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

[PureX]

The two are not comparable. Abortion *intentionally* kills one's own children whereas allowing a child to have a pudding cup (or two) is not done with sole intention of wanting to kill/harm the child.

Should a parent be responsible for the health and welfare of their BORN children? Of course. I would even say it would be negligent of a parent to allow their preteen/teen child to reach a level of morbid obesity with no intervention.

My point is that the fundamental problem, and issue, is the same. In both cases the welfare of the child is endangered by the freedom we are allowing to the parent. The degree of harm is different, and the time factors involved are different, but the issue is basically the same. When is it appropriate for the state to step in on behalf of the child?

Letting a child have a candy bar or chocolate shake is in no way similar to abortion. There is nothing wrong with occasionally eating junk food ...

Occasional junk food does not end in death on every occasion ... whereas, abortion ALWAYS ends the life of the unborn baby.

But the overwhelming evidence indicates that we are not talking about occasional treats. We're talking about a huge number of children who are obese and diabetic because their parents are not limiting their intake of sugar.

 

[PureX]

I don't think the ban being proposed is workable. I think the problem with it is that it seeks to limit the kid's behavior, instead of limiting the behavior of the greedy corporations that want to sell mass quantities of sugar water to children for profit.

But I do think it's calling attention to a very real problem that we need to address in this country, not just for the sake of our kid's health but for the sake of all our health.

 

[lightbringer]

But no one has proposed banning the big cups, have they? I thought the ban being proposed was that we don't sell sugar water to children in giant sized cups. And just because these fast food places let you serve yourself, now, doesn't mean this can't possibly be changed.

Don't be silly PX, the next quote is where I came up with 16 oz.

As far as changing self serve is concerned, sure it could be changed, if you are ready to hand over all decisions to the government (which is what you are saying...government knows best in all things!?) instead of being an adult and teaching children what is good and what is bad...as for the obese adults, that is their business, their choice!

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

Is being able to buy sugar water in bulk more important than the health of our children?

:rotfl: Silly child....

Are laws against children drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes or driving motor vehicles useless? Are you recommending that we eliminate these "nanny laws" as well?

Again, silly child...

Yeah, because EVERYTHING is about you having to pay taxes.

Again, silly child... you got lost in the sarcasm!

It couldn't possibly be about the huge increase in the instances of childhood obesity and diabetes.

Inform the public, teach them better/healthy ways but turn the country into a dictatorship? SILLY CHILD!

Nannies...silly children... have some opcorn: and a nap, after recess you'll feel better later!

 

[Memento Mori]

This seems almost like a slippery slope argument in action in terms of the government.

For example, car manufacturers are required to but seat belts in their vehicles and meet certain safety regulations. Motorcycle helmets meet their regulations. Cigarettes carry a warning label. Almost every aspect of American life has some regulation on it to keep the population safe.

So, how should soda be properly regulated? I've seen the majority being education.

Also, I do agree. There is no causal link between sugary drinks and obesity that I have seen.

 

[PureX]

Don't be silly PX, the next quote is where I came up with 16 oz.

As far as changing self serve is concerned, sure it could be changed, if you are ready to hand over all decisions to the government (which is what you are saying...government knows best in all things!?)

How did we get from moving the soda dispensers to abject totalitarianism? It's this kind of knee-jerk extremism that's intended to avoid even a reasoned discussion that makes it impossible for us to do anything about the huge problems we're facing in this country.

... instead of being an adult and teaching children what is good and what is bad...as for the obese adults, that is their business, their choice!

Why don't we teach the corporations that produce this crap and push it at children what's good and what's bad, as they clearly don't seem to have any idea. I'm OK with teaching the kids, too, but at the moment, their parents aren't doing it and the kids are just being kids.

 

[lightbringer]

How did we get from moving the soda dispensers to abject totalitarianism? It's this kind of knee-jerk extremism that's intended to avoid even a reasoned discussion that makes it impossible for us to do anything about the huge problems we're facing in this country.

Knee-jerk totalitarianism is dumping our responsibilities on the government allowing the government to do what it does best in that case, take choices away from the many due to the inablity of obese people to do what is healthy for themselves and their children.

Why don't we teach the corporations that produce this crap and push it at children what's good and what's bad, as they clearly don't seem to have any idea.

The corporations are producing a product that is harmless, it is not their fault nor their responsibility if parents allow their children to drink or eat too much!

I'm OK with teaching the kids, too,

Good! Because that is what should happen. If we allow or put the government in the position to make these decisions for us we might as well just start goose stepping and fall in line like good little mindless slaves!

but at the moment, their parents aren't doing it and the kids are just being kids.

It happens :idunno: but don't give up every ones rights, privilage or enjoyment because there are some who can't or won't take care of themselves or their children.

 

[eameece]

I don't want the government telling me what I can ingest in my body (in regards to food and beverage).

It's not. It's telling restaurants what they can sell.

 

[eameece]

Yeah, because soft drinks are a moral issue.

It is, just like in the time of prohibition. Drinking is a sin!

 

[eameece]

I think banning big-burp-double-gulps is silly. No, I think it's beyond silly and is very wrong. Also silly.

If someone wants to sell or buy/drink (literally) a cup of sugar, okay. As disgusting as that might be.

I'm curious whether anyone sees it as legislation restricting greed and gluttony? Or even, where do greed and gluttony play a role in this?

It's the greed of the restaurants and soft drink industry; by selling bigger cups they make more money.

 

[eameece]

The asinine arses that legislate these type of laws don't publically acknowledge God and sin. If they did, they'd speak out and legislate against other sinful acts such as abortion and homosexuality.

Those are only "sins" because the religious right says they are. Obesity is a real world problem with expensive consequences for us all.

 

[eameece]

You have a lot of pride. You make too many assumptions and your usage of scripture is incorrect. I don't drink alcohol and I am not going to an enemy's house to eat.

I do feel a lot of times I am in enemy territory on this website though.
Much of my enemies seem to be arrogant Christians who think that throwing inappropriate Bible verses at people who are in pain is love.

Love is patient and kind and it is not rude or arrogant which is what I find a lot of the time on this website which is why I rarely post or visit here.

Indeed. Sounds like a lot of Christians here need to read a certain portion of Corinthians.

 

[Town Heretic]

You don't need to ban big gulps, just mandate that all straws are no bigger than the sort you use to stir coffee with and that cup lids must be permanently affixed. lain:

 

[anna]

Indeed. Sounds like a lot of Christians here need to read a certain portion of Corinthians.

I get tired of hearing liberals this...liberals that like it's acceptable to scorn all those who happen to have different beliefs.

To me the whole left vs right is just a ploy to divide people.
I am not saying that division is always a bad thing. It just seems like nobody gets anywhere with people when they speak insult. The only people who listen are people who are just as hateful as the person speaking.

People need to read more and evaluate themselves more and watch less tv.

 

[Lighthouse]

Also: to all you folks who are anti-abortion, why is it OK in your mind for the government to deny the freedom of a woman to choose an abortion, so as to protect the life of the fetus, but then be so outrageous to you that the government would deny the freedom of a parent to feed their kids massive doses of sugar water, so as to protect the health of the kids?

The claim is being thrown around that this is a "liberal" proposal, but it seems to me to be very similar to conservatives proposing a ban on abortion. Both of these proposed bans seek to limit the freedom of adults to protect the heath of children.

Really? Abortion protects the health of children?

It is, just like in the time of prohibition. Drinking is a sin!

No it isn't.

There is not one single passage in the entire Bible that condemns the consumption of alcohol across the board.

 

[Strefanash]

why does the OP look at the folly and absurdity of only the left wing?

Last time i looked the beast which is the world system opposed to God has TWO wings: both left AND right

 

[Angel4Truth]

It's not. It's telling restaurants what they can sell.

Why do you think you have the right to tell a private business what to sell?

They do not get government funds. If you do not like what they sell, you do not have to do business there.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I don't think the ban being proposed is workable. I think the problem with it is that it seeks to limit the kid's behavior, instead of limiting the behavior of the greedy corporations that want to sell mass quantities of sugar water to children for profit.

But I do think it's calling attention to a very real problem that we need to address in this country, not just for the sake of our kid's health but for the sake of all our health.

But we should give condoms to kids and teach homosexuality and give needles to drug addicts but soda is evil.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Maybe we should just sentence overweight people to a stint in fat camp.

 

[PureX]

But we should give condoms to kids and teach homosexuality and give needles to drug addicts but soda is evil.

Please explain to me how your response was in any way related to this post ...

Also: to all you folks who are anti-abortion, why is it OK in your mind for the government to deny the freedom of a woman to choose an abortion, so as to protect the life of the fetus, but then be so outrageous to you that the government would deny the freedom of a parent to feed their kids massive doses of sugar water, so as to protect the health of the kids?

The claim is being thrown around that this is a "liberal" proposal, but it seems to me to be very similar to conservatives proposing a ban on abortion. Both of these proposed bans seek to limit the freedom of adults (so as) to protect the heath of children.

... and then if you would, please explain why you neg-repped me for it.

 

[PureX]

Also: to all you folks who are anti-abortion, why is it OK in your mind for the government to deny the freedom of a woman to choose an abortion, so as to protect the life of the fetus, but then be so outrageous to you that the government would deny the freedom of a parent to feed their kids massive doses of sugar water, so as to protect the health of the kids?

The claim is being thrown around that this is a "liberal" proposal, but it seems to me to be very similar to conservatives proposing a ban on abortion. Both of these proposed bans seek (so as) to limit the freedom of adults to protect the health of children.

Really? Abortion protects the health of children?

It was a typo. I forgot to put in the "so as" in the last sentence. But I think if you had read the whole post, you would have understood what I meant even though I didn't spell it out in the last sentence.