• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks

read the thread. its pretty darn clear who the NYC-haters are.

I have been reading the thread. But obviously I am not percieving what you are. So why don't you just state a name? Let them defend themselves.
 
I don't call out forum members. Its not my style.

In otherwords...(said in my best imitation Thunder voice....) "I'm probably wrong but I don't want to be proven that I am wrong so that I can hold onto my belief which makes it easier for me to dismiss actual arguements"

Gotcha. :coffeepap
 
In otherwords...(said in my best imitation Thunder voice....) "I'm probably wrong but I don't want to be proven that I am wrong so that I can hold onto my belief which makes it easier for me to dismiss actual arguements"

Gotcha. :coffeepap

if you don't see any posts in this thread expressing hatred for NYC, than you are either NOT reading the thread, or are lying. Its one of the two.
 
Because it's not a right. They only have a right to buy that which is available for legal purchase.

interesting POV. Never thought about that before.

you are correct. we don't have a right to buy EVERYTHING, only that which is for sale.

hmmm.
 
So now you are moving the goal posts.

Not to those who comprehend what they read. I was pretty clear in my post what I meant. I'm not responsible for your inability to comprehend what it meant. You specifically said that we don't know if it has worked. that means the calculation is performed with a 0 in the known successes column and thus, we can conclude the likely probability of success is therefore 0.

You changed your argument from no known successes to possibly being able to cite one single success. That doesn't change the fact that you are not basing your fallacious argument on probability. It just means you are really bad at calculating probabilities.

There either is a chance of success or there isn't.

If there are no known instances of success and numerous known instances of failure, the only probability of success that can be calculated is zero probability.

If there are very very few known instances of success and a plethora of known instances of failure, the probability of success that can be calculated will be about zero.

That means, if one or two instances can actually be found,t the probability of success for pissing and moaning is about the same, but not quite the same, as the probability of success for taking a **** on a wildebeest's vagina.





And some people believe that there are times when even the slightest bit of a chance is better than no chance.

And if people use that "logic" to employ methods that have only the slightest chance of success instead of employing ones that have a much, much greater chance of success, then they are exceptionally stupid. It's much smarter to take one of the plethora of approach that has a significantly greater chance of success.
 
interesting POV. Never thought about that before.

you are correct. we don't have a right to buy EVERYTHING, only that which is for sale.

hmmm.

It's not just that which is available for purchase. It's that which is available for legal purchase. Drugs are available for purchase, but they are not legally available for purchase.


The government's duties include regulating commerce. People have a right to have legislation on the commerce in their local region that differs from other regions.

This law is no different from a town banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays, or even being a dry town altogether.
 
It's not just that which is available for purchase. It's that which is available for legal purchase. Drugs are available for purchase, but they are not legally available for purchase.


The government's duties include regulating commerce. People have a right to have legislation on the commerce in their local region that differs from other regions.

This law is no different from a town banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays, or even being a dry town altogether.

That is to say, completely stupid? :D
 
Not to those who comprehend what they read. I was pretty clear in my post what I meant. I'm not responsible for your inability to comprehend what it meant. You specifically said that we don't know if it has worked. that means the calculation is performed with a 0 in the known successes column and thus, we can conclude the likely probability of success is therefore 0.

You changed your argument from no known successes to possibly being able to cite one single success. That doesn't change the fact that you are not basing your fallacious argument on probability. It just means you are really bad at calculating probabilities.



If there are no known instances of success and numerous known instances of failure, the only probability of success that can be calculated is zero probability.

If there are very very few known instances of success and a plethora of known instances of failure, the probability of success that can be calculated will be about zero.

That means, if one or two instances can actually be found,t the probability of success for pissing and moaning is about the same, but not quite the same, as the probability of success for taking a **** on a wildebeest's vagina.







And if people use that "logic" to employ methods that have only the slightest chance of success instead of employing ones that have a much, much greater chance of success, then they are exceptionally stupid. It's much smarter to take one of the plethora of approach that has a significantly greater chance of success.

Nonsense. It takes no "trial run" to see if requiring the purchase of two 16 oz. cups of soda pop is better than allowing the purchase of one 32 oz. cup of soda pop. If someone wants 32 oz. of soda pop then they will buy it, even if made slightly less convenient and slightly more costly by the gov't. At some point, by making it hard enough to get legally, an alternate market will emerge to supply that want, beyond the reach of the law, such as we now see for marijuana. ;-)
 
Last edited:
It's not just that which is available for purchase. It's that which is available for legal purchase. Drugs are available for purchase, but they are not legally available for purchase.


The government's duties include regulating commerce. People have a right to have legislation on the commerce in their local region that differs from other regions.

This law is no different from a town banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays, or even being a dry town altogether.

exactly!!

all the folks who are complaining about this proposed law have yet to whine about blue laws all over the USA, or the criminalization of even small amounts of marijuana purchases.

hypocrites, with faux outrage.
 
No, they don't. Saying something false doesn't make it true.

Except that in this case it is true. This ban of bloombergs only covers select stores. It is still legal for grocery stores to sell 16oz soda's or larger. As such the product is still being legally allowed. What Bloomberg has created here is an ineqality in how the law is applied. It is OK for X store to sell this but not Y store.
 
It's not just that which is available for purchase. It's that which is available for legal purchase. Drugs are available for purchase, but they are not legally available for purchase.


The government's duties include regulating commerce. People have a right to have legislation on the commerce in their local region that differs from other regions.

This law is no different from a town banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays, or even being a dry town altogether.

It is FAR different from a ban, as it bans only single serving size (above a gov't limit), not the product itself, nor does it prohibit buying as many of the smaller sized servings as one may want. It is simply a nanny state hassle law that applies only to a small subset of the soda pop marketers to "test the waters" of perhaps more meaningful (and restrictive) future bans, perhaps next requiring a limit of how many burger patties may reside on a single bun.
 
just buy two sodas. problem solved.

another mountain out of a molehill, from folks who are totally unaffected by the problem.

If it's that simple to get around the ban, what's the point of the ban in the first place? Why is your state government wasting time and effort trying to pass laws that are entirely impotent?

Don't they have anything better to do?
 
If it's that simple to get around the ban, what's the point of the ban in the first place? Why is your state government wasting time and effort trying to pass laws that are entirely impotent?...

its NYC, not the State.
 
a ban on 64 oz sodas is stupid..... but I really don't care what they do in New York... it's New Yorkers problem, not mine.
 
What was your stance on guns again? No need to really answer as just about everyone here knows.

what the **** does this have to do with guns?????????????

you're comparing sugary drinks...to guns????

holy **** that's a retarded analogy.
 
what the **** does this have to do with guns?????????????

you're comparing sugary drinks...to guns????

holy **** that's a retarded analogy.

Guns was just a SMALL example. You want a more relevant one that pertains to surgary drinks? Then how about the fact that you obviously support Bloomberg in his ban on surgary drinks? Which means that you are being a busy-body to everyone that it affects. This whole thread is exactly about a political official being a busy body and trying to implement a law which tries to manage other peoples lives. And this isn't the only thing that bloomberg has done to interfere in other peoples lives. And in every case that I have seen you have supported him in his efforts.

You thank someone for not being a busy-body which implies that you yourself are not a busy-body. Point of fact...you are. A huge one. There is plenty of evidence of that in this thread alone. Not to mention all the threads you make about gun control. Or another other thread where you stick your nose in.
 
what the **** does this have to do with guns?????????????

you're comparing sugary drinks...to guns????

holy **** that's a retarded analogy.

I want my sugar and my guns. Why not ban alcohol which causes liver disease. What happened to freedom in this country? :peace
 
Back
Top Bottom