391 replies to this topic

[SayItAintSoJoe]

delusions of grandeur, on 04 June 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

Education is key, not regulation.

Exactly.

I think the soda ban is a case of doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

[Square]

SayItAintSoJoe, on 05 June 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

Exactly.

I think the soda ban is a case of doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

Sounds about right.  It's a stupid solution to a problem caused by stupid people.

[buddahj]

stevegrab, on 04 June 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Where's the ban on a package of beer over 6 or 12, who needs 18-24-30 beers at one time?

Swashbucklers, on 04 June 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

:raiseshand:

me too

Edited by buddahj, 05 June 2012 - 09:35 AM.

[detlef]

delusions of grandeur, on 04 June 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

Who says that people accept fascism when it comes to business?

Well, I would argue that search without cause is something that is typically associated with fascism.  We don't allow our government to do that, but an increasing number of people forfeit that right to their employer in order to work.  Their employer, because they get a better deal from their insurance company, can search your bloodstream for drugs even if they have no reason to believe that you're using them.

Sure, theoretically market pressure could reverse this, but it doesn't change the fact that we're willingly subjecting ourselves to something being done to us by business that we'd scream bloody murder if the government started doing it.  And, when you think about it, what good is it to have a right if you have to forfeit that right in order to make a living?  So, there's an example.

And, when you look at the increasing power big business has (random aside:  think about how many fictional accounts of the future involve business taking the place of government and think for a moment how it doesn't seem all that odd a notion that it would come to that), forfeiting our rights to business but protecting them from our government may end up being a more and more hollow gesture.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

detlef, on 05 June 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Well, I would argue that search without cause is something that is typically associated with fascism.  We don't allow our government to do that, but an increasing number of people forfeit that right to their employer in order to work.  Their employer, because they get a better deal from their insurance company, can search your bloodstream for drugs even if they have no reason to believe that you're using them.

Sure, theoretically market pressure could reverse this, but it doesn't change the fact that we're willingly subjecting ourselves to something being done to us by business that we'd scream bloody murder if the government started doing it.  And, when you think about it, what good is it to have a right if you have to forfeit that right in order to make a living?  So, there's an example.

And, when you look at the increasing power big business has (random aside:  think about how many fictional accounts of the future involve business taking the place of government and think for a moment how it doesn't seem all that odd a notion that it would come to that), forfeiting our rights to business but protecting them from our government may end up being a more and more hollow gesture.

The government is doing this in states where people on welfare are being required to take drug tests.

Edited by SayItAintSoJoe, 05 June 2012 - 10:17 AM.

[tonorator]

SayItAintSoJoe, on 05 June 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

I think the soda ban is a case of doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

ding ding ding, we have a winner.

so since our health care costs are so out of control, we need to start passing new laws to try and make people healthier vs. fix the problem.  a LAW banning big sodas?  that's ridiculous.  does this also kill the free refills?  seems like this would only hit to go orders vs. eating in the restaurant and getting a refill or sitting at home and filling your monster jug.

focus on fixing the real problem.

[stevegrab]

buddahj, on 05 June 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

me too

You guys do realize it was rhetorical, I buy one of my regulars by the case all the time.

But I have been to places (forget where) that when I bought some beer I was told  could not carry out more than a certain amount, or certain number of packages at one time.

Regulating a single purchase volume is silly, if there are too many easy ways around it (2 16oz drinks, refills, etc.)

How about a new law that prevents fast food places from asking "You want to supersize that?"  "You wants cheese on that?"  You want fries with that?"  It gets annoying sometimes, if I wanted that I'd order that.  I'd say "whopper with cheese" if I wanted cheese on it, etc.

The reall issue is large portions of the the last couple of generations just don't seem to think water is an acceptable beverage. They drink sodas all the time, with every meal, between meals, etc.  And if they are offered 64oz for 50 cents more than 16oz they'll almost always take it.

[Deathpig]

Clubfoothead, on 04 June 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

That works outgreat unless you are one of the 52,000,000 uninsured Americans.

I find the right to not insure my kid and the right to be unhealthy strange things to be battling Hitler over.  I'm not taking up arms when they come to get your cotton candy.

ETA:  I have no doubt this law won't work if the goal is to make the people healthier.  But I am pretty sure New York has a sales tax so you would just have to buy more sodas.  It's no different than taxing the heck out of tobacco or booze so I think the law is probably reasonable in that regard.  It won't make anyone healthier.

If NY would just choose to tax salt or soda or whatever they have their panties in a bunch over, I wouldn't actually care as much.  I think we can agree that there's a pretty big difference between 'pay a little more' and 'banned'.

I know you won't care about cotten candy, but the problem is that by the time this gets to the point that they are taking away something you *do* care about you won't have the ability to stop it.  It's not actually any different than people on the right saying 'Patriot Act, what's the big deal.  If you aren't a terrorist you have nothing to fear!', except in this case you are idealogically aligned with the ban so you don't care that it's happening.

[Clubfoothead]

Deathpig, on 05 June 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

If NY would just choose to tax salt or soda or whatever they have their panties in a bunch over, I wouldn't actually care as much.  I think we can agree that there's a pretty big difference between 'pay a little more' and 'banned'.

I know you won't care about cotten candy, but the problem is that by the time this gets to the point that they are taking away something you *do* care about you won't have the ability to stop it.  It's not actually any different than people on the right saying 'Patriot Act, what's the big deal.  If you aren't a terrorist you have nothing to fear!', except in this case you are idealogically aligned with the ban so you don't care that it's happening.

Then you need to pay attention because there isn't a ban on soda, just a cap on the size of soda you can buy.  I don't really see the big deal.  The right thinks it is OK to cap the value of my life when calculating damages so why is it not OK to cap the size of a container of soda I can buy?

ETA:  I still dispute any assertion that anyone has a right to be overweight anyways.  If you have a right to something, it cannot be legislated away.  If you don't have a right to something, it can be legislated away.  You don't have a right to go 70 mph everywhere and you don't have a right to be a heroin addict even if you are worth $10,000,000,000.00 and can afford to be one.

Edited by Clubfoothead, 05 June 2012 - 11:52 AM.

[delusions of grandeur]

Clubfoothead, on 05 June 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

Then you need to pay attention because there isn't a ban on soda, just a cap on the size of soda you can buy.  I don't really see the big deal.  The right thinks it is OK to cap the value of my life when calculating damages so why is it not OK to cap the size of a container of soda I can buy?

ETA:  I still dispute any assertion that anyone has a right to be overweight anyways.  If you have a right to something, it cannot be legislated away.  If you don't have a right to something, it can be legislated away.  You don't have a right to go 70 mph everywhere and you don't have a right to be a heroin addict even if you are worth $10,000,000,000.00 and can afford to be one.

Rights aren't rights if they're legislated? Well, in an ideal world yes, but that is most certainly not the case. The first amendment guarantees free speech and freedom of assembly, but legislation determines what speech is protected and where you can assemble. The second amendment guarantees a right to bear arms, but legislation determines who or where that is allowed. The fourth amendment is being overidden by the Patriot Act and (more legitimately) locally by things like roadblocks that don't require warrants. Due process is a right, but that too is being foregone in NDAA under the guise of national security. I could go on and on...

Further, unless you beleive in natural rights of "life, liberty and property", then the notion of what is and isn't a "right" is entirely arbitrary then. If you say it isn't a right, and I say it is, who's to say you're right and I'm wrong? What then determines to you what a right is, since as you've highlighted, we really don't have any rights if legislation overrides them, which it pretty much does all of them in specific circumstances or if they so choose to.

You should have just stuck to your original argument that local and state laws have the ability to legislate rights; But the notion that rights are simply based on what the government decides to legislate, however, is absolutely preposterous.

Moreover, I will continue to disagree that what you choose to injest into your body isn't a right... Hell, even being a heroin addict is legal, just not to be in possession of it... That doesn't make either any less of a right however, just a matter of whether the community feels that the right is worth sacrificing for a particular interest. This is the exact reason that the Supreme Court has upheld the legality of roadblocks, because the desire to curtail drunk driving is good enough reason to forego 4th amendment rights. However, it certainly does not nullify protection from unlawful search and seizure in most other cases as any less of a basic right.

In my view, most rights involve having the freedom to live your life how you want if it doesn't hurt others...  Speed limits are in place because you can hurt others by being reckless, but being fat or a heroin addict do not in themselves hurt others. Just because we've created a system where we choose to pay for the mistakes of others, does not make harmless choices/mistakes any less of a right (again, if you believe in natural rights that is. If you believe that rights are only the ones that the government chooses to give to us, however, then you really can't make the claim that anything is a right anymore).

Edited by delusions of grandeur, 05 June 2012 - 12:57 PM.

[Clubfoothead]

delusions of grandeur, on 05 June 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

In my view, most rights involve having the freedom to live your life how you want if it doesn't hurt others...  Speed limits are in place because you can hurt others by being reckless, but being fat or a heroin addict do not in themselves hurt others. Just because we've created a system where we choose to pay for the mistakes of others, does not make harmless choices/mistakes any less of a right (again, if you believe in natural rights that is. If you believe that rights are only the ones that the government chooses to give to us, however, then you really can't make the claim that anything is a right anymore).

Everything is debatable and the government can limit anything it chooses to.  You are correct - they only rights you have are the rights the government lets you have.  You don't have a right to be a herion user becasue you have no rigt to purchase or possess herion.  Explain to everyone how one has a rigt to be a heroin user if you have no rigt to purchase or possess heroin.  Speeding doesn't inherently hurt anyone, just like a gun.  Why it my ability to drive as fast as I can infringable but my right to keep and bear arms not?   Becasue one is a right.

[Caveman_Nick]

Clubfoothead, on 05 June 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Everything is debatable and the government can limit anything it chooses to.  You are correct - they only rights you have are the rights the government lets you have.  You don't have a right to be a herion user becasue you have no rigt to purchase or possess herion.  Explain to everyone how one has a rigt to be a heroin user if you have no rigt to purchase or possess heroin.  Speeding doesn't inherently hurt anyone, just like a gun.  Why it my ability to drive as fast as I can infringable but my right to keep and bear arms not?   Becasue one is a right.

You have no right to butcher the English language like that!  

[Clubfoothead]

Caveman_Nick, on 05 June 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

You have no right to butcher the English language like that!  

Actually I do.  There's no doubt on that one.

[Yukon Cornelius]

any one read about NC outlawing global warming? Now that makes perfect sense.

[delusions of grandeur]

Clubfoothead, on 05 June 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Everything is debatable and the government can limit anything it chooses to.  You are correct - they only rights you have are the rights the government lets you have.  You don't have a right to be a herion user becasue you have no rigt to purchase or possess herion.  Explain to everyone how one has a rigt to be a heroin user if you have no rigt to purchase or possess heroin.  Speeding doesn't inherently hurt anyone, just like a gun.  Why it my ability to drive as fast as I can infringable but my right to keep and bear arms not?   Becasue one is a right.

Ummm, your right to bear arms is every bit as legislated and restricted as speed limitsd, and is just as subject to local laws and restrictions. But you're right, it doesn't change that it's a right, just that you can lose it if you're not responsible about. Exactly the same as how you'll get ticketed and lose your license for excessive speeding. Really no difference at all..

Similarly, despite the fact that it's not expressed, but rather implied as a right, your right to be fat and unhealthy isn't even what's in question here either... The government can't come to your home and force you to exercise, thus you have a right to not be forced what you choose to eat and when/how much to exercise... No government would ever go that far with legislation (one would hope), because it's a clear violation of individual rights to force you to do so. You don't need a written amendment to see that it falls under "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Well actually, the precedent that allows for the government to assume that you don't have these natural rights, is when people like you assume that a government majority and your personal views can be the ultimate decision maker in what other's personal rights are and aren't... Maybe you should ask Detlef if he thinks that it makes gay marriage any less of a right just because some NC fundamentalists decided that it wasn't....

Yes, it's debateable what should be "rights", but it's kinda one of those things that you know it when you see it that you're being restricted from living your life the way you choose to, particularly when you're not harming others with your actions. One thing I know is that when you start discriminating/dictating people for their personal choices that don't harm others, you are no friend of liberty and the freedom that this country was founded on.

Anyways, I'm dropping this discussion, because the NY legislation has nothing to do with a lack of right to be fat, as absurd as that is to even type. It has to do with them overstepping their bounds and provide more dangerous precedents for them to put in place pointless overbearing laws that do nothing to solve the problem.

Edited by delusions of grandeur, 05 June 2012 - 01:40 PM.

[westvirginia]

delusions of grandeur, on 05 June 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

Ummm, your right to bear arms is every bit as legislated and restricted as speed limitsd, and is just as subject to local laws and restrictions. But you're right, it doesn't change that it's a right, just that you can lose it if you're not responsible about. Exactly the same as how you'll get ticketed and lose your license for excessive speeding. Really no difference at all..

Similarly, despite the fact that it's not expressed, but rather implied as a right, your right to be fat and unhealthy isn't even what's in question here either... The government can't come to your home and force you to exercise, thus you have a right to not be forced what you choose to eat and when/how much to exercise... No government would ever go that far with legislation (one would hope), because it's a clear violation of individual rights to force you to do so. You don't need a written amendment to see that it falls under "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Well actually, the precedent that allows for the government to assume that you don't have these natural rights, is when people like you assume that a government majority and your personal views can be the ultimate decision maker in what other's personal rights are and aren't... Maybe you should ask Detlef if he thinks that it makes gay marriage any less of a right just because some NC fundamentalists decided that it wasn't....

Yes, it's debateable what should be "rights", but it's kinda one of those things that you know it when you see it that you're being restricted from living your life the way you choose to, particularly when you're not harming others with your actions. One thing I know is that when you start discriminating/dictating people for their personal choices that don't harm others, you are no friend of liberty and the freedom that this country was founded on.

Anyways, I'm dropping this discussion, because the NY legislation has nothing to do with a lack of right to be fat, as absurd as that is to even type. It has to do with them overstepping their bounds and provide more dangerous precedents for them to put in place pointless overbearing laws that do nothing to solve the problem.

Never wrestle with a pig.  You both get dirty, but the pig likes it.

[Clubfoothead]

delusions of grandeur, on 05 June 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

Yes, it's debateable what should be "rights", but it's kinda one of those things that you know it when you see it that you're being restricted from living your life the way you choose to, particularly when you're not harming others with your actions. One thing I know is that when you start discriminating/dictating people for their personal choices that don't harm others, you are no friend of liberty and the freedom that this country was founded on.

That's where we part ways.  I say it is very east to determine whay your rights are vs. what the government simply tolerates or has no position on whatsoever.  The constitution spells out what your rights are on a federal level.  What is not addressed by the consitution is left to the individual states.

The fact the government has no position on an activity does not make that activity a right, IMHO.  Only certain things are rights and they are, like you siad, vaguely defined by the US and state constitutions.  I simply do not agree that being overweight is a right under those documents.  To me it is simply behavior the government tolerates.  If being overweigt fits the definition of "pursuit of happiness" you can probably argue that universal health coverage fits the definition of "promoting the general welfare" but that is a whole seperate can of worms.  And even if being overweight is a right, I think we both agree that even rights can be limited, like you said.

Either way, this has been a rare enjoyable tailgate discussion for me and we can simply respectfully disagree on whether or not we have a right to be overweight because at this point, I don't see either of us changing our opinions.

[Savage Beatings]

Clubfoothead, on 05 June 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Everything is debatable and the government can limit anything it chooses to.  You are correct - they only rights you have are the rights the government lets you have.  You don't have a right to be a herion user becasue you have no rigt to purchase or possess herion.  Explain to everyone how one has a rigt to be a heroin user if you have no rigt to purchase or possess heroin.  Speeding doesn't inherently hurt anyone, just like a gun.  Why it my ability to drive as fast as I can infringable but my right to keep and bear arms not?   Becasue one is a right.

There are Civili Rights, and there are Human Rights.  Civil Rights are granted by your governing authority, and can be granted or revoked as that governing authority sees fit.  Human Rights are granted by God, and can only be granted or revoked by Him alone.  So which rights are we talking about here?  I for one don't happen to believe that drinking 20 ounce sodas falls under the umbrella of Human Rights (but being allowed to drink in general does).

[SEC=UGA]

Anyone wanna go grab some chicken wings, a few drinks and chain smoke for a few hours?

[Joessfl]

So with all this banter, we all know that there could be more effective ways NY could deal with this.   Lets help them come up with better ideas than banning large cups.

1) Putting very detailed and disturbing pictures of people with diabetes on the large cup?
2) Commercials with smoking soda drinking people shaving or getting ready for work and showing the ugly truth about their stoma gut/diabetes?
3) Commerical campaign  "Just say "NO Small"
4) Large cups dont kill people, people serving soda kill people.
5) Education programs in the schools showing how to order a large diet coke with their double whopper with cheese and fries?
6) Outlaw large cups except for those with large cup prescriptions, and they need to go to official distributors of large cups.

Any others I missed?

[stevegrab]

Clubfoothead, on 05 June 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Everything is debatable and the government can limit anything it chooses to.  You are correct - they only rights you have are the rights the government lets you have.  You don't have a right to be a herion user becasue you have no rigt to purchase or possess herion.  Explain to everyone how one has a rigt to be a heroin user if you have no rigt to purchase or possess heroin.  Speeding doesn't inherently hurt anyone, just like a gun.  Why it my ability to drive as fast as I can infringable but my right to keep and bear arms not?   Becasue one is a right.

You never had friends that turned you on to some free heroin?

[stevegrab]

Savage Beatings, on 05 June 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

There are Civili Rights, and there are Human Rights.  Civil Rights are granted by your governing authority, and can be granted or revoked as that governing authority sees fit.  Human Rights are granted by God, and can only be granted or revoked by Him alone.  So which rights are we talking about here?  I for one don't happen to believe that drinking 20 ounce sodas falls under the umbrella of Human Rights (but being allowed to drink in general does).

Whose or which God? And what about those that don't believe in God?  

What about driving, some think that is a right while others think it is a privilege.

Back to the NY soda law, its nonsense since it doesn't really prevent people from drinking a large amount of soda. If I can walk into a store and buy a 2 liter bottle of pop why can't I buy a 32oz soda at 7-11 or McDonald's?

[detlef]

Savage Beatings, on 05 June 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

There are Civili Rights, and there are Human Rights.  Civil Rights are granted by your governing authority, and can be granted or revoked as that governing authority sees fit.  Human Rights are granted by God, and can only be granted or revoked by Him alone.  So which rights are we talking about here?  I for one don't happen to believe that drinking 20 ounce sodas falls under the umbrella of Human Rights (but being allowed to drink in general does).

Either that or there are no rights, only privileges.  After all, you speak of god-given rights.  Well those are only worth a damned if the humans around you give a crap about them.  Sure, they may all burn in hell for denying you them, but that's little consolation to the poor a-hole who spends his life being denied those god-given rights.

What would seem a more pragmatic approach is to not leave any of this up to god and, as humans, determine for ourselves what we are and aren't prepared to tolerate from one another.  After all, we as humans, can actually exact consequences on one another here in this world.  Further, if the only the only evidence of what god's word is an oft-misinterpreted text littered with no shortage of obsolete rules, we may want to make sure that we're all down with what we can and can't expect from one another in the here and now.

[Deathpig]

detlef, on 05 June 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

Either that or there are no rights, only privileges.  After all, you speak of god-given rights.  Well those are only worth a damned if the humans around you give a crap about them.  Sure, they may all burn in hell for denying you them, but that's little consolation to the poor a-hole who spends his life being denied those god-given rights.

What would seem a more pragmatic approach is to not leave any of this up to god and, as humans, determine for ourselves what we are and aren't prepared to tolerate from one another.  After all, we as humans, can actually exact consequences on one another here in this world.  Further, if the only the only evidence of what god's word is an oft-misinterpreted text littered with no shortage of obsolete rules, we may want to make sure that we're all down with what we can and can't expect from one another in the here and now.

The Human Rights that is referenced above is very similar to (but not the same as) Natural Rights-- a very influential concept in the formation of governmental law since about the Age of Enlightenment.  To sum up Human Rights a different way, consider it the basic rights you are given just for being a human (instead of 'given to you from God')-- in terms of the Declaration of Independence they would be Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  The rest of our legal rights (literally defined from the Constitution and the various other federal and state laws) essentially exist to frame/codify and preserve the basic Human Rights.  I'm drastically oversimplifying but hopefuly you get the idea.

They don't actually have anything to do with God, the Bible, the Church, Commandments or any other form of religous indoctrination.  In a way, the concept of God-given Human Rights was actually used to (again, very simplified here) end the concept of the divine right of kings and opened the path for stronger secular-based governments.

[detlef]

Deathpig, on 05 June 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

The Human Rights that is referenced above is very similar to (but not the same as) Natural Rights-- a very influential concept in the formation of governmental law since about the Age of Enlightenment.  To sum up Human Rights a different way, consider it the basic rights you are given just for being a human (instead of 'given to you from God')-- in terms of the Declaration of Independence they would be Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  The rest of our legal rights (literally defined from the Constitution and the various other federal and state laws) essentially exist to frame/codify and preserve the basic Human Rights.  I'm drastically oversimplifying but hopefuly you get the idea.

They don't actually have anything to do with God, the Bible, the Church, Commandments or any other form of religous indoctrination.  In a way, the concept of God-given Human Rights was actually used to (again, very simplified here) end the concept of the divine right of kings and opened the path for stronger secular-based governments.

I get that.  My point is that they're only worth a damned if you're surrounded by good people or have enough guns to defend them.  In other words, we talk about them as "basic rights" because we've had the privilege of being born in a part of the world where people give a damn about them.  If we were born in certain other places, we could jump up and down all we want and claim we were born with these Natural rights, but that won't mean a thing if we can't kick the guys ass who is denying us whatever we happen to think they should be.

ETA:  I do understand that it's a far more compelling rally cry to tell people that they should fight for their basic human rights or even their god given rights than it is to lay their blood on the ground to earn the privilege to be able to live the life they want.  I'm just coming at it from a basic level.  If we are truly born into these rights, then we should actually be born into them and not have to fight for them, as so many have or still have to.

Edited by detlef, 05 June 2012 - 07:19 PM.