• 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!

New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks

That is the issue. Sure you can go buy a 32 oz cup and a 2 liter soda. Great. But you can't do it at certain locations. That is wrong. That is removing freedom. The government should not be in control of your personal decisions.

HOw is that different from regulating where people can buy alcohol? Or food? Or porn?
 
I tend to agree. Even though I wouldn't be extremely against "sin taxes," I think the best means of handling obesity is by implementing solutions that don't limit peoples' actions. Putting calories on a menu is something that fits that definition and it also forces people to continuously see the ridiculousness of what they're putting in their bodies. I would think that more focus on maintaining a healthy body in school would be a nice solution as well.

An even better solution would be to end the food subsidies.

2012 Farm Bill Summary | National Pork Producers Council

The National Pork Producers Council supports the argricultural subsidies, but we already knew that they love pork
 
When a rightwinger whines about their rights being violated, it means "I don't like it"

Thats what it means when anyone whines about their rights be violated.

Unless you are suggesting there are people who whine about their rights being violated who like it. :roll:
 
Thats what it means when anyone whines about their rights be violated.

Unless you are suggesting there are people who whine about their rights being violated who like it. :roll:

Wrong. When a rightwinger does it, there's usually no violation of any rights. When a leftwinger does it, there usually is
 
HOw is that different from regulating where people can buy alcohol? Or food? Or porn?

This is a joke regulation. They are taking away businesses rights to conduct business. They are taking away a individuals personal choice.
 
It does sometimes come from the left (ex union busting), but with far less frequency

I've never really sat down and thought about the difference in frequency, to be honest. I know that I do tend to see more victim mentality stuff coming from the right as of late, and that usually, but not always, coincides with some kind of argument about imaginary rights being violated.
 
Wrong. When a rightwinger does it, there's usually no violation of any rights. When a leftwinger does it, there usually is

I wasn't sure before. Now I am.
 
It's a ridiculous proposal. It doesn't even solve a problem. In fact, it will just create more garbage as it will double the amount given that people will be buying two 16 oz cups as opposed to one 32 oz cup.
 
Neither of those things are rights. :shrug:

A business doesn't have the right to sell products of their choosing? A person doesn't have the right to buy products of their choosing?

What if the town mandated everyone wear pink. Then the people would not have the right to choose what they wore. In this case by removing an object from the shelves, people are losing the right to buy that item. When did a big gulp become a controlled substance?
 
It's a ridiculous proposal. It doesn't even solve a problem. In fact, it will just create more garbage as it will double the amount given that people will be buying two 16 oz cups as opposed to one 32 oz cup.



but you can still by a 40 oz 8 ball, and use it to down a chocolate donut, yo!
 
Being discussed =/= pretending it affects you.

If I can show that it will affect me...either directly or indirectly then it is relevent to discuss.

It hasn't affected you in any way, so if you claim it has, then you are lying.

Thats the thing. No one has said that it has affected them (not counting those that live there). Only that it could affect them. That is the difference between your arguement and mine. I have already admitted that this particular law does not directly affect me. I have also said that it could affect me indirectly and I showed how.

It's an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Just because it is not known as fact does not make it a fallacy. The thought process is based on probability which is based on several other factors...such as the knowledge that a politician knows that if they do something they know will be unpopular by a majority of people then they will be voted out. Which of course no politician wants unless they want to retire. So naturally they would not openly support such a policy...even if they personally think that such a policy is a good policy.

Based on the available evidence, I'd make an educated guess of 0 times.

And based on probability?

True. but taking steps that aren't successful really just means "tough ****, the people have spoken and they disagree with you. Don't like it? You always have the choice to move."

Or we can continue to try and change peoples minds and change the law....and the politician.

You rectify the situation the next time around. It's your own duty to become informed about what your local political are for or against If you haven't done your due diligence then you are at fault because ignorance is no defense. If they lie and claim they are for something when they are against it or vice versa, then it's on them.

As I already said, it is impossible to know everything that a politician will or will not do. You could soak up and know every single bit of information that is available and you still wouldn't know everything that a politician will or will not do. The only way to know everything that a politician will do is be that politician...which doesn't exactly help those that are not that politician does it?

Not directly, but I can extrapolate the assumption that they probably would form all of the other idiotic **** they have passed.

Which is all that I do.

Not about that issue, but it doesn't take a genius to guess where they might lean based on their stances on other issues.

Knowing their stances on other issues does not help when they go after something that has nothing to do with those other issues.

I agree, but as I said it doesn't take a genius to guess where politicians might lean on most issues based on their stances on other issues. A politician I would support would be the type who would never vote for this. I'm in the minority politically where I live, though, so I have to accept that my choice to live here means I am subjected to laws created by idiots who were voted for by idiots. I make that choice, thus I'm never a victim.

Bold: That is the key word. "Most". Most does not equal "all".

Also you may have a choice on where you live. Not everyone does. Particularly the poor and the infirm. Moving takes money. Not everyone has the money to move.

That's a silly assumption. It wastes time that could be spent on more effective means of creating change.

It's only silly if the chance of it being effective is 0%.

Also what is and what isn't effective can depend greatly on location.
 
A business doesn't have the right to sell products of their choosing?

Of course they don't. Go open up an ice cream parlor that sells liquor, guns and Bengal tiger penises. See where that gets you.

A person doesn't have the right to buy products of their choosing?

Of course they don't. Go out and buy some heroin, dead babies, and Bengal tiger penises. See where that gets you.

What if the town mandated everyone wear pink.

If that's what they decide to legislate, more power to them.

Then the people would not have the right to choose what they wore.

So?

When did a big gulp become a controlled substance?

The moment it was something that was controlled.
 
Of course they don't. Go open up an ice cream parlor that sells liquor, guns and Bengal tiger penises. See where that gets you.



Of course they don't. Go out and buy some heroin, dead babies, and Bengal tiger penises. See where that gets you.

The difference between your analogy and what is actually happening is that heroin, dead babies, and Bengal tiger penises is that those are completely illegal to buy. Where as a soda is a legal product.
 
Hash browns are also yummy. It's a lost art on the East Coast it seems. Actually, I don't think they properly understand breakfast at all. I mean, they have no biscuits and gravy out here. How the hell do they not have biscuits and gravy!? Sounds like communism to me! And pork roll....WTF is pork roll. I've seen many a pig in my day, I ain't ever seen a "pork roll".

You must be confused with "Northeast"

Here in the south, we haz bizkits and gravy.
 
The difference between your analogy and what is actually happening is that heroin, dead babies, and Bengal tiger penises is that those are completely illegal to buy. Where as a soda is a legal product.
And alcohol is illegal for a certain part of the population.
 
Get a rope!

Pace does not qualify as a hot sauce/salsa.

As a proud member of the company that makes it, I have to disagree.

We did have a commercial, some years back, that expressed a very appropriate and very true sentiment…

 
Ummm you do know that in a society freedoms are often curtailed for the benefit of said society, right? You don't have the right to buy nuclear bombs. You don't have the right to buy dangerous materials. Dangerous goods are often removed from the shelves if they are found to be a threat to society. So, your viewpoint is a tad bit warped.


Sorry, but all freedoms should not be indulged. Businesses are concerned solely with generating wealth, public health be damned.

Cell phones: 50 percent increase in frontal and temporal lobe tumors in children

Wednesday, May 30, 2012 by: Lloyd Burrell

(NaturalNews) The Office of National Statistics in the United Kingdom discovered a 50 percent increase in frontal and temporal lobe tumors in children during the ten year span covering 1999 to 2009. Was this a result of cell phone radiation?

The Department of Health in the UK would appear to think so. One in three children under the age of ten currently has a cellphone in their possession. The governmental agency put out the following statement: "Children should only use mobile phones for essential purposes and keep all calls short."

The facts: while adults definitely absorb some radiation from using cellphones, children are at considerably greater risk. When compared to adults, children's brains can take in up to three times the amount of radiation.

Cell phones: 50 percent increase in frontal and temporal lobe tumors in children

Shall we ban cell phones for children?
 
Indeed, some folks are just using this thread as an excuse to bash NYC.

No excuse needed. This is just one more example that demonstrates what most of us outside that [solid digestive waste]hole of a city know about it; but which those such as yourself, who are in over your heads in all the corruption, fraud, and sheer stupidity, cannot see.
 
Back
Top Bottom