New York City Proposes Ban on Big Surary Drink

[saden1]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Lol, if it was all empty calories, there'd be little problem with overeating it. Agreed about the soylent pink, but you're still reaching to call food you don't like "unfit for human consumption".

Wow, since I'm the government, next time I go to New York I can have all the big sugary drinks I want?

Again, you're confusing snack food (including fast food) with "unfit for consumption". You can overeat on anything. Know what's "unfit for human consumption"? Tofu. Rice cakes. Soybean milk. Fruit2O (I actually drink to cut back on sugar and caffeine, but guess which one is more "unfit" if you really want to split hairs. F2O is filler at best.).

And remember, a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. Do you really want to ban foods, including some you may like, or inform people to make their own choices?

a) You are either being stupid or are really stupid. I'm hoping you know what empty calories are but with you lot my confidence is pretty low.

b) You think I'm calling it unfit when in fact pink slime use to be banned in this country and is and has banned all around the world as unfit for consumption.

c) When correctly wield the government can be a powerful ally to its citizens. We do want the government to keep harmful and dangerous food out of our food chain, the question is where do we draw the line as to what should be considered harmful?

d) You are the government though you only get one vote out of millions of votes. Exercise it in Nov to topple the current government and if it doesn't work, well, life goes on and there's always the next time...and do try to remember that being this guy is neither attractive no civilized:

[Alvin Walton]

Empty calories is a stupid buzzword.
If a calorie makes you fat then its far from empty.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Empty calories is a stupid buzzword.
If a calorie makes you fat then its far from empty.

Interesting, sorta like calling the United State's Department of Defense "Department of Defense?" I would think if you're fighting them over there instead of over here it's not really defense is it?

You know what, I'm going to go ahead and call you a nimrod and let you choose the definition of it that applies to you:

a) a person who is dedicated to or skilled in hunting
b) a simpleton

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by saden1

a) You are either being stupid or are really stupid. I'm hoping you know what empty calories are but with you lot my confidence is pretty low.

What AlvinWalton said. Concession accepted.

Originally Posted by saden1

b) You think I'm calling it unfit when in fact pink slime use to be banned in this country and is and has banned all around the world as unfit for consumption.

Glad you agree with me here.

Originally Posted by saden1

c) When correctly wield the government can be a powerful ally to its citizens. We do want the government to keep harmful and dangerous food out of our food chain, the question is where do we draw the line as to what should be considered harmful?

The Bloomburg action is pants-on-retarded. Sorry if you don't see that.

Originally Posted by saden1

d) You are the government though you only get one vote out of millions of votes. Exercise it in Nov to topple the current government and if it doesn't work, well, life goes on and there's always the next time...and do try to remember that being this guy is neither attractive no civilized:

Please don't go ballistic like that at the nearest McDonald's when you see them serving soda, saden.

HTTR

[saden1]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

What AlvinWalton said. Concession accepted.

Glad you agree with me here.

The Bloomburg action is pants-on-retarded. Sorry if you don't see that.

Please don't go ballistic like that at the nearest McDonald's when you see them serving soda, saden.

HTTR

Food portions in america are getting out of hand and the issue is no longer about freedom but exercising our collective intelligence to tackle the issue of obesity. One of the tools afforded to the government in tackling issues is the creation of market barriers. Telling people to "just don't eat that stuff" is not working. Asking or telling restaurant to reduce the size of their meals is not unreasonable and if it is well, you can try ask the judicial branch for relief. You understand? You don't have to like it but at least make a reasonable attempt to understand it.



As for going ballistic, I don't sweat the small stuff but if you mess with my family, well, that's entirely a different story.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by saden1

Food portions in america are getting out of hand and the issue is no longer about freedom but exercising our collective intelligence to tackle the issue of obesity. One of the tools afforded to the government in tackling issues is the creation of market barriers. Telling people to "just don't eat that stuff" is not working. Asking or telling restaurant to reduce the size of their meals is not unreasonable and if it is well, you can try ask the judicial branch for relief. You understand? You don't have to like it but at least make a reasonable attempt to understand it.

How are actions like Bloomberg's going to reduce the amount of soda that fatties drink? When did deciding the size of restaurant servings become a government responsibility? If someone wants a smaller portion, they should order one. Now the judiciary should get involved? I understand a "nanny state" perfectly well.

Originally Posted by saden1

As for going ballistic, I don't sweat the small stuff but if you mess with my family, well, that's entirely a different story.

I really have no idea where you are going with this. Let's keep this friendly, as fellow Redskin fans.
I was just pointing out you were the one railing about McDonald's earlier.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

How are actions like Bloomberg's going to reduce the amount of soda that fatties drink? When did deciding the size of restaurant servings become a government responsibility? If someone wants a smaller portion, they should order one. Now the judiciary should get involved? I understand a "nanny state" perfectly well.

I was just pointing out you were the one railing about McDonald's earlier.

You think this is just about the fatties? This is not just about the fatties, it's about kids and regular Americans. What reducing the size of a drink does is institute a portion and price control over consumers. Let's think this through, what is the cost of a Slurpee at 7-11? A quick Google search yields:

Gulp
16oz.................$1.19
24oz.................$1.49
44oz.................$1.59
64oz.................$1.89
Refills...............$1.09

Notice the price difference between 16oz and 64oz drinks; it's 70 cents. Why is that? You are getting 4 times the amount less than twice the cost. It's not because you are buying more but because it's cheap as **** to make this stuff and they are trying to get you buy more of it. Now if you eliminate all the sizes except 16oz drinks a 64oz drink will all of a sudden cost you $1.19 + $1.09 * 3 = $4.46. Ouch....very pricey. Well, that's not going to happen, I mean this stuff is cheap so free re-fills for everyone. How much Gulp is a typical consumer likely to consume? 32oz at the most (law of diminishing marginal utility). It's highly unlikely that most consumers would hang around and consume more than the initial 16oz plus an additional 16oz free re-fill to take home.




What mayor is trying to really do is prevent people from consuming 64oz is short period of time and potentially taking home a large quantity home afterwards. He is not saying I want to prevent fat fcks like guy below from drinking himself to death but he is saying a) portions are out of control and are harmful to our children and ordinary citizens and b) I want to reduce consumption these unhealthy beverages and reduce our future healthcare cost associated with unhealthy consumption. If you limit the amount of drink that can be sold as Bloomberg did the worse case scenario as far a consumer consuming a gulp at a reasonable price is $2.28 for 260 cal 32oz drink, were as if you left things as they were the worse case scenario at a reasonable price is $2.98 for a 128oz 1040 cal drink.



...propositions


Drinks a Gulp a week:

16oz...............130 cal * 52 = 6,760 calories ($61.88)
32oz re-fill.......2 * 130 cal * 52 = 13,520 calories ($61.88 if free or $118.56 at $1.09)
64oz...............520 cal * 52 = 27,040 calories ($98.28)
128oz re-fill .....2 * 520 cal * 52 = 54,080 calories ($98.28 if free or $154.96 at $1.09)


Drink a Gulp once a day:

16oz..............130 cal * 365 = 47,450 calories ($434.35)
32oz re-fill......2 * 130 cal * 365 = 94,900 calories ($434.35 if free or $832.2 at $1.09)
64oz..............520 cal * 365 = 189,800 calories ($689.85)
128oz re-fill.....2 * 520 cal * 365 = 379,600 calories ($689.85 if free or $1087.7 at $1.09)

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

I really have no idea where you are going with this. Let's keep this friendly, as fellow Redskin fans.

I am friendly, I was just stating my position on when violence is deemed necessary is all. The only interenet muscles I flex are the ones used for stroking my keyboard.


Cheers to you too, HTTR.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by saden1

You think this is just about the fatties? This is not just about the fatties, it's about kids and regular Americans.

And yet, in your links, you show a video of a fattie and cartoon fatties. And what *I* have said can actually be applied to everyone. But "regular americans" don't have a problem with soda. Thought there is an increase in obesity, including "childhood obesity", so yes fatties are being addressed in this topic.

Originally Posted by saden1

What reducing the size of a drink does is institute a portion and price control over consumers. Let's think this through, what is the cost of a Slurpee at 7-11? A quick Google search yields:

Gulp
16oz.................$1.19
24oz.................$1.49
44oz.................$1.59
64oz.................$1.89
Refills...............$1.09

Notice the price difference between 16oz and 64oz drinks; it's 70 cents. Why is that? You are getting 4 times the amount less than twice the cost. It's not because you are buying more but because it's cheap as **** to make this stuff and they are trying to get you buy more of it. Now if you eliminate all the sizes except 16oz drinks a 64oz drink will all of a sudden cost you $1.19 + $1.09 * 3 = $4.46. Ouch....very pricey. Well, that's not going to happen, I mean this stuff is cheap so free re-fills for everyone. How much Gulp is a typical consumer likely to consume? 32oz at the most (law of diminishing marginal utility). It's highly unlikely that most consumers would hang around and consume more than the initial 16oz plus an additional 16oz free re-fill to take home.

Saden, nearly every consumable especially foodstuffs operate on that basis. Because larger portions on most things are still more profitable even with a discount. For example: the Food Lion closest to me sells a 1lb bag of carrots for 78 cents, and a 2lb bag for 98 cents. (Those evil bastards! They're trying to force people to eat more carrots!!!!!) What's wrong with 7-11 or Food Lion pricing their items as they do?

Originally Posted by saden1

What mayor is trying to really do is prevent people from consuming 64oz is short period of time and potentially taking home a large quantity home afterwards. He is not saying I want to prevent fat fcks like guy below from drinking himself to death but he is saying a) portions are out of control and are harmful to our children and ordinary citizens and b) I want to reduce consumption these unhealthy beverages and reduce our future healthcare cost associated with unhealthy consumption. If you limit the amount of drink that can be sold as Bloomberg did the worse case scenario as far a consumer consuming a gulp at a reasonable price is $2.28 for 260 cal 32oz drink, were as if you left things as they were the worse case scenario at a reasonable price is $2.98 for a 128oz 1040 cal drink.

The mayor has no business determining how much soda people can take home.

in response to a). What determines when a portion is so called "out of control"?

in response to b). What is the direct linkage between soda consumption and healthcare cost? And where is the line to be drawn in "reducing healthcare cost? Why *shouldn't* the line include chocolate be banned, by this same standard? Why *shouldn't* hamburger and bacon banned, by the same reasoning? Nevermind soda lovers can still get two orders, or just pick up a 2 liter to enjoy at home.

Originally Posted by saden1

...propositions


Drinks a Gulp a week:

16oz...............130 cal * 52 = 6,760 calories ($61.88)
32oz re-fill.......2 * 130 cal * 52 = 13,520 calories ($61.88 if free or $118.56 at $1.09)
64oz...............520 cal * 52 = 27,040 calories ($98.28)
128oz re-fill .....2 * 520 cal * 52 = 54,080 calories ($98.28 if free or $154.96 at $1.09)


Drink a Gulp once a day:

16oz..............130 cal * 365 = 47,450 calories ($434.35)
32oz re-fill......2 * 130 cal * 365 = 94,900 calories ($434.35 if free or $832.2 at $1.09)
64oz..............520 cal * 365 = 189,800 calories ($689.85)
128oz re-fill.....2 * 520 cal * 365 = 379,600 calories ($689.85 if free or $1087.7 at $1.09)

And spend about 3 bucks on breakfast a morning and your total cost over a year is a staggering $1095. All daily items cost a lot over 365 days.

The problem with your wall of numbers over prices for larger portions, and for calories and price over a year, is that the numbers you cite have nothing to do with a desire to get people hooked, or are expensive or fattening compared to other common things. You seem to cite these numbers as if they are remarkable, when in fact you kinda make a case FOR soda when actually comparing with other things. For example:


Compare your 64 oz Big Gulp to orange juice.

One 64 oz Big Gulp
64oz..............520 cal * 365 = 189,800 calories ($689.85)

One 64 oz. "My Essentials Orange Juice" (link to calories) ..link to price of oj nearby, scroll down
64oz..............960 cal * 365 = 350,400 calories ($799.35)

So what's the message in your previous post? That everybody sells bigger portions cheaper per oz/lb than smaller portions? That sodas are healthier and cheaper than some orange juice products?

There's little logic behind banning anything because of the numbers you cited. Just like there's little logic behind Bloomberg's action, as discussed this thread.

Cheers!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

And yet, in your links, you show a video of a fattie and cartoon fatties. And what *I* have said can actually be applied to everyone. But "regular americans" don't have a problem with soda. Thought there is an increase in obesity, including "childhood obesity", so yes fatties are being addressed in this topic.

Saden, nearly every consumable especially foodstuffs operate on that basis. Because larger portions on most things are still more profitable even with a discount. For example: the Food Lion closest to me sells a 1lb bag of carrots for 78 cents, and a 2lb bag for 98 cents. (Those evil bastards! They're trying to force people to eat more carrots!!!!!) What's wrong with 7-11 or Food Lion pricing their items as they do?

The mayor has no business determining how much soda people can take home.

in response to a). What determines when a portion is so called "out of control"?

in response to b). What is the direct linkage between soda consumption and healthcare cost? And where is the line to be drawn in "reducing healthcare cost? Why *shouldn't* the line include chocolate be banned, by this same standard? Why *shouldn't* hamburger and bacon banned, by the same reasoning? Nevermind soda lovers can still get two orders, or just pick up a 2 liter to enjoy at home.



And spend about 3 bucks on breakfast a morning and your total cost over a year is a staggering $1095. All daily items cost a lot over 365 days.

The problem with your wall of numbers over prices for larger portions, and for calories and price over a year, is that the numbers you cite have nothing to do with a desire to get people hooked, or are expensive or fattening compared to other common things. You seem to cite these numbers as if they are remarkable, when in fact you kinda make a case FOR soda when actually comparing with other things. For example:


Compare your 64 oz Big Gulp to orange juice.

One 64 oz Big Gulp
64oz..............520 cal * 365 = 189,800 calories ($689.85)

One 64 oz. "My Essentials Orange Juice" (link to calories) ..link to price of oj nearby, scroll down
64oz..............960 cal * 365 = 350,400 calories ($799.35)

So what's the message in your previous post? That everybody sells bigger portions cheaper per oz/lb than smaller portions? That sodas are healthier and cheaper than some orange juice products?

There's little logic behind banning anything because of the numbers you cited. Just like there's little logic behind Bloomberg's action, as discussed this thread.

Cheers!

Because ounce for ounce it has less calories than orange juice it's healthier for you? You may or may not know this but you sir are an idiot of first order.


...I tried to peel the onion but it seems to have countless layers of stupidity.