempt here.
Click to expand...

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.
 
WanderingWind said:
And of course, everything in your life is completely healthy, right?
Click to expand...

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.
 
astroturfing said:
Necrovex, did you see my posts?

would you consider a study in the peer-reviewed Journal of Alzheimer's on the link between Alzheimer's and diabetes (or rather that Alzheimer's IS a form of diabetes) to be believable enough, that it should be taken seriously?
Click to expand...

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.
 
KHarvey16 said:
No one has the right to all the soda they want in a single cup! That's isn't freedom! Hitching your definition on something that can just as easily be dictated by market forces(like my desire for a 5.78 ounce cup) completely trivializes the meaning of the word. This is completely ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Whether people have an intrinsic right to all the soda they want in a single cup has nothing at all to do with whether restricting their ability to buy it infringes on personal freedom.
 
fluffydelusions said:
OK, this thing says large sodas and other sugary drinks so what if something does not have sugar. Can we still get a big ass cup or what? This is all kind of silly because I can still just go to the corner and get a big soda.
Click to expand...

Slow gaf is slow, I'm about to just walk across the street to mcdonalds and try and get a big diet coke lol
 
dwebo said:
kSB8f.jpg
Click to expand...
mah freedumz

Red Blaster said:
how come the fans of the Garbage Old Party weren't shitting their pants over FREEDOMZ in the voter suppression in Ohio thread
Click to expand...
clearly a ban on ridiculously oversized soda's is a far more important and pressing issue than the degradation of voting rights for minorities and the poor
 
Angry Grimace said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
KHarvey16 said:
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.
Click to expand...

But you forgot all about the freedom.
 
Angry Grimace said:
Whether people have an intrinsic right to all the soda they want in a single cup has nothing at all to do with whether restricting their ability to buy it infringes on personal freedom.
Click to expand...

You define freedoms and rights in such a way that a corporation can violate them based on market demands. It's completely ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

EU approves mealworms as additive in food
2 3
137
6K
kevboard replied
an Illegal immigrant just set a sleeping woman on fire on a New York subway
2
64
5K
thefool replied
  • Poll
2024 MLB World Series: New York Yankees vs Los Angeles Dodgers
2 3 4
157
5K
diffusionx replied
Major Reddit Forums Ban X Links
News  2 3 4 5
213
12K
Bitmap Frogs replied
New York flooding
23
2K
Happosai replied
Top Bottom