Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

New York Is Banning Soda?

SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 5:32:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Have you seen this foolishness?
http://reason.com...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 7:21:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fvck him.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 11:59:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just one of the infinite conflicts of interest we have in our law-rich capitalist society.

1) Humans are easily addicted to sweets.
2) Businesses take advantage of this for profit.
3) Profits must be increased because of the need for "growth," so they make even worse addicts out of us, creating a vicious cycle of profiting at our expense while our health suffers.
4) Regulations are levied to fix the conflict of interest. Capitalism demands socialistic intervention.

When I was growing up in the 80s, soft-drinks did not look like they do now. A bottle was 16 oz, not 20 oz, and most people drank cans anyway (before plastic was used bottles were only 12 oz just like cans). What we normally consider "medium" nowadays at fast-food (20-22 oz) was the "large" size. McDonald's had yet to pioneer the "extra-value-meal" which prompted us to consume the trifecta of soda/fries/sandwich (although the Happy-Meal was the precursor to this I suppose). Companies like Hardees are pushing even farther with this, eliminating any size smaller than 20/22oz from their menu and pushing you to go even larger with your order. I had a particularly interesting experience one night at Hardees about 4 years ago or so, where I was in the drive-thru after the bar and the woman handed me this gargantuan drink and I asked why she had upsized my order without me asking her to. She replied that after a certain time (10pm I think) they automatically go-large on your order (I ran home and complained to the DDO community afterwards LOL and I'm sure Ragnar shot me down somehow but I digress). So not only are they pushing us into larger sizes, they are using the fact that most of us are drunk after a certain hour to upsize us even more! If it were the 80s and I was handed a 32-ounce bladder-buster beverage without mentioning anything about wanting something huge to drink, it would be culture-shock. But it isn't anymore because our culture is changing. Doesn't it make you the least bit angry that corporations are modifying our culture to suit their needs for more profit? The fact that this change is completely negative only makes it worse...
Rob
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 2:46:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
3) Profits must be increased because of the need for "growth," so they make even worse addicts out of us
By what magic?

When I was growing up in the 80s, soft-drinks did not look like they do now. A bottle was 16 oz, not 20 oz, and most people drank cans anyway (before plastic was used bottles were only 12 oz just like cans). What we normally consider "medium" nowadays at fast-food (20-22 oz) was the "large" size
Because people get used to luxury and thus define a new standard of luxury. Nothing about the nebulous businessmen taking initiative, just human demand.

She replied that after a certain time (10pm I think) they automatically go-large on your order (I ran home and complained to the DDO community afterwards LOL and I'm sure Ragnar shot me down somehow
First I remember of hearing of this.

If something is more filling than I expect, and I want that, I go back more often. If a portion is too large to be worth my estimate of its effect on health, I eat it less often (indeed, I don't get to go out to eat much-- hence I like a large portion, it constitutes an actual treat to make up for the wait). If this practice is successful, it's successful in generating people who are surprised at the good deal and remember to go back again because they estimate it to be worth any health effects.
Curious though, what was the wording of your order?

So not only are they pushing us into larger sizes, they are using the fact that most of us are drunk after a certain hour
I'm pretty sure on any given night "most people" aren't drunk.

"Doesn't it make you the least bit angry that corporations are modifying our culture to suit their needs for more profit?"
Our? To whom does the "Our" refer to? Corporations consist of people, the only way for people not to "modify culture" (that is, take action, since all action affects this nebulous "culture" non-concept that for some reason you are referring to possessively) for profit is for them to not profit-- i.e. for those people to die. Your anger is malicious.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 4:21:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I wish I could ban soda from my house. That stuff is poison. Sweet, sweet poison.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:56:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
As if Bloomberg's retarded law is actually preventing anything. There's just no way of circumventing this law!
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 2:58:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 2:46:03 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
3) Profits must be increased because of the need for "growth," so they make even worse addicts out of us
By what magic?

Clever manipulation

When I was growing up in the 80s, soft-drinks did not look like they do now. A bottle was 16 oz, not 20 oz, and most people drank cans anyway (before plastic was used bottles were only 12 oz just like cans). What we normally consider "medium" nowadays at fast-food (20-22 oz) was the "large" size
Because people get used to luxury and thus define a new standard of luxury. Nothing about the nebulous businessmen taking initiative, just human demand.

Human demand is not flawless.

She replied that after a certain time (10pm I think) they automatically go-large on your order (I ran home and complained to the DDO community afterwards LOL and I'm sure Ragnar shot me down somehow
First I remember of hearing of this.

It was a long time ago and I was just guessing...

If something is more filling than I expect, and I want that, I go back more often. If a portion is too large to be worth my estimate of its effect on health, I eat it less often (indeed, I don't get to go out to eat much-- hence I like a large portion, it constitutes an actual treat to make up for the wait). If this practice is successful, it's successful in generating people who are surprised at the good deal and remember to go back again because they estimate it to be worth any health effects.
Curious though, what was the wording of your order?

I just said "gimme a #5..." and like I said she freely admitted that they automatically up-size it after the late hour.

So not only are they pushing us into larger sizes, they are using the fact that most of us are drunk after a certain hour
I'm pretty sure on any given night "most people" aren't drunk.

Well in Green Bay we drink a whole lot, and after 11 or 12 it's pretty much just the bar crowd out there - young, stupid, bar patrons.

"Doesn't it make you the least bit angry that corporations are modifying our culture to suit their needs for more profit?"
Our? To whom does the "Our" refer to? Corporations consist of people, the only way for people not to "modify culture" (that is, take action, since all action affects this nebulous "culture" non-concept that for some reason you are referring to possessively) for profit is for them to not profit-- i.e. for those people to die. Your anger is malicious.

They are using their money to influence us and are attacking our culture. That's how advertisements work. If it didn't political ads wouldn't be so highly paid for.
Rob
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 3:50:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 2:46:03 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
3) Profits must be increased because of the need for "growth," so they make even worse addicts out of us
By what magic?

Dance magic
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 4:17:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 3:50:03 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/26/2012 2:46:03 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
3) Profits must be increased because of the need for "growth," so they make even worse addicts out of us
By what magic?

Dance magic

Yes in Ragnar-land the psychology behind advertising does not exist. All is economics.
Rob
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 2:04:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
1) Humans are easily addicted to sweets.
2) Businesses take advantage of this for profit.
3) Profits must be increased because of the need for "growth," so they make even worse addicts out of us, creating a vicious cycle of profiting at our expense while our health suffers.
4) Regulations are levied to fix the conflict of interest. Capitalism demands socialistic intervention.

I disagree with this logic. I think it is nothing more than the left, in their best intentions, are trying to help people be more healthy. It is the same logic that drove the trans fat ban, the salt ban, and even the smoking bans; protecting the public from bad decision regarding their health.

The sad state of affairs is everyone blames everyone else for their problems, including health. McDonalds made me fat, they say. No, it's eating two big macs a day and spending eight hours in from of the TV/computer. No one forced you to buy what you bought, where you bought it.
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 2:08:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:49:21 AM, Ren wrote:
Good intentions leading down a very dangerous slippery slope.

This isn't leading anywhere. The smoking bans were what lead to this.
If you can ban a business owner from letting his clientel partake in a legal activity in the name of health (smoking), why not forbid said owner from using a specific method of cooking (trans fat), using legal spices (salt), or even the size of the servings (soda)? After all, these are all in the name of health.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 3:35:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 2:58:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Clever manipulation
That didn't actually answer the question, it just rephrased the "magic."

Human demand is not flawless.
The demand part is. The particular humans often aren't.

So not only are they pushing us into larger sizes, they are using the fact that most of us are drunk after a certain hour
I'm pretty sure on any given night "most people" aren't drunk.

Well in Green Bay we drink a whole lot, and after 11 or 12 it's pretty much just the bar crowd out there - young, stupid, bar patrons.
I must confess I can believe it of you Green Bay types. It explains the Packers.
/trolololo


"Doesn't it make you the least bit angry that corporations are modifying our culture to suit their needs for more profit?"
Our? To whom does the "Our" refer to? Corporations consist of people, the only way for people not to "modify culture" (that is, take action, since all action affects this nebulous "culture" non-concept that for some reason you are referring to possessively) for profit is for them to not profit-- i.e. for those people to die. Your anger is malicious.

They are using their money to influence us and are attacking our culture.
Those are two radically different accusations. The one accuses them of innocuous purchase, the other of physical force against something that isn't even an entity, let alone a physical thing. But you're the customer-- you are certainly using your money to influence them.

That's how advertisements work.
Those use words and images to attempt to persuade you. The money is to persuade the owner of the medium.

If it didn't political ads wouldn't be so highly paid for.
I think you overestimate the intelligence of politicians.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 3:39:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 2:08:33 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:49:21 AM, Ren wrote:
Good intentions leading down a very dangerous slippery slope.

This isn't leading anywhere. The smoking bans were what lead to this.
If you can ban a business owner from letting his clientel partake in a legal activity in the name of health (smoking), why not forbid said owner from using a specific method of cooking (trans fat), using legal spices (salt), or even the size of the servings (soda)? After all, these are all in the name of health.

There's no such thing as secondhand fat.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 11:08:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
1) Humans are easily addicted to sweets.:

Some humans are addicted to sweets, some to the internet. Therefore, regulate the internet because the government needs to protect you from yourself. If you disagree with that premise, there's no earthly reason to accept the soda ban on the same pretense.

2) Businesses take advantage of this for profit.:

Personal responsibility. Businesses can only profit on what you allow them to.

3) Profits must be increased because of the need for "growth," so they make even worse addicts out of us, creating a vicious cycle of profiting at our expense while our health suffers.:

By this logic, why not just outright ban soda altogether? I rarely drink soda because it's garbage. But then, I have that choice, and I like having the choice.

If the government was actually interested in protecting people, they'd ban a lot of things. Instead what they do is penalize you in the form of taxes (tithing for your sins). It's a scam to dip in to people's pockets.

4) Regulations are levied to fix the conflict of interest. Capitalism demands socialistic intervention.:

For some things, sure (police, fire, military). How is that inclusive of soda?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 6:59:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Even though I don't support the law, it coincides with a lot of other political measures we take so the backlash is kind of funny. It's just because people think there is a war on soda which sounds silly, hence why this is such a big deal. But soda actually CAN be harmful (not dangerous). The stuff they put in there is terrible for your health, as well as encourages unhealthy eating (something about the sweetness of soda making you hungrier...). Given the obesity epidemic and other health issues, if we accept that the government must take measures to regulate our health - i.e., drug laws, the FDA, etc. - then this is not a crazy step. If anything it's a pointless one considering people can very easily get as much soda as they want even with the law in place. But the premise that the government has the right and perhaps responsibility to facilitate your own personal choices about your health is prevalent in all other aspects of the law/ government, so it's silly for people to harp on this one issue and Bloomberg in particular.
President of DDO
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 9:37:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The leftist theory of government is that an educated elite will decide what is best in each circumstances, and then impose that on everyone. If you argue you want to make your own decisions, the answer is always that what they wanted to impose really is best. People should then vote for the ruling elite in gratitude for their ability to take care of all the people too stupid to make their own decisions.

People make many bad decisions, and no doubt advertisers encourage bad decisions. Advertisers also encourage good decisions. The socialist elite provides a dull uniformity in society. the contrast between North Korea and South Korea is typical.

The cost of feeding the ruling elite is horrendous. That's also inevitable.

So join the Million Big Gulp March.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 9:55:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 6:59:21 AM, Danielle wrote:
Even though I don't support the law, it coincides with a lot of other political measures we take so the backlash is kind of funny. It's just because people think there is a war on soda which sounds silly, hence why this is such a big deal. But soda actually CAN be harmful (not dangerous). The stuff they put in there is terrible for your health, as well as encourages unhealthy eating (something about the sweetness of soda making you hungrier...). Given the obesity epidemic and other health issues, if we accept that the government must take measures to regulate our health - i.e., drug laws, the FDA, etc. - then this is not a crazy step. If anything it's a pointless one considering people can very easily get as much soda as they want even with the law in place. But the premise that the government has the right and perhaps responsibility to facilitate your own personal choices about your health is prevalent in all other aspects of the law/ government, so it's silly for people to harp on this one issue and Bloomberg in particular.:

The issue is more symbolic than with the actual provisions. This law is so easily usurped that it's comical to even have it, and isn't actually preventing a damn thing. I can just as easily purchase two soda's that equal the same volume. It's not that people can't around the law, but the symbolism the law represents.

The issue is that it's a specious law to begin with, and can easily lead to a slippery slope. First a ban on a specific volume of soda, then a ban on (insert item here _______), and so on. Leaving this shitty law unchallenged opens the door to even further bans that are that much more intrusive. I'd rather cut it off at the knees now.

It's also selective bias. A candy bar has just much, if not more, sugar in it. But Bloomberg is selectively excluding soda, of all things.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 9:57:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 9:37:15 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The leftist theory of government is that an educated elite will decide what is best in each circumstances, and then impose that on everyone. If you argue you want to make your own decisions, the answer is always that what they wanted to impose really is best. People should then vote for the ruling elite in gratitude for their ability to take care of all the people too stupid to make their own decisions.

People make many bad decisions, and no doubt advertisers encourage bad decisions. Advertisers also encourage good decisions. The socialist elite provides a dull uniformity in society. the contrast between North Korea and South Korea is typical.

The cost of feeding the ruling elite is horrendous. That's also inevitable.

So join the Million Big Gulp March.:

I don't even think the government should be allowed to enforce seat belt laws for adults. The only enforcement I think should be for minors. With or without seatbelt laws, I'm buckling up every time because it's the intelligent thing to do. But I don't do it to avoid a ticket, I do it because it's safer.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 10:01:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 9:57:57 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 8/10/2012 9:37:15 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The leftist theory of government is that an educated elite will decide what is best in each circumstances, and then impose that on everyone. If you argue you want to make your own decisions, the answer is always that what they wanted to impose really is best. People should then vote for the ruling elite in gratitude for their ability to take care of all the people too stupid to make their own decisions.

People make many bad decisions, and no doubt advertisers encourage bad decisions. Advertisers also encourage good decisions. The socialist elite provides a dull uniformity in society. the contrast between North Korea and South Korea is typical.

The cost of feeding the ruling elite is horrendous. That's also inevitable.

So join the Million Big Gulp March.:

I don't even think the government should be allowed to enforce seat belt laws for adults. The only enforcement I think should be for minors. With or without seatbelt laws, I'm buckling up every time because it's the intelligent thing to do. But I don't do it to avoid a ticket, I do it because it's safer.

You know whats worse for you than sugar?

That stuff the government pours down our throats. Redtape flavored Koolaid.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 10:08:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You know whats worse for you than sugar?

That stuff the government pours down our throats. Redtape flavored Koolaid.:

Join us, Greyparrot... It's BLISSSSSSS!!!
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 11:33:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 9:55:11 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's also selective bias. A candy bar has just much, if not more, sugar in it. But Bloomberg is selectively excluding soda, of all things.

Not that it justifies the law or anything, but...

http://www.hersheys.com...

http://productnutrition.thecoca-colacompany.com...

And soda consumption scales a lot bigger than candy bar consumption. (cause, y'know, candy bars are solids).

Of course, the candy bar does have a lot of fat. Also has a bit of protein, calcium, and iron. It's bad for you, but it at least does something good too. Soda by contrast, you get literally nothing good nutitrionally.
Pick something with nuts in it or some dark chocolate and the soda will be looking even worse.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.