The guy from Maine sounds like a guy from Kentucky and the guy from Kentucky sounds like a guy from Maine.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Hey, it worked for pot! I mean no one smokes that because it’s banned!
And, steeeroidzzz!!! No one uses those!
And, heroin-- no one has used that in a long time!!
Billion dollar lawsuits, bans, and over taxing cigarettes-- I don’t think I’ve seen anyone smoke in a decade!
Minors never drink-- it’s illegal!
Hurray for government! Those people are so smart![/quote]
This is such a pile of shit for someone who is obviously intelligent. So your contention is that because not every single human being adheres to a ban, it’s ineffective? Do I have to tell you how logically unsound that is? Bans are deterrents. We can argue what constitutes an effective ban, but if it causes a percentage of people to eschew the behavior, it’s doing its job. Smoking is by far the most laughable thing you mentioned, considering it has been halved in the last 50 years. Personally I’d say that’s effective.
You people that lose your shit anytime the government does anything need to let go of this slippery-slope fallacy you cling to. Just because the government limits the size of soda does not mean they will have cameras in your bathroom in five years.[/quote]
Then please tell us. What is the limiting principal? Why then, can’t the government set calorie limits or protien limits (I hear that hurts your kidneys)? If you can ban something that could be unhealthy when abused, where is the limit on that principal?
And education and culture have changed smoking, not bans.
The point isn’t weather or not there will be health benefits or if obesity will be reduced with this ban. (even though it wouldn’t it’s irrelevant) The point is this is another step of government intruding more and more on our lives. The fact of the matter is that it’s illegitimate for government to restrict the rights of everyone because some people aren’t responsible enough to handle things themselves.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Really? With half of NY’s adults overweight, and half the country set to be obese - not overweight, obese - by 2030, you guys don’t think any steps should be taken to stem that?[/quote]
Serious steps should be taken. If this is a start then fine, NY already went after transfats, but like I said before this is for maybe diabetes or other stuff. To combat a true obesity problem you have to change a mindset. The biggest people I know sit in bed drinking diet soda all day.[/quote]
So, why should responsible people be punished?[/quote]
My point was that this isn’t a real step to combat obesity. A true step in the right direction would be to somehow change the mindset of Americans to one that would include a more active lifestyle. If you just want to be fat it doesn’t take much effort.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And education and culture have changed smoking, not bans.[/quote]
This.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Hey, it worked for pot! I mean no one smokes that because it’s banned!
And, steeeroidzzz!!! No one uses those!
And, heroin-- no one has used that in a long time!!
Billion dollar lawsuits, bans, and over taxing cigarettes-- I don’t think I’ve seen anyone smoke in a decade!
Minors never drink-- it’s illegal!
Hurray for government! Those people are so smart![/quote]
This is such a pile of shit for someone who is obviously intelligent. So your contention is that because not every single human being adheres to a ban, it’s ineffective? Do I have to tell you how logically unsound that is? Bans are deterrents. We can argue what constitutes an effective ban, but if it causes a percentage of people to eschew the behavior, it’s doing its job. Smoking is by far the most laughable thing you mentioned, considering it has been halved in the last 50 years. Personally I’d say that’s effective.
You people that lose your shit anytime the government does anything need to let go of this slippery-slope fallacy you cling to. Just because the government limits the size of soda does not mean they will have cameras in your bathroom in five years.[/quote]
Easy, lil’ guy. Your post has ‘angry’ tone and the obvious intent of humor of my post has escaped you.
[quote]Nards wrote:
The guy from Maine sounds like a guy from Kentucky and the guy from Kentucky sounds like a guy from Maine.[/quote]
The only way to tell us apart is to count the teeth.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Hey, it worked for pot! I mean no one smokes that because it’s banned!
And, steeeroidzzz!!! No one uses those!
And, heroin-- no one has used that in a long time!!
Billion dollar lawsuits, bans, and over taxing cigarettes-- I don’t think I’ve seen anyone smoke in a decade!
Minors never drink-- it’s illegal!
Hurray for government! Those people are so smart![/quote]
This is such a pile of shit for someone who is obviously intelligent. So your contention is that because not every single human being adheres to a ban, it’s ineffective? Do I have to tell you how logically unsound that is? Bans are deterrents. We can argue what constitutes an effective ban, but if it causes a percentage of people to eschew the behavior, it’s doing its job. Smoking is by far the most laughable thing you mentioned, considering it has been halved in the last 50 years. Personally I’d say that’s effective.
You people that lose your shit anytime the government does anything need to let go of this slippery-slope fallacy you cling to. Just because the government limits the size of soda does not mean they will have cameras in your bathroom in five years.[/quote]
We banned murder and no one murders anymore!
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Then please tell us. What is the limiting principal? Why then, can’t the government set calorie limits or protien limits (I hear that hurts your kidneys)? If you can ban something that could be unhealthy when abused, where is the limit on that principal?[/quote]
What is limiting principal on weapons?
If you legalize weapons for protection, what’s stopping the government from legalizing nuclear weapons?
Hey we let 16 year olds drive, so why not 15 year olds?
What’s the limiting principle on that?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Hey, it worked for pot! I mean no one smokes that because it’s banned!
And, steeeroidzzz!!! No one uses those!
And, heroin-- no one has used that in a long time!!
Billion dollar lawsuits, bans, and over taxing cigarettes-- I don’t think I’ve seen anyone smoke in a decade!
Minors never drink-- it’s illegal!
Hurray for government! Those people are so smart![/quote]
This is such a pile of shit for someone who is obviously intelligent. So your contention is that because not every single human being adheres to a ban, it’s ineffective? Do I have to tell you how logically unsound that is? Bans are deterrents. We can argue what constitutes an effective ban, but if it causes a percentage of people to eschew the behavior, it’s doing its job. Smoking is by far the most laughable thing you mentioned, considering it has been halved in the last 50 years. Personally I’d say that’s effective.
You people that lose your shit anytime the government does anything need to let go of this slippery-slope fallacy you cling to. Just because the government limits the size of soda does not mean they will have cameras in your bathroom in five years.[/quote]
We banned murder and no one murders anymore!
[/quote]
Murder is immoral and banned for that reason. Coke is not.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Hey we let 16 year olds drive, so why not 15 year olds?
What’s the limiting principle on that?[/quote]
The maturity and ability to act knowingly while operating.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Hey, it worked for pot! I mean no one smokes that because it’s banned!
And, steeeroidzzz!!! No one uses those!
And, heroin-- no one has used that in a long time!!
Billion dollar lawsuits, bans, and over taxing cigarettes-- I don’t think I’ve seen anyone smoke in a decade!
Minors never drink-- it’s illegal!
Hurray for government! Those people are so smart![/quote]
This is such a pile of shit for someone who is obviously intelligent. So your contention is that because not every single human being adheres to a ban, it’s ineffective? Do I have to tell you how logically unsound that is? Bans are deterrents. We can argue what constitutes an effective ban, but if it causes a percentage of people to eschew the behavior, it’s doing its job. Smoking is by far the most laughable thing you mentioned, considering it has been halved in the last 50 years. Personally I’d say that’s effective.
You people that lose your shit anytime the government does anything need to let go of this slippery-slope fallacy you cling to. Just because the government limits the size of soda does not mean they will have cameras in your bathroom in five years.[/quote]
We banned murder and no one murders anymore!
[/quote]
That’s what I been tryin’ to tell you befo’~!
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Then please tell us. What is the limiting principal? Why then, can’t the government set calorie limits or protien limits (I hear that hurts your kidneys)? If you can ban something that could be unhealthy when abused, where is the limit on that principal?[/quote]
What is limiting principal on weapons?
If you legalize weapons for protection, what’s stopping the government from legalizing nuclear weapons?[/quote]
One’s that can’t be used for productive purposes like self defense.
You are an idiot.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Hey we let 16 year olds drive, so why not 15 year olds?
What’s the limiting principle on that?[/quote]
The maturity and ability to act knowingly while operating.[/quote]
Nonsense. Prove that 16 year olds are incomparably mature to 15 year olds.
From anecdotal experience you should know they’re not.
If the government has the right to regulate diet for health purposes, then it goes for everything. You must acknowledge that they then have the right to ban donuts or limit protien.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Then please tell us. What is the limiting principal? Why then, can’t the government set calorie limits or protien limits (I hear that hurts your kidneys)? If you can ban something that could be unhealthy when abused, where is the limit on that principal?[/quote]
What is limiting principal on weapons?
If you legalize weapons for protection, what’s stopping the government from legalizing nuclear weapons?[/quote]
One’s that can’t be used for productive purposes like self defense.
You are an idiot.[/quote]
So nuclear weapons can’t be used for self defense?
This is my whole point. You can set arbitrary limits and not worry about government running rabid and setting limits on everything. You can legalize some things while not others. You can ban some things while not banning others. We do it all the time.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Hey, it worked for pot! I mean no one smokes that because it’s banned!
And, steeeroidzzz!!! No one uses those!
And, heroin-- no one has used that in a long time!!
Billion dollar lawsuits, bans, and over taxing cigarettes-- I don’t think I’ve seen anyone smoke in a decade!
Minors never drink-- it’s illegal!
Hurray for government! Those people are so smart![/quote]
This is such a pile of shit for someone who is obviously intelligent. So your contention is that because not every single human being adheres to a ban, it’s ineffective? Do I have to tell you how logically unsound that is? Bans are deterrents. We can argue what constitutes an effective ban, but if it causes a percentage of people to eschew the behavior, it’s doing its job. Smoking is by far the most laughable thing you mentioned, considering it has been halved in the last 50 years. Personally I’d say that’s effective.
You people that lose your shit anytime the government does anything need to let go of this slippery-slope fallacy you cling to. Just because the government limits the size of soda does not mean they will have cameras in your bathroom in five years.[/quote]
We banned murder and no one murders anymore!
[/quote]
Murder is immoral and banned for that reason. Coke is not.[/quote]
Or murder violates the liberties of another human being, while purchasing a coke is a willing exchange between two free parties.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Then please tell us. What is the limiting principal? Why then, can’t the government set calorie limits or protien limits (I hear that hurts your kidneys)? If you can ban something that could be unhealthy when abused, where is the limit on that principal?[/quote]
What is limiting principal on weapons?
If you legalize weapons for protection, what’s stopping the government from legalizing nuclear weapons?[/quote]
One’s that can’t be used for productive purposes like self defense.
You are an idiot.[/quote]
So nuclear weapons can’t be used for self defense?
This is my whole point. You can set arbitrary limits and not worry about government running rabid and setting limits on everything. You can legalize some things while not others. You can ban some things while not banning others. We do it all the time.
[/quote]
All of those things have limiting principals. Exactly what I said. Exact opposite of what you were trying to prove. Maybe you should re-read the posts. To apply this to the soft drinks, you need to have a limiting principal, some boundary that separates it from the things I’ve mentioned.
[quote]ds1973 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Hey, it worked for pot! I mean no one smokes that because it’s banned!
And, steeeroidzzz!!! No one uses those!
And, heroin-- no one has used that in a long time!!
Billion dollar lawsuits, bans, and over taxing cigarettes-- I don’t think I’ve seen anyone smoke in a decade!
Minors never drink-- it’s illegal!
Hurray for government! Those people are so smart![/quote]
This is such a pile of shit for someone who is obviously intelligent. So your contention is that because not every single human being adheres to a ban, it’s ineffective? Do I have to tell you how logically unsound that is? Bans are deterrents. We can argue what constitutes an effective ban, but if it causes a percentage of people to eschew the behavior, it’s doing its job. Smoking is by far the most laughable thing you mentioned, considering it has been halved in the last 50 years. Personally I’d say that’s effective.
You people that lose your shit anytime the government does anything need to let go of this slippery-slope fallacy you cling to. Just because the government limits the size of soda does not mean they will have cameras in your bathroom in five years.[/quote]
We banned murder and no one murders anymore!
[/quote]
Murder is immoral and banned for that reason. Coke is not.[/quote]
Or murder violates the liberties of another human being, while purchasing a coke is a willing exchange between two free parties.[/quote]
Yes, that is why one is immoral and the other isn’t.