Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-06-2013, 04:56 PM
Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(04-06-2013 12:51 PM)Bob Loblaw Wrote:  
(04-06-2013 12:28 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I'm not the leader of anything other than my life. I don't participate in the affairs of government and I don't condone them. Please don't lump me in with the violent, tyrannical sociopaths who call themselves the US government.

As for the most free countries, I've already stated the US is tenth among those listed as "free" by a variety of factors... including economic freedoms and government restriction of individual liberty. You can read the 2013 list here.

There are also other factors to consider when assessing the general happiness of a society. The US government imprisons more of its citizens than any other country in the world. And what's worse, it imprisons more of its children than any country in the world. Another point to consider is the correlation between overall happiness and corporal punishment. Aside from Canada, all of the countries you've mentioned have long since outlawed corporal punishment... which is a euphemism for assaulting children.

Given what we know about psychology and the negative affects violence has on children, wouldn't it make sense to you that not hitting and incarcerating children would lend itself to a happier adult population?

In the end, there is a lot more to human happiness than economic policy. In fact, economic policy is a by product of child rearing. Ergo, children who are brutalized will become adults who favor strong government controls.

Excerpted from the last article I linked to as spoken by a 14 year old girl who is in juvenile detention in El Paso, TX:

"One day I might want to work as a Corrections Officer in a prison."

Of course... she was taught the language of violence and control, so that's what she speaks.
You seem very anti-government and with your government I can understand why but good governments with a lot of control can and are running their country's very well , not saying socialism has not went bad it has but we are way off subject and I am sure there are other related threads.
I would think that your youths easy access and affordable access to pop and other sodium and sugar foods cause has much harm as any other threat out there. You want to make an impact on the health of your youth, do what this thread suggest

Let me give you some hints on Americans, they are against governments having anything to do with their personal choices..........BUT they don't mind their government strong arming, threatening, and invading other countries to ensure they have those many things to consume. It's called denial.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2013, 05:04 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
bbel...please give some clarification...

"children who are brutalized will become adults who favor strong government controls"

How do you rate how much a child was brutalized and how much effect it had on them?

How do you rate 'strong' government controls?

How can these thoughts even be brought together?

Where did this piece of information come from?

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2013, 05:37 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(04-06-2013 12:51 PM)Bob Loblaw Wrote:  You seem very anti-government and with your government I can understand why but good governments with a lot of control can and are running their country's very well , not saying socialism has not went bad it has but we are way off subject and I am sure there are other related threads.
I would think that your youths easy access and affordable access to pop and other sodium and sugar foods cause has much harm as any other threat out there. You want to make an impact on the health of your youth, do what this thread suggest

It's not that I'm anti-government. I'm anti-violence. Governments by nature, are violent and thus, I oppose them.

As for your last assertion, are you seriously claiming that access to sugary foods is as harmful as hitting a child? Verbally abusing a child? Do you think sugar is more harmful to children than raising them in poverty stricken, single parent homes?

And at the same time, you think that pointing guns at people is a good thing if the right people are pointing the guns at the right people.... Blink

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
04-06-2013, 05:45 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
Where does a poverty stricken home with two parents fall?

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2013, 06:23 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(04-06-2013 05:04 PM)Anjele Wrote:  bbel...please give some clarification...

"children who are brutalized will become adults who favor strong government controls"

How do you rate how much a child was brutalized and how much effect it had on them?

How do you rate 'strong' government controls?

How can these thoughts even be brought together?

Where did this piece of information come from?



That would be nice, huh? Kinda went tangential there just a bit.

Human beings are pattern making machines. We're creatures of habit, so we tend toward replicating early experiences later in life. Kids who come from abusive homes where authority is arbitrary and punishment severe, will be more comfortable with strict government than with laissez faire government because they are used to the former. They're more inclined toward accepting that marijuana is against the law simply because it is rather than because of some actual, valid reason for it to be. And, they'll be indifferent to the harsh punishments the state sets forth with respect to such victimless crimes.

Have you ever heard someone say "those Smith boys are all hard headed" or, the Jones girls are all gently ladies" or, "I get my business sense from my family", or, or, or... I'm sure you get the point. All of these statements are about parents or primary caregivers. Of course these people are like their parents.... we all are to one degree or another. And we get bad habits from our parents as well. And we get their anxiety disorders, their rage syndromes and any other poisonous traits they have. Sometimes they don't manifest in exactly the same way but they are none the less present with us as adults.

Also, there have been a number of political studies done which conclude that right leaning people tend to come from patriarchal families and left leaning people tend to come from matriarchal families. And they're pretty spot on from what I've found. The trouble is that they don't look deep enough into the family dynamics to predict anything other than vague political bents.


As for how I rate the brutalization of children. No doubt a lot more liberally than most. Owing to mountains of studies done on child rearing practices, psychological development and mental injury, I rate any coercion against a child, whether verbal or physical as abusive. In fact, with respect to "spanking", the damage done is psychological rather than physical. The body forgets bruises but the brain doesn't forget being yelled at, told you're stupid, lazy, irresponsible, etc. We might think we forget, but we don't. And the memories generally manifest in addictions and other adult psychological disorders including, but not limited to anxiety, depression, paranoia, self harm (cutting), ADHD and bi-polar disorder.

Information on my conclusions can be found:

http://www.themoneytimes.com/node/85300

http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/05_history.html

http://www.repeal43.org/research.html ÔćÉThere are about thirty individual studies cited in this article.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_...ng-iq.html

http://www.nospank.net/johnson2.htm

http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/spanked.html

This is a four part series on how violence affects children as adults:




A short summary of the affects of spanking:






As government controls go, I rate any control over any non violent human action as excessive and unnecessary. This includes at least a few hundred thousand US laws but to be honest, I've never counted.

As for how these thoughts can come together, quite easily. All human beings are children before we're adults and all humans develop the vast majority of their personalities and, dysfunctions by the time we're about seven years old.

People like to say that children are the future. That's true. And if you raise them with irrational authority, they will seek it and inflict it on others as adults. Ergo... the state. And, not coincidentally, the church.

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
04-06-2013, 06:35 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
I appreciate the time you took to explain your stance. But it is still not a blanket statement...all kids who grow up with irrational authority do not grow up seeking authority.

My brother did...hence the prison guard gig.

My sister and I who were on the receiving end of much more insanity, not so much in dealing with more authority. In fact, we prefer none at all...we have had our fill.

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2013, 06:58 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(04-06-2013 06:35 PM)Anjele Wrote:  I appreciate the time you took to explain your stance. But it is still not a blanket statement...all kids who grow up with irrational authority do not grow up seeking authority.

My brother did...hence the prison guard gig.

My sister and I who were on the receiving end of much more insanity, not so much in dealing with more authority. In fact, we prefer none at all...we have had our fill.


I understand what you're saying. I was brought up non violently but with horribly strict authority and discipline and I'm an anarchist for Christ's sake. Sadcryface

The thing is, there are probably no less than a million influencing factors in each and every human life. Including the lives of siblings reared in the same household. Even a small variation in the severity, frequency or presence of/lack of one or more of those events can change the way our brains develop. So it's a bit difficult to use one family or even ten families as the metric for... what is it now, seven billion individuals?

Among those seven billion, I would hazard a guess that less than one tenth of one percent are philosophical libertarians (anarchists). One could say that correlation isn't causation but from a scientific standpoint, those percentages qualify as facts.

And to elaborate further... even if my hypothesis is completely wrong and statism reigns supreme for time immoral (not a typo Wink), doesn't it make sense to look at the overwhelming amounts of data we have that show how detrimental coercion is against children? I mean seriously... would it be too much to ask that we treat the most important, most fragile, most helpless members of society with the same amount of respect and legal protections we afford strangers and pets?

In the US, it is against the law to hit animals. However, it is lawful to hit children between the ages of two and twelve, if I remember the ages correctly.

And then I'm told I live in a civilized country. Civilized people don't hit the helpless.

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
06-06-2013, 12:16 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(04-06-2013 04:56 PM)I and I Wrote:  Let me give you some hints on Americans, they are against governments having anything to do with their personal choices..........BUT they don't mind their government strong arming, threatening, and invading other countries to ensure they have those many things to consume. It's called denial.

Great ad hominem! Because Americans are "pro-war", then their arguments supporting personal freedom is completely moot! Right? (The answer is "no")

An insanely large number of Americans are anti-war. The Americans who believe America needs to be on the offensive with their military, support the military's actions because they believe America is being threatened, not because they want America to take over other nation's resources.

Furthermore, anyone who thinks for a second will realize how stupid it is to believe America goes to war merely for "resources". Keep in mind, war is incredibly costly, and will always be the more expensive alternative than simply buying foreign goods.

I will grant you that it's redicilous how pro-war the American government can be. The motives as to why the U.S. is involved in so many conflicts is too often unclear and it's a good guess the reasons are still horrible. Regardless, throwing around baseless accusations get you nowhere.

But, this is all besides the point since it has nothing to do with personal freedom to do with your own body what you damn well please.

----

Back to the original point of the topic. You can't claim there's no such thing as free will, then use this to justify whatever you want.

"There is no free will! Therefore, people shouldn't be allowed to advertise because it goes against free will!" (notice the blatant hypocrisy)

If there's no free will, one can simply argue the opposite point, "There is no such thing as free will, therefore we shouldn't even bother getting involved."

The thing is, you believe the way to counter anti-free will measures is by enforcing anti-free will measures. As I states pages ago, we're working with two different definitions of free will (you refuse to acknowledge that we're talking about two different levels and keep treating them as the same.)

Free will, as those of us who defend human rights, is one's ability to make their own decisions IN ACCORDANCE to their own nature and influences. YOU are arguing that free will is any influence that effects a person's decision/action (all decisions are influenced, therefore free will can't exist).

For sake of simplification, let's call the free will we defend "relative" free will. The free will you advocate, the free will that's impossible, we'll call "absolute" free will. Keep in mind, "absolute" free will CAN NOT exist.

Let's look at two scenarios.

1. Advertising is allowed.
Absolute free will does not exist, yet relative free will does exist.

2. Advertising is not allowed.
Absolute free will does not exist, and relative free will does not exist.

To support censorship and government buttfucking (sorry, control) of our rights to do what we want with our bodies, is to LIMIT relative free will. You're using absolute free will, or lack thereof, as an excuse to limit relative free will. But, you keep ignoring the fact that absolute free will can't exist. You want to fight advertisements because they have an influence on our decisions, yet you're too pigheaded to realize that censorship also influences our decisions.

If you think advertisements rob us of our free will, and censorship doesn't, you're a fool.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Nemo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: