• 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!

NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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:
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?
 
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?
 
Do you know why I didn't respond to this when you said it the first time?

I assume it is just another instance of the whole thing I'm talking about. You don't lay out your positions clearly and you don't provide support for them. You just kind of hint at what assumption you have made and then move on.
 
I assume it is just another instance of the whole thing I'm talking about. You don't lay out your positions clearly and you don't provide support for them. You just kind of hint at what assumption you have made and then move on.

The only thing worth talking about is pollution in your comment but you already know of my position on pollution and how I have proposed solving it. Why exactly would I go over it again with you?
 
I wonder if they'll ban alcohol too. Alcohol is high in calories and is very unhealthy. So it's not ok to buy a 20oz soda but it's ok to go to a bar and drink all you want? I'm not advocating that they ban alcohol, but I'm pointing out how completely mindless their logic is. This whole soda ban garbage is one of the most idiotic pieces of legislation I've ever seen.
 
If the government is expected to bail people out of medical problems via Medicare and other public health programs, it certainly ought to reserve the right to put limits on those items that contribute to public health program expenditures, namely, high calorie foods.

I think New York ought to ban the sale of cartons of cigarettes, limit pack sizes to 10, and ban multiple sales of packs for good measure.

Then they shouldn't allow the sale of any goods of this nature - at all - period.

Available consumptive quantities is *not* the issue. Telling people 'no you can't have that' isn't going to do anything, either.

Just like liquor - they banned it and said 'you can't have that' :shrug: Right now people can even make their own dang sodas.
 
The only thing worth talking about is pollution in your comment but you already know of my position on pollution and how I have proposed solving it. Why exactly would I go over it again with you?

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. 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. 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. In fact, you never even said the line was infringing rights. That's just something I've said to describe my guess for what you're trying to say that you haven't told me was wrong, so I'm continuing to guess that that is what you're trying to say...

Honestly man, it just seems like you think you're saying a ton of stuff that is still inside your head. Its like you assume that we're in there with you so we should just be able to guess what you think about everything. We can't. You need to lay your positions out clearly and back them up with arguments.
 
No, it would. What you're referring to is called the "dormant commerce clause". As you say, it prevents states and local governments from putting burdens on the free flow of commerce. But, that isn't going on here. The types of burdens they look for are things that discriminate in favor of local products over out of state products or things that make the actual flow of commerce problematic. For example, if you have 49 states that require that trucks have mud flaps and one state that prohibits trucks from having mud flaps, then that one state is causing a massive hassle for interstate shipping, so that would violate the dormant commerce clause. If NYC had banned sodas from out of state, but allowed in state sodas or something, that would certainly be a dormant commerce clause problem. But, without discrimination or an impediment to the actual process of interstate commerce, it isn't. States are definitely allowed to decide what products are banned for health reasons and whatnot.

Prohibits certain cup sizes.
 
but I'm pointing out how completely mindless their logic is. This whole soda ban garbage is one of the most idiotic pieces of legislation I've ever seen.

As Thunder stated, NYC is not banning soda, and you didn't point anything out.
 
As Thunder stated, NYC is not banning soda, and you didn't point anything out.

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.
 
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:
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?
 
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.

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.
 
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? :roll:

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:
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.

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.

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom