Page 50 of 52  •  Prev 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51 52 Next
Switch to Forum Live View
Locked: Big Apple Soda Ban
2 years ago  ::  Jul 25, 2012 - 12:09PM #491
Idbc
Posts: 4,597

Howdy


Bloomberg says that he is not preventing people from drinking as much soda as they choose to buy. 


He is saying that if a person wants to buy two sodas that equal more than 16 ounces they are free to do so under this regulation-law.   


But at the places that Bloomberg wants to ban the sale of sodas larger than 16 ounces people do have the choice to buy sodas that are 16 ounces.  


They are not being forced or restricted from buying a 16 ounce soda.  


If those places sold only sold sodas that were LARGER than 16 ounces then a law-regulation should be passed to require those places to sell 16 ounce sodas!  


 

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 25, 2012 - 12:56PM #492
Ekdikos
Posts: 25

I saw this thread and couldn't resist -tried to skim through to the present (heh, "present"), but may have missed some things.



Have we mentioned the fact that this big-brother stuff has been steadily moving this way for a long time? How many here were on the "omg seatbelt laws" thread? Really, despite the differences, they are too similar in concept to have different opinions, unless you delve into some quacker's logics... Each controlling your behavior for both "your own good" and "the good of the whole." which is all the social contract is to begin with, right? Don't wanna sign the contract: go be a hermit, yes?


As a matter of fact, I can imagine a future where candy bars are sold in dime bags and there is a new confectionary bust every week... I mean, really, is it all that much different? Sugary substances stimulate dopaminergic neurons -the very definition of addicting. Perhaps the only reason sugar isn't considered "cocaine lite" is because we've all developed a tolerance for it (have you seen little kids on this stuff -especially when their parents normally restrict... If that isn't cracked out, I don't know what is... www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVMYBRzStzo).


How can we really separate victimless "crimes" down an arbitary middle of what is socially acceptible and what is not? Simply, arbitrarily... Personally, controlling substances like sugar, caffeine, alcohol, sex, nicotine, Δ9-THC, LSD, DMT, and the list goes on, seems to be a time honored tradition, and one that we completely support until it comes to a vice we partake in ourselves.


Yes, I've read all about the cost in health care and all that, but if that is the first thing that pops in your head after reading the above paragraph, you've missed the point -it wasn't really about supporting the legalization of "victimless crimes," but more about the hypocracy involved in decided which or what...


Honestly, though, I'm not really certain how I feel about such regulating laws... Or drug laws in general, or any "crime" that has no definable victim beyond the consentual. On the one hand, I definitely like retaining personal freedoms and, you know, indulging in my nicotine and caffeine and so on... But, on the other hand, we don't really know what is good for us, in general, and myself included. Most of us are programmed like the "stupid" monkeys and rats, slapping the orgasm button until we pass out -instant gratification, distorted weighting of consequences based on temporal locality (distant consequences carry less weight than present ones, even though eventually the distant one's get here and are then huge... like type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or kidney failure), and defending our choices even to the point of smoking cigarettes through our tracheostomy tubes.


The question "but should we be allowed" is, I think, a basic question without much solid stuff behind it... Something to be treated as an axiom to be accepted or rejected, but never argued over (though, its implications can be argued till the cows come home, ha, so perhaps the stance on that should be cleared up before moving on...)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 26, 2012 - 8:07PM #493
NATAS
Posts: 968

Aug 25, 2012 -- 12:56PM, Ekdikos wrote:


I saw this thread and couldn't resist -tried to skim through to the present (heh, "present"), but may have missed some things.



Have we mentioned the fact that this big-brother stuff has been steadily moving this way for a long time? How many here were on the "omg seatbelt laws" thread? Really, despite the differences, they are too similar in concept to have different opinions, unless you delve into some quacker's logics... Each controlling your behavior for both "your own good" and "the good of the whole." which is all the social contract is to begin with, right? Don't wanna sign the contract: go be a hermit, yes?



Is it a fact that the seat belt laws have saved lives and reduced injuries? 


Yes it has been mentioned that we are on the slippery slope towards Big Brother.   


 The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.  


 


Aug 25, 2012 -- 12:56PM, Ekdikos wrote:


As a matter of fact, I can imagine a future where candy bars are sold in dime bags and there is a new confectionary bust every week... I mean, really, is it all that much different? Sugary substances stimulate dopaminergic neurons -the very definition of addicting. Perhaps the only reason sugar isn't considered "cocaine lite" is because we've all developed a tolerance for it (have you seen little kids on this stuff -especially when their parents normally restrict... If that isn't cracked out, I don't know what is... www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVMYBRzStzo).



Aug 25, 2012 -- 12:56PM, Ekdikos wrote:


How can we really separate victimless "crimes" down an arbitary middle of what is socially acceptible and what is not? Simply, arbitrarily... Personally, controlling substances like sugar, caffeine, alcohol, sex, nicotine, Δ9-THC, LSD, DMT, and the list goes on, seems to be a time honored tradition, and one that we completely support until it comes to a vice we partake in ourselves.



But there is no such thing as a victimless crime.    If there is a crime there is a victim.  


Those poor souls who buy supersized, supersugary drinks are the victims of evil, selfish capitialist who don't give a flying fluch about those who are addicted to sugar.  They are only concerned with making profits.  


Aug 25, 2012 -- 12:56PM, Ekdikos wrote:


Yes, I've read all about the cost in health care and all that, but if that is the first thing that pops in your head after reading the above paragraph, you've missed the point -it wasn't really about supporting the legalization of "victimless crimes," but more about the hypocracy involved in decided which or what...


Honestly, though, I'm not really certain how I feel about such regulating laws... Or drug laws in general, or any "crime" that has no definable victim beyond the consentual. On the one hand, I definitely like retaining personal freedoms and, you know, indulging in my nicotine and caffeine and so on... But, on the other hand, we don't really know what is good for us, in general, and myself included. Most of us are programmed like the "stupid" monkeys and rats, slapping the orgasm button until we pass out -instant gratification, distorted weighting of consequences based on temporal locality (distant consequences carry less weight than present ones, even though eventually the distant one's get here and are then huge... like type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or kidney failure), and defending our choices even to the point of smoking cigarettes through our tracheostomy tubes.


The question "but should we be allowed" is, I think, a basic question without much solid stuff behind it... Something to be treated as an axiom to be accepted or rejected, but never argued over (though, its implications can be argued till the cows come home, ha, so perhaps the stance on that should be cleared up before moving on...)




So the problems are:   


Who draws the line?  


Where should the line be drawn? 


What is the line that is being drawn?  


 


 




 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 27, 2012 - 5:47PM #494
Ekdikos
Posts: 25

Aug 26, 2012 -- 8:07PM, NATAS wrote:


Is it a fact that the seat belt laws have saved lives and reduced injuries? 


Yes it has been mentioned that we are on the slippery slope towards Big Brother.   


 The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.  


 



Agreed on the first point, but that was more a question of whether or not people saw it was the same "type" of legistlation, big-brother-y and without clear nonconsentual victims. No doubt limits on sugary sweets would also increase life-quality and ultimately save lives, though not in quite as flashy ways as seatbelt laws -and I would see this as the tenative first steps toward controlling unhealthy food distribution.


Just for the record, if there could be some sort of guarantee that it would stay "big-brother" without the real danger of becoming an "evil, all-consuming overlord", I'd be all for big brother. And while the "slippery slope" is technically a fallacy, that one form of something necessarily implies a stronger form, power is a special subcase, like money or physical matter, where more tends to "want" more, attract more, etc.


Aug 26, 2012 -- 8:07PM, NATAS wrote:


But there is no such thing as a victimless crime.    If there is a crime there is a victim.  


Those poor souls who buy supersized, supersugary drinks are the victims of evil, selfish capitialist who don't give a flying fluch about those who are addicted to sugar.  They are only concerned with making profits.




The contention about the validity of a term like "vicimless crime" depends on the definitions you want to use for each word. If you prefer to define  "crime" as simply "wrongdoing" and "victim" as "one negatively affected by wrongdoing", then there would be no such thing as "victimless crime", since the only way to judge "wrongdoing" is by its negative effects... Now, if by "crime" we mean simply "illegal" and by "victim" we mean "a negatively affected, non-consenting person (or living being, if you rather) or one not of legal consentual age" then there are most certainly "victimless crimes." There are probably other ways to define each yielding subtle differences in if or what could be defined as "victimless crimes", but I think that expresses the point, and I'm pretty sure the primary dictionary definitions leave room for "victimless crime".


Also, taxpayers are not victims of the "victimless crimes", they are victims that it is a crime, and there is a difference. "Driving drunk" is not the same as "being drunk" -especially if you are "chillin" at home. In a similar vein, forcing people to pay for jail space for drug users does not make taxpayers "victims" of the drug users, because that is an effect of the legislation, not the action. Even if drug use leads to stealing (which is most definitely not the case for many illegal drugs and many drug users), drug use is not stealing... Besides, then bills would also have to be illegal, because they can lead to stealing as well. And if making your family sad is illegal, then becoming a plumber or interracial marriage should also be illegal, because quite a few families would be sad over these things... And there are many other categories people try to shoe-horn into the "victim" category, when they just don't really fit.


Unfortunately, as with a lot of these threads and issues, there are underlying considerations. As previously mentioned, which should be of higher importance, the individual or the group? Can a person be said to own their own body, their own life, and what does that mean? But also, what is the role of government to its people? Is government supposed to be a "big-brother" type, helping us with our choices and punishing us for bad ones, or is government supposed to be the grease and insurance that we act in expected ways to each other and come together in the common defense? The answers to these questions dictate the subsequent answer to questions like this thread addresses.


Aug 26, 2012 -- 8:07PM, NATAS wrote:


So the problems are:   


Who draws the line?  


Where should the line be drawn? 


What is the line that is being drawn?  


 



Yeah, who knows? I do find it funny that while on the one hand I wouldn't mind sugar becoming a controlled substance and am enough of a sheeple to appreciate the legislation forcing me to be a healthier person (or, at least have to work much harder at staying the same), on the other hand I am fiercely supportive of individualism and mostly opposed to the concept of "victimless crime", despite the fact I have very little interest in most of the vices associated with them.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 28, 2012 - 8:23PM #495
NATAS
Posts: 968

 


Aug 26, 2012 -- 8:07PM, NATAS wrote:


Is it a fact that the seat belt laws have saved lives and reduced injuries? 


Yes it has been mentioned that we are on the slippery slope towards Big Brother.   


 The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.  


 



Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


Agreed on the first point, but that was more a question of whether or not people saw it was the same "type" of legistlation, big-brother-y and without clear nonconsentual victims. ]quote]


Give me an example of a "crime" in which there is "clearly" no victim. 


Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:

 


No doubt limits on sugary sweets would also increase life-quality and ultimately save lives, though not in quite as flashy ways as seatbelt laws -and I would see this as the tenative first steps toward controlling unhealthy food distribution.



The question to what degree the quality of life would improve, how many lives would be saved, and would this warrant a law that would restrict the individuals rights and liberty? 


Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


Just for the record, if there could be some sort of guarantee that it would stay "big-brother" without the real danger of becoming an "evil, all-consuming overlord", I'd be all for big brother. And while the "slippery slope" is technically a fallacy, that one form of something necessarily implies a stronger form, power is a special subcase, like money or physical matter, where more tends to "want" more, attract more, etc.


Just for the record there is no way of "guranteeing"  that Big Brother will not become an "evil, all powerful overload".  


 


Aug 26, 2012 -- 8:07PM, NATAS wrote:


But there is no such thing as a victimless crime.    If there is a crime there is a victim.  


Those poor souls who buy supersized, supersugary drinks are the victims of evil, selfish capitialist who don't give a flying fluch about those who are addicted to sugar.  They are only concerned with making profits.




Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


The contention about the validity of a term like "vicimless crime" depends on the definitions you want to use for each word. If you prefer to define  "crime" as simply "wrongdoing" and "victim" as "one negatively affected by wrongdoing", then there would be no such thing as "victimless crime", since the only way to judge "wrongdoing" is by its negative effects... Now, if by "crime" we mean simply "illegal" and by "victim" we mean "a negatively affected, non-consenting person (or living being, if you rather) or one not of legal consentual age" then there are most certainly "victimless crimes." There are probably other ways to define each yielding subtle differences in if or what could be defined as "victimless crimes", but I think that expresses the point, and I'm pretty sure the primary dictionary definitions leave room for "victimless crime".



By crime I mean something that is wrong by the standards of law.  


Some that is wrong, something that negatively effects someone else but is not "illegal" is immoral-unethical, it may be "commonly" called a crime, but not legally.  


In "legal theory" all crimes are immoral-unethical and have "victims">  


 


Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


Also, taxpayers are not victims of the "victimless crimes", they are victims that it is a crime, and there is a difference.



I agree.  However, it could be argued that people who are arrested and incarcerated for a crime that does have a victim should either pay for their incarcarated or be made to do work which will pay for their incarceration.  


 People being arrested and incarcerated for being drunk or under the influence of a drug to "prevent" other people from being "victims". 


Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


"Driving drunk" is not the same as "being drunk" -especially if you are "chillin" at home. In a similar vein, forcing people to pay for jail space for drug users does not make taxpayers "victims" of the drug users, because that is an effect of the legislation, not the action. Even if drug use leads to stealing (which is most definitely not the case for many illegal drugs and many drug users), drug use is not stealing... Besides, then bills would also have to be illegal, because they can lead to stealing as well. And if making your family sad is illegal, then becoming a plumber or interracial marriage should also be illegal, because quite a few families would be sad over these things... And there are many other categories people try to shoe-horn into the "victim" category, when they just don't really fit.



What incarceration does is to prevent people from being victims of people who do something that causes victims.   That is a legimate function and duty of "big brother-government.  


The problem with the "War on Drugs"  is the same as the problem with the "War on Alcholol" aka "Prohibition".   We had sense enough to end that "Un-Winnable" but not to end "The War on Drugs".  I am not saying that drug sales should be made legal, but it should be decriminalized. 


Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


Unfortunately, as with a lot of these threads and issues, there are underlying considerations. As previously mentioned, which should be of higher importance, the individual or the group?



Unfortunately there are no easy, no simple answers.  


The problem is finding a balance between individual rights and liberty and the collective rights of socieity.  


Where to draw the line, where to find the balance. 


Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


 Can a person be said to own their own body, their own life, and what does that mean?



Yes I think that a person does, at least to a degree owns there own life and body.  


I am a single man. I have no wife or children.   I have a greater degree of freedom and liberty over my life than a married man who does have a wife and children.  A married man has less freedom and liberty over his "own life" than I do because he has a wife and perhaps children. 


Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


 But also, what is the role of government to its people?


 Is government supposed to be a "big-brother" type, helping us with our choices and punishing us for bad ones, or is government supposed to be the grease and insurance that we act in expected ways to each other and come together in the common defense? The answers to these questions dictate the subsequent answer to questions like this thread addresses.



Again the legimate concern of government is to protect its citizens and to provide security from enemies both foreign and domestic and to provide the maxium amount of liberty and freedom possible.  


Much of the duties of our government is enunciated in the Constitution. 


Where to draw the line between the government being "Uncle Sam" and "Father Sam" is what is difficult and complex.    


 


Aug 26, 2012 -- 8:07PM, NATAS wrote:


So the problems are:   


Who draws the line?  


Where should the line be drawn? 


What is the line that is being drawn?  


 



Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


Yeah, who knows?



It is easier to ask the questions than to give the answers!


Aug 27, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Ekdikos wrote:


 I do find it funny that while on the one hand I wouldn't mind sugar becoming a controlled substance and am enough of a sheeple to appreciate the legislation forcing me to be a healthier person (or, at least have to work much harder at staying the same), on the other hand I am fiercely supportive of individualism and mostly opposed to the concept of "victimless crime", despite the fact I have very little interest in most of the vices associated with them.




If there is no problem with making sugar a controlled substance, then what about "salt".  


I don't know if salt is "as dangerous" as sugar, but it is a serious problem.   


Let's say for the sake of argument that sugar is more of a problem, that it is made a controlled substance and as a result salt is more of a health problem.   


Wouldn't it be logical and  reasonable to make salt a controlled substance because it is now more dangerous to the health of the people in socieity?  


From what I understand the resistance to the ban on selling "super large", "super sugary" drinks in NYC is increasing.  


Not being in favor of this law, and being a pessimistic cynic I think this law will pass.  


The problem with that I have is not only with the law itself but how it is being made a law.  


 




 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 28, 2012 - 11:33PM #496
Erey
Posts: 19,170

Well I can say one thing for Bloomberg, as outrageous as the soda ban seemed to me it was not half as crazy or insulting as his idea to make hospitals treat infant formula like perscription medications and make mothers feel guilty for using it. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 29, 2012 - 12:28AM #497
Ekdikos
Posts: 25

NATAS : Well, if I read correctly, then we are primarily in agreement, except for a few certain isolated statements...


Aug 28, 2012 -- 8:23PM, NATAS wrote:


Give me an example of a "crime" in which there is "clearly" no victim.


...


By crime I mean something that is wrong by the standards of law. 


Some that is wrong, something that negatively effects someone else but is not "illegal" is immoral-unethical, it may be "commonly" called a crime, but not legally.  


In "legal theory" all crimes are immoral-unethical and have "victims">  




I'm not certain if you were indicating you ascribe to "legal theory" by the last statement, but I do not. Law != morals/ethics... Not to say they cannot overlap, but there are too many examples to bother with which show, clearly, that laws can sometimes be the immoral or unethical force.


Here is an example of a victimless crime: prostitution. 


And even if you do believe there are some victims of prostitution itself, by making a good or service illegal, you de facto create a black market for it, and all the evils that entails. Some might be dissuaded by the "illegal" status, but the ensuing dark cloud is, in most cases, way worse than the original problem ever was (prohibition is a great example of that). One case in point: sex slave trade, which would be at least partially stymied by the drop in clientele who opted for the now legal alternatives (unfortunately, wouldn't help the child slave trade so much, until brothels started "specializing", perhaps utilizing midgets?)


Another (sometimes related) example of a victimless crime: oral sex, or sodomy. No, it isn't generally enforced, but it is still illegal in many places, technically even between consenting, married partners.


Aug 28, 2012 -- 8:23PM, NATAS wrote:


I am a single man. I have no wife or children.   I have a greater degree of freedom and liberty over my life than a married man who does have a wife and children.  A married man has less freedom and liberty over his "own life" than I do because he has a wife and perhaps children.




Just an observation: is a blank canvas more free than a painted one? I think that is a category mistake, because a blank canvas has more potential, but a painted canvas has that potential realized. Not to say the goal of life is to get a wife and kids (unless you follow the biological imperative), but rather that making choices and commitments do not "limit" your freedom, rather they bring a potential into realization- the "total amount" of freedom hasn't changed... and with the wife and kids example, the option to leave is still always there (sometimes that is the only thing that keeps some men going, ha ha!)... I just mean, you shouldn't be afraid of commitment as some great loss; it is more of a trade (of potential for realization)... The same is true of career, hobbies, skills and endeavors of all types...




yeah, other than that, I think we are in semi-perfect agreement.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 29, 2012 - 12:32AM #498
Ekdikos
Posts: 25

Aug 28, 2012 -- 11:33PM, Erey wrote:


Well I can say one thing for Bloomberg, as outrageous as the soda ban seemed to me it was not half as crazy or insulting as his idea to make hospitals treat infant formula like perscription medications and make mothers feel guilty for using it. 




Yeah, thats pretty quackers... Not familliar and not going to look it up, but unless it has something directly to do with the colostrum, I'm guessing Bloomberg didn't get enough of mommy's t**...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 31, 2012 - 12:33PM #499
NATAS
Posts: 968

Aug 28, 2012 -- 11:33PM, Erey wrote:


Well I can say one thing for Bloomberg, as outrageous as the soda ban seemed to me it was not half as crazy or insulting as his idea to make hospitals treat infant formula like perscription medications and make mothers feel guilty for using it. 





What Bloomberg is trying to do is to "encourage" women to breast feed. 


Breast feeding is "supposed" to be better for the health of the infant.  


What Bloomberg wants to do is to stop hospitals from giving "free" infant formula. 


He wants to ban advirtisements for infant formula in hospitals.  


He does not want infant formulas to be treated like presecriptions.   So far as I know a mother can "buy"  infant formulars and give them to their infants either in the hospital or when they are home.  


It is my understanding that breast milk is better, more healthy for an infant than formula. 


It is my understanding that breast feeding has a negative effect on the looks of a women's breast.  


My understanding is that those who oppose this....encouragement are, women who do not like to be "told" what to do.   Women (and men) who think that breast feeding has a bad effect on the appearance of their breasts and of course the companies that are make the infant formulas. 


So long as a woman has a choice I have no problem with this....encouragement.  


Why do you think it is that women do NOT want to breast feed? 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 31, 2012 - 2:10PM #500
Cesmom
Posts: 5,337

Aug 31, 2012 -- 12:33PM, NATAS wrote:


Aug 28, 2012 -- 11:33PM, Erey wrote:


Well I can say one thing for Bloomberg, as outrageous as the soda ban seemed to me it was not half as crazy or insulting as his idea to make hospitals treat infant formula like perscription medications and make mothers feel guilty for using it. 





What Bloomberg is trying to do is to "encourage" women to breast feed. 


Breast feeding is "supposed" to be better for the health of the infant.  


What Bloomberg wants to do is to stop hospitals from giving "free" infant formula. 


He wants to ban advirtisements for infant formula in hospitals.  


He does not want infant formulas to be treated like presecriptions.   So far as I know a mother can "buy"  infant formulars and give them to their infants either in the hospital or when they are home.  


It is my understanding that breast milk is better, more healthy for an infant than formula. 


It is my understanding that breast feeding has a negative effect on the looks of a women's breast.  


My understanding is that those who oppose this....encouragement are, women who do not like to be "told" what to do.   Women (and men) who think that breast feeding has a bad effect on the appearance of their breasts and of course the companies that are make the infant formulas. 


So long as a woman has a choice I have no problem with this....encouragement.  


Why do you think it is that women do NOT want to breast feed? 


 




Sounds like Bloomberg, once again, wants to control what businesses (in this case, hospitals) offer to their customers (in this case, patients).  He needs to realize he's not GOD.


I've never heard of breast feeding having a bad effect on the appearance of a woman's breasts.  I've had 3 kids...tried to breastfeed one...was not successful.  I was very appreciative of the coupons and free products I received at the hospital.  Apparently, Bloomberg enjoys inconveniencing people for his own amusement.

Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 50 of 52  •  Prev 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51 52 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook