Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 129

Thread: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

  1. #101
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    You are talking about a wholesale club. Retail bulk buying marketing techniques encourage over-consumption, this is simply a matter of fact. There is a clear distinction between buying bulk chicken breast and a 64oz mountain dew.
    Yeah sure - I'll buy bulk chicken breast. Divide it out into portions for the family for 3 or 4 meals.

    Sodas; I buy 2-liters . . . eventually we'll drink it. The kids usually don't bother - cold water from the fridge dispenser without needing ice or counterspace to pour is much more convenient.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  2. #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Half those sentences don't even make sense man. "positive rights detail violating rights"? What does that mean? "Am I to believe you think the right to your property is not violated because the right to education?" That doesn't make a lick of sense either. "They are created objects by people that usually detail labor and money to exist"? Again, not a meaningful sentence. It is so thick with grammatical problems that I honestly can't tell what you're trying to say. And it seems like you are using "detail" in a very strange way...

    For example, take your sentence:



    We were not talking about anything related to education, so I have to guess how you think that is relevant at all. My guess, and this is quite a leap, is that you are speculating that if there were a right to education that would require taxing people to pay for it, and that would violate their property rights... But I'm really not sure at all if that's what you're thinking, that is a total guess. Your posts are always like that. They require tons of total guessing to try to decipher what you are trying to say.

    And then on top of that confusion and lack of context, it is grammatically hosed. "because the right" doesn't make sense at all. Because people have a right maybe?

    Regardless, if my guess of what you're trying to say there is correct, what is your point? Rights conflict all the time. The right to property isn't absolute, it is weighed against other rights constantly. If we made the right to property absolute that would mean no taxes, and hence no government, and as a result none of us would be able to keep that precious property for long.

    Honestly man, what it comes across as is that you're trying to sound smart by being cryptic. But it creates exactly the opposite impression. Do you know how smart people right? Clearly, plainly and precisely. I shouldn't have to guess anything to understand what you mean, you should just say what you mean as clearly as you can.
    Fine I rewrite them since grammar police behavior is all you have left.

    Positive rights are created by violating other rights. (better?)

    How exactly is that hard to understand. (left alone)

    Am I to believe you think the right to your property is not violated because of the right to an education? ("of" added. I can't fathom how that made it so you couldn't follow, but fine)

    As for you last bit about conflicting rights, don't be stupid. Positive rights NEED to violate other rights to exist. Negative rights do not call for such thing.

    Lastly, I have told you before your tax model is a violation of property rights. The taxes are creating the conflict and they are the aggressor.
    Last edited by Henrin; 06-17-12 at 01:05 AM.

  3. #103
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Fine I rewrite them since grammar police behavior is all you have left.

    Positive rights are created by violating other rights. (better?)
    Yes, that is much clearer. Good. But, you should still explain your whole line of thought there, not just your conclusion. Why does recognizing positive rights require violating other rights? For example, the right to see any records the government has about you would be a positive right. What right would that violate? Your change made it so it is clear what conclusion you reached, but still not how or why you reached it, so it doesn't really advance the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Am I to believe you think the right to your property is not violated because of the right to an education? ("of" added. I can't fathom how that made it so you couldn't follow, but fine)
    That is a slight improvement, but that still certainly isn't clear. Is the scenario I described what you're trying to communicate? That in order to have a right to education, we would need to tax people, and taxing violates their rights? If that's what you're trying to say, you should just say it. Your sentence doesn't make clear at all what relationship you think exists between a right to education and a right to property. You need to connect the dots. Especially given that we were not discussing education at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    As for you last bit about conflicting rights, don't be stupid. Positive rights NEED to violate other rights to exist. Negative rights do not call for such thing.
    Balancing out rights when they come into conflict is the primary purpose of the law. That is what courts do all day every day. Somebody's exercise of speech clashes with somebody else's property rights and they need to sort out an equitable solution. Two people have property rights that come into conflict and they need to figure out how to handle it. The notion of absolute rights just isn't workable at all.

    Positive rights don't need to conflict with other rights any more than negative rights. My guess (look, I'm having to guess what you mean again) is that you're thinking that positive rights all require money so they conflict with property rights... If that's what you're saying, that's true of lots of negative rights. For example, the prohibition on taking property without due process costs money to protect. We need to spend on courts and lawyers and investigators and whatnot. Having property rights doesn't mean you can't be taxed. It isn't an absolute right. We need to balance that right against all kinds of other things all the time.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  4. #104
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    Yeah sure - I'll buy bulk chicken breast. Divide it out into portions for the family for 3 or 4 meals.

    Sodas; I buy 2-liters . . . eventually we'll drink it. The kids usually don't bother - cold water from the fridge dispenser without needing ice or counterspace to pour is much more convenient.
    But you are not buying a $0.99 64oz Mt Dew to drink eventually. Which is my point. People feel the 64oz soda is a better buy, even though they most likely do not want that much. Then they're compelled to finish to avoid being wasteful. Factoring for ice and assuming 40 oz consumed, that equates to about 550 calories and 155 grams of sugar when all i really wanted was about 12 oz anyway.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  5. #105
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    But you are not buying a $0.99 64oz Mt Dew to drink eventually. Which is my point. People feel the 64oz soda is a better buy, even though they most likely do not want that much. Then they're compelled to finish to avoid being wasteful. Factoring for ice and assuming 40 oz consumed, that equates to about 550 calories and 155 grams of sugar when all i really wanted was about 12 oz anyway.
    Last I looked small drinks were still quite available on every menu

    Seriously - people go to a restaurant, they have choices to make from a menu, they make choices. . . .some people never get 'large' sizes - some people don't even drink soda at all. . . etc etc.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  6. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    SE Asia
    Last Seen
    07-12-14 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    2,333

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    This seems like a stupid solution to me. Instead of banning (or restricting) the stuff that makes us fat, how about we try not subsidizing the industries that make us fat. For starters, I would like to see what would happen if we stopped subsidizing corn. If high fructose corn syrup weren't so damn cheap for food and drink manufacturers to use, we MIGHT see change for the positive. I'm not saying it is necessarily more unhealthy than other sweeteners, just that our subsidies are making it too cheap.

  7. #107
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcogito View Post
    This seems like a stupid solution to me. Instead of banning (or restricting) the stuff that makes us fat, how about we try not subsidizing the industries that make us fat. For starters, I would like to see what would happen if we stopped subsidizing corn. If high fructose corn syrup weren't so damn cheap for food and drink manufacturers to use, we MIGHT see change for the positive. I'm not saying it is necessarily more unhealthy than other sweeteners, just that our subsidies are making it too cheap.
    Maybe we should just let people who make a lifetime of unhealthy choices take the ails for their decisions

    No one is forced to buy or consume anything - it's all choices.

    And there are numerous unhealthy choices - limit one; people will just pay more - or find another.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  8. #108
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Yes, that is much clearer. Good. But, you should still explain your whole line of thought there, not just your conclusion. Why does recognizing positive rights require violating other rights? For example, the right to see any records the government has about you would be a positive right. What right would that violate? Your change made it so it is clear what conclusion you reached, but still not how or why you reached it, so it doesn't really advance the discussion.
    As I said:

    They require labor. Something we all have right to is our own labor.

    They require property(aka money) We all have a right to our property

    As for the records example, labor.

    That is a slight improvement, but that still certainly isn't clear. Is the scenario I described what you're trying to communicate? That in order to have a right to education, we would need to tax people, and taxing violates their rights?
    Part of my point. Taxes as an idea as I said before is not a violation of your rights. As I have said before, it's the avenue that is chosen on taxes that is the problem and where the violation of rights occurs. For example, income taxes is taken out of your wages without your permission and without you doing anything with the government. By taking it out in the way they are doing they are saying they own the income and whatever they didn't take you should just be thankful they allowed you to keep.

    It is an individual help program that is meant to assist a certain individual in society while you pay for it, which is actually not similar to lets say the police where if I'm paying for it I'm getting a direct return. Sure people have argued there is an indirect return for education towards me and I am forced to agree, but then, everything could have a indirect return really. Hell, the guy that robbed you could get more economic return for your income than you would have done with it and that could benefit you, but its still theft, isn't it? Wouldn't you agree that is true?

    Lastly, it takes labor from individuals to exist. As it stands now we pay those individuals to provide the education to our children, however, because it is a right then we have a right to their labor and they can not refuse their labor to us. For example, if they say, "I will not teach that student" they are violating the students right to an education.

    If that's what you're trying to say, you should just say it. Your sentence doesn't make clear at all what relationship you think exists between a right to education and a right to property. You need to connect the dots. Especially given that we were not discussing education at all.
    A right to property says everything I own is mine and you can't have it or use it unless I give you permission, while a right to an eduction calls for the property to be given. What other dots are there?

    Balancing out rights when they come into conflict is the primary purpose of the law. That is what courts do all day every day. Somebody's exercise of speech clashes with somebody else's property rights and they need to sort out an equitable solution.
    How exactly does speech conflict with property rights? Please provide an example, thank you.

    Two people have property rights that come into conflict and they need to figure out how to handle it. The notion of absolute rights just isn't workable at all.
    I need an example here as well. Thanks.

    Positive rights don't need to conflict with other rights any more than negative rights. My guess (look, I'm having to guess what you mean again) is that you're thinking that positive rights all require money so they conflict with property rights... If that's what you're saying, that's true of lots of negative rights. For example, the prohibition on taking property without due process costs money to protect.
    We are talking about conditions for them to exist only. The act of protecting rights in courts is a different issue.

    We need to spend on courts and lawyers and investigators and whatnot. Having property rights doesn't mean you can't be taxed. It isn't an absolute right. We need to balance that right against all kinds of other things all the time.
    Yes, it does. Do we allow people to take without permission from other people? Why is the government different? Look, I understand the law says so, but I'm trying to get you think about it, so please, do not use the law here. What are the differences between the two? Do you think they are not merely created by the government?
    Last edited by Henrin; 06-17-12 at 02:28 AM.

  9. #109
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy
    But you are not buying a $0.99 64oz Mt Dew to drink eventually. Which is my point. People feel the 64oz soda is a better buy, even though they most likely do not want that much. Then they're compelled to finish to avoid being wasteful. Factoring for ice and assuming 40 oz consumed, that equates to about 550 calories and 155 grams of sugar when all i really wanted was about 12 oz anyway.
    I sincerely doubt that someone will buy 64 ounces of anything when all they want is 12. There is too much disparity in that, and while prices don't necessarily go up by an even per-ounce amount, I doubt anyone would throw away money "just because".

    64 ounces is just shy of a 2 liter. I don't think people buy 2 liters to chug in one sitting.

    The place I go to get fountain drinks, a 20 ounce cup costs 1.09, a 32 ounce costs 1.29, and a 44 ounce costs 1.69. I get a 32 ounce because it has the cheapest cost per ounce. Truth is that I could drink the 44 ounce (Dr. Pepper is probably the biggest crutch I have to losing weight). I probably don't need that much though.

    I would say it's less about over-consumption and more about waste. I like to think humans are more evolved than dogs and cats, who will continue to eat and eat all food put in front of them until they burst.

  10. #110
    Student GJ Flash's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    196
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    As I look out over the "we need to ban stuff we don't like" crowd, I notice a lot of the same faces from the "stay out of my uterus/bedroom" crowd. Am I the only one who has made this observation? It looks to me like a lot of the same people fighting for their rights have no problem whatsoever trampling all over mine.

    So let's make a deal: How about the righties stay out of uteri and bedrooms, and the lefties stay out of churches, convenience stores, movie theaters, restaurants, ice cream shops, tobacco stores, grocery stores, and gun shops. Deal?

    Don't get me wrong, I see the obvious problems involved with wide-spread obesity. I don't have that problem though, so why should my choices be limited (or banned outright)? I understand that many people make poor health decisions, and then pass the costs of those poor decisions directly on to the taxpayers. I have full medical coverage and don't need the government to babysit me, so why am I being babysat? Are we a free country or not?

    The obvious solution would be to make Americans carry identification that indicates whether they are a working, insured, tax-paying American citizen...Or a government leech who needs the nanny state to care for them from cradle to grave. The self-reliant can have all the pop and ice cream they want, but the human parasites get carrot sticks. Sound Orwellian? You betcha. Is that the direction we're headed? Looks that way.

    Maybe the best solution would be for the government to focus on governing (a job at which they are failing miserably anyway), and not worry so much about social engineering. Spend lees time teaching kids about the eeeevils of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, and more time teaching them how to freaking READ. Spend less time worrying about soda pop sizes and more time worrying about crime. Just saying.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •