toldailytopic: Liberals want to outlaw large soft drinks and other large sugary drink

[The Barbarian]

The most practical of objections. Experience shows that what government does "for our own good", usually turns out to serve the good of those governing.

Benevolent dictators are so rare as to never occur two in a row. And horror and abuse follows.

The idea is countered quite easily. It doesn't work. Nor does the argument work that the abuse is "such a small thing as to not matter." That is the way our rights are always lost, a little at a time. We might start with Bloomberg, but it ends with Cult Warrior.

 

[Lighthouse]

LH: Do you have a counterargument?

This law is certainly not reasonable. We've already shown how erroneous it is in its premise. You are too foolish to understand, clearly.

And to think any of the rest of those are legitimate reasons to accept a law, especially to think these are the only legitimate reasons to accept it, is a level of foolishness I don't think I can even begin to describe.

 

[PureX]

The most practical of objections. Experience shows that what government does "for our own good", usually turns out to serve the good of those governing.

Benevolent dictators are so rare as to never occur two in a row. And horror and abuse follows.

The idea is countered quite easily. It doesn't work. Nor does the argument work that the abuse is "such a small thing as to not matter." That is the way our rights are always lost, a little at a time. We might start with Bloomberg, but it ends with Cult Warrior.

I just find it interesting that we seem to imagine that sugar water must be untouchable while the government already regulates tobacco, alcohol, drugs, sexual interaction, operating motor vehicles, owning firearms, commercial transactions, business transactions, food processing, product safety, and about a thousand other things. And most of the people bemoaning the regulation of sugar water are all for all this other regulation, and in some cases want more of it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

AB: I answer you very simply. In the Politics, Aristotle says that if a man truly is suited to live alone, he either must be a beast or a god. As such, there is pretty much no such thing as an "atomistic, totally free" man. Man must be a part of the state. The State has the right of legislation over him, and so long as a law meets the criterion of law, he must obey.

In this case:

Do you deny that the law is a prudential dictate of reason? No.
Do you deny that it is promulgated? No.
Do you deny that it is issued by a legitimate sovereign? No.
Do you deny that it is for the common good? No.*

You can say that it takes away too much "freedom," but you can't deny that it's for the common good. People actually would be better off if they drank less soda.

Therefore, I conclude: it is a valid law and it must be obeyed.

*These are the 4 criteria of law in ST I-II, q. 90.

This "law" isn't going to make people drink less soda. It'll just mean that people will drink it in smaller cups. If they were that serious about the supposed 'common good' they'd make a law regulating how much can be served in any one sitting. It's like saying the government regulates tobacco and alcohol because they have guidelines and health warnings....

 

[Traditio]

This "law" isn't going to make people drink less soda. It'll just mean that people will drink it in smaller cups. If they were that serious about the supposed 'common good' they'd make a law regulating how much can be served in any one sitting. It's like saying the government regulates tobacco and alcohol because they have guidelines and health warnings....

Well, this is the way that I see it:

Either the sodas will be served at a fast food restaurant, and those are self-serve.

Or the sodas will be served at a restaurant, and the server must fill your cup.

Or the soda will be served at a gas station.

If the first, then people are lazy. Who is going to want to get up and refill his cup over and over again?

If the second, then people are lazy. How often do servers really check up on you? You'll be sitting forever with no drink in your cup.

If the third, then buying more than one drink would be more expensive. And who wants to spend the cash?

And these restrictions don't apply to diet soda. I'm just saying, there seems to be a real possibility that at least some people might switch to diet.

 

[serpentdove]

"I'd rather have a fat, free society :5020: than a skinny, coerced society." :Commie: ~ Dennis Prager

 

[Town Heretic]

"I'd rather have a fat, free society :5020: than a skinny, coerced society." :Commie: ~ Dennis Prager

He's fat, isn't he... lain:

Eh...

 

[Lighthouse]

I just find it interesting that we seem to imagine that sugar water must be untouchable while the government already regulates tobacco, alcohol, drugs, sexual interaction, operating motor vehicles, owning firearms, commercial transactions, business transactions, food processing, product safety, and about a thousand other things. And most of the people bemoaning the regulation of sugar water are all for all this other regulation, and in some cases want more of it.

Care to back up that statement?

Well, this is the way that I see it:

Either the sodas will be served at a fast food restaurant, and those are self-serve.

Or the sodas will be served at a restaurant, and the server must fill your cup.

Or the soda will be served at a gas station.

If the first, then people are lazy. Who is going to want to get up and refill his cup over and over again?

:wave2:

If the second, then people are lazy. How often do servers really check up on you? You'll be sitting forever with no drink in your cup.

Then raise your hand and get their attention.

If the third, then buying more than one drink would be more expensive. And who wants to spend the cash?

This one is true.

But one thing we all notice is that you have a low opinion of people. But that's no surprise, as self-absorbed as you are.

 

[serpentdove]

He's fat, isn't he...

He's tall not fat.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Id rather fill my own cup any day than wait for the waitress

 

[serpentdove]

You're a jerk. You don't have a clue what other people have to go thru.

"Yes. A chocolate friend. Mr. Candy Bar doesn't judge you,...Mr. Candy Bar likes you just the way you are." ~ Eric Cartman

 

[Delmar]

AB: I answer you very simply. In the Politics, Aristotle says that if a man truly is suited to live alone, he either must be a beast or a god. As such, there is pretty much no such thing as an "atomistic, totally free" man. Man must be a part of the state. The State has the right of legislation over him, and so long as a law meets the criterion of law, he must obey.

In this case:

Do you deny that the law is a prudential dictate of reason? No.
Do you deny that it is promulgated? No.
Do you deny that it is issued by a legitimate sovereign? No.
Do you deny that it is for the common good? No.*

You can say that it takes away too much "freedom," but you can't deny that it's for the common good. People actually would be better off if they drank less soda.

Therefore, I conclude: it is a valid law and it must be obeyed.

*These are the 4 criteria of law in ST I-II, q. 90.

I strongly doubt if you would have found many of the US founding fathers that agreed with Aristotle on this matter. The idea was that the government was to have limited powers over individual freedoms.

 

[eameece]

We're gonna stay here and eat and drink whatever we feel like having. How do you like them apples?

I hope we can regulate what apples you get, for your own good! How do you like them apples?

 

[eameece]

Maybe you should try Burger King!

Why should I swap one brand of junk for another?