Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2013, 05:12 PM
Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
And no, no decision is a truly free as in totally from your own person. Humans are influenced by many things all the time and we are followers. Any decision is predicated on something externally impressed upon you. I do want that hamburger or I don't want that hamburger are not free decisions. Both decisions are predicated on external circumstances not set by you. Next.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2013, 07:10 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
What? Are you high?

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2013, 07:48 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(02-06-2013 05:12 PM)I and I Wrote:  And no, no decision is a truly free as in totally from your own person. Humans are influenced by many things all the time and we are followers. Any decision is predicated on something externally impressed upon you. I do want that hamburger or I don't want that hamburger are not free decisions. Both decisions are predicated on external circumstances not set by you. Next.

If that's true, then what possible sense does it make to come here and argue with people? Why get annoyed at people when they can't understand or don't agree with your point of view?

If the world is as deterministic as you claim, then we are all just masses of matter and energy obeying the laws of physics. Thus, I can no more change my mind about a subject than a rock falling down the side of a mountain can change its path.

I mean... my mind can be changed... but I can't change it. If I want my mind changed, all I can really do is hope some outside influence comes along and changes it for me, kinda like a rock falling down a mountain side may bounce off another rock and change its trajectory. But then, I can't really want my mind changed unless some outside influence makes it so. And I can't assume the outside influence is acting in my self interest... or not. Because that outside interest, like me, is just obeying the laws of physics.

Come to think of it. We shouldn't have punishment or laws or any set of rules guided by any sort of ethical principles, because no one is capable of actually choosing to follow them. Either an outside influence is gonna cause you to murder or it isn't, right?

And of course, there's no reason for you to respond to this post, because I clearly had no say in whether or not I posted it. But then, you don't have any choice either...

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2013, 07:57 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
I and I doesn't answer direct questions, ever.

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
02-06-2013, 09:55 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(02-06-2013 05:04 PM)I and I Wrote:  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.

Wrong.

You said the people who make us choose whether we will work, or remain poor, are those whom control the government.

Do you know what it is to work? Most often, working means to produce. If you don't work, you don't produce. The reason we live in a system where you have to work for a living is because you need to produce to reap the productions of others.

You're against the idea of people selling their labor, but at least you can choose who you try and sell your labor to, and you can try to sell whatever labor you want. But let's get rid of the evil "slave" part of it all. Everyone owns their own labor.

What do you do when you stop selling your labor? You just work for yourself? You stop working in general?

"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. "

You think it's bad for people to perform actions that are suggested by others. It's not. We are influenced by commercials, and guess what, we're happy for doing so! Commercials influence our lives for the better, because they introduce us to products we end up enjoying.

"And no, no decision is a truly free as in totally from your own person. Humans are influenced by many things all the time and we are followers. Any decision is predicated on something externally impressed upon you. I do want that hamburger or I don't want that hamburger are not free decisions. Both decisions are predicated on external circumstances not set by you. Next. "

It's so hard to put into words the level of bullshit you present to us.

You state that it's impossible for us to have free will, because there will always be an outside influence. This means it's literally impossible for free will to exist within reality.

You then argue that the system we have is corrupt because it doesn't give us the choice of free will.

But here's the thing, it CAN'T give us the choice of free will, because your definition of free will is LITERALLY impossible.

------- So let me sum up your argument------

We can't have free will. People shouldn't be allowed to advertise because it goes against people's free will.

Do you not see the hypocrisy? You're taking away people's right not to advertise. You're promoting censorship.

Again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, I'll repeat this.

We will ALWAYS lack the total free will you propose. HOWEVER, "free will" is just a word, and it can mean a number of different things. IF you believe "free will" is impossible, then you're thinking of something ENTIRELY different from the rest of us who use the words "free will".

We will NEVER have the ability to form judgments without some outside force. It's literally impossible. But that means we must accept it as reality, except it as truth, and LIVE OUR LIVES ACCORDING TO WHAT WE CAN CHANGE. We can not break free from influence, so stop trying to prohibit influence (because you only replace it with other influences - which is counter productive).

When we talk about free will, we talk about one's ability to make whatever choices they want. You can argue that they don't have free will, because they may only want something because of an outside influence, but that's not the level of free will we're talking about, that's attacking something that effects all of us whether we're exposed to commercials or not.

I know this may not make sense to you, but it's difficult to explain. Just know that what you propose restricts free will more than the free market.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2013, 11:11 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
Soft Drinks and Fast Food should be banned from college canteens, government and other public undertaking canteens. In addition, they should also be taxed highly for better public good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2013, 11:47 PM
Re: RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(02-06-2013 11:11 PM)Bijurn Wrote:  Soft Drinks and Fast Food should be banned from college canteens, government and other public undertaking canteens. In addition, they should also be taxed highly for better public good.

Go stick your face in a lawn mower blade.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2013, 11:53 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
I do have to agree there is far to much sugar in foods in general. there is also too much salt and to many additives. Surely it is up to the individual to monitor their intake. With Children it is up to parents to educate their offspring. We just can't ban everything, people have to make their own decisions when buying food. Diabetes will stop them in the endSad

O.M.D. ('cause the dog is real)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2013, 08:35 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
The OP is a good question and one that I'm often stuck thinking about.

The question really is far more complex than "should large sodas (like the Big Gulp) be heavily taxed or banned (like the did in New York)?"

If we break down the question we need to first ask, why was it banned? Then how has the ban affected people? Is it an infringement upon liberty? Who is it affecting the most?

To answer the first question of why, I think this is pretty simple, lots of soda through many studies has been shown to be detrimental to a person's health. From teeth erosion to added empty calories and simple carbs which lead to obesity to high quantities of sodium which can cause congestive heart problems. The who is a more problematic issue; one one hand the average drinker of soda probably won't be affected by such a ban or tax. I know that I personally love soda but I drink little of it because I know it's bad for me. A quick search tells me that drinking soda is considered bad news in general. One site even claimed that "The average american drinks 45 gallons of soda per year" or 360 16oz bottles of soda in a year (nearly one a day). Yet that's an average, let us assume there is a bell curve for a moment. That would mean some people drink no soda whatsoever, some drink only soda and the vast majority of people are in a range that is near that 360 16oz count. So where do people fit on that bell curve? Well for one I know that gamers, kids, the homeless, are going to be on the upper end of that bell curve. Why do I know this, well beyond the numerous studies on the matter (though none directly comparing these three) we know that; kids drink more soda and sugary drinks than adults at a ration of 3:1. We know that gamers who are often sedentary drink lots of sodas (I'm including energy drinks in this count), and the homeless look to soda as a cheap energy source. 300 calories from one or two bottles is cheaper than the healthier alternatives. On the other hand middle America, and those who are health conscious are going to stick to less soda. So the mom's worried about their kids health looking to set a good example, the body builders, the gym enthusiasts, the runners and outdoors men, doctors, nurses and so on. Let us also assume for a moment that most people don't drink soda every day, but rather sit at specific occasions drinking soda during those events.

Now what I'm getting at here is that the average and the health cost are going to be directly tied. Most sodas offer no nutritional value while having the detriment of high amounts of sugar which, if not used immediately are stored as fat. We must also consider that we live in a lazy society. That is to say, people don't exercise enough through everyday activity.

So who is most affected by a ban on a big gulp, I'd argue it's the homeless. While yes soda is bad for everyone, the homeless rely on it as a source of cheap calories. And bearing in mind that a homeless person living on the streets is less likely to be eating regularly or to be on the verge of starvation, is burning far more calories than most americans in general due to their lifestyle (moving constantly, sleeping in the cold, etc).

So now the question comes to is it an infringement on liberty? Well, I'd say yes and no. This is an answer that can't really be narrowed unfortunately. On the one hand the FDA restrict many food sources to ensure things like quality and value of the food and of course nutritional safety. We often don't decry this protection when we look to the nutritional label of each food item we buy (of course some of us have learned not to necessarily trust these labels as well). We accept this form of incursion on our freedom to buy food from whom we want and to sell to whom we want. Is an extra tax really going to hurt the person buying the big gulp for 1.75$ no not really. Is a ban on it really going to hurt the average american? No. Is it an infringement on your right to drink what you want, well yes, as it is banning the selling of the big gulp and other 32oz drinks like it. However, one could make the same argument about crack cocaine, or any other addicting substance (coughcigarettescough).

Sodas are confirmed by the FDA as addicting and could be even treated as an controlled drug. Many sodas contain caffeine (a stimulant) and various sugar types. Research also directly links soda to weight gain and to type II diabetes.

So, I think I can answer this by asking a different question entirely; What is the limit to regulation we should expect and more importantly, what is the limits we should be setting for ourselves? I'd argue that if people would limit themselves and self-regulate and be aware of the problems that exist, not just with soda, but with foods in general. To become educated when it comes to their nutrition, such regulations wouldn't exist. And then those who rely on the big gulp and other products like it to survive wouldn't be impacted (though to be fair, if we were educated as a society we wouldn't have homeless and we wouldn't see the callousness that we do see now). In other words, because a few people abused the extreme drink, we now all must deal with the shared consequence of the ban.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2013, 12:27 PM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2013 12:38 PM by mysterics.)
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
No, it's throwing the baby out with the bath water, not all of them contain questionable ingredients or alarming amounts of sugar, and yes is an infringement on liberty, if health problems are a concern maybe they should have labels for certain amount of ingredients, like "this beverage contains an alarming amount of sugar and should be consumed with care." mind you a lot of them already do have 'not suitable for children under 5' though it's in the small print.
Though I also believe in legalizing most recreational drugs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: