• 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

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

where's all the uproar over that?
 
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:
alcohol sales are banned on Sundays in many communities across the country.

where's all the uproar over that?

Who said there isn't?
 
why, cause it doesn't exist?

Do you really think everything people find messed up in the country there will be threads about on this forum?
 
Tell me where the trouble is then? Do you agree with me or not?

I have no idea. You won't say what your position is in sufficient detail for me to even guess if I agree with it.

I see. You're confused into thinking that free speech actually comes from the first amendment. Well, I'm sorry, but it doesn't.

That has nothing to do with anything I said.

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.

What?
 
IMO what this really is is just an attempt to build awareness of the issue nationwide. It's the same thing as when San Francisco banned happy meals. What they're really trying to do is to get people everywhere to think about whether it is really a good idea to feed that stuff to their kids. And it's successful. Oddly, I lived in San Francisco during the happy meal ban and now I live in New York. In both cases, the people were fine with it. Really they didn't care either way. They're both wealthy cities. Not a lot of super jumbo sodas or happy meals were being consumed in either place anyways. That isn't the point. The point was getting the national media talking about it.

I don't know what the ultimate solution is, but something needs to change with portion sizes in the US. It really is totally out of control. I used to travel to Europe for work a lot. If I was there for a couple weeks, consistently, the first few days I'd feel a little hungry because the portions were smaller. But I'd get over it pretty quick. And guess what, people there are much, much, skinnier. Then I'd come back and the first thing you're struck by is how fat everybody is. It really is kind of startling when you leave and come back. And for a few days I'd feel like I had too much food after every meal. But then I'd get used to that again and resume fattening up.... And the portions here are getting bigger and bigger every year. The health care costs created and the impact on our quality of life are enormous. We do need to do something. Maybe not bans, but something needs to change.
I don't necessarily disagree that it is primarily about raising awareness, but... as a matter of principle I reject their methods. As a matter of concept I am all for raising awareness and education. No issue there. There are other... and more proper, IMO... ways to raise awareness rather than restrict people's freedoms to make their own choices regarding an otherwise legal activity that has pretty much zero chance of negatively impacting others (such as drinking and driving could, for example).
 
I don't necessarily disagree that it is primarily about raising awareness, but... as a matter of principle I reject their methods. As a matter of concept I am all for raising awareness and education. No issue there. There are other... and more proper, IMO... ways to raise awareness rather than restrict people's freedoms to make their own choices regarding an otherwise legal activity that has pretty much zero chance of negatively impacting others (such as drinking and driving could, for example).

I agree to an extent. But you also kinda just gotta do what you can do. The Republicans in the House just a couple months ago made a huge deal about attacking some education program focused on teaching kids about eating fast food in moderation. The right ways to do it cost money. And, during the whole flap about San Francisco banning happy meals, McDonalds actually did make some changes. If forget what exactly. They added a couple healthier things to the menus nationwide and something like changed the oil they use or something.
 
no, but avoiding some topics while harping on others that are related, shows peoples' bias.

Just because we don't spend all day bringing up every little topic that could be comparable to this one doesn't mean we don't have a problem with other issues that are comparable.
 
I don't necessarily disagree that it is primarily about raising awareness, but... as a matter of principle I reject their methods. As a matter of concept I am all for raising awareness and education. No issue there. There are other... and more proper, IMO... ways to raise awareness rather than restrict people's freedoms to make their own choices regarding an otherwise legal activity that has pretty much zero chance of negatively impacting others (such as drinking and driving could, for example).

Why should the government be in the business of raising awareness on things like this? Do you not agree that is a community effort?
 
Why should the government be in the business of raising awareness on things like this? Do you not agree that is a community effort?
Does it really offend you that the government, made up of people and fellow citizens, might do something to encourage (not mandate or coerce) wise behavior in it's fellow citizens?
 
Does it really offend you that the government, made up of people and fellow citizens, might do something to encourage (not mandate or coerce) wise behavior in it's fellow citizens?

Yes it does.
 
Heres the point all this miss's. No matter how noble a thought is to stop obesity, you have to put it in its perspective.
A nutritional expert went on a donut diet to prove that the age old theory calories in calories out are the only way to lose weight. He consumed 1800 calories per day in twinkies and Crispy Cremes and he lost 27lbs in 10 weeks.
You can eliminate any one thing like big soda or any group of several things and it just will not workm, until the people your targeting have less calories in than calories going OUT...simple. Bloomberg is a tool who once again is looking for attention.

I forgot to include at the conclusion of the 10 week donut diet, not only did he lose 27lbs, but his total cholesterol went down and his ration of good to bad cholesterol improved...go figure...I read this the other day in my WebMD subscription that comes to my email daily, Im going to look if I still have it

Ok I found it...:)

For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.

His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.

The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.

His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.

But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.

Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds - CNN.com

1st: Why am I not surprised that this was totally ignored over the course the the two pages after this was posted that I read?

2nd: I've been saying this same basic thing for god knows how long now. Good to see that someone with a degree proved it officially.
 
Then listen up.

How does it not?

Did I stutter? Respond to one and two.

Well, I've done my best to help you get past whatever this communication issue you're having is. I can't make you follow my advice. But it is good advice and you would be wise to think on it a bit.
 
Does it really offend you that the government, made up of people and fellow citizens, might do something to encourage (not mandate or coerce) wise behavior in it's fellow citizens?

I agree with Henrin. This is not the governments job.
 
Well, I've done my best to help you get past whatever this communication issue you're having is. I can't make you follow my advice. But it is good advice and you would be wise to think on it a bit.

You asked me what I meant and I told you what I meant in a very short and easy to follow list.
 
You asked me what I meant and I told you what I meant in a very short and easy to follow list.

No. You're obviously still doing the same thing. Instead of laying out your position clearly and presenting arguments supporting it, you continue to just lob out these cryptic one sentence posts that don't really even present your position, let alone an argument.
 
No. You're obviously still doing the same thing. Instead of laying out your position clearly and presenting arguments supporting it, you continue to just lob out these cryptic one sentence posts that don't really even present your position, let alone an argument.

me said:
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.

How is that cryptic?
 
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.

You need to show me where warehouse clubs encourage over consumption...im not buying that
 
How is that cryptic?

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:

Am I to believe you think the right to your property is not violated because the right to an education?

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.
 
You need to show me where warehouse clubs encourage over consumption...im not buying that

I never said that warehouse clubs encourage over consumption. Retail ≠ wholesale.
 
Back
Top Bottom