Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 129

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

  1. #71
    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
    Henrin, you don't understand. You still haven't laid out your position. Those questions were examples of the sorts of details that are unclear about your position.
    You know my position on pollution and you know my position on property, or at least you should as I have told you both of them before.

    All we know, and even this took quite a bit of posting to drag out of you, is that you believe that banning activities that don't infringe other people's rights has more disadvantages than advantages.
    Its a right violation to ban activities without a right violation being present. Again, it's obvious. I don't need to say anything else on that.

    We don't know what makes you think that, we don't know what you mean when you say infringing rights, we don't know what kinds of advantages and disadvantages you're talking about.
    People not being allowed to govern their own bodies is a huge problem and you can not possibly justify not allowing it without a right violation being present. Your stance is basically that you don't have the right to eat however much you want and that its simply being allowed to occur. Yes, I remember your stances, which is more than I say about you.

    I believe I said something similar to this to you in the food stamps are crazy thread about rights when you declared I was wrong. You never responded to it.

    Rights are the realities of destruction, and consent in nature. The later governs the former and the former describes the basis of rights.
    Last edited by Henrin; 06-16-12 at 07:04 PM.

  2. #72
    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 Thunder View Post
    how in the world did we go from "banning very large sugary drinks" to "banning soda"????????????

    its like folks either refuse to read....or simply can't be honest about what they read.
    Maybe the difference doesn't mean much to them?

  3. #73
    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
    Its a right violation to ban activities without a right violation being present. Again, it's obvious. I don't need to say anything else on that.
    Henrin, yes, you need to say A LOT more than that to have presented a position. You're assuming some list of rights that you haven't laid out. You're assuming that one of those rights is not to have your activities banned when you're not violating anybody else's rights without having given any reason to believe that statement is true.

    Your statement could mean just about anything depending on what guesses I make about those things. Maybe you think that getting fat and causing other people's health insurance costs to go up violates their rights. Maybe you think that not seeing fat people is a right. Maybe have such a narrow idea of what are rights that what you're saying is essentially that the government can't regulate anything and maybe you have such a broad idea of what are rights that you are saying that government isn't regulating nearly enough. To many people a "right" is something that the government can't prevent you from doing, not something relating to interactions between private individuals. So, if you were amongst them, your statement above would mean something totally different again.

    You have some conception of what a right is that you buy into, but that conception is still stuck in your head. You haven't presented it. You just assumed that we think the same things are rights as you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Rights are the realities of destruction, and consent in nature. The later governs the former and the former describes the basis of rights.
    This is another great example. From these sentences I am guessing that what you are announcing is that you believe in the concept of natural law. That isn't necessarily true. You could believe what you said in this quote and have reached very different conclusions than natural law people, but I'm betting that you are actually a natural law guy. So, there are many different schools of natural law theory. Some believe that god bestowed certain rights on us. Others believe that natural law is primarily about the "natural" order of dominance of men over women, adults over children and whites over non-whites. Some natural law people believe that Hobbes got it about right when he concluded that we could derive a set of rights from the assumption that people are more likely to be able to agree about negative rights than positive rights, and he came up with a list of what he thinks those negative rights are. If I had to guess, I'd guess that is the bucket you're in. But that's totally just a guess. There have been many natural law thinkers have come up with different lists and some include positive rights. For example, there is a whole school of natural law thinkers who believe that the right to food is one of the most fundamental rights. So, again, you've basically said nothing. All you did is to hint at a broad category of schools of thought on rights.

    On top of that, you're making that sort of pronouncement like natural law is so well known and universally accepted as true that it isn't necessary to defend or explain your position. In reality the school of thought on rights you're referencing has essentially been discarded by the world for more than 100 years. There are virtually no philosophers or political theorists that would say that they believe in natural law any more. The core idea- that people will be more readily able to agree on negative rights- doesn't turn out to be true at all. On top of that, what rights one person happens to think they can derive from nature are often totally different than what the next guy thinks. How rights are supposed to be balanced against one another is equally subjective. The theory doesn't really buy you anything.

    Anyways, the point is, you seem to just be assuming that everybody thinks the same things you do. You buy into some particular conception of natural law, so you figure everybody is probably thinking the same thing, so all you need to do is make some bare hint at what you're thinking and they can fill in all the gaps. That isn't reality. In reality you need to say what you're thinking so that we can understand what you mean to express.
    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. #74
    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
    Henrin, yes, you need to say A LOT more than that to have presented a position. You're assuming some list of rights that you haven't laid out. You're assuming that one of those rights is not to have your activities banned when you're not violating anybody else's rights without having given any reason to believe that statement is true.
    Give me an argument why you think you can ban anything then. I look forward to your logic behind it actually.

    Your statement could mean just about anything depending on what guesses I make about those things. Maybe you think that getting fat and causing other people's health insurance costs to go up violates their rights. Maybe you think that not seeing fat people is a right. Maybe have such a narrow idea of what are rights that what you're saying is essentially that the government can't regulate anything and maybe you have such a broad idea of what are rights that you are saying that government isn't regulating nearly enough.
    Does that sound like me?

    To many people a "right" is something that the government can't prevent you from doing, not something relating to interactions between private individuals. So, if you were amongst them, your statement above would mean something totally different again.
    Why would you include the one and not the other? That makes no sense.

    You have some conception of what a right is that you buy into, but that conception is still stuck in your head. You haven't presented it. You just assumed that we think the same things are rights as you do.
    *Yawn* I'm tired.

    This is another great example. From these sentences I am guessing that what you are announcing is that you believe in the concept of natural law. That isn't necessarily true. You could believe what you said in this quote and have reached very different conclusions than natural law people, but I'm betting that you are actually a natural law guy. So, there are many different schools of natural law theory. Some believe that god bestowed certain rights on us. Others believe that natural law is primarily about the "natural" order of dominance of men over women, adults over children and whites over non-whites. Some natural law people believe that Hobbes got it about right when he concluded that we could derive a set of rights from the assumption that people are more likely to be able to agree about negative rights than positive rights, and he came up with a list of what he thinks those negative rights are. If I had to guess, I'd guess that is the bucket you're in. But that's totally just a guess. There have been many natural law thinkers have come up with different lists and some include positive rights. For example, there is a whole school of natural law thinkers who believe that the right to food is one of the most fundamental rights. So, again, you've basically said nothing. All you did is to hint at a broad category of schools of thought on rights.
    I wonder how many of those fit under what I said?

    On top of that, you're making that sort of pronouncement like natural law is so well known and universally accepted as true that it isn't necessary to defend or explain your position. In reality the school of thought on rights you're referencing has essentially been discarded by the world for more than 100 years. There are virtually no philosophers or political theorists that would say that they believe in natural law any more. The core idea- that people will be more readily able to agree on negative rights- doesn't turn out to be true at all. On top of that, what rights one person happens to think they can derive from nature are often totally different than what the next guy thinks. How rights are supposed to be balanced against one another is equally subjective. The theory doesn't really buy you anything.
    What questions do you have that need answering? Please ask away.

    And just so you know, positive rights don't exist. That is where the confusion really is. People want them to exist so they cause all sorts of confusion on rights by doing it. Can't have positive rights and believe in what I said so big surprise that welfare states disregarded it.
    Last edited by Henrin; 06-16-12 at 08:08 PM.

  5. #75
    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
    Give me an argument why you think you can ban anything then. I look forward to your logic behind it actually.
    I never took that position. I'm trying to get you to state YOUR position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Why would you include the one and not the other? That makes no sense.
    Well, for example, you have the right to free speech. That means that the government can't prevent you from saying stuff. Most people do not think that the right to free speech means, for example, that the owners of this forum have to let us say whatever we want or that you have to let house guests say whatever they want.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    And just so you know, positive rights don't exist. That is where the confusion really is. People want them to exist so they cause all sorts of confusion on rights by doing it. Can't have positive rights and believe in what I said so big surprise that welfare states disregarded it.
    What does that even mean? They "don't exist"? You state that like it is somehow some kind of factual statement, but really what you mean is just that whatever philosophical system you subscribe to, but refuse to describe doesn't recognize them as legitimate. Right?
    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. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

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

    alcohol sales are banned on Sundays in many communities across the country.

    where's all the uproar over that?

  7. #77
    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
    I never took that position. I'm trying to get you to state YOUR position.
    Tell me where the trouble is then? Do you agree with me or not?


    Well, for example, you have the right to free speech. That means that the government can't prevent you from saying stuff. Most people do not think that the right to free speech means, for example, that the owners of this forum have to let us say whatever we want or that you have to let house guests say whatever they want.
    I see. You're confused into thinking that free speech actually comes from the first amendment. Well, I'm sorry, but it doesn't.

    What does that even mean? They "don't exist"? You state that like it is somehow some kind of factual statement, but really what you mean is just that whatever philosophical system you subscribe to, but refuse to describe doesn't recognize them as legitimate. Right?
    1. Positive rights detail violating rights. How exactly is that hard to understand? Am I to believe you think the right to your property is not violated because the right to an education?

    2. They are created objects by people that usually detail labor and money to exist.
    Last edited by Henrin; 06-16-12 at 08:17 PM.

  8. #78
    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 Thunder View Post
    alcohol sales are banned on Sundays in many communities across the country.

    where's all the uproar over that?
    Who said there isn't?

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Who said there isn't?
    show me the thread.

  10. #80
    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 Thunder View Post
    show me the thread.
    You know I can't do that.

    My point was that people are bitching about it all the damn time.

Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •