Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-05-2013, 07:15 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(28-05-2013 12:21 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(27-05-2013 08:39 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Some ads are funny...but none persuade me to buy something I wouldn't otherwise purchase and use.

The most they do is to introduce me now and then to new products.

You also aren't religious, does that mean nobody else is? These posts are about society not about you individually....typical woman thinks everything is about her. haha

next

I would tell you to get fucked...but chances are good that the only one willing would be yourself. Therefore...go fuck yourself.

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 10:29 PM
Re: RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(28-05-2013 07:11 PM)BryanS Wrote:  People are stupid. They consume too many sugary beverages, they smoke, they drink, they screw around with too many people, they believe in god...I could go on.

All that said, why should it be the job of government to save people from themselves? This smacks of a Brave New World where the government can figure out everything for us so we can just sit back live our happy, but bland and insipid lives.

Because it helps that government to do so and hurts it to not. It's the basis of laws, not sure they've made the world too bland.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2013, 03:01 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(28-05-2013 07:11 PM)BryanS Wrote:  People are stupid. They consume too many sugary beverages, they smoke, they drink, they screw around with too many people, they believe in god...I could go on.

What about the people who don't consume too many sugary beverages, smoke, drink, screw around with too many people, or believe in god?

(28-05-2013 07:11 PM)BryanS Wrote:  All that said, why should it be the job of government to save people from themselves?

By that question, are you saying government should not save people from themselves? And by that juxtaposition, are you specifically saying government should not save stupid people from themselves?

Anyway, why should it not be the job of government to save people from themselves? That's just a matter of opinion based on one's ideology relating to government's function.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fat cat's post
29-05-2013, 04:06 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(29-05-2013 03:01 AM)fat cat Wrote:  
(28-05-2013 07:11 PM)BryanS Wrote:  People are stupid. They consume too many sugary beverages, they smoke, they drink, they screw around with too many people, they believe in god...I could go on.

What about the people who don't consume too many sugary beverages, smoke, drink, screw around with too many people, or believe in god?

(28-05-2013 07:11 PM)BryanS Wrote:  All that said, why should it be the job of government to save people from themselves?

By that question, are you saying government should not save people from themselves? And by that juxtaposition, are you specifically saying government should not save stupid people from themselves?

Anyway, why should it not be the job of government to save people from themselves? That's just a matter of opinion based on one's ideology relating to government's function.

I agree. And technically nobody is asking the government to protect one from ones self. The government has an obligation to protect it's citizens from predatory capitalists as well as foreign invasions. The predatory capitalist has many ways it exploits citizens, advertising and marketing over consumption to fuel corporate profits is one of the methods that citizens are under attack.

Note: The current government is a tool that capitalists use to control people so I am not advocating the current governments interference in peoples lives, they already do that too much at the behest of corporations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2013, 07:16 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(29-05-2013 04:06 AM)I and I Wrote:  And technically nobody is asking the government to protect one from ones self.

I have been disappointed at seeing hasty contrary characterizations of your posts by other forum users, so I'm glad you make that distinction.

(29-05-2013 04:06 AM)I and I Wrote:  The government has an obligation to protect it's citizens from predatory capitalists as well as foreign invasions.

I don't know enough about the government to feel confident in saying it has that obligation, but I personally would prefer it protect citizens from predatory business practices, and I am at least confident in saying precedents have been set - predatory lending and mortgage servicing come to mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2013, 11:56 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
Neither. It's your body and therefore your responsibility to keep it healthy. Not the state's.

[Image: bmHWg.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2013, 01:45 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(29-05-2013 03:01 AM)fat cat Wrote:  
(28-05-2013 07:11 PM)BryanS Wrote:  People are stupid. They consume too many sugary beverages, they smoke, they drink, they screw around with too many people, they believe in god...I could go on.

What about the people who don't consume too many sugary beverages, smoke, drink, screw around with too many people, or believe in god?

The answer to your question relates to the point I'm making. Not everyone needs regulations to figure out how to manage their own lives. I think people should be allowed to exercise their free will to conduct their lives in whatever manner they see fit so long as it doesn't unreasonably interfere with another person's right to do the same.

Quote:
(28-05-2013 07:11 PM)BryanS Wrote:  All that said, why should it be the job of government to save people from themselves?

By that question, are you saying government should not save people from themselves? And by that juxtaposition, are you specifically saying government should not save stupid people from themselves?

Anyway, why should it not be the job of government to save people from themselves? That's just a matter of opinion based on one's ideology relating to government's function.

Who's to say that it isn't possible in some cases for the government to be 'stupid' and not the individual?

One reason it should not be the job of government to save people from themselves is that the 'right' decision for an individual to make may not be the same for all individuals. Some obese person probably shouldn't drink another sugary soda, but an otherwise healthy and active person would suffer no real harm to do so. Moreover, we find that health advice is often very tailored to the individual based upon a number of factors unique to that individual.

Sometimes personal dietary and health recommendations are based only on the best available science, which might not be the right advice due to lack of sufficient evidence to the contrary. There are numerous examples of this--all one simply has to do is review the history of dietary and health recommendations from the government over time.

One point not addressed is that sin taxes designed to discourage behavior tend to be very regressive forms of taxation. Essentially if you are poor, the government has more ability to manage how you live your life because the sin tax affects you more. If the point of a sin tax is to tax to the point of modifying behavior, it will necessarily impose a cost high enough that some--mostly the poor-- will be unable to choose the targeted product or behavior.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2013, 09:19 AM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2013 09:53 AM by Nemo.)
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
It's funny.

I and I, you believe people are being brainwashed by advertisements. You believe people are wage slaves, and shouldn't work for other people. But the weird thing is, everything you're against is consensual.

If you rely on government to ban advertisements so people are free from being brainwashed, then you're using censorship to keep people IGNORANT of all the goods they might be interested in buying. If you believe the government should impose a communist system, then you're FORCING people to pay a certain price for goods and services (this means doctors would be payed less and dishwashers would be paid more). What better way to end slavery than to make the benefits of saving lives the same as the benefits of keeping dishes clean?

But do you know what's truly ironic? You speak against slavery and brainwashing people, yet you want the government to force your views onto everyone else.

Here's the thing about capitalism, it relies on free market. The free market is one of consent. Non-consensual transactions are not free-market. The free-market also depends on the freedom for businesses to price their own goods and services. To control all these things is to force people to accept YOUR values, rather than allowing individuals to dictate their own values and apply them in a way that is most efficient, and coincides, with the values of others.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Exactly: And as I pointed out earlier there is no such thing as a free choice because an individual is always influenced by their environment and the decisions made have alot to do with that evironment that the individual is assimilated into psychologically. "

Arguably, everything has an influence on us, and therefore free will does not exist. But this type of logic is stupendously flawed. It assumes all levels of "control" are the same!

If you believe influence is as anti-free will as
Coercing someone is anti-free will

Then you are deeply wrong.

You can argue, that it might be in one's nature to crave sugar. That nature drives us to seek sugary foods and drinks. Of course, it might be in one's nature to be health conscious, which counters one's quest for sugary delights. Because all of this is in nature, you can argue that we have no free-will. But what exactly is free will? If you argue that we don't have free will, due to nature, then that means free-will can't even be achieved at a hypothetical level!

But when most people refer to free will, they refer to the decisions made by an individual. Yes, the individual's nature might still drive their actions, but that's A PART OF their will. When you make nature a part of one's will, then free-will DOES exist.

You're constantly applying the first definition of free will to the second!

Here's something to think about. If you censor advertisements, then aren't you still prohibiting free-will? Does keeping one ignorant constitute as brainwashing?

But let's talk about brainwashing, shall we? What exactly does it mean to brainwash? More importantly, must we assume all brainwashing shares the same potency? If I posted a video of a preacher teaching children God is the answer to everything, and for the children to doubt scientists, we would all agree the children are being brainwashed. But what about advertisements? Do they brainwash people? If so, then what about this very conversation we are having? Wouldn't this constitute as brainwashing people?

We're all told what to think to some degree. A parent might not say anything about Capitalism to their child (0 influence - but due to ignorance). A parent might tell their child they're a Capitalist, and never bring it up again (the child learns what Capitalism is, therefore they are subjected to it). A parent might tell their children they're a capitalist and that Communism is bad (the child is told that Capitalism is good, whereas Communism is not - THIS WORKS IN REVERSE TOO - ). Then you might have a parent who constantly reminds the child that Capitalism is good, and Communism is evil, over and over again until it becomes a mantra (the child is told repeatedly that Capitalism is Good and Communism is bad, which has the greatest effect on the child).*

The problem is, you consider all levels of influence as "brainwashing", when brainwashing only refers to the final level of influence I described above (and even that's debatable). It's like looking at you gas gauge in you car. On the left you see "Empty", on the right you see "Full". You have this idea that if the needle is anywhere except the very left, it must be entirely full.

*Note: I am a Capitalist
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Nemo's post
02-06-2013, 05:04 PM
Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(31-05-2013 09:19 AM)Nemo Wrote:  It's funny.

I and I, you believe people are being brainwashed by advertisements. You believe people are wage slaves, and shouldn't work for other people. But the weird thing is, everything you're against is consensual.

If you rely on government to ban advertisements so people are free from being brainwashed, then you're using censorship to keep people IGNORANT of all the goods they might be interested in buying. If you believe the government should impose a communist system, then you're FORCING people to pay a certain price for goods and services (this means doctors would be payed less and dishwashers would be paid more). What better way to end slavery than to make the benefits of saving lives the same as the benefits of keeping dishes clean?

But do you know what's truly ironic? You speak against slavery and brainwashing people, yet you want the government to force your views onto everyone else.

Here's the thing about capitalism, it relies on free market. The free market is one of consent. Non-consensual transactions are not free-market. The free-market also depends on the freedom for businesses to price their own goods and services. To control all these things is to force people to accept YOUR values, rather than allowing individuals to dictate their own values and apply them in a way that is most efficient, and coincides, with the values of others.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Exactly: And as I pointed out earlier there is no such thing as a free choice because an individual is always influenced by their environment and the decisions made have alot to do with that evironment that the individual is assimilated into psychologically. "

Arguably, everything has an influence on us, and therefore free will does not exist. But this type of logic is stupendously flawed. It assumes all levels of "control" are the same!

If you believe influence is as anti-free will as
Coercing someone is anti-free will

Then you are deeply wrong.

You can argue, that it might be in one's nature to crave sugar. That nature drives us to seek sugary foods and drinks. Of course, it might be in one's nature to be health conscious, which counters one's quest for sugary delights. Because all of this is in nature, you can argue that we have no free-will. But what exactly is free will? If you argue that we don't have free will, due to nature, then that means free-will can't even be achieved at a hypothetical level!

But when most people refer to free will, they refer to the decisions made by an individual. Yes, the individual's nature might still drive their actions, but that's A PART OF their will. When you make nature a part of one's will, then free-will DOES exist.

You're constantly applying the first definition of free will to the second!

Here's something to think about. If you censor advertisements, then aren't you still prohibiting free-will? Does keeping one ignorant constitute as brainwashing?

But let's talk about brainwashing, shall we? What exactly does it mean to brainwash? More importantly, must we assume all brainwashing shares the same potency? If I posted a video of a preacher teaching children God is the answer to everything, and for the children to doubt scientists, we would all agree the children are being brainwashed. But what about advertisements? Do they brainwash people? If so, then what about this very conversation we are having? Wouldn't this constitute as brainwashing people?

We're all told what to think to some degree. A parent might not say anything about Capitalism to their child (0 influence - but due to ignorance). A parent might tell their child they're a Capitalist, and never bring it up again (the child learns what Capitalism is, therefore they are subjected to it). A parent might tell their children they're a capitalist and that Communism is bad (the child is told that Capitalism is good, whereas Communism is not - THIS WORKS IN REVERSE TOO - ). Then you might have a parent who constantly reminds the child that Capitalism is good, and Communism is evil, over and over again until it becomes a mantra (the child is told repeatedly that Capitalism is Good and Communism is bad, which has the greatest effect on the child).*

The problem is, you consider all levels of influence as "brainwashing", when brainwashing only refers to the final level of influence I described above (and even that's debatable). It's like looking at you gas gauge in you car. On the left you see "Empty", on the right you see "Full". You have this idea that if the needle is anywhere except the very left, it must be entirely full.

*Note: I am a Capitalist

What is consensual? If someone doesn't want to sell their wage labor to someone else most of the time that means being homeless and hungry, this is not a free choice given the fact that the ones offering the choice own the police, military and the legal system. Now that is some choice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2013, 05:08 PM
Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(31-05-2013 09:19 AM)Nemo Wrote:  It's funny.

I and I, you believe people are being brainwashed by advertisements. You believe people are wage slaves, and shouldn't work for other people. But the weird thing is, everything you're against is consensual.

If you rely on government to ban advertisements so people are free from being brainwashed, then you're using censorship to keep people IGNORANT of all the goods they might be interested in buying. If you believe the government should impose a communist system, then you're FORCING people to pay a certain price for goods and services (this means doctors would be payed less and dishwashers would be paid more). What better way to end slavery than to make the benefits of saving lives the same as the benefits of keeping dishes clean?

But do you know what's truly ironic? You speak against slavery and brainwashing people, yet you want the government to force your views onto everyone else.

Here's the thing about capitalism, it relies on free market. The free market is one of consent. Non-consensual transactions are not free-market. The free-market also depends on the freedom for businesses to price their own goods and services. To control all these things is to force people to accept YOUR values, rather than allowing individuals to dictate their own values and apply them in a way that is most efficient, and coincides, with the values of others.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Exactly: And as I pointed out earlier there is no such thing as a free choice because an individual is always influenced by their environment and the decisions made have alot to do with that evironment that the individual is assimilated into psychologically. "

Arguably, everything has an influence on us, and therefore free will does not exist. But this type of logic is stupendously flawed. It assumes all levels of "control" are the same!

If you believe influence is as anti-free will as
Coercing someone is anti-free will

Then you are deeply wrong.

You can argue, that it might be in one's nature to crave sugar. That nature drives us to seek sugary foods and drinks. Of course, it might be in one's nature to be health conscious, which counters one's quest for sugary delights. Because all of this is in nature, you can argue that we have no free-will. But what exactly is free will? If you argue that we don't have free will, due to nature, then that means free-will can't even be achieved at a hypothetical level!

But when most people refer to free will, they refer to the decisions made by an individual. Yes, the individual's nature might still drive their actions, but that's A PART OF their will. When you make nature a part of one's will, then free-will DOES exist.

You're constantly applying the first definition of free will to the second!

Here's something to think about. If you censor advertisements, then aren't you still prohibiting free-will? Does keeping one ignorant constitute as brainwashing?

But let's talk about brainwashing, shall we? What exactly does it mean to brainwash? More importantly, must we assume all brainwashing shares the same potency? If I posted a video of a preacher teaching children God is the answer to everything, and for the children to doubt scientists, we would all agree the children are being brainwashed. But what about advertisements? Do they brainwash people? If so, then what about this very conversation we are having? Wouldn't this constitute as brainwashing people?

We're all told what to think to some degree. A parent might not say anything about Capitalism to their child (0 influence - but due to ignorance). A parent might tell their child they're a Capitalist, and never bring it up again (the child learns what Capitalism is, therefore they are subjected to it). A parent might tell their children they're a capitalist and that Communism is bad (the child is told that Capitalism is good, whereas Communism is not - THIS WORKS IN REVERSE TOO - ). Then you might have a parent who constantly reminds the child that Capitalism is good, and Communism is evil, over and over again until it becomes a mantra (the child is told repeatedly that Capitalism is Good and Communism is bad, which has the greatest effect on the child).*

The problem is, you consider all levels of influence as "brainwashing", when brainwashing only refers to the final level of influence I described above (and even that's debatable). It's like looking at you gas gauge in you car. On the left you see "Empty", on the right you see "Full". You have this idea that if the needle is anywhere except the very left, it must be entirely full.

*Note: I am a Capitalist

Yes any level of education is brainwashing, some are more extensive than others. Me and you apparently agree where others here disagree. Earlier they were implying that commercial ads have very little affect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: