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

New York City to ban "sugary drinks". Options · View
Magical_felix
Posted: Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:15:01 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,524
Location: California
lafayettemister wrote:



Americans aren't hell bent on being morbidly obese, nor on universal health care. They are hell bent on not being allowed to choose for themselves. I do realize the oppostion makes this distinction irrelevant, though.

If a person wants to eat 20oz of deep fat fried cow shit with a side of margarine sticks, washed down with 64oz of Jolt cola; then he should be able to do so anywhere anytime without someone from government denying him any of it in any portion. In my opinion, the role of government is not to make me or anyone else healthy(ier). My health is of no concern to them.


How about this lafayette... I chose to play my music loud as fuck wherever I am. But the guv'mint tells me I can't. They are taking away my freedumb! I suppose the guv'mint does this cause other people are affected by my music being too loud. Would you agree? So now I am not free to even play music loud? What is this Nazi Germany or the US of A?

Guess what? People being grossly overweight and stuffing themselves to death affects other people too, you can see many examples of how the most greedy and most selfish of americans are a drain on our healthcare dollars that are supposed to be for EVERYONE already stated in this thread. These people that have no respect for themselves and others remind me of someone that never brushes their teeth and has to go in for professional cleanings like every two months when the rest of us will go in once or twice a year. Imagine if all of us were paying for these people that can't be bothered to brush? It would be unfair right? It's the same thing with people that don't bother to make at least healthy choices when eating. It has gotten to the point where they are affecting everyone else. THAT is the point you fail to see.


On a side note... I find it hilarious you have a quote on debating by Socrates as your sig. You should read what he said about actually debating. It's especially funny after you post shit like "popcorn is being BANNED" When its not... Wether you wrote the headline or not doesn't matter.

Here is a good place to start. Logical Fallicies and the Art of Debate

They explain slippery slopes and appeals to tradition better than I can there.



lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:38:55 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,341
Location: Alabama, United States
I didnt' say popcorn was banned. I said they discussed banning popcorn. On this we'd just disagree. Whether done completely or partially it's still a ban. To me, banning something entirely and banning sizes/quantities is still a ban. Ok, so you don't like the word "ban". NYC is limiting citizens' choices.

Loud music and obesity are not the same thing. Sorry to tell you, bud. Your loud music interrupts and affects other people. But that's a different debate. Whether or not a person has respect for themselves is their business. You're right, is is a drain on healthcare. All the more reason for a person to pay for their own healthcare. Do you get disgusted when you're out eating and a fatso orders a double cheeseburger with extra bacon too? If I get fat from bad diet, that's my problem. It doesnt' affect you or anyone else. Me.

Yes, you've mentioned that you don't care for my debating skills. Go ahead and attack the manner in which I debate. I'll read your little article, maybe.

I stand by my statements. It's ok that you disagree. Doesn't make either of us more or less intelligent than the other. You're a smart guy. Maybe smarter than me, which admittedly doesn't take much. This "debate" doesn't prove it one way or the other. You're ok with governmental intrusions into our daily lives. I'm not. It's as simple as that. Laws and policies are ripe for discussion, dissent, and debate. My opinion on the NYC ban/limit/restriction on big sodas is that it's wrong. I don't like it. I won't say why because I haven't read your rules of debate yet.

LafayetteMister's opinion: NYC large soda policy=Not good.

MagicalFelix's opinion: NYC large soday policy=Good





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Magical_felix
Posted: Saturday, June 16, 2012 11:19:17 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,524
Location: California
lafayettemister wrote:
I didnt' say popcorn was banned. I said they discussed banning popcorn. On this we'd just disagree. Whether done completely or partially it's still a ban. To me, banning something entirely and banning sizes/quantities is still a ban. Ok, so you don't like the word "ban". NYC is limiting citizens' choices.

Loud music and obesity are not the same thing. Sorry to tell you, bud. Your loud music interrupts and affects other people. But that's a different debate. Whether or not a person has respect for themselves is their business. Your right, is is a drain on healthcare. All the more reason for a person to pay for their own healthcare. Do you get disgusted when you're out eating and a fatso orders a double cheeseburger with extra bacon too? If I get fat from bad diet, that's my problem. It doesnt' affect you or anyone else. Me.

Yes, you've mentioned that you don't care for my debating skills. Go ahead and attack the manner in which I debate. I'll read your little article, maybe.

I stand by my statements. It's ok that you disagree. Doesnt' make either of us more or less intelligent than the other. You're a smart guy. Maybe smarter than me. This "debate" doesnt' prove it one way or the other. You're ok with governmental intrusions into our daily lives. I'm not. It's as simple as that. Laws are policies are ripe for discussion, dissent, and debate. My opinion on the NYC ban/limit/restriction on big sodas is that it's wrong. I don't like it. I won't say why because I haven't read your rules of debate yet.

LafayetteMister's opinion: NYC large soda policy=Not good. MagicalFelix's opinion: NYC large soday policy=Good


The word ban and limiting mean different things. They are not interchangeable. I can link a dictionary too but I guess you won't be bothered to read that either. I won't even get into how you didn't see the point of the music analogy.. Instead you went "hrrrmmm food, I eats... but music is for my ears! You can't fool my jack with your trickery! those are different and I knows it!"

The second paragraph is my favorite here. See the first part I bolded? You say fat people are a drain on health care. Then you say they SHOULD pay for it themselves, but they don't, so that's a non point. We ALL pay for them. You see the second part I bolded? You clearly contradict yourself. You say they ARE a drain on healthcare then you say being fat doesn't affect everyone else. You are contradicting yourself.

You're using the word debate loosely when applied to you. Read the article, you may figure out how to make a point without using "should". Also, I bet what I have said is riddled with fallacies too... You just don't understand what that is so it's harder for you to point them out. All the more reason to read the article. Just saying, tip of the day.

The last part where you go off on me being smarter than you... I never said I was but if I make you feel that way, that's your deal. It is funny to me that you think smaller portions are what's going to lead us to big brother (you said it) Do you realize how many other intrusions like this there are? Do you not realize every damn law that restricts things we do is a government intrusion limiting our freedom? Like spanking or smoking. Are we any less free? Your fear that laws like this will eventually turn us into slaves of the government is silly. It's like me freaking out that I will eventually become poor because the government decided to add 1 dollar more to a bridge toll or something... "where does it stop? Now they is reaching in my pocket! Eventually they will take all my monies." And no, saying that money and sugar are different things doesn't make you look smart or that you are making a point... I'm sorry me "debating" you, for lack of a better term, is making you feel dumber than me. That can be a side effect when people debate things.

Magical_felix opinion: When people begin to affect the lives of other people in a negative way through their actions, then something has to be done.

Lafayettemister opinion: Eating and drinking to the point that people become burdens on society is perfectly okay because it's their freedumb.



Guest
Posted: Saturday, June 16, 2012 11:34:48 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,082
The purpose of the ban on sweet stuffs is good. I appreciate it.
lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2012 11:07:17 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,341
Location: Alabama, United States
Magical_felix wrote:


The word ban and limiting mean different things. They are not interchangeable. I can link a dictionary too but I guess you won't be bothered to read that either. I won't even get into how you didn't see the point of the music analogy.. Instead you went "hrrrmmm food, I eats... but music is for my ears! You can't fool my jack with your trickery! those are different and I knows it!"

The second paragraph is my favorite here. See the first part I bolded? You say fat people are a drain on health care. Then you say they SHOULD pay for it themselves, but they don't, so that's a non point. We ALL pay for them. You see the second part I bolded? You clearly contradict yourself. You say they ARE a drain on healthcare then you say being fat doesn't affect everyone else. You are contradicting yourself.

You're using the word debate loosely when applied to you. Read the article, you may figure out how to make a point without using "should". Also, I bet what I have said is riddled with fallacies too... You just don't understand what that is so it's harder for you to point them out. All the more reason to read the article. Just saying, tip of the day.

The last part where you go off on me being smarter than you... I never said I was but if I make you feel that way, that's your deal. It is funny to me that you think smaller portions are what's going to lead us to big brother (you said it) Do you realize how many other intrusions like this there are? Do you not realize every damn law that restricts things we do is a government intrusion limiting our freedom? Like spanking or smoking. Are we any less free? Your fear that laws like this will eventually turn us into slaves of the government is silly. It's like me freaking out that I will eventually become poor because the government decided to add 1 dollar more to a bridge toll or something... "where does it stop? Now they is reaching in my pocket! Eventually they will take all my monies." And no, saying that money and sugar are different things doesn't make you look smart or that you are making a point... I'm sorry me "debating" you, for lack of a better term, is making you feel dumber than me. That can be a side effect when people debate things.

Magical_felix opinion: When people begin to affect the lives of other people in a negative way through their actions, then something has to be done.

Lafayettemister opinion: Eating and drinking to the point that people become burdens on society is perfectly okay because it's their freedumb.



The word "ban" is being used by all of the news outlets. NBC, ABC, Reuters, Huffington Post. I'm just using the same word. NYC is limiting choice by BANNING large size drinks. It's the same thing as the smoking ban. Smoking isn't being banned entirely, just where and when a person may smoke. It's a ban on where. Yet, I don't see you or anyone else saying that the smoking "ban" isn't a ban. Prohibiting smoking in certain place or prohibiting large size drinks in part, is banning them in those aspects. I know the definitions of ban and limit.

As for your music analogy. I see the point you were trying to make. I thought it was flimsy so I just let it go. The issue with loud music is different. It affects the lives of others in that it would lead to someone taking matters into their own hands. Could lead to tensions and arguements and fights. Being in an apartment next to someone who is blaring their music at 3am will likely lead to an altercation. Thus, the noise restriction laws. A person, skinny or fat, drinking a Big Gulp has no bearing on your day to day activities. Not in a way that would cause you to confront a person for drinking a Big Gulp. Apples and oranges.

You say we ALL pay for fat people. Because they drink soda? You say they don't pay for themselves? Really? Every single obese person in the country is without health insurance? ALL fat people are going to go to the free clinic? Or go to a Emergency Room and skip out on the bill? I didn't realize that ALL overweight and/or obese people were so financially strapped. My insurance premium is based on MY health and my medical background. My premium isn't based on the eating habits of my 400lb neighbor. There are just as many overweight people paying for their own healthcare as not.

No use of the word should? Maybe you should re-read your article about that.

Magical_felix wrote:


True on all counts.. But should eating healthy be so expensive? It shouldn't be that is idealism, which is nice but naive.. But it's that expensive cause the demand for healthy food is so low cause we can't make good choices.


No, I don't know if you're smarter than me. I have no idea, but it's irrelevant. My point there was that our discussing opposite sides of an issue doesn't mean that either of us is smarter than the other. Also it is possible for a person of higher intellect to be wrong about something while the lesser intelligent person is right. Yes, many of our laws are government intrusions. Some are necessary, others are not. Smoking bans are wrong in my opinion. I don't know of any spanking bans/laws. Are we any less free? Hell yes! If the government continually added $1 more to the toll, you would become poor. Sorry to tell you, i don't feel dumber than you.

Magical_felix wrote:




I understand why you are up in arms about this LM. But I think if it was an outright banning of soda I'd be more in your side. But this is just a reminder. I doubt this shit will even be seriously enforced. I think it's more to get people to think before they order. If not for their own health but for the people that care about them and have to take care of them when they get too fat to take care of themselves. It's not just themselves that really obese people affect.


When and why would anyone make a law and then not enforce it. Then there's no point. You do realize that non too-fat-to-take-care-of-themselves people drink soda too, right? How does an obese person affect me? Not at all.

Magical_felix wrote:


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.


This comment is as nonsensical as when some far right Conservative says something like, "The socialist agenda lovers who enjoy big government and government healtcare should just move to Canada. Or Noth Korea, those fools would love to be told how to live." Society does need shepherds, but not overlords.

On the topic of Junk Food Tax, you wrote:

Magical_felix wrote:
Some of these notions in the US are getting ridiculous.



Not ok with Junk food tax, but ok with the notion of banning (I know you hate that term) or limiting size portions on junk food?

Magical_felix wrote:



Magical_felix opinion: When people begin to affect the lives of other people in a negative way through their actions, then something has to be done.



Affecting the lives of other people in a negative way? Talk about a slippery slope. If we legislate that, then every person in America will be arrested or fined every single day for something. I can smell smoke on the clothing of the person next to me in line at the grocery store. That affects my life negatively. Citizen's Arrest Citizen's Arrest! As touchy and easily offended as people are, do we really want to open this can of worms? Because you know people, we like to push shit to the extreme.

Magical_felix wrote:



Lafayettemister opinion: Eating and drinking to the point that people become burdens on society is perfectly okay because it's their freedumb.


Burden to society? Now that's the measuring stick? I guess all those old people that are living in nursing homes that are costing us billions of dollars and burdening to society, should just be put down too? And all of those pesky mentally impaired people living in government run mental hospitals. They are a burden to us and don't contribute anything at all, they should be humanely, for the sake of society, euthanized. You may call it "freedumb" if you like. FreeDOM doesn't come with an IQ test. Dumbasses get the same rights and priviledges as Einsteins. It is a person's freedom to eat and drink as much as they like.

Again, I stand by my statement. I think that the NYC ban/limit on soda size is stupid. It's discriminatory. It will have little or no affect on the city's obesity rate. It's moronic in the fact that it doesn't restrict refills. You are free to disagree with that. That is your right.







When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2012 12:14:57 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 538
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
Maybe all people who are burdensome in some way should be banned or eliminated and a monthly dictate from the government established so we all know what we can and can't do. You boys better practice your goose step marching.
Jack_42
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2012 12:51:54 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 978
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
"Everybody freeze this is a raid! OK Luciano put down that double scotch and soda and put your hands against the wall."

"Whadya mean cop I ain't dun nuthin'."

"Oh yeagh! Lemme test that hooch. Just as I suspected pure Coca Cola not even 1 cal. We're closing this joint its a speakeasy soda spot."
Tank134
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2012 1:09:42 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 6/7/2012
Posts: 46
Location: United Kingdom
well that will go well. New York runs on caffeine.
lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, June 23, 2012 7:45:12 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,341
Location: Alabama, United States
The discrimination and war on the obese continues. Man possibly loses custody of his children because he's overweight.

"He was short of breath or winded in simply walking short distances about the clinic and he lacks both the mobility and stamina required to keep up with young and active children."





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Magical_felix
Posted: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:23:43 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,524
Location: California
Lafayettemister wrote:
The word "ban" is being used by all of the news outlets. NBC, ABC, Reuters, Huffington Post. I'm just using the same word. NYC is limiting choice by BANNING large size drinks. It's the same thing as the smoking ban. Smoking isn't being banned entirely, just where and when a person may smoke. It's a ban on where. Yet, I don't see you or anyone else saying that the smoking "ban" isn't a ban. Prohibiting smoking in certain place or prohibiting large size drinks in part, is banning them in those aspects. I know the definitions of ban and limit.

As for your music analogy. I see the point you were trying to make. I thought it was flimsy so I just let it go. The issue with loud music is different. It affects the lives of others in that it would lead to someone taking matters into their own hands. Could lead to tensions and arguements and fights. Being in an apartment next to someone who is blaring their music at 3am will likely lead to an altercation. Thus, the noise restriction laws. A person, skinny or fat, drinking a Big Gulp has no bearing on your day to day activities. Not in a way that would cause you to confront a person for drinking a Big Gulp. Apples and oranges.

You say we ALL pay for fat people. Because they drink soda? You say they don't pay for themselves? Really? Every single obese person in the country is without health insurance? ALL fat people are going to go to the free clinic? Or go to a Emergency Room and skip out on the bill? I didn't realize that ALL overweight and/or obese people were so financially strapped. My insurance premium is based on MY health and my medical background. My premium isn't based on the eating habits of my 400lb neighbor. There are just as many overweight people paying for their own healthcare as not.

No use of the word should? Maybe you should re-read your article about that.


The media purposely creates headlines in an alarming fashion. You know this, everyone does. The way you post a headline with something sensational like "NY to ban popcorn or soda" is deliberately misleading. Its like you act dull on purpose because hey, if you can't win a debate by making good points maybe you can just dumb it down enough that the person you're debating gets annoyed and stops. That can be an effective debate technique I suppose.

Jesus... This second part I bolded here... This is such an asinine thing to say. So by your logic nothing should be done about a problem until 100% of the people in question are part of the problem? So because part of the obese population pays for their own bills it makes it okay for the rest of them to get more than their share of healthcare money? You did a lot of quoting in this reply... You fail to quote and explain the parts like where I ask about how you contradict yourself when you said that fat people ARE a drain on healthcare but then you are adamant that fat people don't affect everyone else. You're logic is a joke really, sorry to say.

Quote:
No, I don't know if you're smarter than me. I have no idea, but it's irrelevant. My point there was that our discussing opposite sides of an issue doesn't mean that either of us is smarter than the other. Also it is possible for a person of higher intellect to be wrong about something while the lesser intelligent person is right. Yes, many of our laws are government intrusions. Some are necessary, others are not. Smoking bans are wrong in my opinion. I don't know of any spanking bans/laws. Are we any less free? Hell yes! If the government continually added $1 more to the toll, you would become poor. Sorry to tell you, i don't feel dumber than you.


You don't know of a lot of stuff, I am realizing. The dumb, like the crazy, don't always realize they are. Just saying... The whole ignorance is bliss thing.

So you think you are making a point by saying that the government will increase our tolls so much that it is possible that we may become poor from it? This is what I mean about saying stupid things. You fail to see every point that everyone makes and you repeat the same stupid shit over again sometimes contradicting yourself and always ignoring statements that make your points irrelevant.

When you say some laws are necessary, some are not.. That is true on a person by person basis. You don't need to have a law saying you can't murder for people like me because I am not a murderer... You don't need to have a law that bans smoking in restaurants for people that don't smoke cause it doesn't apply to them... etc. Of course not all laws are necessary for everyone, but thats the way things are... You can't make special laws for part of the population. If there is a certain part of the population that fucks up then there is a law made to attempt to fix this and we all may suffer for it. Kinda like when a teacher takes away the first ten minutes of recess for the whole class cause the class was being rowdy. Not EVERY kid was being rowdy, most likely, but EVERY kid gets penalized. Laws are kinda like that.

"True on all counts.. But should eating healthy be so expensive? It shouldn't be that is idealism, which is nice but naive.. But it's that expensive cause the demand for healthy food is so low cause we can't make good choices." -MF

What you said in this part is a response to this above quote, by the way... I just don't see the connection between me saying that healthy food is more expensive because the demand for it is lower and you feeling dumber than me. I really don't... Baffling.

Quote:
When and why would anyone make a law and then not enforce it. Then there's no point. You do realize that non too-fat-to-take-care-of-themselves people drink soda too, right? How does an obese person affect me? Not at all.


LOL I don't know... Ask the government. It's illegal to jaywalk right? How come you don't get tickets for it, even right in front of a cop. You know damn well that you can jaywalk all over town and the odds of you getting a ticket are low... Really damn low. Please think before saying things. It's illegal to be in this country without proper documentations and the government turns a blind eye. It's illegal to smoke pot but cops don't do shit about that either. You ever been to a concert? LOL Its called a deterrent. If you tell people something is illegal or against the rules most of them will obey wether it's enforced or not.

Yeah, I do realize that. Do you realize that they drink it in moderation? LOL

Have you read the thread? LOL

Quote:
This comment is as nonsensical as when some far right Conservative says something like, "The socialist agenda lovers who enjoy big government and government healtcare should just move to Canada. Or Noth Korea, those fools would love to be told how to live." Society does need shepherds, but not overlords.


I will refrain from using satire in the future... Obviously, LOL

I was talking about places where they don't have all of our little annoying laws like in the United States (like liberia or mexico). Our laws are one of the reasons we are a great nation. Our "freedom' is an illusion. How can a country with as many laws as the US be "free"? calling the USA the "land of the free" is a misnomer. Truly free places with no laws suck ass... I made the point using satire. I was mimicking the way conservatives say shit like that. So I guess you picked up on that but once again you failed on the actual processing of the information you receive.

Quote:
Not ok with Junk food tax, but ok with the notion of banning (I know you hate that term) or limiting size portions on junk food?


This was in response to this "Some of these notions in the US are getting ridiculous." -MF

LOL I suspect that I must have said this in some other thread. You really worked on this post huh? I am sure this is taken way out of context because everyone knows I have diarrhea of the mouth and I doubt that is all I said on the subject. I mean you can quote me saying that and say I said it about anything.

And I don't hate the term banning.. You were using the term in an alarmist fashion in a debate. It's deliberate misinformation, something conservatives love so I suppose I am not surprised. That is what I was pointing out.. You fail to see a point, once again.

Quote:
Affecting the lives of other people in a negative way? Talk about a slippery slope. If we legislate that, then every person in America will be arrested or fined every single day for something. I can smell smoke on the clothing of the person next to me in line at the grocery store. That affects my life negatively. Citizen's Arrest Citizen's Arrest! As touchy and easily offended as people are, do we really want to open this can of worms? Because you know people, we like to push shit to the extreme.


Me saying that something affects the lives of another is a slippery slope? confused1 Or do you mean legislation to protect american citizens is a slippery slope?

Really?

laughing8

(I said affects NEGATIVELY, by the way, more misinformation from you. Does being cheap, like deliberately misquoting me, make you feel clever?)

And yes, people like to push things to the extreme like 64 ounce mountain dews... That's why laws like this need to be created. DUH!

Quote:
Burden to society? Now that's the measuring stick? I guess all those old people that are living in nursing homes that are costing us billions of dollars and burdening to society, should just be put down too? And all of those pesky mentally impaired people living in government run mental hospitals. They are a burden to us and don't contribute anything at all, they should be humanely, for the sake of society, euthanized. You may call it "freedumb" if you like. FreeDOM doesn't come with an IQ test. Dumbasses get the same rights and priviledges as Einsteins. It is a person's freedom to eat and drink as much as they like.

Again, I stand by my statement. I think that the NYC ban/limit on soda size is stupid. It's discriminatory. It will have little or no affect on the city's obesity rate. It's moronic in the fact that it doesn't restrict refills. You are free to disagree with that. That is your right.


Getting old is inevitable and not within a person's power to control... Being fat is. people are old and a burden only when they are old... A person can be grossly overweight at 18, 30, 40 etc... Analogy can be tricky, as my music analogy can be picked apart yet the point of it was that we need little laws like not playing loud music to have a better society, that was the point. I was comparing a little law like that to this little law because the purpose is to better society yet you focused on "hmmmm music I can't eat or drink........ so it can't be the same.. jack's not tricking me this time!" You should learn what a slippery slope is before you attempt to tackle analogies in a debate. Analogies are more advanced than basics like slippery slopes. I think I learned slippery slopes in public school, like in 6th grade...

Quote:
It's moronic in the fact that it doesn't restrict refills


Oh and you can't get refills if the drink is to go, Einstein. Or was your point that no one, not even the government should try to help fat people be less fat cause they will find a way to be fat no matter what? That is the conclusion that makes the most sense from that statement. "Well if they get a smaller cup they can just stand by the machine and keep sucking it down." Sad really, you can't even help them help themselves.

Quote:
FreeDOM doesn't come with an IQ test


Dude... The conservatives should use that! It's catchy. I can see Rush Limbaugh signing off with a quote like that. laughing8




lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, June 23, 2012 9:53:28 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,341
Location: Alabama, United States
Yes, media does create headlines in an alarming fashion. Thanks for the scoop. However in this case I don't think it's misleading. I'm not part of the media. I'm just a regular guy. Maybe my headlines are eye catching but not alarming. They are intended to be so as to open dialogue.

The second part you bolded was in reference to you saying ALL. Hyperbole is the best thing ever! All is wrong. It's made up. Not ALL people can't pay for their health. I was pointing out that you are wrong in the use of the word ALL. I never said nothing should be done about a problem nor nothing should be done until 100%... I just don't think that government law banning the size of Mr Pibb is the way to go. When I say people don't affect everyone else, I'm not speaking completely in financial terms. My daily life isn't affected by anyone because they're overweight.

I don't know a lot of stuff. Ok, what's your point. There are many things I don't know, I'm a work in progress. I try to learn everyday. It must be grueling to know everything and have to point out the fallacies and ignorance of everyone around you. How DID you become a jack-of-all- trades? In this case however, it is you that fails to see the point. And again you're right, ignorance is bliss.

This law is unnecessary. It doesn't raise to the same problem as murder. Not even to smoking. Being overweight isn't a crime, nor is it hazardous to the health of an innocent bystander.

My reply to your comment on why eating healthy should be so expensive... yea you missed the point. In the same post where you tell me that I need to learn how to make an argument without using the word "should", you used "should".

I'd be willing to bet that when jaywalking laws were made, the intent at the time was to enforce it. Times changed and the law became less a priority. Immigration and drug laws are often ignored. But they are enforced to a degree.

That was satire? Yea, ok. I think that's a bit revisionist.

On this we agree, total diarrhea of the mouth.

I'm not using it in an alarming fashion. You may perceive it that way. Your perceptions have nothing to do with my reality. You keep mentioning conservatives. What's that got to do with me? On most social issues I'm decidedly NOT conservative. Maybe that's just the typical liberal approach of killing the messenger.

You know what I meant. Our officials can't legislate on the basis of somethng affects the lives of others in a negative way. Who gets to decide what's negative? Just like conservatives being all up in arms over Janet Jackson's titty flash. Those kooks thought it affected their lives negatively. That concept is way to broad and open to partiality to whomever is running things at the time. And despite your objections, some dude drinking a Big Gulp is in no way a danger to you. You need no protection from him. None.

For many people, obesity is out of their control. Yes, there are lots of lazy people out there that could lose a shitload of weight. But many will always be overweight no matter what they do. It's hereditary. Ah yes, my lack of debating skills as you see them. This has been a recurrent theme. If we were in a conference room with a moderator and each had a turn at the podium, that would be one thing. Here people discuss their opinions. I understand you think you have a greater grasp on how to properly debate. You seem eager to disagree with any analogy I make, which has less to do with me and more to do with yourself. Sadly, I think often it is you that fails to grasp the concept of what I say quite frequently. In a rush to prove yourself right, you gloss over the true meaning of what I've said.

So what? No refills for to go orders. There are plenty delis where people sit in to eat right? The government isn't trying to "help the fat people be less fat". A law isn't helping. Helping would be entirely different. Tax breaks for gym membership. That would be helping. Yea, you say fat people won't excercise. Give them some incentive and they may. A fat person may join a gym just for the tax break. Then over time, after spending his monthly fee he might actually decide to go and get his money's worth. This isn't going to help. Time will tell.

Rush who?

It's really ok, dude. When it comes to me, you're a contrarian. Mary Mary quite contrary.... Here's the thing. I find most of your arguments to be less about proving a point or furthering an ideal than they are about you proving how smart you are. The "debate" has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Rather it's about you flexing your own perceived intellectual muscle. It's really nothing more than a rooster strutting around the hen yard. You want to be the Cock Of The Walk. You don't care about the topic, you jsut like to beat people to submission with your aggression. Your gruff words and veiled personal attacks are a way for you to try to intimidate your opponent so that he'll get annoyed or offended and stop. That can be an effective debate technique I suppose. You can assign whatever tags you wish to me, your perceptions are yours. They aren't mine and you can't define my reality.

I'm sure you'll make up some contradictory points to everything I said above. And I'm sure you'll have some witty and scathing retort. But, I'm not going to sink to your level. Have a wonderful weekend, Felix.

edit.. and yes, those are my perceptions of you. before you point it out for me.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Magical_felix
Posted: Sunday, June 24, 2012 8:17:43 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,524
Location: California
lafayettemister wrote:
1. Yes, media does create headlines in an alarming fashion. Thanks for the scoop. However in this case I don't think it's misleading. I'm not part of the media. I'm just a regular guy. Maybe my headlines are eye catching but not alarming. They are intended to be so as to open dialogue.

2. The second part you bolded was in reference to you saying ALL. Hyperbole is the best thing ever! All is wrong. It's made up. Not ALL people can't pay for their health. I was pointing out that you are wrong in the use of the word ALL. I never said nothing should be done about a problem nor nothing should be done until 100%... I just don't think that government law banning the size of Mr Pibb is the way to go. 3. When I say people don't affect everyone else, I'm not speaking completely in financial terms. My daily life isn't affected by anyone because they're overweight.

I don't know a lot of stuff. Ok, what's your point. There are many things I don't know, 4. I'm a work in progress. I try to learn everyday. 5. It must be grueling to know everything and have to point out the fallacies and ignorance of everyone around you. How DID you become a jack-of-all- trades? In this case however, it is you that fails to see the point. And again you're right, ignorance is bliss.

6. This law is unnecessary. It doesn't raise to the same problem as murder. Not even to smoking. Being overweight isn't a crime, nor is it hazardous to the health of an innocent bystander.

7. My reply to your comment on why eating healthy should be so expensive... yea you missed the point. In the same post where you tell me that I need to learn how to make an argument without using the word "should", you used "should".

I'd be willing to bet that when jaywalking laws were made, the intent at the time was to enforce it. Times changed and the law became less a priority. Immigration and drug laws are often ignored. But they are enforced to a degree.

8. That was satire? Yea, ok. I think that's a bit revisionist.

On this we agree, total diarrhea of the mouth.

I'm not using it in an alarming fashion. You may perceive it that way. Your perceptions have nothing to do with my reality. You keep mentioning conservatives. What's that got to do with me? On most social issues I'm decidedly NOT conservative. 9. Maybe that's just the typical liberal approach of killing the messenger.

You know what I meant. Our officials can't legislate on the basis of somethng affects the lives of others in a negative way. Who gets to decide what's negative? Just like conservatives being all up in arms over Janet Jackson's titty flash. Those kooks thought it affected their lives negatively. That concept is way to broad and open to partiality to whomever is running things at the time. And despite your objections, some dude drinking a Big Gulp is in no way a danger to you. You need no protection from him. None.

For many people, obesity is out of their control. Yes, there are lots of lazy people out there that could lose a shitload of weight. But many will always be overweight no matter what they do. It's hereditary. Ah yes, my lack of debating skills as you see them. This has been a recurrent theme. If we were in a conference room with a moderator and each had a turn at the podium, that would be one thing. Here people discuss their opinions. I understand you think you have a greater grasp on how to properly debate. You seem eager to disagree with any analogy I make, which has less to do with me and more to do with yourself. Sadly, I think often it is you that fails to grasp the concept of what I say quite frequently. In a rush to prove yourself right, you gloss over the true meaning of what I've said.

So what? No refills for to go orders. There are plenty delis where people sit in to eat right? The government isn't trying to "help the fat people be less fat". A law isn't helping. Helping would be entirely different. Tax breaks for gym membership. That would be helping. Yea, you say fat people won't excercise. Give them some incentive and they may. A fat person may join a gym just for the tax break. Then over time, after spending his monthly fee he might actually decide to go and get his money's worth. This isn't going to help. Time will tell.

Rush who?

It's really ok, dude. When it comes to me, you're a contrarian. Mary Mary quite contrary.... Here's the thing. I find most of your arguments to be less about proving a point or furthering an ideal than they are about you proving how smart you are. The "debate" has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Rather it's about you flexing your own perceived intellectual muscle. It's really nothing more than a rooster strutting around the hen yard. You want to be the Cock Of The Walk. You don't care about the topic, you jsut like to beat people to submission with your aggression. Your gruff words and veiled personal attacks are a way for you to try to intimidate your opponent so that he'll get annoyed or offended and stop. That can be an effective debate technique I suppose. You can assign whatever tags you wish to me, your perceptions are yours. They aren't mine and you can't define my reality.

10. I'm sure you'll make up some contradictory points to everything I said above. And I'm sure you'll have some witty and scathing retort. But, I'm not going to sink to your level. Have a wonderful weekend, Felix.

edit.. and yes, those are my perceptions of you. before you point it out for me.


1. I was talking about how posting the links to them during the discussion is misleading cause most people are reading the headlines and probably not some whole long article. They just see the links. I'm not talking YOUR headlines. haha

2. We don't ALL pay taxes? How is it hyperbole in this instance?

3. I think you are not capable of seeing the forest through the trees on the ways it does affect people. Maybe you dont realize the ways cause your lifestyle is closer to that of an overweight person's I am assuming. So you wouldn't realize because your wants and needs are closer to theirs. It's a fucking pain in the ass when 95% of the food is really bad for you unless you make it at home. Not everyone has the time to cook meals at home all the time. Especially if you're not married and run a business. The food situation when dining out is this way in America cause most people are overweight - but that's not the bad part - the bad part is that most DONT CARE cause its their right or whatever other bullshit they say. So what happens is that society starts evolving to cater to to them because the are the majority and people need to make money. You can see that in the difference of the soda sizes from fast food places from 30-40 years ago until now. The smalls are the size of what the larges were back then. This is how it affects everyone. We are fatter now than we were then and the future generations will be even fatter if there arn't at least baby steps like this law taken to try and and curb this unhealthy path.

4. Boo hoo! I like that quote too.

5. Thats not the first time I have been called a know-it-all by a know-nothing. It's not a bad thing for people to think you know a lot of shit. I'm talking real life now. And I am not a jack of all tries. I just do everything well. They way I got like that is through retaining information, working hard and having common sense. You say I fail to see your point? I did see your point. You love sugar... (and also that fat people don't affect you) And the point of you being ignorant was proven very well too. When I say "fallacy" I mean fallacies in debate. It's the actual term used to describe things like "slippery slopes" and "appeals to tradition" in debates. I think you are thinking I'm just saying that to try and sound "fancy" but I'm not... It's the actual term. It is the think tank lafayette... If you want to try and hide behind an awe shucksy populist attitude and get butthurt then go post whatever news story you read in the pub where debate isn't encouraged like the think tank.

6. Okay I get it... Analogy is too complicated for you. Socrates said interesting stuff about analogies too... (I still find that funny... That's like me putting mother Theresa on my forum sig haha)

Quote:
Analogy (from Greek ἀναλογία, analogia, "proportion"[1][2]) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general. The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often, though not necessarily, a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.


Analogies arn't literal... I know that smoking and sugar water arn't the same things. The fact that you don't understand that is a bit... strange. Are you playing dumb? If you are it would make more sense. No one can be that thick as to think analogies are literal. Like you can only compare apples to apples, if that was the case then what is the point... wow. Its the meaning of the two thing being compared that is the point, not the physical properties of what is being compared unless you are specifically comparing a hand to a claw for example.

7. Reread what I said Lafayette. I used shouldn't then right after I used it I said that it was idealism. I said good food shouldn't be that expensive, but that thinking it "should't" be is idealism, I know its expensive because of supply and demand... again WOW. I point out how you make arguments like this. I say "well do you realize that fat young people will be going to the hospital way more than healthy young people and it ends up costing us all because we all pay taxes." ...Then your argument is "well those people SHOULD pay themselves!" LOL well that's not the case so saying something should be a certain way is retarded. Before you say war and sugary drinks arent the same... this is meant to illustrate a point... NOT that bullets and sugar are the same, socrates. How confident would you feel if the president of the US said in response to a new terrorism attack on the US said this.. "Well they shouldn't attack us. I dont know what to do about the problem but there should be peace in the world" Should has nothing to do with the way things ARE. Thats why debating by saying "well things shouldn't be the way they are" is just...nothing, lafayette.

8. I am not going to explain satire to you too... I am sure anyone that reads anything I write in here sees the satire in my posts. If you think that I was serious when I told people to move to Liberia then I hope a con artist never gets ahold of you.

9. There has to be a message, to kill a messanger.... What is your message? America is becoming big brother cause fat guys are being subtly told by the government to watch what they put in their mouths? (You are assuming I'm liberal so you're doing the same shit. I could be a republican that is embarrassed by the redneckery in my party for all you know.)

10. Of course you can't match wits with me.. I know that.










Magical_felix
Posted: Sunday, June 24, 2012 8:34:42 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,524
Location: California
Quote:
It's really ok, dude. When it comes to me, you're a contrarian. Mary Mary quite contrary.... Here's the thing. I find most of your arguments to be less about proving a point or furthering an ideal than they are about you proving how smart you are. The "debate" has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Rather it's about you flexing your own perceived intellectual muscle. It's really nothing more than a rooster strutting around the hen yard. You want to be the Cock Of The Walk. You don't care about the topic, you jsut like to beat people to submission with your aggression. Your gruff words and veiled personal attacks are a way for you to try to intimidate your opponent so that he'll get annoyed or offended and stop. That can be an effective debate technique I suppose. You can assign whatever tags you wish to me, your perceptions are yours. They aren't mine and you can't define my reality.


It seems I am a contrarian to you cause you're saying stuff I disagree with and many others as well, have you seen the thread?

Are you saying that when you debate in the think tank its cause youre doing it for a cause? Didn't you start a thread that is just about arguing random topics? What is the point of that thread besides flexing your mental muscle? That was you that started that thread right? Do you want me to link an article on hypocrisy too?

A rooster strutting around the hen yard. Interesting analogy. I would agree with that one. I AM like that. Want some eggs? My coop's got plenty.

You feel intimidated? On the internet?

My "opponents" get annoyed and stop? They stop? My debates are just me saying something and people stopping? Really?

You talk about I can't define your reality and look at what you wrote about. You are kidding right? Like you're pulling my leg? You do see how you have been more judging of me here? I have been saying that when you debate you cant just say "that shouldn't be" as a point or "that sounds flimsy" or something like that. Thats for mean nothing conversation like in the pub section. You were the one that first brought intelligence into question. Maybe I stirred some insecurities in you.

Anyway, I will use smaller words and avoid saying anything too complicated to you, although part of the point of analogies is to make things easier to understand. I have never had a complaint about mine. In fact I use them daily to explain things to people cause I work with some very uneducated folks. They get it. They get the concept of analogies I just realized.. Fuck, I never gave them credit for that before.. Hmmm maybe I should thank you for raising the appreciation I have for them.



lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, June 25, 2012 7:33:07 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,341
Location: Alabama, United States
So I'm to blame if someone reads only the headline and not the article? If you know of anyone that does that, take it up with them.

People don't have to care about it. Like it or not, that is their choice. And you're still focusing on the morbidly obese. There are people out there that are just a few pounds overweight. That do care and do what's needed to not get to Biggest Loser standards. Or even the healthy person that like to splurge on themselves once a week with a hot dog and a Coke. It's a damn shame about the people who don't care about their health That's none of the government's business.

Most people do care about their health. Do I love sugar? Mostly I drink water and unsweet tea (very unSouthern of me). I rarely eat dessert and I don't even like cake or most pies. On occassion I do enjoy a brownie or two. Do I love sugar, no. Am I dependant on it? Not even close. Now, offer me a bag of salty potato chips and I'll be a happy man.

Sarcasm. I don't really think you're a know-it-all. I think YOU think you are. By the way, I do everything well myself. I'm a pretty well rounded guy and have experienced a lot of things. Yes, I'm well aware of what you mean when you talk about fallacies. I'm not hiding behind anything. If I were hiding we wouldn't be having this discussion. Nor am I butthurt. Ignorant? If you want to see ignorant, look in the mirror. Your intolerance for anyone unlike you and your way of thinking is what makes you ignorant.

Thanks the the lesson. But I know what analogies are. Your analogy of music/sugar was silly. Yes, I know they aren't literal and are used for comparative value. Your analogy just didn't hold water. The meaning and interpretation as you applied it to this is invalid. Just because you say somethng is an analogy doesn't make it an analogy or a good analogy. You were taking one premise and making it analogous to another premise. In this case, is was false. Just because I disagree with your silly analogy doesn't mean I dont understand it. My 10 year old could have understood it. And he'd have thought it was dumb.

Again Felix, sarcasm. When I called you a Liberal it was to prove how silly it was when you called me a Conservative. I have no idea if you're a Liberal. That's the point I was making. You failed to see it. You only see the words on the screen, yet fail to even attempt to comprehend their meaning. Wow, I thought you'd have picked up on that one. It was pretty obvious. Next time I'll dumb down my responses for you.

Match wits with you? You're unarmed in that regard. You'll never be as great as you are in your own mind. I'm definitely NOT intimidated by you. I was speaking in general terms. Not about myself.

Yes, I've said things like "that's flimsy". I have to leave it at that because whatever explanation of why something is flimsy goes right over your head. You're out of your depth boy.

No, you've been more judging of me. I just put all of my judgements in one paragraph. And yes, I see the irony of what I said in that paragraph. Pretty much all I've said was to get the exact reaction you've given. It's like I'm pulling you around on a string. Nearly every word of my comments is made to pull a response from you. And you always take the bait. Without fail. I hate to tell you, but you're the biggest Drama Queen on Lush. By FAR.

On this debate, I'm done playing cat to your mouse. LM out!





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Magical_felix
Posted: Monday, June 25, 2012 8:56:53 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,524
Location: California
You have purposely designed everything you have said to lead me along like a cat toying with a mouse? SO your saying all the stupid shit you say is designed to get a reaction? Haven't you stated before that what you post isn't directed at me and that you are done with discussions? That was all masterminded? You masterminded a disagreement by saying butthurt stuff after saying dumb stuff? That is what you are saying? That is really impressive. So your whole plan was to not understand analogies, cause you still don't, so that anyone reading what you say would see how thick you are and not bother responding except me cause you knew I would see how thick you were being and it would be fun to point it out for me? You must be studying me pretty well. Is that how all the threads where I have quoted you and picked you apart, including the ones where you have apologized for saying stupid things, have been? Were they all masterminded? Or are you just saying this now? Cause if I read back, it doesn't seem like you masterminded anything...

When I hurt your feelings about how you don't know certain things about how to properly debate, cause its the think tank, and you went on to attack me personally, is that when the mastermind started? I love master plans and such, really I do. Just curious, like how at the end of james bond movies the master plan is revealed. You should tell us, I think it would be interesting to know how you orchestrated it.

You do everything well? I know a couple things you aren't doing... laughing8

I never said I was a know it all, I seem that way to you.

You didn't know what fallacies are, thats obvious... Unless you're saying you started a thread full of them, with the knowledge I knew what they were, to get me to teach you and then you turning around and saying it was all planned? Are you trying to say you planned all of that? Was it just this thread or is the dumb stuff you say in other threads part of the con too? Or was that dumb stuff in other threads a master plan to expose someone else by saying dumb things?

Lafayette the con man! look out lush!

When you say you are done debating me then come back again and again, that's YOU toying with ME? Like you want to be done but I say something to rope you back in but youre toying with me? That is what you are saying? Maybe I am not understanding your analogy... "I is a human, yous is a human, cats and mouses is animals, apples and oranges!" <-- who do I sound like?

You're done playing cat to my mouse? Usually when a cat is toying with a mouse, it's the mouse that runs away... Not the cat.

Think about this... You're the one explaining the ways you don't like sugar... But you're toying with me? happy8










Buz
Posted: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:32:42 AM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,145
Location: Atlanta, United States
Our country is stupid to pay for people who get ridiculously fat and obese. That is their problem, their own making. No one else should be required to pay for that. If they can't afford medical treatment it is their own fault.

Why not let Darwinism play out? Survival of the fittest!

People should be responsible for themselves. And the corrupt fat controlling fascist government downsized to the bare minimum.

If someone wants to show charity, let them do so with their own money and their own time and kindness. Only then can you now the true quality depth of one's soul.

Maybe I am evolving into an anarchist.

I have written a new poem. It is called 'Long Twisty Woman.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/erotic-poems/long-twisty-woman.aspxx
Also, if you wish, check out my co-authored a story with the wonderful DanielleX. It is called 'Focus on Sex.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/quickie-sex/focused-on-sex-1.aspx

DirtyMartini
Posted: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:43:11 AM

Rank: Purveyor of Poetry & Porn

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 5,718
Location: Right here on Lush Stories...
Sugary Sprite wrote:
i'm working on banning meat. i just need another 2 millions signatures. anyone want to help?


I'm working on banning Sprite here on Lush...just need another 127,000 signatures...

Oh wait, Sprite is a sugary drink...are you over 16 ounces?


You know you want it, you know you need it bad...get it now on Amazon.com...
Lush Erotica, an Anthology of Award Winning Sex Stories

bat
Posted: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:54:59 AM

Rank: Bat out of Hell

Joined: 3/18/2012
Posts: 2,106
Location: Teleporting anywhere I would like
That's ok cuz I'm sweet enough....






Infinite Love IS the Only Truth...Everything else IS Illusion!



http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/my-own-slow-ride.aspx

LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:13:13 AM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,655
Location: United States
Buz wrote:
Our country is stupid to pay for people who get ridiculously fat and obese. That is their problem, their own making. No one else should be required to pay for that. If they can't afford medical treatment it is their own fault.

Why not let Darwinism play out? Survival of the fittest!

People should be responsible for themselves. And the corrupt fat controlling fascist government downsized to the bare minimum.

If someone wants to show charity, let them do so with their own money and their own time and kindness. Only then can you now the true quality depth of one's soul.

Maybe I am evolving into an anarchist.


What's the difference between anarchy and libertarianism?
DirtyMartini
Posted: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:27:28 AM

Rank: Purveyor of Poetry & Porn

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 5,718
Location: Right here on Lush Stories...
LadyX wrote:
So, in the end, what freedom are we losing here? The freedom to drink 64-oz gutbusters of grape soda in a single sitting?


You do have a way of cutting to the chase there Miss Xuani...

Though I do have to admit I'm kinda disappointed I'll no longer be able to go to a New York movie theater and sit there with a gallon of grape soda on my lap...

I guess I'll get over it...dontknow


You know you want it, you know you need it bad...get it now on Amazon.com...
Lush Erotica, an Anthology of Award Winning Sex Stories

BigShyPussyKins
Posted: Friday, June 29, 2012 12:31:41 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/26/2012
Posts: 111
Location: United Kingdom
Two things spring to mind when I read this

1) being diabetic I don't drink sugary drinks if I can help it. I stick to diet free and have had to limit my intake of alcohol, spirits in particular - I see this as a good thing, but also it is up to the individual to choose if they want a sugary drink or not as well surely. Can't see banning them is going to do any goods.

The second thing

2) drink sizes in the US are way bigger than the Uk. In some cases a UK small is like a large in the US! Maybe a better thing would be to readjust the size of the drinks so that people are not intaking too much sugar.
tazznjazz
Posted: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:54:10 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States

A bloomberg shake.
Guest
Posted: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:11:43 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,082
blazestcyr
Posted: Monday, July 23, 2012 11:30:53 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/19/2011
Posts: 737
Location: where bugs die
i think a ban on talking so freaking loud on your cell phone would be better..i so dont care wtf you or your dog are doing today.

i don't do sugar in my drinks though, not for weight..just hate the sweet in the drink

however..i HAVE the dam right to partake in anything i choose period..as long as it is not illegal

last time i checked sugar was not illegal

sets a wicked prescident for a state to do..that (yes i spelled that word badly sorry)
Bloke
Posted: Monday, July 23, 2012 11:43:28 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/18/2012
Posts: 36
PROHIBITION ! ! ! ! ha ha ha ha
lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2012 7:54:30 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,341
Location: Alabama, United States
Now NYC mayor Bloomberg has a new directive for hospitals to lock up and restrict baby forumla from new mothers. New mothers won't be denied formula but hospitals will be "keeping track". New moms can get formula but not until they've received a "talking to" about the benefits of breastfeeding.

My reply here is not ANTI breastfeeding. Our first kid was breastfed and it was a wonderful thing. Our second kid could rarely latch on and my wife couldn't produce enough milk to sustain her when the kid could latch on. Formula was pretty much necessary. I'm not a prude and I'm not offended by a woman nursing... in private or in public. I jsut don't think that a politician has any business dictating a patients personal choices at such an important and vulnerable time.







When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2012 1:01:11 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,655
Location: United States
That's a little weird. On principle, I have to say that I agree that breastfeeding should be encouraged to all new mothers. Nothing compares to breastmilk for your child; it's the food custom-made for your baby. I can only speak for my one experience, but they did a very good job of not only encouraging it (I was going to breastfeed anyway), but also providing support and tips for doing it effectively. If it's handled that way, then I have no issue with it. The problem is that many, especially in the big public hospitals, won't nurture it the same way, and browbeating women, making them insist on using formula...well, that sucks.

lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2012 1:13:58 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,341
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:
That's a little weird. On principle, I have to say that I agree that breastfeeding should be encouraged to all new mothers. Nothing compares to breastmilk for your child; it's the food custom-made for your baby. I can only speak for my one experience, but they did a very good job of not only encouraging it (I was going to breastfeed anyway), but also providing support and tips for doing it effectively. If it's handled that way, then I have no issue with it. The problem is that many, especially in the big public hospitals, won't nurture it the same way, and browbeating women, making them insist on using formula...well, that sucks.



Breast milk is the very best thing for a baby. Especially a newborn. However, it is a woman's choice to breastfeed or not. She has her reasons for her decision. Browbeating someone who does want formula is uncalled for. Or making her feel like less than good mother for choosing formula over breastmilk. Encouraging nursing is fine and good. But locking up the formula and "keeping track" of it seems draconian. What happens if one hospital uses more formula than another? Will it lose funding? What's the point of keeping track of it?





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2012 1:30:49 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,655
Location: United States
Ya, not sure what the point of keeping track of it is, but I also have no idea why that detail matters. I assumed hospitals tracked formula use in the first place, just like they track everything else.
lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2012 1:39:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,341
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:
Ya, not sure what the point of keeping track of it is, but I also have no idea why that detail matters. I assumed hospitals tracked formula use in the first place, just like they track everything else.


I'm sure they do keep track for inventory and profit/loss reasons. They keep count and turn it in to the accoutants. There's no governmental requirement to report to the govenor. But if the government now wants to know the numbers and details for some other reason I'd be worried. If it's locked up, will a prescription need to be filled to access it? Bloomberg seems to want to have too much input on what legal products New Yorkers ingest. Just my 2 cents.





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.