Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

New York City to ban "sugary drinks". Options · View
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:52:27 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
Bans sugary drinks being sold by restaurants, mobile food carts, movie theaters and delis


When will we fucking learn. All these laws that are to help us stay "safe" and "healthy" have nothing to do with safety or health. There have nothing to do with whatever the law is actually about. It's a ruse. Slowly by taking away more and more of your liberties, freedoms, and choices they make it easier to take away the next thing. Our lawmakers are chipping away at our lives little by little. Don't you see it?

Pretty soon we are going to be living exactly like the movie Demolition Man.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:55:09 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States






When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Buz
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:01:55 AM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,778
Location: Atlanta, United States
In my opinion it's not any government's business what people consume. Furthermore, the government should not be footing the medical bill for people who choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle. Their decision and they should have to pay for it and reap the consequences themselves.

Nikki703
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:14:55 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/7/2009
Posts: 12,668
Location: The Other Side Of The Mirror
Its just another rediculous idea of Michael Bloomberg. Like banning any sugary drink of more than 16oz in a movie theater is gonna make a difference. I guess he must assume the people who want the 32oz drink arent smart enough to buy 2 of the 16oz drinks. Meanwhile you can still buy the 112oz Giant Big Gulp at 7-11. Bloomberg must own their stock!!!

Whats next, you cant buy 1 Dozen donuts unless you have 11 friends with you!!


Guest
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:17:36 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
I am a New Yorker, and I disagree with the banning on sale of sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters, and street carts. I feel there are other alternatives in dealing with the nationwide obesity problem. Unhealthy people need to be more active and cautious what they put in their bodies. Not everybody should suffer!
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:19:10 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,268
Location: West Coast
They're only banning the sale of sugary drinks in a serving size of more than 16 ounces, thereby making the size of "Large" more in line with the rest of the planet's interpretation of it.

Ever bought a large size drink at the movie theatre? You need two hands to carry it. Completely ridiculous. Combine that with a trough of popcorn in those wheelbarrow sized buckets and it starts to make people think that's "normal"...

What did you eat today, little Johnny? Nothing, mom, just a soda and some popcorn at the movies.

I don't have any issue with the idea of portion-control. You're not depriving anyone and the true gluttons can just buy two servings of pop if they feel the need to consume that much.

Not a fan of imposing limitations because people are too dumb to set them themselves, but if it helps re-set kids interpretations of what size 'large' is supposed to be when it comes to fast-food, then I don't think it's that's bad of an idea.


lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:29:35 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
It says it would ban the sale of any sugary drink that has "25 calories per 8 fluid ounces". A 12oz can of Coke has 140 calories. This could kill small delis, restaraunts, and food carts. That's where they make most of the money, the drinks. Anytiem the government tells you what you can and can't do, it's invasive. If I choose to drink a gallon of Monster everday, it's no one's business but my own.







When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Nikki703
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:31:29 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/7/2009
Posts: 12,668
Location: The Other Side Of The Mirror
NatureBoy wrote:
I am a New Yorker, and I disagree with the banning on sale of sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters, and street carts. I feel there are other alternatives in dealing with the nationwide obesity problem. Unhealthy people need to be more active and cautious what they put in their bodies. Not everybody should suffer!


I agree. Kids today spend way too much time playing video games and on Facebook and not enough time outdoors playing sports. When I was a kid, everyone was always outdoors when ever we could be. Even when I got little older and occaisionally was "ingesting" some bad things, we would be playing Frisbee, LOL!!
Buz
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:33:09 AM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,778
Location: Atlanta, United States
They need to re-institute physical education in schools. Run their little butts off. Climb those ropes in the gym. I used to love to climb that rope to the ceiling in the gym. My best friends and I were super competitive at that. Push-ups, jumping jacks, squats, knee bends, etc. Physical education!

But government dictatorship? NO WAY!!!!!

Dancing_Doll
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:35:18 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,268
Location: West Coast
lafayettemister wrote:
It says it would ban the sale of any sugary drink that has "25 calories per 8 fluid ounces". A 12oz can of Coke has 140 calories. This could kill small delis, restaraunts, and food carts. That's where they make most of the money, the drinks. Anytiem the government tells you what you can and can't do, it's invasive. If I choose to drink a gallon of Monster everday, it's no one's business but my own.



No... he said he's going to ban sugary drinks (defined as those that have 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces) in sizes over 16 ounces.



This means that you can buy size large (16+ ounces) of diet pop, water, or whatever... just not high sugar drinks. The title of the article is deliberately misleading in order to cause people to freak out thinking they can't buy regular pop anymore.

And you can still drink a gallon of whatever you want - you just have to buy more servings of it. So in a way, it's almost like a fat tax.





MarySweets
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:40:19 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/5/2012
Posts: 292
Location: In my fantastic mind, Australia
If it's by size then I don't see anything wrong with it. It's all about portions, think 20 years ago and not many people were obese, maybe dumpy but not obese.

Because there was no extra large portions and people were more active. Thinking back to my childhood for example.

I grew up in a rural area. So going to the next big town once every two months or the city perhaps twice a year and eating Mcdonalds was a treat not an everyday occurance. The same with soft drink.

Cola was give on a friday when my family got takeaway chips and burgers. I normally just drank juice or milk.

Now days everything is in sizes small medium or large. You see heavy set kids now days. Even adults too. Because they are not active, cheap fast food is avalible. Plus you have the energy drinks, protien milks, sugary drinks are a convience.

Last year I saw photos of the local teens doing their debutante ball in the local newspaper. The girls were either obese, dumpy or skinny with no muscles. No healthy girls in any photos. Ten years ago when I did my debutante, all the girls my year were healthy girls, had lean muscles from playing sports.

Anyway back on topic, I don't see anything wrong on cutting down the portions of food including drink.

"Sexual pleasure in woman is a kind of magic spell; it demands complete abandon; if words or movements oppose the magic of caresses, the spell is broken."

Simone de Beauvoir
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:44:12 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:


No... he said he's going to ban sugary drinks (defined as those that have 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces) in sizes over 16 ounces.



This means that you can buy size large (16+ ounces) of diet pop, water, or whatever... just not high sugar drinks. The title of the article is deliberately misleading in order to cause people to freak out thinking they can't buy regular pop anymore.

And you can still drink a gallon of whatever you want - you just have to buy more servings of it. So in a way, it's almost like a fat tax.




You are correct. I'm still against it though. I'm with Buz, put some phys. ed. back in the schools.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Buz
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:54:45 AM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,778
Location: Atlanta, United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:
And you can still drink a gallon of whatever you want - you just have to buy more servings of it. So in a way, it's almost like a fat tax.


Ashleigh you can sell me some water any day and you can levy a tax on me too!giggle

LadyX
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:05:21 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
So, in the end, what freedom are we losing here? The freedom to drink 64-oz gutbusters of grape soda in a single sitting? Patrick Henry rolls in his grave, I'm sure.

The phys.ed. should definitely be re-instituted (though maybe that's a separate discussion), but anyone who thinks that fatty, sugary, and preservative-laden foods aren't a major factor in child and adult obesity are in willful denial. Of course the beverage association is going to claim this, though. What else would they do, endorse a statute that will cut down on their bulk sales?

I'm not really in the "tax and ban everything" camp; I think we all come off a bit more extreme than we really are when we debate these issues here. But more and more, when I hear the opposition to things like this, I wonder: and who really 'benefits' from the freedom to buy 2-gallon soft drinks? Whose rights have been raped by big brother because their thirst for mass quantities of cream soda at a single sitting requires two purchases, not one?

We all say "the parents should monitor the intake" but guess what? Either out of laziness, carelessness, ignorance, or untenable work hours, they don't. Kids eat and drink pure shit, and nobody's stopping them. We can feel superior by saying what parents should do, and how much more awesome parents used to be, etc., but that changes nothing.

Adults eat and drink pure shit, and even though they probably know better, and might be able to find healthier things for the same prices, they continue doing so. The end result: everybody's fat, heart-diseased, unproductive, and life spans are shortened.

So here's an honest question: are we okay with this?

If we're honest with ourselves, we know this thing won't correct on it's own. Kids aren't going to all of the sudden start playing outside again, and adults aren't going to start walking everywhere. So, if we aren't okay with this obesity pandemic, then we also have to admit parents aren't going to solve it. We Americans (as a whole, especially on the lower income rungs) don't take care of ourselves or our children, and we're getting worse, the data bears that out indisputably. So who does it, if the schools and the government doesn't pick up the slack?

If the government doesn't try to nudge us in the right direction, who will? Nobody. If 3/4 of us end up obese and unhealthy including our 200-lb eight-year-old kids, burdening society with everything that goes with that, then what good did that 64-oz of freedom do anybody? "That's not America" you might say, to limit our Christian god-given rights to copious amounts of sugary water. But to cut off that helping hand to deal with those already mired in the problem* seems pretty fucking far from anything resembling the idea of "America", too. Compassion matters, and is worth something just as freedom is. Guidance is a valuable form of compassion.

Just some thoughts; I enjoy reading everyone else's too.





*what does it mean to "reap the consequences themselves"? Not treat them in retaliation for being obese?
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:40:46 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
We are losing the freedom to choose. We are losing the freedom to be free. The fact that it's a gutbuster of grape soda is irrelevant. If grape soda is that unhealthy, why not ban it entirely. Like said above, it I want that much soda I can buy as many of the smaller size as I want. What's next? You can't buy a family size bag of Doritos?

Sugary, fatty, preservative laden foods down't make us fat. The over consumption of those things, with lack of exercise, is what makes us fat. We man not "benefit" from the freedom to buy 2-gallone soft drinks. But we SURELY all suffer when we CANNOT buy 2-gallon soft drinks. My rights have been raped by big brother.

Yes, parents should monitor intake. We've discussed many times our views on personal responsibilities. At what point does that responsibility end? Parents, and people in general, are completely abdicating ALL responsibility. Kids eat and drink pure shit because that's what is in the house to eat and drink. Know what's cheaper than soda and Kool-Aid? Water, and it's practically free. Whether or not parents are working or not, it's still their responsibility to teach their kids how/what to eat.

Agreed, adults eat and drink pure shit. That is their choice. Choice is choice, right?

No, we're not ok with this. But instead of banning unhealthy food options, let's find another way to promote healthy living and eating. PE in school. If the kids are fit and heathier, it will carry over to the parents. Make gym memberships tax deductible. Agreed, lower income families have a bigger issue with obesity. But eating healthy isn't out of reach. Just last night I fed a family of four. Baked chicken quarters, english peas, and pasta... for less than $5. Schools can educate and feed our kids better lunches. Offer resources to families on how and what to cook.

The government can nudge. Banning isn't a nudge. It isn't American. As cliche' as that may sound. It is our right to consume whatever legal substance we choose. If it's bad for us, then make it illegal. If we are allowed to have it, then we can choose to eat and drink it until we weigh 1000 pounds. I don't see a helping hand. I see government allow parents to relenquish their roles and do the dirty work they aren't will to do. Compassion does matter, but it can't be legislated into existence. Compassion would be offering free counseling and aid to someone who needs help. Not banning something that doesn't allow them to fix a problem of their own doing. It's like drug/alcohol rehab. You can send a drunk/junkie to rehab a dozen times. It isn't going to take until HE himself decides he needs the help. Guidance is good, totally agree. Banning and taking away choice isn't guidance, it's dictatorship.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:02:42 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
Welcome to the "New World Order", boys and girls! cussing
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:10:27 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
sprite
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:12:57 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,527
Location: My Tower, United States
i'm working on banning meat. i just need another 2 millions signatures. anyone want to help?

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Magical_felix
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:13:22 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,905
Location: California
I say good... Someone wants 32 oz of soda then buy two. I think laws like this are more psychological than anything. Like the fact that you are forced to order two of something will help people understand portion control a little better. Maybe instill a bit of shame in the person needing to order three drinks in a row or at least let them know that what they are doing to themselves is not normal.

This crying out about freedoms and big brother is just silly. Hey, any of you like to smoke? Kinda hard to find a restaurant to smoke in yeah? Soda and junk shit like that arguably does more harm to Americans health when you look at the big picture. But do you think these freedoms taken away from smokers stops them from smoking? It doesn't.

Fuck it. They should tax soda like cigarettes. And don't tell me that cigarettes harm innocents and soda and shit doesn't. How much money is spent on helping people that don't know how to drink water instead of mountain dew code red with 30% fucking sugar in it. It tastes like liquid candy. Shit should be dessert. That money can help treat non obese people too. If not so many people were so unhealthy than more money could go around.

I mean we put restriction on cigarettes because they harm adults but we don't limit kid's drug of choice? Sugar.

Look, if I sit down to eat and you put a 10 oz steak in front of me, I will eat it and be satisfied. Put a 14 oz steak in front of me and I'll kill it too. But in reality I didn't need the extra 4 oz. but if it's there I would eat it. Same thing with fat little Timmy and his 12 oz soda. Hell drink it and be fine. Give him 32 and he'll drink it too cause its there.



Dancing_Doll
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:14:41 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,268
Location: West Coast
lafayettemister wrote:

Sugary, fatty, preservative laden foods down't make us fat. The over consumption of those things, with lack of exercise, is what makes us fat. We man not "benefit" from the freedom to buy 2-gallone soft drinks. But we SURELY all suffer when we CANNOT buy 2-gallon soft drinks. My rights have been raped by big brother.

Guidance is good, totally agree. Banning and taking away choice isn't guidance, it's dictatorship.

.


LOL... What??

Hey, I think more of this is being made than it deserves. Having to carry two large soft drinks instead of one gallon sized cup isn't verging on the beginnings of a dictatorship.

What it does, is that it embarrasses Big Johnny to walk around carrying two cups instead of one. We hope that this sends a message to the fat kids - maybe you don't need that much soda in one sitting. But if Big Johnny wants to be a glutton then he can bring his own bucket and straw and dump the two sodas he buys into it and walk around slurping it.

On the converse side what about the kid that routinely drinks 4-gallon cream-soda in one sitting, but at present day circumstances has to relinquish his "freedoms" and buy two 2-gallon drinks to satiate his gluttony because 4-gallon cups aren't available. Were his rights raped by Big Brother?

Who are we catering to? The healthy people or the fat people? If we cater to the healthy people, then we move one tiny step towards a healthier society. Yeah, more has to be done in the way of physical activity and such but this is just a move in a better direction for everyone.



sprite
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:16:52 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,527
Location: My Tower, United States
on a serious note. what are the statistics? off the top of my head, i believe that 2/3s of Americans are now considered overweight and 1/3 are obese. for the first time ever, the life expectancy of an american citizen is lower then the previous generation. health insurance costs are going up for a reason. we are an unhealthy nation. yes, banning soda IS extreme. but sometimes extreme measures are needed. hopefully, it wakes people the fuck up (though i doubt it, looking at all the folks who still smoke and KNOW how bad that is for you).

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:28:32 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
Magical_felix wrote:
I say good... Someone wants 32 oz of soda then buy two. I think laws like this are more psychological than anything. Like the fact that you are forced to order two of something will help people understand portion control a little better. Maybe instill a bit of shame in the person needing to order three drinks in a row or at least let them know that what they are doing to themselves is not normal.

This crying out about freedoms and big brother is just silly. Hey, any of you like to smoke? Kinda hard to find a restaurant to smoke in yeah? Soda and junk shit like that arguably does more harm to Americans health when you look at the big picture. But do you think these freedoms taken away from smokers stops them from smoking? It doesn't.

Fuck it. They should tax soda like cigarettes. And don't tell me that cigarettes harm innocents and soda and shit doesn't. How much money is spent on helping people that don't know how to drink water instead of mountain dew code red with 30% fucking sugar in it. It tastes like liquid candy. Shit should be dessert. That money can help treat non obese people too. If not so many people were so unhealthy than more money could go around.

I mean we put restriction on cigarettes because they harm adults but we don't limit kid's drug of choice? Sugar.

Look, if I sit down to eat and you put a 10 oz steak in front of me, I will eat it and be satisfied. Put a 14 oz steak in front of me and I'll kill it too. But in reality I didn't need the extra 4 oz. but if it's there I would eat it. Same thing with fat little Timmy and his 12 oz soda. Hell drink it and be fine. Give him 32 and he'll drink it too cause its there.


I think smoking bans are unconstitutional too. But that's a bit different. Even though I disagree with the application, second hand smoke harms others. No one is going to get second hand fat from watching someone drink a soda.

Big brother is watching. What's the next logical step. Regulating size and portion control today, when that doesn't work... and it won't. Will the government then ban sugary drinks altogether? Tax it? Talk about a tax on the poor.

It isn't about sugary drinks, or smoking, or fatty foods. It's about government slowly putting the citizens back on the tit. It's about control. It has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Bloomberg giving a shit about your's or anyone elses health. It's more ground work for the next round of the nanny state.

DD... yes!! WE all suffer. Not because we can't buy a 2gallon bottle of soda. But because we cannot choose for ourselves.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Magical_felix
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:29:07 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,905
Location: California
Also.. I think that two liters of coca-cola everyday would be more depremental to my health than doing a line of cocaine every day for a year. I have done drugs for extended periods and trust me. Gaining 50 lbs from that much sugar water would fuck me up more than the cocaine and cocaine is illegal. What about freedom?

Hey you guys do understand that America is a great country because we have laws like this? You know where people are totally free to do whatever the fuck they want? Mexico... You can do whatever in Mexico. The freedom lovers should move there. Or Liberia, those fools are more free than us too but guess what.. Society as a whole can't take care of itself. They need shepards.



lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:30:42 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
sprite wrote:
on a serious note. what are the statistics? off the top of my head, i believe that 2/3s of Americans are now considered overweight and 1/3 are obese. for the first time ever, the life expectancy of an american citizen is lower then the previous generation. health insurance costs are going up for a reason. we are an unhealthy nation. yes, banning soda IS extreme. but sometimes extreme measures are needed. hopefully, it wakes people the fuck up (though i doubt it, looking at all the folks who still smoke and KNOW how bad that is for you).


It is extreme. But I don't over indulge in sugary drinks. I drink mostly water. But if I want a Big Gulp once a year, I shouldn't be punished because of people that have no willpower. If we want to live longer and be healthy, then we need to decide it ourselves. If we prefer to live shorter lives while enjoying a shitty diet, then that's our choice.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Magical_felix
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:33:01 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,905
Location: California
lafayettemister wrote:


I think smoking bans are unconstitutional too. But that's a bit different. Even though I disagree with the application, second hand smoke harms others. No one is going to get second hand fat from watching someone drink a soda.

Big brother is watching. What's the next logical step. Regulating size and portion control today, when that doesn't work... and it won't. Will the government then ban sugary drinks altogether? Tax it? Talk about a tax on the poor.

It isn't about sugary drinks, or smoking, or fatty foods. It's about government slowly putting the citizens back on the tit. It's about control. It has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Bloomberg giving a shit about your's or anyone elses health. It's more ground work for the next round of the nanny state.

DD... yes!! WE all suffer. Not because we can't buy a 2gallon bottle of soda. But because we cannot choose for ourselves.


So when some obese guy has half his leg on top of mine while ordering extra honey roasted peanuts and more soda on a 3 hour flight, I'm not getting second hand fat?

And also you glossed right over my point of all the obese taking up more tax money cause they are in the hospital more often. And yes, the poor with no money are more obese. Them taking up more money then needed IS affecting us. Just like second hand smoke affects. It's just not so obvious so it takes more thinking to see the forest through the trees.

Edit: the big brother argument is a slippery slope by the way. Usually a debate technique that can be used to vilify anything.



LadyX
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:33:21 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
lafayettemister wrote:

It's about government slowly putting the citizens back on the tit. It's about control. It has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Bloomberg giving a shit about your's or anyone elses health. It's more ground work for the next round of the nanny state.


Why does Michael Bloomberg care one way or the other about control and socialist policy? How does he have a dog in that fight? I don't understand how this theory works. I mean, is the idea that fans of big-government meet up in secret, kind of like the freemasons, and discuss the ulterior motives to their legislation? How does it benefit a US Representative, or a Mayor, to extend the nanny state and restrict freedoms of people they don't know? I'm honestly confused about this.
sprite
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:35:31 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,527
Location: My Tower, United States
lafayettemister wrote:


It is extreme. But I don't over indulge in sugary drinks. I drink mostly water. But if I want a Big Gulp once a year, I shouldn't be punished because of people that have no willpower. If we want to live longer and be healthy, then we need to decide it ourselves. If we prefer to live shorter lives while enjoying a shitty diet, then that's our choice.


heh - just like if i want to drop acid, i shouldn't be punished because of other fools or if i want TO MARRY MY GAY LOVER i shouldn't be punished cause we all know how bad for your health being GAY is. personally, i love NY. no sugar and gay rights! now, if they could just legalize drugs.

yeah, i'm all about personal freedom, but no one is saying you can't drink soda, just that they want to limit how much you can drink and like everything else, there is a work around - just go buy a cube of mountain dew and have 3 cans in one sitting along with your triple bacon cheese burger. :)

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:37:01 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,268
Location: West Coast
lafayettemister wrote:



DD... yes!! WE all suffer. Not because we can't buy a 2gallon bottle of soda. But because we cannot choose for ourselves.


This argument is like saying that all portions of all foods should come in unlimited quantities and if it doesn't, then we all suffer because we can't choose for ourselves.

I have a 591ML of Gatorade sitting in front of me right now, but after my work-out this morning I would rather drink 700ML... but I cannot 'choose' this because the bottle doesn't come in that size. Should I stage a freedom protest? Nah, I'll just open another bottle of gatorade if I want more.

Trust me, I have zero level of suffering knowing that Fat Johnny can't gorge himself on soda in public or has to buy to cups instead of one.

If it's a matter of economics and a 2-gallon-cup is cheaper, then maybe Fat Johnny will decide to buy diet-coke instead. Everyone wins. He gets to pay the same amount and drink soda - with the only difference being that it's diet-soda.

Sure, we wish Fat Johnny would understand this logic on his own, but that's like telling a coke addict to only snort a gram instead of an 8-ball if they're both available for the same price. Sometimes people need to be nudged into making healthier decisions that they wouldn't make on their own.


lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:43:08 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
sprite wrote:


heh - just like if i want to drop acid, i shouldn't be punished because of other fools or if i want TO MARRY MY GAY LOVER i shouldn't be punished cause we all know how bad for your health being GAY is. personally, i love NY. no sugar and gay rights! now, if they could just legalize drugs.

yeah, i'm all about personal freedom, but no one is saying you can't drink soda, just that they want to limit how much you can drink and like everything else, there is a work around - just go buy a cube of mountain dew and have 3 cans in one sitting along with your triple bacon cheese burger. :)


Acid is an illegal substance. If it's ever legalized, you should be able to consume as much as you like. You should be able to marry whomever you wish.

If anyone limits how much of anything legal you wish to eat or drink, it's intrusive. Have all the triple cheeseburgers and Mountain Dew you want. Your body, you get to decide what to do with it.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:45:21 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:


This argument is like saying that all portions of all foods should come in unlimited quantities and if it doesn't, then we all suffer because we can't choose for ourselves.

I have a 591ML of Gatorade sitting in front of me right now, but after my work-out this morning I would rather drink 700ML... but I cannot 'choose' this because the bottle doesn't come in that size. Should I stage a freedom protest? Nah, I'll just open another bottle of gatorade if I want more.

Trust me, I have zero level of suffering knowing that Fat Johnny can't gorge himself on soda in public or has to buy to cups instead of one.

If it's a matter of economics and a 2-gallon-cup is cheaper, then maybe Fat Johnny will decide to buy diet-coke instead. Everyone wins. He gets to pay the same amount and drink soda - with the only difference being that it's diet-soda.

Sure, we wish Fat Johnny would understand this logic on his own, but that's like telling a coke addict to only snort a gram instead of an 8-ball if they're both available for the same price. Sometimes people need to be nudged into making healthier decisions that they wouldn't make on their own.


Foods do come in unlimited portions, you can buy as much as you like.

Your gatorade may not come in a 700ML size, but that was the decision of Gatorade. Not some politician.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.