NY Soda ProhibitionFollow

At least the city would have made money while hearing about it.

Couple points on this. And no, I'm not picking on you Elinda. This is just an easy quote of an idea that lots of people have expressed.



It's not so much that it's setting a precedent as extending one. My issue with this is that when conservatives warn about how doing X will lead to Y (set, or extend a precedent), we're often shouted down by liberals insisting that it wont happen, or there's no connection, or that said future thing will be decided on its own merits. Yet, when we're faced with Y happening, it seems like those same liberals forget what they said earlier and insist that it doesn't matter because we already did X.

It's just jarring to me that this seems to happen so frequently. How can someone argue that doing X doesn't set a precedent for Y, when they're constantly arguing exactly the opposite when Y is being considered? It should not be acceptable to do Y because we did X, doubly so when X was justified in the first place because of an assumption that it wouldn't lead to Y. I just don't see how people can do this and not be aware that they're doing it.




Huh? No. There's a massive excluded middle there. The word "overreach" implies that there some degree of reach that the government can have, and some degree that is more than it should (hence, the "over" part of the word). You seem to be arguing that since we allow government to regulate *anything* related to public health, that there should be no restrictions at all on what it can regulate. Is that actually what you're saying?

So why not make red meat illegal? Hell. Why not just create a government agency that creates a diet plan for every citizen and forces them to eat it. Let's make all recreational activities which might result in harm illegal as well. Hell. Let's make it illegal to leave your government provided health cocoon. We'll just plug you all into a virtual reality system instead. Much safer, right?

Clearly we can and should place limits on government regulations. So your argument is completely incorrect.





Ok. So tell me what you think would be a government overreach with regard to public health regulations? Doesn't your argument basically say that government has infinite power to regulate in this area? I suspect that most people will disagree with you.

Edited, Sep 14th 2012 5:28pm by gbaji

ITT: Conservatives don't give a fuck about you.

ITT: Conservatives say we should all suffer for other people's poor health choices because fuck you, that's why. As long as the individual doesn't have a womb.

Edited, Sep 14th 2012 9:12pm by lolgaxe

Huh. You know, the things you say are starting to make a lot of sense, Gbaji. You know, I always laughed when they said I'd become conservative as I became older, but now it's not so funny. I feel so short-sighted. Short-sighted, and foolish.

Who do you think I should read, to get myself up to speed on Conservativer thought? I'll be honest, I used to dismiss their arguments without really looking into or researching them. I'd like that to change.

And that's a whole lot different than people whining about the government overreaching?

Just like tree hugger =/= Democrat. But, you must admit, there is a high correlation.

You'd think "disagree with ≠ liberal" would be obvious, but you wouldn't be able to tell in any of these threads with how casually the term is thrown out.

You liberals and your special characters. Think you're better than the rest of us!

Edited, Sep 15th 2012 12:31pm by Demea

Quit denying your inner lib...

With all that free time once the government started doing all your thinking for you, I'd imagine you had room on your schedule to figure it out.

Whenever an eleventh hour ruling such as this takes place, I can't help but think that their only thought while issuing the ruling is "Zing!"