• 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

It will prevent me if it goes into my area.

This law will never affect you in your area if you don't live in New York. If you live in New York, then my comments don't apply to you.



See the idea is to stop something from coming into your/my area before it gets there. How is this done? By pointing it out when it happens in other areas and by showing how it could affect a person personally.

Like I said, piss and moan to your hearts content.

In this case the person is me.

Are you in New York?

Use to be my state didn't have laws against smoking in private establishments. Washington State did though. Guess what...we now have a law against smoking in private establishments.

So did pissing and moaning about how the law can affect a person personally prevent it? Probably not, since all the pissing and moaning around here about those bans didn't do anything to stop it from coming here to Illinois.

That's why I suggest a more effective method.

Applying something to oneself is a perfectly legitimate debate tactic.

False. Using personal experience can be a legitimate debate tactic, when personal experience is relevant, but lying is never a legitimate debate tactic. If someone claims something affects them when it doesn't, they are lying.
 
The arguement I am making is that the people of New York City are having their freedom's restricted by an unelected, however appointed, board.

Then what the hell are you responding to me for? It's not like I initiated this exchange.



The rest of the stuff in your posts is off topic.

If you didn't want to talk about the tangential topic I have been discussing, why the hell did you engage me in that discussion?
 
This law will never affect you in your area if you don't live in New York. If you live in New York, then my comments don't apply to you.

But one just like it may already be percolating in my representitives minds. And if they decide to try and get a similar law enacted because they like Bloombergs idea then by an indirect route that ban in NYC has affected me.

So did pissing and moaning about how the law can affect a person personally prevent it? Probably not, since all the pissing and moaning around here about those bans didn't do anything to stop it from coming here to Illinois.

Obviously it didn't no. But there is the off chance that it will. We have no idea how many laws have been stopped from even being suggested because the mayor or senator or whatever realized that if a particular law was enacted then they'd be up a chit creek.

That's why I suggest a more effective method.

I must have missed this more effective method...what was it again?
 
But one just like it may already be percolating in my representitives minds.

Then you should be writing letters to your local representatives!

And if they decide to try and get a similar law enacted because they like Bloombergs idea then by an indirect route that ban in NYC has affected me.

So what? Are you saying it sucks to much to have to wait until your local government passes such a law in order to pretend to be a victim of this law so you feel the need to claim preemptive victim-hood by lying about how it affects you?


Obviously it didn't no. But there is the off chance that it will. We have no idea how many laws have been stopped from even being suggested because the mayor or senator or whatever realized that if a particular law was enacted then they'd be up a chit creek.

So your defense for pretending to be a victim is "We know it wasn't effective in the past with some similar issues, but we don't know that it was never effective so we should do it just in case."

Brilliant.

You do realize that if you had taken steps to get rid of the people who had passed that previous legislation, there's be some truth to the claim that they'd be up **** creek, right?

That failure on the part of the electorate is why **** like this keeps passing.


I must have missed this more effective method...what was it again?

Using the democratic system that we have in place by voting for people who would not support such legislation and convincing other people in your area to do the same when they vote.

Do you really think impotent pissing and moaning while pretending to be a victim is the most effective method of getting certain legislation passed and preventing certain other legislation from being passed?
 
Last edited:
Then what the hell are you responding to me for? It's not like I initiated this exchange.

I responded to you because you made this statement:

You missed my point. New Yorkers can pretend it will prevent them from having a large pop.

There is no pretend here. Their local government is removing freedom.
 
It's pretend. They can buy a two-liter and a 32.oz cup if they want. Nobody has a right to big gulps.

What? What about the "rights" of those that now may legally sell them, that is the right being taken. "Porky" can still get all of the soda pop that they want, just no longer from SOME vendors, in a big cup. How can you call yourself a "libertarian" and allow the gov't to TRY to regulate the serving size of soda pop?
 
Last edited:
In another thread, many rightwingers are saying it's OK for the govt to tell people what they can't eat if the govt is subsidizing their food purchases

Since sugar is highly subsidized, those rightwingers should not have any problem with this legislation. However, as is often the case, the rightwingers don't like it when their so-called "principles" are applied to themselves
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html

So now I'm not allowed to buy a big coke at the movies if I want one? What's next, my quarter pounded with cheese will be reduced to a sixteenth pounder?

Here's your nanny state liberals love so much. "Gimme money, gimme healthcare, gimme all day to sit on my butt, and if I get fat eating value meals, it's the government's fault."

Sad. Pathetic. Is this really what we want government doing?
I don't agree with this. People should be free to drink what they want. I'm a healthy person, so drinking a crap ton of sugary drink once in a while isn't going to affect me. This, to me, is a classic case of focusing too much on the symptom instead of the cause.
 
Then you should be writing letters to your local representatives!

Who says that I won't? Or that I haven't already? That is neither here nor there. This is a forum in which things get discussed.

So what? Are you saying it sucks to much to have to wait until your local government passes such a law in order to pretend to be a victim of this law so you feel the need to claim preemptive victim-hood by lying about how it affects you?

Sorry, not lying. I've already explained why.

So your defense for pretending to be a victim is "We know it wasn't effective in the past with some similar issues, but we don't know that it was never effective so we should do it just in case."

It's true isn't it? Do YOU know how often some stupid legislation has been stopped cold before it even started because people are doing the same thing?

Brilliant.

Thanks!

You do realize that if you had taken steps to get rid of the people who had passed that previous legislation, there's be some truth to the claim that they'd be up **** creek, right?

Taking steps and having those steps successful are two different things. Also a politician does not always reveal everything that they are for or against. What are you going to do about that? Especially when its an off the wall piece of crap legislation.

That failure on the part of the electorate is why **** like this keeps passing.

While true there is nothing that says that we can't try and have a stupid piece of legislation stopped.

Using the democratic system that we have in place by voting for people who would not support such legislation and convincing other people in your area to do the same when they vote.

Would your reps support bloombergs proposed legislation? Do you know? Have you asked them? Did you ask them before they were elected? Not every single little detail of how someone is going to be in office is ever talked about and covered...assuming that every politician will be honest of course.

Do you really think impotent pissing and moaning while pretending to be a victim is the most effective method of getting certain legislation passed and preventing certain other legislation from being passed?

By itself of course not. But it sure can't hurt.
 
I don't agree with this. People should be free to drink what they want. I'm a healthy person, so drinking a crap ton of sugary drink once in a while isn't going to affect me. This, to me, is a classic case of focusing too much on the symptom instead of the cause.

what is the cause we are not focusing upon?
 
In another thread, many rightwingers are saying it's OK for the govt to tell people what they can't eat if the govt is subsidizing their food purchases

Since sugar is highly subsidized, those rightwingers should not have any problem with this legislation. However, as is often the case, the rightwingers don't like it when their so-called "principles" are applied to themselves

Except most right wingers don't support the subsidies... :roll:
 
Indeed, some folks are just using this thread as an excuse to bash NYC.

If it has good reason to be bashed then it should be bashed. Stop letting your mayor make reasons for bashing NYC and you won't have this problem.
 
There's no right to sell whatever one wants to sell. Regulation of commerce is well within the government's purview.

They are restricing only SOME sales, the product is legal, only the "serving size" is being changed, for SOME retailers. Buyng two 16 oz. cups of soda is legal, buying one 32 oz. cup of soda is not. That is insane, as now two cups (lids and straws) go to the landfill, the price goes up and NOBODY benefits. Think, before you drink, even koolaid (if it remains legal).
 
it's another measure that will do very little to motivate people to count calories and exercise. sustained weight loss requires both for most of us.

putting calories on the menu next to the item is a much better tool. i think NYC has done this already. i support that one.

people should be able to order as much food as they want, but they should know exactly what they're getting.
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.
 
So let's review Bloomberg the statist tyrant king douche....



NY Mayor Bloomberg Follows Soda Ban With…National Donut Day? | Mediaite



Chocolate coconut donut

550 calories....

Donuts | Dunkin' Donuts



32 oz. (double the moron's soda limit)


330 calories....


Calories in McDonald's Beverages - Coke - Large 32 oz cup - Nutrition Facts & Other Nutritional Information | LIVESTRONG.COM



So you statist asshole, you want to explain why you aren't a totalitarian hypocrite?





And so, the next time I am at Yankees stadium, I can buy a 32 oz beer (2 beer limit per transaction, for a total of 64 oz), But I am limited to one 16 oz of soda? Good thing I take the ****ing train from irvington, NY.... /facepalm



Bloomberg defends supporting Donut Day while banning sugary drinks  - NY Daily News
 
Who says that I won't? Or that I haven't already? That is neither here nor there. This is a forum in which things get discussed.

Being discussed =/= pretending it affects you.


Sorry, not lying. I've already explained why.

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



It's true isn't it?

It's an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Do YOU know how often some stupid legislation has been stopped cold before it even started because people are doing the same thing?

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

This, of course would be a guess, since I do not know for sure. But I also don't know for sure that taking a **** on a wildebeest's vagina has never earned someone a college degree.

Just because you can make a fallacious argument doesn't mean it's a logically valid one.



You're welcome!

Taking steps and having those steps successful are two different things.

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."


Also a politician does not always reveal everything that they are for or against. What are you going to do about that? Especially when its an off the wall piece of crap legislation.


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.

While true there is nothing that says that we can't try and have a stupid piece of legislation stopped.

Of course not. Why do you think that's relevant to the issue I've been discussing?



Would your reps support bloombergs proposed legislation?


Probably. They are ****ing idiots. I voted against every one of the dickheads.

Do you know?

I have a pretty good idea.

Have you asked them?

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

Did you ask them before they were elected?

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

Not every single little detail of how someone is going to be in office is ever talked about and covered...assuming that every politician will be honest of course.

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.

But it sure can't hurt.

That's a silly assumption. It wastes time that could be spent on more effective means of creating change.
 
They are restricing only SOME sales, the product is legal, only the "serving size" is being changed, for SOME retailers. Buyng two 16 oz. cups of soda is legal, buying one 32 oz. cup of soda is not. That is insane, as now two cups (lids and straws) go to the landfill, the price goes up and NOBODY benefits. Think, before you drink, even koolaid (if it remains legal).

I agree that the law is asinine in the extreme, but the fact remains that there are no rights being violated.
 
So let's review Bloomberg the statist tyrant king douche....

NY Mayor Bloomberg Follows Soda Ban With…National Donut Day? | Mediaite

Chocolate coconut donut

550 calories....

Donuts | Dunkin' Donuts

32 oz. (double the moron's soda limit)

330 calories....

Calories in McDonald's Beverages - Coke - Large 32 oz cup - Nutrition Facts & Other Nutritional Information | LIVESTRONG.COM

So you statist asshole, you want to explain why you aren't a totalitarian hypocrite?

And so, the next time I am at Yankees stadium, I can buy a 32 oz beer (2 beer limit per transaction, for a total of 64 oz), But I am limited to one 16 oz of soda? Good thing I take the ****ing train from irvington, NY.... /facepalm

Bloomberg defends supporting Donut Day while banning sugary drinks* - NY Daily News
Well this just made everything a lot more ridiculous.
 
It's pretend. They can buy a two-liter and a 32.oz cup if they want. Nobody has a right to big gulps.

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.

What if they pass a bill that everyone has to wear black so NYC looks slimmer when they are buying at a fast food restaurant? Would that be ok?
 
Back
Top Bottom