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

[eameece]

We the people have a right to petition the government to investigate harmful products and if found to be harmful, to regulate or ban the product!

That's about right; you can stop there.

 

[lightbringer]

I have read and seen all about it. American food companies offer junk and little else. All you have to do is shop at the local supermarket to see for yourself. You have to be really really picky. At least some products have labels. But if you read them, you are amazed at how bad the products are. There are very few labels in restaurants, and most of what you get is bad for you. If you want to have good food, you have to spend lots of time and extra gas to get and prepare it. In red states, even those few alternatives are not available at all, and you can't even ride your bike for fear of being run over by a redneck in a hot rod. All you can do is go to church and bow down to the preachers. You guys are really stupid for defending this creepy Republican system. There's no other word for it.

That's about right; you can stop there.

You're just another nut case whining about the fact he can't have it his way...:thumb: Maybe you should try Burger King!

:rotfl:

"In red states, even those few alternatives are not available at all, and you can't even ride your bike for fear of being run over by a redneck in a hot rod. All you can do is go to church and bow down to the preachers."

:rotfl:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yeah, it's weird how the responsibility mongers never apply their responsibility refrain to the giant corporations that produce all this crap.

Its so weird that super government loving liberals act like they care about your kids health so much while they ok killing them..

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Why don't you and Angel 4 Truth go instead to Saudi Arabia or Syria? You would be more comfortable in a country where change and criticism of the status quo of power are not allowed.

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

 

[Traditio]

It's a direct national interest for the population not to be obese, diabetes ridden tubs of lard. Large sugary sodas definitely contribute to people being obese, diabetes ridden tubs of lard. Therefore, it's a good idea for the government to ban them.

 

[lightbringer]

Over eating good healthy foods contribute to people being fat...so do you propose to do away with healthy food or put the responsibility back on the over eater?

Eating the same amount of food at 50 that you did at 20 contribute to people being fat (metabolism changes as well as activities)...so do you propose to force exercise or laborious work on people or an allowance of food that they can purchase?

Peoples weight/waist line is not your business!

 

[Traditio]

Over eating good healthy foods contribute to people being fat...so do you propose to do away with healthy food or put the responsibility back on the over eater?

Eating the same amount of food at 50 that you did at 20 contribute to people being fat (metabolism changes as well as activities)...so do you propose to force exercise or laborious work on people or an allowance of food that they can purchase?

Peoples weight/waist line is not your business!

Lightbringer: you have an errant, atomistic view of man. This is not uncommon, especially since Locke. Society is nothing but a collection of atomistic individuals. Each individual is a complete whole. Society is, paradoxically, not a "whole"* of parts, but a whole of complete wholes. I have my rights and my interests. You have your rights and your interests. The only reason we come into contact is so that we can "negotiate," so to speak. Society is all about "doing business" if I may so put it.

In my view, this is wrong. It's utterly foreign to the ancient philosophers, and it's foreign to the medievals. On the contrary, especially according to Aristotle (see the Politics) and St. Thomas Aquinas (see Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 90, a. 2, response), society is a whole of parts which are, paradoxically, themselves at the same time complete wholes, but in a lesser sense.

To the extent that I am a man and a rational being ordered towards happiness (so say Aristotle and Aquinas), I am a complete whole. That said, it is this very thing that makes me a complete whole which brings me into communion with others. Insofar as I am ordered towards supernatural happiness, I find myself completely unable to attain it on my own. It's only by entering into communion with another (namely, God), that is, in a political order of grace (namely, in the Church) that I can hope to attain that supernatural end.

And even with respect to imperfect happiness, I find that a well-lived life is a political life. It's a life lived among others in a city. Why? Because any particular man lacks many things. Being trained in philosophy, I can't make shoes. A cobbler can't build houses. And even if I didn't need others to supply for material defects, I'd get lonely. Friendship is a good.

So, against Locke and the modernists, man isn't a whole simpliciter. He is at the same time a whole and a part; the very thing that makes him a whole at the same time compels him to be a part of a community. Either a community which is ordered to imperfect beatitude (an earthly politic) or a community which is ordered to perfect beatitude (a politic of grace).**

Thus, what man x does is very much my business, insofar as what man x does affects the political order.

*I use the word "whole" in a very loose sense. It is not, of course, a true whole.
**Finally, we shouldn't forget that the entire created order is a kind of polis governed by a Supreme Monarch; the entire created order is governed by the Eternal Law of God. Even if man isn't a part of an earthly polis, he's still a part of the created order as governed by the Eternal Law. See ST I-II, q. 93, a. 5. Article 6 of the same question is worth reading also.

 

[lightbringer]

Very well read..but peoples weight/waist line is not your business, it may be their personal choice or not!

 

[Traditio]

Very well read..but peoples weight/waist line is not your business, it may be their personal choice or not!

I disagree with this. A person's weight/waist line affects the political order. It, at the very least, directly affects 1. national security (a society of fat people can't defend themselves very well, can they?), 2. the cost of healthcare and 3. work productivity.

Furthermore, a nation of fat people just isn't the best kind of nation, is it? A nation of fat, lazy, gluttonous people is simply a different kind of political order than a nation of non-fat, industrious, temperate people.

By making his so called "personal choice," he has directly changed the kind of polis that I'm living in.

That is my business.

 

[Lighthouse]

What I said was correct; the restaurants offer only big sizes.

I have never been to a single restaurant, or convenience store, that only offers the large sizes. Never. And I've been around for over 30 years.

In other countries they offer even bigger sizes, and nothing else. And tortilla chips cost less than tortillas. Consumers of American "free" enterprise have little or no choice in what to buy. They can choose between different brands of junk.

Isn't that the problem of the other countries?

In America we have a choice. get over it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I disagree with this. A person's weight/waist line affects the political order. It, at the very least, directly affects 1. national security (a society of fat people can't defend themselves very well, can they?), 2. the cost of healthcare and 3. work productivity.

Furthermore, a nation of fat people just isn't the best kind of nation, is it? A nation of fat, lazy, gluttonous people is simply a different kind of political order than a nation of non-fat, industrious, temperate people.

By making his so called "personal choice," he has directly changed the kind of polis that I'm living in.

That is my business.

In which case, for the sake of consistency you'll advocate the government banning cigarettes, alcohol and any other unhealthy product as well then right?

After all, pulmonary disorders, cardiac and liver disease, associated cancers and other disease would supposedly have the same "impact" on your life right?

How about mandatory muesli eating? Lights out and enforced curfews at 10PM? A minimum of 4 miles walking exercise per day?

One can only hope you become less of a pompous prig someday Trad. I suspect it'll happen in time but in the meanwhile - what folk choose to eat and the quantity of such is none of your darn business.

:e4e:

 

[Traditio]

In which case, for the sake of consistency you'll advocate the government banning cigarettes

Yes.

alcohol and any other unhealthy product as well then right?

Alcohol isn't necessarily an unhealthy product. In moderation, alcohol has various health benefits.

After all, pulmonary disorders, cardiac and liver disease, associated cancers and other disease would supposedly have the same "impact" on your life right?

Yes.

How about mandatory muesli eating?

1. What is muesli?

2. Presupposing muesli is a health food, there is no reason to enforce eating it per se. There are a variety of different foods which can contribute to a healthy diet. There's no reason to enforce this one or that one specifically.

Lights out and enforced curfews at 10PM?

I would love for there to be lights out and enforced curfews at 10:00 PM. That would have made my life so much easier over the past year. Darned undergrads rarely go to bed before midnight. :nono:

A minimum of 4 miles walking exercise per day?

There are, again, a variety of different ways that you can exercise, each of which contribute to good health. There's no need to legislate this one or that one per se.

That said, Plato does say in the Laws that mandatory exercise and communal meals should be made part of the law.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes.

Consistent so far then.

Alcohol isn't necessarily an unhealthy product. In moderation, alcohol has various health benefits.

But when not it's the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths and has a major impact on peoples general health. So what's your solution? Pubs to sell one pint per customer per night? One bottle per customer in a day? lain:

Yes.

So you'd presumably ban any manner of unhealthy produce then right? No cream cakes, gateaux, danish pastries, kebabs, fry ups etc etc etc? Close down KFC, McD's, BK etc then?

1. What is muesli?

2. Presupposing muesli is a health food, there is no reason to enforce eating it per se. There are a variety of different foods which can contribute to a healthy diet. There's no reason to enforce this one or that one specifically.

Yes, it's a healthy food product. But you would enforce a diet of only healthy food for everyone then?

I would love for there to be lights out and enforced curfews at 10:00 PM. That would have made my life so much easier over the past year. Darned undergrads rarely go to bed before midnight. :nono:

So you're in bed before midnight every night are you? :chuckle:

There are, again, a variety of different ways that you can exercise, each of which contribute to good health. There's no need to legislate this one or that one per se.

But you would legislate some form of daily exercise as mandatory?

That said, Plato does say in the Laws that mandatory exercise and communal meals should be made part of the law.

Didn't he also say that soda in moderation is quite acceptable? Or am I confusing him with Kant?

lain:

 

[Traditio]

But when not it's the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths and has a major impact on peoples general health. So what's your solution? Pubs to sell one pint per customer per night? One bottle per customer in a day? lain:

From what I can understand, "safe" drinking is something like up to 2 drinks per day. In light of this, I once recommended, about a month ago, that perhaps spirits should be outlawed. However, it also occurs to me that whiskey and spirits of the sort are quite good when mixed with things like coffee and coke and the like. Recently, I've been topping off a can of diet cherry pepsi with a bit of whiskey. Quite delicious.

I don't know. The alcohol problem is hard. The problem is that different people drink for different reasons, and different people have different attitudes to it. Some people drink to take the pain of life away. Some people drink because drinking with friends is fun, especially when beerpong is involved.* Some people drink because alcoholic beverages can be delicious. Earl gray tea + milk + splenda + whiskey = YUM! Dark beers? YUM!

That said. A 2 drink maximum at bars would probably be a good idea in any case.

*Especially when these people are undergrads...I seriously dislike undergrads. :nono:

So you'd presumably ban any manner of unhealthy produce then right? No cream cakes, gateaux, danish pastries, kebabs, fry ups etc etc etc? Close down KFC, McD's, BK etc then?

I'm unconvinced that things like KFC, McD's, etc. necessarily are bad for you in moderation. If you live on McDonalds chicken nuggets, your health, of course, will suffer. But chicken nuggets every once in a while?

Chicken nuggets don't stop having the nutritional value of chicken simply because they're in nugget form. They still have protein, etc.

Sugar has pretty much no nutritional value whatsoever. And that's where the calories in soda are coming from. Sugar. That's it. You're drinking sugar. And it doesn't even make you full.

At least if you were to eat a doughnut (which I don't recommend doing very often), you'll have recognized that you've eaten something. But with a soda? It's completely different.

Yes, it's a healthy food product. But you would enforce a diet of only healthy food for everyone then?

No. An occassional "unhealthy" food, I think, won't harm your health.

The problem is that unhealthy foods are pretty much the basis for the modern food industry, and that's the vast majority of the cheap food snacks that they sell.

You want a cheap snack? Then it's going to be fried and laden down with refined grains, salt and sugar.

Should there be stricter guidelines for the food industry to force them to make their products healthier? Probably. Should this rule out things like fried chicken? Probably not.

So you're in bed before midnight every night are you? :chuckle:

On the vast majority of occassions.

But you would legislate some form of daily exercise as mandatory?

I imagine that would be really difficult to enforce. I'm not, however, opposed to the idea in principle. It should definitely be legislated as a daily requirement in schools.

Didn't he also say that soda in moderation is quite acceptable? Or am I confusing him with Kant?

I seriously doubt that either Plato or Kant ever drank a soda. Isn't that a rather modern innovation?

 

[Arthur Brain]

From what I can understand, "safe" drinking is something like up to 2 drinks per day. In light of this, I once recommended, about a month ago, that perhaps spirits should be outlawed. However, it also occurs to me that whiskey and spirits of the sort are quite good when mixed with things like coffee and coke and the like. Recently, I've been topping off a can of diet cherry pepsi with a bit of whiskey. Quite delicious.

I don't know. The alcohol problem is hard. The problem is that different people drink for different reasons, and different people have different attitudes to it. Some people drink to take the pain of life away. Some people drink because drinking with friends is fun, especially when beerpong is involved.* Some people drink because alcoholic beverages can be delicious. Earl gray tea + milk + splenda + whiskey = YUM! Dark beers? YUM!

That said. A 2 drink maximum at bars would probably be a good idea in any case.

*Especially when these people are undergrads...I seriously dislike undergrads. :nono:



I'm unconvinced that things like KFC, McD's, etc. necessarily are bad for you in moderation. If you live on McDonalds chicken nuggets, your health, of course, will suffer. But chicken nuggets every once in a while?

Chicken nuggets don't stop having the nutritional value of chicken simply because they're in nugget form. They still have protein, etc.

Sugar has pretty much no nutritional value whatsoever. And that's where the calories in soda are coming from. Sugar. That's it. You're drinking sugar. And it doesn't even make you full.

At least if you were to eat a doughnut (which I don't recommend doing very often), you'll have recognized that you've eaten something. But with a soda? It's completely different.



No. An occassional "unhealthy" food, I think, won't harm your health.

The problem is that unhealthy foods are pretty much the basis for the modern food industry, and that's the vast majority of the cheap food snacks that they sell.

You want a cheap snack? Then it's going to be fried and laden down with refined grains, salt and sugar.

Should there be stricter guidelines for the food industry to force them to make their products healthier? Probably. Should this rule out things like fried chicken? Probably not.



On the vast majority of occassions.



I imagine that would be really difficult to enforce. I'm not, however, opposed to the idea in principle. It should definitely be legislated as a daily requirement in schools.



I seriously doubt that either Plato or Kant ever drank a soda. Isn't that a rather modern innovation?

Trad, your whole consistency on this has gone. If you're ok with people having the occasional cream cake or any other unhealthy food then you've no business whining on about folk drinking soda as well. You can't police people's eating habits, nor should you be able to. Promoting advantages of healthier eating and the dangers of over indulgence - be it soda, sweet pastries, alcohol or anything else is one thing, as is campaigning for manufacturers to lessen the amount of salt/sugar in the cheaper end of the food scale. Such is already being done as it is.

The fact is however, that people should be allowed the freedom of choice as to what they consume as the only other alternative is a complete nanny state, which I don't want as it would impact lives far more than your prissy objections as to how 'reduced work production' would supposedly affect yours due to some people being obese.

 

[Memento Mori]

The fact is however, that people should be allowed the freedom of choice as to what they consume as the only other alternative is a complete nanny state, which I don't want as it would impact lives far more than your prissy objections as to how 'reduced work production' would supposedly affect yours due to some people being obese.

I want to talk about that. Why is this issue so black and white?

And no people should not be allowed to consume anything they want. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any babies as they would "choose" to consume pills and anything else they can get their hands on. (And yes, I realize that this is an excessive example but I'm just trying to get a handle on the line.)

For example, dangerous goods such as lead, radon, argon, CO, etc.

Certain things do need to be regulated because they are inherently dangerous.

In the same way, excessively sugary goods can be viewed to have negative health effects (granted I don't agree that there are).

I really wish this law affected something besides pop. It does bring into question what should and shouldn't be regulated by the government.

Maybe if soda carried a Surgeon Generals Warning?

 

[Traditio]

Trad, your whole consistency on this has gone. If you're ok with people having the occasional cream cake or any other unhealthy food then you've no business whining on about folk drinking soda as well.

Drinking soda and eating unhealthy food aren't the same thing, for reasons I've already mentioned. In fact, I rather find it telling that you didn't bother to address the specific points where I justified just this point.

Furthermore, the law in question doesn't call for the complete abolition of sodas. Only for those which are in excess of 16 oz., and, so far as I can see, only in restaurants and convenience stores.

Finally, the substantial point I've argued in this thread is that these seemingly "personal" decisions actually aren't all that personal. They actually have rather public implications.

Note, I never said that a polis could not, in principle, make it illegal to sell all unhealthy foods in convenience stores and restaurants and the like. At some point, legislation is a prudential matter. You have to find a rule fitting to those who are ruled. See ST I-II, q. 96, a. 2.

Whether or not you agree with me that there should be a law against this or that, you can't deny the fundamental point that I've made: these private decisions aren't completely private; they are a genuine public interest upon which the State may legislate if it so chooses.

You can't police people's eating habits, nor should you be able to.

Of course you can, and of course you should. The question is simply a matter of degree. You think that my "degree" is inconsistent, and I don't think so. But it doesn't matter. Simply pointing out that I may be inconsistent (and I don't think that I am), doesn't show that the basic point I've made is wrong. At best, it shows that I've failed to apply it fully.

The fact is however, that people should be allowed the freedom of choice as to what they consume as the only other alternative is a complete nanny state, which I don't want as it would impact lives far more than your prissy objections as to how 'reduced work production' would supposedly affect yours due to some people being obese.

False. There's clearly a third option which lies midway between "complete nanny state" and "complete freedom of choice," namely, "moderate regulation." We already have this. It's illegal to buy/possess/sell marijuana and buy/sell/possess various other drugs. It's not illegal to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Drinking soda and eating unhealthy food aren't the same thing, for reasons I've already mentioned. In fact, I rather find it telling that you didn't bother to address the specific points where I justified just this point.

What, do you think the average adult consumer who's drinking a litre of 'Pepsi' or whatever doesn't already know it's a sugary drink? That it's not going to do their health any benefits?

You're just playing around with semantics here. It's not against the law to buy 16 apple turnovers in a supermarket which if such were one's sole or main diet would result in health problems even if there were some nutritional value.

Furthermore, the law in question doesn't call for the complete abolition of sodas. Only for those which are in excess of 16 oz., and, so far as I can see, only in restaurants and convenience stores.

Which is ludicrous frankly. Are they going to forbid buying 2 or more 8oz bottles/cups in one purchase? It would cost more no doubt but hey....more revenue....

Finally, the substantial point I've argued in this thread is that these seemingly "personal" decisions actually aren't all that personal. They actually have rather public implications.

Dude, what you chose to eat and drink is none of my concern as what I chose to consume is no business of yours in return. If I knew someone who had such an unhealthy diet to the point it was affecting their health to an adverse point then sure, I'd make mention of it, but as a general whole you've nothing but garbled ramblings about 'work productivity' et al which could be applied to a myriad other things on that basis. I happen to value personal choice in these matters.

Note, I never said that a polis could not, in principle, make it illegal to sell all unhealthy foods in convenience stores and restaurants and the like. At some point, legislation is a prudential matter. You have to find a rule fitting to those who are ruled. See ST I-II, q. 96, a. 2.

They'd have a hard job getting it passed. If you were to do away with chocolate for example do you think people would just sit back and say "Oh well, that's what the rulers say so fair enough"? Seriously Trad, if folk like you were in power the emigration rate would be through the roof....

Whether or not you agree with me that there should be a law against this or that, you can't deny the fundamental point that I've made: these private decisions aren't completely private; they are a genuine public interest upon which the State may legislate if it so chooses.

When I choose to have a drink, eat a black forest gateaux, drink a soda etc in the privacy of my own home, it's got sod all to do with you or anyone else, no matter how many times I indulge in such during a week/month or whichever else time frame.

Laws are already in place to regulate/legislate against substance abuse/public disorder through intoxication etc as it is. I've no problem with laws prohibiting smoking in public places by way of example. That's when public interest is served as people shouldn't be directly affected by another's personal decision to 'light up'. Rambling on about adverse affects to 'work production' is just your usual drivel.

Of course you can, and of course you should. The question is simply a matter of degree. You think that my "degree" is inconsistent, and I don't think so. But it doesn't matter. Simply pointing out that I may be inconsistent (and I don't think that I am), doesn't show that the basic point I've made is wrong. At best, it shows that I've failed to apply it fully.

Er, nope, not unless you're a parent looking out for the best dietary interests of the child (or similar in context). Besides those scenarios then adults should be able to eat/drink/consume products at will though education on the dangers of over indulgence on any particular should be encouraged - but not enforced. Otherwise you're in a 'nanny state'.

False. There's clearly a third option which lies midway between "complete nanny state" and "complete freedom of choice," namely, "moderate regulation." We already have this. It's illegal to buy/possess/sell marijuana and buy/sell/possess various other drugs. It's not illegal to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol.

So you're happy enough with the way things are now then? You wouldn't change the system in any way? I've been arguing with you because you seemingly promote changes which would result in a nanny state! :doh: I don't propose a 'free for all' state Trad....

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I want to talk about that. Why is this issue so black and white?

And no people should not be allowed to consume anything they want. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any babies as they would "choose" to consume pills and anything else they can get their hands on. (And yes, I realize that this is an excessive example but I'm just trying to get a handle on the line.)

For example, dangerous goods such as lead, radon, argon, CO, etc.

Certain things do need to be regulated because they are inherently dangerous.

In the same way, excessively sugary goods can be viewed to have negative health effects (granted I don't agree that there are).

I really wish this law affected something besides pop. It does bring into question what should and shouldn't be regulated by the government.

Maybe if soda carried a Surgeon Generals Warning?

Erm, I was taking it as read that the consumption of items here was in regards to actual food comestibles of some description, as oppose to household cleaning products Momo....

I think things are already pretty clear on that score, although I have had bottles of cider in the past which could have substituted for furniture polish....lain:

In seriousness I support the promotion and encouraging of healthy diet, eating and drinking habits. I disagree with the enforcement of proposals such as the OP. I think it's counter productive.

 

[Memento Mori]

Erm, I was taking it as read that the consumption of items here was in regards to actual food comestibles of some description, as oppose to household cleaning products Momo....

I think things are already pretty clear on that score, although I have had bottles of cider in the past which could have substituted for furniture polish....lain:

In seriousness I support the promotion and encouraging of healthy diet, eating and drinking habits. I disagree with the enforcement of proposals such as the OP. I think it's counter productive.

Right, and I was intentionally overdrawing.

I think that we have a right to consume foods which might harm us for example a lovely pink steak. And I understand that there is a risk in the consumption. Mostly because there's a warning label at the bottom part of the menu warning that undercooked meat can result in disease or death.

On the other hand, I also believe that companies should be forced to present a reasonable amount of information to the consumer and institute practices for the safety of the consumer.

I don't necessarily disagree with the enforcement of the OP. Granted I think the law itself is moronic and a SG warning like on cigarettes might do the trick. But, this industry needs more regulation and I'm betting we're going to start seeing more of it in similar industries which are currently getting a lot of social media attention such as fast food.

And honestly I'm glad for a lot of food and drink regulations. Did you ever read "The Jungle."