Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 129

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

  1. #51
    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
    So banning activities is like ads? Lol? That is seriously dumb.
    I guess you haven't been following the thread. Read back through it.
    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.

  2. #52
    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 Kushinator View Post
    My comment stems from implementing social cost-benefit analysis. We ban bulk sale of ephedra based products because.... people do dumb ****.
    Social cost-benefit analysis is something I reject so see if I care.

  3. #53
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Social cost-benefit analysis is something I reject so see if I care.
    Your empty rejection in no way invalidates social cost-benefit analysis. There is no need to troll; perhaps you should utilize your freedom to not respond?
    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

  4. #54
    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 Kushinator View Post
    Your empty rejection in no way invalidates social cost-benefit analysis. There is no need to troll; perhaps you should utilize your freedom to not respond?
    Did I try to invalidate it? Nope. If you think banning activities brings more gains than loses than I feel sorry for you.

  5. #55
    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
    Did I try to invalidate it? Nope. If you think banning activities brings more gains than loses than I feel sorry for you.
    What a moronic statement Henrin... You think that banning anything is so obviously always a bad idea that you don't even feel the need to give a reason? So, for example, banning murder is so obviously a bad idea that you wouldn't have to explain it?

    You need to think much, much, harder.
    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.

  6. #56
    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
    What a moronic statement Henrin... You think that banning anything is so obviously always a bad idea that you don't even feel the need to give a reason? So, for example, banning murder is so obviously a bad idea that you wouldn't have to explain it?

    You need to think much, much, harder.
    Couldn't help yourself but to go to right violations, hmm? More weakness from teamosil.
    Last edited by Henrin; 06-16-12 at 05:54 PM.

  7. #57
    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
    Right to right violations. More weakness from teamosil.
    Kiddo, somehow there is just this massive gap between what you think you are saying and what you actually say. You need to concentrate and really focus on what words you are typing. Re-read every post before you hit submit and try to figure out whether the actual words you are typing clearly communicate your position on the issue. You're just tripping over your own shoelaces all the time here. Your posts often don't make much sense and they very rarely clearly lay out your position. It's just a waste of time to post like that. Like a second ago you were saying that any ban of an activity leads to more losses than gains. You didn't present any explanation or argument supporting that proposition and it was an obviously ridiculous assertion. Now I have to guess what you mean here. I'm guessing that you are saying that you don't really mean that banning activities always leads to more losses than gains, you mean banning activities that don't infringe on the rights of others always lead to more losses than gains. Is that correct? I shouldn't have to guess at what position you're taking, you should just lay it out.

    If that is the position you are taking, obviously you would need to present a clear definition of exactly what you mean. For example, is somebody getting fat and causing the cost of health insurance to rise infringing somebody else's rights? I assume that if I stand on my property and hurl bowling balls at your property you would consider that infringing the other person's rights, but do you consider it infringing other people's rights if instead of bowling balls I hurl air pollution at their property?

    Once you've clearly defined exactly what you mean and what your position is, then you would need to present your evidence or arguments supporting that position. For example, can you think of some instances where it seems like regulating activity that you don't consider to be infringing the rights of others would be beneficial, but in fact it isn't? Can you give your reasons for why you think it is always harmful? What sorts of harms are you talking about exactly?

    You need to up your game radically Henrin.
    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.

  8. #58
    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
    Kiddo, somehow there is just this massive gap between what you think you are saying and what you actually say. You need to concentrate and really focus on what words you are typing. Re-read every post before you hit submit and try to figure out whether the actual words you are typing clearly communicate your position on the issue. You're just tripping over your own shoelaces all the time here. Your posts often don't make much sense and they very rarely clearly lay out your position. It's just a waste of time to post like that. Like a second ago you were saying that any ban of an activity leads to more losses than gains. You didn't present any explanation or argument supporting that proposition and it was an obviously ridiculous assertion. Now I have to guess what you mean here. I'm guessing that you are saying that you don't really mean that banning activities always leads to more losses than gains, you mean banning activities that don't infringe on the rights of others always lead to more losses than gains. Is that correct? I shouldn't have to guess at what position you're taking, you should just lay it out.
    It's a bit obvious that I meant actions similar to the one in thread OP, but fine, my bad for not excluding the obvious so people like you could follow along.
    Last edited by Henrin; 06-16-12 at 06:08 PM.

  9. #59
    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
    It's a bit obvious that I meant actions similar to the one in thread OP, but fine, my bad for not excluding the obvious so people like you could follow along.
    If that is the position you are taking, obviously you would need to present a clear definition of exactly what you mean. For example, is somebody getting fat and causing the cost of health insurance to rise infringing somebody else's rights? I assume that if I stand on my property and hurl bowling balls at your property you would consider that infringing the other person's rights, but do you consider it infringing other people's rights if instead of bowling balls I hurl air pollution at their property?

    Once you've clearly defined exactly what you mean and what your position is, then you would need to present your evidence or arguments supporting that position. For example, can you think of some instances where it seems like regulating activity that you don't consider to be infringing the rights of others would be beneficial, but in fact it isn't? Can you give your reasons for why you think it is always harmful? What sorts of harms are you talking about exactly?
    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.

  10. #60
    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
    If that is the position you are taking, obviously you would need to present a clear definition of exactly what you mean. For example, is somebody getting fat and causing the cost of health insurance to rise infringing somebody else's rights? I assume that if I stand on my property and hurl bowling balls at your property you would consider that infringing the other person's rights, but do you consider it infringing other people's rights if instead of bowling balls I hurl air pollution at their property?

    Once you've clearly defined exactly what you mean and what your position is, then you would need to present your evidence or arguments supporting that position. For example, can you think of some instances where it seems like regulating activity that you don't consider to be infringing the rights of others would be beneficial, but in fact it isn't? Can you give your reasons for why you think it is always harmful? What sorts of harms are you talking about exactly?
    Do you know why I didn't respond to this when you said it the first time?

Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •