[XenoBlade]

Dark Stranger, on 31 May 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Wish new yorkers would just vote that goofball out of office. But noooo major democrat state so the chances of that are slim to nil. I mean this "mayor/dictator" has already banned trans-fats, smoking in completly open outside areas, salt, and feeding the homeless without the states consent. This is bassakwards.

You ARE aware how bad Trans-fat is for you right? Do you notice how things that once had it, now got rid of it, and not because of a ban? (And how everything boasts to not have any Trans-fat) And the smoking issue...I can't say I have pity. Tho I do understand for the folk who do it. But they are affecting others by it. Even in open areas.

Also people, this isn't the cure all, or a majot advancement in stopping obesity. It is meant to HELP. And if people follow it, it will. A simple formula I learned in school is the 250 calories less/more. (Consume 250 less calories and do at least 250 calories worth of exercise...burn it off that is) Do that 7 days a week, you lose a pound a week. Simple stuff. No one is too busy to burn off 250 calories a day. Tho the fact of being force and told what to do is annoying...I understand that. I just don't think it's ever going to happen unless something like this happens.

Like I mentioned global warming earlier, I honestly feel it's gonna be too late before enough of a change is made because people don't want their conveniences to go away. I feel if we are to save ourselves from ourself, we gotta be forced. Slightly off topic and pessimistic (on the human race) but I don't think I'm too far fetched.

[NinjaJedi007]

rondo, on 31 May 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

I'm willing to bet a large number of parents trying aren't trying enough and/or they don't have time to deal with their children and fear their general empowerment in today's society

Yup... parents should man up and take responsibility for teaching their kids about life. That parental mindset, that may be becoming more common, is displayed nicely in this comic, which I saw someone post on Facebook. Kids shouldn't always be the target when discussing the gradual decline in health. Parents that enable their children should definitely take more of the heat.

[Dark Stranger]

XenoBlade, on 31 May 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

You ARE aware how bad Trans-fat is for you right? Do you notice how things that once had it, now got rid of it, and not because of a ban? (And how everything boasts to not have any Trans-fat) And the smoking issue...I can't say I have pity. Tho I do understand for the folk who do it. But they are affecting others by it. Even in open areas.

Also people, this isn't the cure all, or a majot advancement in stopping obesity. It is meant to HELP. And if people follow it, it will. A simple formula I learned in school is the 250 calories less/more. (Consume 250 less calories and do at least 250 calories worth of exercise...burn it off that is) Do that 7 days a week, you lose a pound a week. Simple stuff. No one is too busy to burn off 250 calories a day. Tho the fact of being force and told what to do is annoying...I understand that. I just don't think it's ever going to happen unless something like this happens.

Like I mentioned global warming earlier, I honestly feel it's gonna be too late before enough of a change is made because people don't want their conveniences to go away. I feel if we are to save ourselves from ourself, we gotta be forced. Slightly off topic and pessimistic (on the human race) but I don't think I'm too far fetched.

Can't say I've noticed it in what I eat. I dont' see any "non trans-fat" labels on what I'm eating. But it's still besides the point. Why crack down on any food that is fine (in moderation), but be completly fine with the selling of tobaco (which has no health benifits whatsoever).

[The Fujoshi]

Question: if this comes to your state what would you do about it?

I don't have a major problem with it. The government, imo, already shrinks cereals and other foods and overcharge them so it can't get any more worse. (Have you ever ate a bag of chips and noticed how much air is in it?)

I don't enjoy the approach as you guys said though.

[Dark Stranger]

I'll fight it. If is even being considerd here I'll get whatever they wanna outlaw and stock up on it. And throw it in their smug faces.

[Unlucky Slayer]

Dark Stranger, on 31 May 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

I'll fight it. If is even being considerd here I'll get whatever they wanna outlaw and stock up on it. And throw it in their smug faces.

If they wanted to pass it here in Indiana. They have already proven that it doesnt matter how much people protest it'll get passed. (IE that horrible Right to Work bs.)

[Dark Stranger]

Unlucky Slayer, on 01 June 2012 - 05:37 AM, said:

If they wanted to pass it here in Indiana. They have already proven that it doesnt matter how much people protest it'll get passed. (IE that horrible Right to Work bs.)

That's a total different matter that even all admit needs it's own thread to talk about. I halfway support it though.

[Sarahlicious]

I think the vast majority have this issue twisted.

They are not saying you CANNOT have more than 16oz. You will no longer be able to purchase a single beverage larger than 16oz. You can get as many servings as you wish but they will be given in 16oz bottles/cups or less. The logic stems from very hefty studies that have concluded that we tend to consume what we see in front of us if it is in a single container. So if I buy a 48oz drink I am more likely to keep sucking it down until it's all gone, as opposed to three separate 16oz cups, (which in case you can't figure it out, 16*3=48) the EXACT same amount of pop/whatever. They are simply trying to make us more conscious of how much we are actually consuming at one time. I agree with this ban completely, and to the argument made earlier in this thread about smoking: NYC was the FIRST city to place a ban on indoor smoking and has since made it illegal to smoke in outdoor public areas such as parks, beaches, and pedestrian plazas. All those caught in violation is subject to a fine and/or community service.

(Not to mention, the government will never make it illegal to smoke period. Take into account the new tax placed on cigarettes sold in Chicago. They are rising $1 a pack. Just so you have the full scope, it was either raise taxes on cigarettes or there were going to be cuts to Medicaid. Keeping smoking legal, and therefore, taxable allows the state to increase their income without effecting and making budget cuts to other, more absolutely necessary state funded programs.)

To the other argument that the government should not control what we eat and that we can control it ourselves. Obviously we can't, if we are getting our panties into a wad about having to refill our cups a couple of times, instead of having one giant one. I guess walking back and forth to the soda fountain is too much work for some.

This post has been edited by Sarahlicious: 01 June 2012 - 04:52 PM

[The Fujoshi]

Sarahlicious said:

To the other argument that the government should not control what we eat and that we can control it ourselves. Obviously we can't, if we are getting our panties into a wad about having to refill our cups a couple of times, instead of having one giant one. I guess walking back and forth to the soda fountain is too much work for some.

That's the argument; if someone wants to be lazy then what/who does, outside of God, have that choice? It's like if they suddenly banned coffee because it's addictive or video games because it makes people stupid. Or in an extreme case it's like saying that fat people are not allowed to eat in places because they are fat and contribute to the downfall/reputation of the establishment.

The loss of control and how the country is making people feel like it's going towards the more communist countries or the countries with heavy restrictions. It's also what happens when you have too many liberties.

Some people don't want to keep refilling their cups; like if they wanted more than one thing of coke then why should they go back to the same place instead of getting a big cup and probably saving it later? Like this is hard to do if you are let's say, riding in your car, or not in the same establishment to do the refill. And no driving back isn't going to work; who honesty would let someone drive back hours later to get a refill or even want to do so?

But people also need to stop wasting food/being lazy as well. Just because certain percentages do it doesn't mean that everyone does it.

I understand both points of views.

This post has been edited by The Fujoshi: 01 June 2012 - 06:37 PM

[kahad]

This makes me want to chug a two liter for breakfast tomorrow.

[Dark Stranger]

Sarahlicious, on 01 June 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

I think the vast majority have this issue twisted.

To the other argument that the government should not control what we eat and that we can control it ourselves. Obviously we can't, if we are getting our panties into a wad about having to refill our cups a couple of times, instead of having one giant one. I guess walking back and forth to the soda fountain is too much work for some.

So because I want a big gulp sulrpie your saying I can't control myself and the goverment needs to step in and control me cuz they "know better then me?" You can be a pawn, I'll be a person.

[Unlucky Slayer]

Some people just need a booming voice above them to tell them right from wrong. (Sorta like religion, but that is an entirely different can of worms. And this isnt the thread for it.)

Personally I dont really care either way on this as I do not drink coffee and have stopped drinking pop almost entirely due to kidney stones.

But, it is wrong that the government wants to control everything.

This post has been edited by Unlucky Slayer: 02 June 2012 - 05:09 AM

[myrla]

If I want to randomly drink a big gulp (please note: never done this), when I usually only drink 8-12oz of soda on any given day, I'm within my age/height/weight ratios to be considered healthy... why shouldn't I be able to? I'm the one exercising self control (or the lack of it); it's MY choice.

the answer of course is simple - I won't live in NYC and I won't have that problem. Or I'll just go to the grocery store and grab a 2 liter.

[STVO]

I'm half and half on this idea.

1. I like the idea that they are trying to limit the intake of sugar for New Yorkers by limiting the size of drinks. I'll admit I'm a guy who abuses his diet pop intake, so maybe by limiting the size, maybe it would limit how much we truly drink over time (that's if it expands to the rest of the country of course.) In London, their cup sizes at restaurants are smaller, they don't have free refills (they gave me an odd look when I said are refills free at one restaurant I went to there, lmao), and they are in better shape for most part. I think by limiting the amount of consumption done by Americans, it may save us as well as companies money with the amount of refills we allow and such. That is of course if people don't want to pay, which leads to the next part of my opinion.

2. Okay for what I don't like about the idea is, food and drinks are technically something that should be a personal responsibility kind of like how much we exercise, how much we play video games, how much we read, etc. So by limiting the size in stores of the 1 Liter Pepsis/Cokes, who's to say people won't buy 2 or 3 16 oz bottles now for themselves? It's very well possible. Usually if you're really thisty and you need something, you'll buy the amount that's needed even if the place will rip you off for it usually right? Some people may hold back but plenty will just complain then pay. LOL. Happens with many services.

Overall I'm leaning towards wanting the government to stay out of this, however it's not the worst idea IMO.

[FlyingElf]

This is the beginning of ridiculous government regulations. I mean if they can tell us we can't drink larger than 16 oz sodas, whats next? Foods can't contain more than so many calories? Your body is your business. What you want to put into it is your business and if you're too ignorant or stupid to know that drinking a 64oz soda is bad for you, then thats also your fault. Why are we playing down to the lowest common denominator? Why do the dumbest people decide where the bar is set? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

[Sarahlicious]

Dark Stranger, on 02 June 2012 - 02:21 AM, said:

So because I want a big gulp sulrpie your saying I can't control myself and the government needs to step in and control me cuz they "know better then me?" You can be a pawn, I'll be a person.

I'm merely stating the logic behind Mr.Bloomberg's decision. I can control myself and take the initiative to educate myself on just WHAT is in what I eat/drink. Unfortunately the masses do not do this and are very ignorant of the harsh chemicals and added sugars that exist in their every day food items. It's almost like saying there should be no traffic laws because when you are approaching a four-way intersection common sense should tell you to slow down or yield to on-coming traffic. The law may seem extreme, and yes there are much better ways to go about it (putting tighter restrictions on the actual beverage companies to produce healthier products)

As I said before, the only thing they are forcing people to do is actively make the decision to drink more than 16oz at one time. I do not see how that makes me a pawn.

This post has been edited by Sarahlicious: 02 June 2012 - 01:58 PM

[Washu Takahashi]

XenoBlade, on 31 May 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

Like I mentioned global warming earlier, I honestly feel it's gonna be too late before enough of a change is made because people don't want their conveniences to go away. I feel if we are to save ourselves from ourself, we gotta be forced. Slightly off topic and pessimistic (on the human race) but I don't think I'm too far fetched.

In general I'm completely against this, but this is the one point that makes me lean slightly towards it. In general, humans are idiots who are just going to kill themselves in the end (not suicide, but the race as a whole. Eventually the Earth just won't be able to sustain life) Nowadays it seems the vast majority of us need giant warning labels on things saying THIS IS BAD FOR YOU or THIS WILL HURT THE ENVIRONMENT. It's kind of sad really.

The Fujoshi, on 31 May 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

Question: if this comes to your state what would you do about it?I don't have a major problem with it. The government, imo, already shrinks cereals and other foods and overcharge them so it can't get any more worse. (Have you ever ate a bag of chips and noticed how much air is in it?)I don't enjoy the approach as you guys said though.

If this came to my state I'd be majorly upset. But like every other stupid law that upsets me, I'd probably just grit my teeth, complain a little, on move on with life. Once the government decides on something, there isn't much you can do about it (yes, yes, you can rally and protest or whatever, but like it was stated before, humans are lazy, we don't want to get off our comfy couches to protest. We'll just complain on Facebook)

The Fujoshi, on 01 June 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

Some people don't want to keep refilling their cups; like if they wanted more than one thing of coke then why should they go back to the same place instead of getting a big cup and probably saving it later? Like this is hard to do if you are let's say, riding in your car, or not in the same establishment to do the refill. And no driving back isn't going to work; who honesty would let someone drive back hours later to get a refill or even want to do so?But people also need to stop wasting food/being lazy as well. Just because certain percentages do it doesn't mean that everyone does it.

This is my point. I rarely order such large drinks. Usually when I go for fast food, I don't get drinks at all because I have a water bottle with me almost 24/7. But when I go to a movie theater I like getting the biggest option possible so I don't have to go back out and refill it, not because I'm too lazy to walk, but I don't want to miss anything. And for a two hour movie, that's a reasonable amount of pop to quench your thirst from the popcorn! Anyways, I can see what the government is trying to do here, but it's not the right way to do it. I'm a big girl I know when I'm putting crap into my body. If other people can't make big-kid decisions and keep their bodies in decent shape, that's not my problem and shouldn't effect me when I want more to drink. In the case of children, where are their parents telling them that is way too much? I don't see how a child could possibly drink even half of one of those giant ones.

[Dark Stranger]

Sarahlicious, on 02 June 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

I'm merely stating the logic behind Mr.Bloomberg's decision. I can control myself and take the initiative to educate myself on just WHAT is in what I eat/drink. Unfortunately the masses do not do this and are very ignorant of the harsh chemicals and added sugars that exist in their every day food items. It's almost like saying there should be no traffic laws because when you are approaching a four-way intersection common sense should tell you to slow down or yield to on-coming traffic. The law may seem extreme, and yes there are much better ways to go about it (putting tighter restrictions on the actual beverage companies to produce healthier products)

As I said before, the only thing they are forcing people to do is actively make the decision to drink more than 16oz at one time. I do not see how that makes me a pawn.

There is no logic behind it. He's wants to be the food police (more like a monarch) This is all about goverment controling your life. I know that large amounts of soda are techincally bad for me. But the flip side is if all the different sizes are all 99 cents like at my store, or even if it's dollar more at a gas station for the biggest one, and I'm at work, or driving on a trip, or going to a friends house to play games, I want the most for my money and what's going to last me the longest amount of time. F the "bad health", i'm freaking thristy. Why should I be punished because other people don't like that I can consume more food or drink then them. Heck my metablism is actually a pretty shitty thing to have right now with food prices so high, so I'm already being punished money wise for that. Why should I get punished more by forcenig me to buy even more products because the goverment took away something that was finacelly helping me? And no your argument comparing traffic laws are not the same. Traffic laws (for the most part) are put in place to procect people from other people. I.e having stops at crosswalks so people don't get run over. Who am I harming when I decide I want a large drink? Who am I putting in danger? Is this a threat? NO.

The fact that your comfertable with the goverment telling you what you do should show how much of a pawn of them you are. I should be able to live my life, go to whatever kind of work I want, eat what I want, drive what I want, etc. without worring someone will see/tell someone I'm breaking the goverments rules or that they know how I should live my life better then me.

[linlindesu]

very related

1. Why are there so many political - esque topics popping up on an anime convention forum ? Heated at that. Over some fairly silly things. I do not get : x

2. Dark Stranger , just because someone doesn't agree with you (on something as menial as beverage laws might I add ) does not make them a "pawn". I'm sure she's very "comfErtable" with herself. And you don't need to be "worring" about the government telling you how you should live your life better "thEn" you.

[STVO]

linlindesu, on 03 June 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

very related

1. Why are there so many political - esque topics popping up on an anime convention forum ? Heated at that. Over some fairly silly things. I do not get : x

2. Dark Stranger , just because someone doesn't agree with you (on something as menial as beverage laws might I add ) does not make them a "pawn". I'm sure she's very "comfErtable" with herself. And you don't need to be "worring" about the government telling you how you should live your life better "thEn" you.

Lol I was about to say ever since that one thread about "Politics Threads being shut down" I think I see more popping up. Lol oh well.
I'll comment on a few that I may have an opinion on, but if I feel I can't contribute or it's getting too heated, I'll just stay out.

[linlindesu]

STVO, on 03 June 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

Lol I was about to say ever since that one thread about "Politics Threads being shut down" I think I see more popping up. Lol oh well.
I'll comment on a few that I may have an opinion on, but if I feel I can't contribute or it's getting too heated, I'll just stay out.

that any there's nothing that comes off worse than people thinking soft drink size restriction is the end of the world. There are kids being worked to death in Myanmar, there are people in Africa without a drop of clean water, and right now Petland is picking up a supply of fresh puppies from a Puppy Mill where their mothers will live the most hollow and painful life until they cannot breed anymore. I mean, I dunno, If people are getting political can it at least matter?

[delial]

people should think about what fights they want to pick, and what causes to stand for. a single person can't be concerned with every little thing wrong in the world.

[Washu Takahashi]

linlindesu, on 03 June 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

very related

This is a great point, one that I've been thinking about for a long while actually. It was always nice back in high school when you could order a big slice of cake for a buck when you could get half the amount (space wise in the containers) of dried out gross looking veggies for the same price. If the government really wants to help fight obesity, they should consider fixing things like this first, or put a bigger tax on our large drinks that we enjoy so much.

[linlindesu]

Washu Takahashi, on 03 June 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

This is a great point, one that I've been thinking about for a long while actually. It was always nice back in high school when you could order a big slice of cake for a buck when you could get half the amount (space wise in the containers) of dried out gross looking veggies for the same price. If the government really wants to help fight obesity, they should consider fixing things like this first, or put a bigger tax on our large drinks that we enjoy so much.

starts with us though. starts with being ok with the little restrictions. If they did start these taxations, a thread similar to this would pop up.

[The Fujoshi]

linlindesu, on 03 June 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

very related

1. Why are there so many political - esque topics popping up on an anime convention forum ? Heated at that. Over some fairly silly things. I do not get : x

2. Dark Stranger , just because someone doesn't agree with you (on something as menial as beverage laws might I add ) does not make them a "pawn". I'm sure she's very "comfErtable" with herself. And you don't need to be "worring" about the government telling you how you should live your life better "thEn" you.

Pawn

Some cursing I think as a warning? But it's alright I guess besides being stupid.

I couldn't....help myself....-runs out-

[Valkyrie]

In a seriousness, I'm curious to see how this will turn out. Not in a bad way, but in a true inquisitive sense. I do agree that people do tend to buy or grab biggr portions when they're readily available. (Which is why most diet tip articles will say "if going to parties or buffets, put food on a smaller plate to limit servings.") Hell, I'm one of them. And it may actually help to limit the beverage size one can purchase. Granted, it won't stop them from buying more of said beverage, or getting refills, or simply hopping over to the next town/area without said ban to nab bigger bottles or crates. All the same, I'd like to see how well the populace handles said ban.

[Sarahlicious]

linindesu said:

very related

1. Why are there so many political - esque topics popping up on an anime convention forum ? Heated at that. Over some fairly silly things. I do not get : x

2. Dark Stranger , just because someone doesn't agree with you (on something as menial as beverage laws might I add ) does not make them a "pawn". I'm sure she's very "comfErtable" with herself. And you don't need to be "worring" about the government telling you how you should live your life better "thEn" you.

This

linlindesu, on 03 June 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

that any there's nothing that comes off worse than people thinking soft drink size restriction is the end of the world. There are kids being worked to death in Myanmar, there are people in Africa without a drop of clean water, and right now Petland is picking up a supply of fresh puppies from a Puppy Mill where their mothers will live the most hollow and painful life until they cannot breed anymore. I mean, I dunno, If people are getting political can it at least matter?

and this.

I'm not going to waste my time or energy on people who refuse to see with eyes unclouded or name call. At the end of the day, there are MUCH larger issues going on in this country.

Pepsi was originally sold in 6oz cans and has grown tremendously over the years. This is because we demand it. We want more and we want it bigger. They have been allowed to put things that kill us and cause very preventable health conditions in their products because of lack of regulation - a lack of "government control." This issue has nothing to do with being a slave to the government and everything to do with being a slave to the companies who produce these "technically" harmful products. Where do you draw the line? It's ok for the government to control things like the conditions of our hospitals and restaurants, but not okay for them to tell us we shouldn't (key word, shouldn't, not can't) have more than a 16oz of a drink in one sitting that contains 65+ grams of ADDED REFINED sugars in it, because it's not good for our health? There's a nasty grey area in every issue. I only try to look at things from both sides of the spectrum.

[Dark Stranger]

linlindesu, on 03 June 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

starts with us though. starts with being ok with the little restrictions. If they did start these taxations, a thread similar to this would pop up.

While I do agree it's odd that healthy foods cost waay more then anything else in our store. (ex. a 9oz bottle of organic honey is $8.00. Insane.) But the right thing to do is to have tax insentives for orgainc foods or even for regular farmers so that they can have lower prices and I can actually afford eating fruits and such every day. Not for goverment to step in and restrict people and busniness.

Yes my eyes are "clouded" because I want our goverment to abide by our constitution. Such a "crazy" thing to want nowadays.

[linlindesu]

Dark Stranger, on 03 June 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

While I do agree it's odd that healthy foods cost waay more then anything else in our store. (ex. a 9oz bottle of organic honey is $8.00. Insane.) But the right thing to do is to have tax insentives for orgainc foods or even for regular farmers so that they can have lower prices and I can actually afford eating fruits and such every day. Not for goverment to step in and restrict people and busniness.

Yes my eyes are "clouded" because I want our goverment to abide by our constitution. Such a "crazy" thing to want nowadays.

....you should read what I linked a few posts ago...
also, taxes = government and even what you say above would be considered "stepping in ". and there are times government should step in. If it was a true free market child prostitution would be legal.

And the government is. your eyes are clouded because you just want to stir up things and whine later when the thread gets shut down. Just saying.

[sentinel28a]

When was the last time the government tried to legislate people into giving up something bad for them? Oh yes...Prohibition. That worked out just great, didn't it?

Alcohol is far worse than sugars. I can drink Pepsi all day and I might get fat, with all that being fat entails. I drink too much booze and I die. Or if I'm feeling particularly jerky, I'll get my drunk butt behind the wheel of a car and mow down a few pedestrians.

Yet there isn't any talk of banning alcohol. Why? Because we tried doing it once, and it didn't work, other than to turn Chicago into a Mafia war zone and make Joseph Kennedy very rich.

Let me see if I'm following the logic here. We face a likely war with Iran, a possible one with Syria, $5 trillion in unfunded entitlement spending, Europe is on the verge of flying apart (again), soaring gas prices, medical care in crisis and getting worse, and a student loan bomb that is going to detonate very soon. And Bloomberg and others like him are worried that Americans aren't smart enough to regulate their sugar intake.

That's like watching the tsunami obliterate Sendai last year and thinking "Oh, damn, I hope this isn't going to affect Season 2 of HOTD!"

Ben Da Mad Irishman
"Which it totally didn't"