Here He Goes Again: Bloomberg Set To Ban All Sugary Drinks Over 16 Ounces

Quote from 124nic8 : If only you had some knowledge to impart you might be able to....

If only you could understand the irony of your own statements...

Quote : Are you denying that obesity and diabetes constitutes harm?

I'm denying that drinking sugary beverages in excess of 16oz leads to such "harm" in the same fashion that breathing in asbestos leads to lung cancer or eating lead paint chips leads to brain damage.

Quote : "Economic harm" is a very different kind of harm; not analogous.

Even if you attempt to quibble over the third, the first two examples don't magically disappear.

Do very few fully-informed rational adults smoke cigarettes? Cigars? Chewing tobacco?

Do very few fully-informed rational adults use recreational drugs, including alcohol?

Quote : Sorry, you'll have to explain yourself cause I don't see it.

• Accepting homosexuality as anything more than a perversion promotes that unhealthy lifestyle, with endangers our youth and future generations.
• So you don't believe that the promotion of such an unhealthy lifestyle harms any part of the public? At all?
• Should we not at least try to show them the error of their ways. Show them there's no real reason for their behavior?
• Discriminating against an unhealthy lifestyle isn't immoral.
• In the aggregate, it is mostly the ignorant or already addicted who continue a self-destructive life-style.

How about now?

Quote : I'm sure some do; but they may be muzzled by political reality.

Ah, so you're sure... You just can't prove it.

Quote : No, much worse that that. Again you'll have to clarify your ad hominem. Cause it looks like just your opinion.

It's the standard, if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you're-just-a-fill-in-the-blank. It's like nobama calling marijuana users "drug-addled dopers"...Or charles calling homosexuals "pedophile predators"...

Instead of addressing *why* the ban is proper, you insult & name-call those who engage in the "evil" practice under attack -- or those who merely support the right of others to engage in it. Our position can't be trusted because we're all just "sugar addicts" looking to get our next fix.

It's not logical debate when nobama does it in a marijuana thread. It's not logical debate when charles does it in a gay marriage thread. And it's still not logical debate when you do in a nanny-state thread.

Quote from smegalicious : If only you could understand the irony of your own statements...

The irony is that instead of imparting knowledge here, you make another vacuous cryptic insult.

Quote : I'm denying that drinking sugary beverages in excess of 16oz leads to such "harm" in the same fashion that breathing in asbestos leads to lung cancer or eating lead paint chips leads to brain damage.

And who said that it does? If it did, I would be advocating a ban, but I'm not.

Quote : Even if you attempt to quibble over the third, the first two examples don't magically disappear.

Quote : Do very few fully-informed rational adults smoke cigarettes? Cigars? Chewing tobacco? Do very few fully-informed rational adults use recreational drugs, including alcohol?

You forgot "already addicted." Most became addicted when they were ignorant or incapable of exercising mature judgement.

Quote : Accepting homosexuality as anything more than a perversion promotes that unhealthy lifestyle, with endangers our youth and future generations. So you don't believe that the promotion of such an unhealthy lifestyle harms any part of the public? At all? Should we not at least try to show them the error of their ways. Show them there's no real reason for their behavior? Discriminating against an unhealthy lifestyle isn't immoral. In the aggregate, it is mostly the ignorant or already addicted who continue a self-destructive life-style. How about now?

Nope, still don't see it. These quotes from Charles assume homosexuality is unhealthy when it is unprotected promiscuity which is unhealthy; practiced by gays or straights.

Quote : Ah, so you're sure... You just can't prove it.

Odds are high that FDA scientists understand the science. You, not so much.

Quote : It's the standard, if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you're-just-a-fill-in-the-blank. It's like nobama calling marijuana users "drug-addled dopers"...Or charles calling homosexuals "pedophile predators"... Instead of addressing *why* the ban is proper, you insult & name-call those who engage in the "evil" practice under attack -- or those who merely support the right of others to engage in it. Our position can't be trusted because we're all just "sugar addicts" looking to get our next fix.

If the shoe fits.....

The difference is that people are addicted to sugar and are in denial; partly because such an addiction is not widely recognized ie. there is a lot of ignorance on the subject.

Quote : It's not logical debate when nobama does it in a marijuana thread. It's not logical debate when charles does it in a gay marriage thread. And it's still not logical debate when you do in a nanny-state thread.

May not be "logical debate" but it is the truth that a lot of addicts are in denial about their addiction. And that their behavior is self-destructive.

Quote from 124nic8 : And who said that it does? If it did, I would be advocating a ban, but I'm not.

What's worse for society, sugary drinks or buckyballs?

Quote from darkfrog : What's worse for society, sugary drinks or buckyballs?

Obviously sugar drinks have a much higher market share, but if buckyballs ever achieved that market share it would be a much closer contest.

Of course I didn't advocate a ban on buckyballs, either. I only disputed that regulating high utility items was analogous to regulating toys.

Quote from 124nic8 : Obviously sugar drinks have a much higher market share, but if buckyballs ever achieved that market share it would be a much closer contest. Of course I didn't advocate a ban on buckyballs, either. I only disputed that regulating high utility items was analogous to regulating toys.

Why should market share matter? A dangerous item is still dangerous regardless of how many people uses it. Are you saying the state should only intervene when an item reaches a certain level of penetration in society?

Do you agree or disagree with the buckyball ban then?

Quote from darkfrog : Why should market share matter? A dangerous item is still dangerous regardless of how many people uses it. Are you saying the state should only intervene when an item reaches a certain level of penetration in society? Do you agree or disagree with the buckyball ban then?

You asked which has a greater harm to society. Market share matters wrt total harm to society.

I think it would be reasonable to ban them being sold as toys. Not sure I believe the manufacturers claim they are not being sold as toys.

This is only a proposed ban, right? It might be effective in getting out the message that these are dangerous for kids to play with.

Quote from 124nic8 : You asked which has a greater harm to society. Market share matters wrt total harm to society..

Actually I didn't word it that way but I see how you understood it in that context.

Quote from darkfrog : Actually I didn't word it that way but I see how you understood it in that context.

Greater total harm is not "worse for society"?

Quote from 124nic8 : Greater total harm is not "worse for society"?

Eventually, but it would follow that preemptive intervention is still necessary in many situations which would make total harm impossible to actually measure only estimate.

Quote from darkfrog : Eventually, but it would follow that preemptive intervention is still necessary in many situations which would make total harm impossible to actually measure only estimate.

I assumed you were not asking for a measurement as I'm not about to do that.

Quote from 124nic8 : I assumed you were not asking for a measurement as I'm not about to do that.

I am not asking for measurement. I am essentially saying that relative harm is a better metric than total harm and also easier to determine. Total harm can become extremely nebulous, especially when discussing things like sugary beverages indirectly leading to obesity and diabetes vs. using a product in a way not intended causing direct harm, or even something that causes harm as intended like firearms. You would seem to agree that relative harm is important when comparing death and injury from cars as they have a utilitarian use that offsets the danger.

All hail Nanny Bloomberg....

Forget That Supersize Soda — NYC Passes Soda Ban
[cnbc.com]

Quote : New York City's health board has passed a rule banning super-sized, sugary drinks at restaurants, concession stands and other eateries. The regulation passed Thursday puts a 16-ounce size limit on cups and bottles of non-diet soda, sweetened teas and other calorie-packed beverages. The ban will apply in fast-food joints, movie houses and Broadway theaters, workplace cafeterias and most other places selling prepared food. It doesn't cover supermarkets or most convenience stores. City health officials said the ban is necessary to combat a deadly obesity epidemic.

Is anybody here besides me wishing for Bloomberg to get a painful terminal disease?

I know it's not healthy to hate this much, and I can only hope that these people will get what they deserve when they face their Creator, but in the meantime, the present is unbearable.

Quote from The2AMBearArms : Is anybody here besides me wishing for Bloomberg to get a painful terminal disease? I know it's not healthy to hate this much, and I can only hope that these people will get what they deserve when they face their Creator, but in the meantime, the present is unbearable.

No, just you.