Mike Bloomberg is going to take away your big gulp

[David Jerome]

Uh, just an FYI - "government" IS humans.

This is like when Romney said corporations are people. No, people are people. Not institutions.

And just an fyi on that - stupid humans taking care of stupid humans is well... stupid.

That's why the purpose of government isn't to take care of people. Never was. The purpose of government is basically the purpose of law - to prevent harm. Period.

By your own logic, this is dumb: stupid humans governing stupid humans. so your whole post falls apart.

 

[EdwinWillers]

By your own logic, this is dumb: stupid humans governing stupid humans. so your whole post falls apart.

No, it's perfectly rational and logical. Moreover, it wasn't I who made the statement:

Then people would be sickly, poor and dying left and right. This is why we need govt.: because humans are stupid.

Government IS humans. That's a fact. If it isn't humans, I'd love to know what it is; buildings? Furniture? Cars? What?

Case in point: Bloomberg is a [stupid] human in government who thinks it's his responsibility to watch people's weight. Want dumb? That's so dumb it defies logic.

Stupid human in government with a stupid belief his own stupidity is better than his constituent's stupidity.

 

[Rion]

Then people would be sickly, poor and dying left and right. This is why we need govt.: because humans are stupid.

I'll give props for at least being openly a Statist.

 

[David Jerome]

No, it's perfectly rational and logical. Moreover, it wasn't I who made the statement: Government IS humans. That's a fact. If it isn't humans, I'd love to know what it is; buildings? Furniture? Cars? What?

Case in point: Bloomberg is a [stupid] human in government who thinks it's his responsibility to watch people's weight. Want dumb? That's so dumb it defies logic.

Stupid human in government with a stupid belief his own stupidity is better than his constituent's stupidity.

Doesn't matter. People need government. Otherwise, they'll die off much quicker than they would without government. This is why the government needs to regulate the stupid decisions that humans make. Stupid humans governing stupid is indeed...stupid; but it's all we got. The only other option is humans governing themselves...and with all the people dying of smoke-related illnesses and obesity, you see how well that would work out.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Doesn't matter. People need government. Otherwise, they'll die off much quicker than they would without government. This is why the government needs to regulate the stupid decisions that humans make. Stupid humans governing stupid is indeed...stupid; but it's all we got.

Well it's all we got currently, I'll give you that.

 

[RedPaddy]

I wonder if anyone ever tried government by wiki?

 

[zoink]

I applaud this. When foolish people let themselves gain diabetes, heart problems or other obesity/diet related illnesses, who has to pay for it? Usually tax-payer funded programs like medicaid. If the govt. has to flip the bill health problems caused by gluttony and blatant disregard for health, then the govt. should have the right to step in and enforce some regulations. Remember the U.S. is the most obese nation in the world.

Some people produce less fit offspring that have a statistically higher chance of being a drain on society. We probably should prevent them from breeding as well.

 

[TerranceL]

It's always nice when our rich overlords feel the need to tell us peons how to live our lives.

 

[TerranceL]

Even Jon Stewart went after Bloomberg on this one. Pretty funny.

Video: Jon Stewart Deems Mayor Bloomberg's Big Sugary Drink Ban Hypocritical: Gothamist

It's a stupid idea.

I love how even Bloomberg points out how it won't work.

One a side note... it's sad that some of the best commentary on this story comes from a comedy show.

 

[Ryal Kane]

It would be good if people drank less soft drink (myself included) but banning things like this just seem silly. Until I read an article on this story today I'd had the mistaken assumption that US drink sizes were collosal but 16 ounce converts to 470 mls in metric. Our cans are 330mls and our medium bottles 6oomls. (20 ounces) so ours are just as bad.

It's be smarter to just put a small tax on the larger sizes, even just a few cents. It probably wouldn't discourage people but the overall revenue might offset some of the health costs.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

:

Then people would be sickly, poor and dying left and right. This is why we need govt.: because humans are stupid.

*facepalm*

Wow. Just wow.

 

[USincognito]

One a side note... it's sad that some of the best commentary on this story comes from a comedy show.

Was watching Chelsea Lately earlier this week and one of the comedians commented something like - you can get into less trouble having an 8-ball of coke than you can having 64oz. of Coke.



edit - typed "more" instead of "less" and it wasn't as funny.

 

[IAmCatwoman]

Seems a bit meaningless with most places offering free refills - and it kind of lacks an understanding of how humans view conservation. While young adults typically have a pretty firm grasp, most people overlook quantity when it comes to cup sizes.

So while everyone will recognize that a 32 oz. is bigger than a 16 oz, many people won't immediately recognize that two 16 oz. are the same as one 32 oz. It's not that people are bad at math. But when you're enjoying lunch, most people won't consider things like that. It's obvious at first glance which is bigger, but take refills into account and your brain isn't going to subconciously consider the math - if a person is intentionally watching their calories though, it's a different story. I once heard an example that a man will drink twice as much when it's a two for one, because he's not the math that even though he pays for one, he's getting twice as much.

That said, because of that, this might actually be WORSE. People who buy the largest drink may be drinking more in their first fill but usually won't get it refilled - they think they're drinking more than their share. Give a person a smaller drink, and they will be more likely to buy more or get more refilled.

I know it sounds complicated. It's rather difficult to explain. Anyone get what I'm getting at?

 

[Harpuia]

Just an idea.

My old college lab partner mentions that in her country of Sri Lanka, water and tea are significantly cheaper than sodas. Now the prices are almost the same, but back when I was in grad school, water was signficantly more expensive than soda. Seriously. Water was like $1.99 for a 20 oz. bottle at my college but a 24 oz. fountain drink Pepsi is $1.69 with 69c refills. A 20 oz. bottle of tea was $2.19. I think they've dropped in price since though to equal the soda but it's still no refill v. cheap refills.

So yeah, Bloomberg, what? What is your problem? Instead of banning sodas, how about trying to make an initiative to make soda more expensive and/or make water/tea cheaper?

On the other end, you're all talking about 32 oz. fountain drinks. I know many people who drink 64 oz. double gulps and 128 oz. ummm... don't know the name of the gulp in Mountain Dew soda... and go back for refills later!

 

[Vylo]

Just an idea.

My old college lab partner mentions that in her country of Sri Lanka, water and tea are significantly cheaper than sodas. Now the prices are almost the same, but back when I was in grad school, water was signficantly more expensive than soda. Seriously. Water was like $1.99 for a 20 oz. bottle at my college but a 24 oz. fountain drink Pepsi is $1.69 with 69c refills. A 20 oz. bottle of tea was $2.19. I think they've dropped in price since though to equal the soda but it's still no refill v. cheap refills.

So yeah, Bloomberg, what? What is your problem? Instead of banning sodas, how about trying to make an initiative to make soda more expensive and/or make water/tea cheaper?

On the other end, you're all talking about 32 oz. fountain drinks. I know many people who drink 64 oz. double gulps and 128 oz. ummm... don't know the name of the gulp in Mountain Dew soda... and go back for refills later!

Friend of mine bought 25 cases of mountain dew throwback, and polished them off within a month.

That man has the metabolism of a furnace.

 

[dies-l]

I feel like I have been saying this a lot lately. The solution to problems like these is for individuals to exercise personal responsibility.

 

[variant]

It would be good if people drank less soft drink (myself included) but banning things like this just seem silly. Until I read an article on this story today I'd had the mistaken assumption that US drink sizes were collosal but 16 ounce converts to 470 mls in metric. Our cans are 330mls and our medium bottles 6oomls. (20 ounces) so ours are just as bad.

It's be smarter to just put a small tax on the larger sizes, even just a few cents. It probably wouldn't discourage people but the overall revenue might offset some of the health costs.

That's the problem a 20 oz drink contains 62 grams of sugar.

If you're wondering why we have a diabeties problem in this country you don't have to wonder much longer.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Some people produce less fit offspring that have a statistically higher chance of being a drain on society. We probably should prevent them from breeding as well.

That's what the Democrats are aggressively (no pun intended) promoting right now - the ability to selectively eliminate unwanted female babies before they're born (the majority of selective gender abortions being females, worldwide).

 

[SOAD]

That's what the Democrats are aggressively (no pun intended) promoting right now - the ability to selectively eliminate unwanted female babies before they're born (the majority of selective gender abortions being females, worldwide).

Sounds like a fun conspiracy you are promoting! Too bad for you it has no basis in fact.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I feel like I have been saying this a lot lately. The solution to problems like these is for individuals to exercise personal responsibility.

That's an effective solution for MOST of our problems.