Why Do NY City People Tolerate This Totalitarian Nut?

image

Jeez, guys, if you need someone to tell you what you need to eat, buy, and do, just come to Suyts Space and we’ll help you out.  Does the mayor of NY City not have anything better to do than worry about whether you can buy a big gulp or not?  I don’t know which city is nuttier?  NY or LA with their sack ban.  Either way, both are an embarrassment to the U.S.  And both are openly rejecting the principles which allowed this country to flourish. 

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Why Do NY City People Tolerate This Totalitarian Nut?

  1. Bruce says:

    It was on radio news this morning here in Oz. My first thought on waking muzzily was, what is going to stop the retailers from offering two small for the price of one large?

    This action by Mr Bloomberg is so stupid it hurts my brain.

  2. DirkH says:

    16 US fluid ounces = 0.473176473 liters

    WHAT? My kid would STARVE! (1.95m / 6 ft 5; 70kg; avid cyclist) I would barely survive.
    Makes NYC unsuited for human survival.

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      Really – i don’t know any cyclists who consume 40 ounces of Coca Cola as a post-ride recovery drink? I’m betting he wouldn’t starve!

  3. DirkH says:

    On the plus side, makes Germany look sane in comparison. Now I’m feeling better. Thanks, Bloomberg.

  4. DirkH says:

    Bloomberg is in this one:

    • suyts says:

      At what point did these alleged Americans forget about the rights of the individual?

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        When they realized we’re the fattest country in the world. When they realized our collective health care dollars and a good junk of tax money goes to pay for obesity-related diseases. Obviously American’s are not good at self-control. Why do we have seat-belt laws?

  5. DirkH says:

    CNN defends Bloomberg. Get mauled by ALL the commenters.
    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/04/opinion/frum-bloomberg-soda/index.html

  6. ThePhDScientist says:

    Better question why is America such a country of Fat-A$$ES? Apparently, Bloomberg feels we need to try every thing to get the country back into a healthy weight class. I don’t see what the major harm is – it’s an experiment. Let it run for a couple years and see if any progress is made. Doesn’t seem like it would hurt?

    • suyts says:

      Yes, you can look at it that way. Or, one can look at it as an encroachment of the people’s personal liberties.

      Many, myself included, hold individual liberties and freedoms at a much higher value than worrying about someone’s sugar intake.

      It is reversing the obligations of the state vs the people. What’s next? A mandatory exercise regimen? Clearly, this would be healthy for people. But, do we honestly believe it is for a government to dictate the minutia of our lives? In my view, this is unthinkable. In order to live in a free society, we must be allowed to make wrong choices. There is no freedom otherwise.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        They make us wear seat belts. There is a lot of evidence that portion size has contributed the country of fatties we’ve become. I don’t look at limiting portion size as some encroachment of personal freedom. You can still go to the supermarket and by your 2 liter of coca cola and jug it down if you please. These small lifestyle changes that could make a big difference. Kudos to Bloomberg for trying something to curb the obesity epidemic. It might not work, but hey it’s not hurting anyone. Besides a few people who thing limiting accessibility of the Big Gulp is some how impinging their personal freedom. I can’t buy my liter of Vodka on Sunday either – should I feel as the Constitution is now about to crumble?

        • suyts says:

          The “no Vodka on Sunday” was placed for an entirely different reason. …. to wit…. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ——— John Adams

          Whether you agree with the blue laws or not, this is why they were enacted. And, they’ve been with us for a very long time.

          But, you’re right, small changes can make huge differences. You point to the fact that we’re no longer able to make proper choices on our own. So the solution to the difficulty is to no longer allow them to choose? How does that help the difficulty? Eliminating the big gulp will not cause people to make better choices, nor will it effect anyone’s obesity. Given this, why even consider encroachment on one of the foundations of our country? There is no logical reason to make such a suggestion.

        • DirkH says:

          Hey, they stop us from marrying people of the same sex. I don’t look at limiting the choice of my marriage partners as some encroachment of personal freedom. You can still go to the darkroom and do as you please. These small lifestyle changes that could make a big difference. Maybe less STD’s. It might not work, but hey it’s not hurting anyone. Besides a few people who thing limiting accessibility of same sex marriage partners is some how impinging their personal freedom. I can’t marry my students either – should I feel as the Constitution is now about to crumble?

        • suyts says:

          Lol, Dirk, I love the logic, but couldn’t you have picked a different equivocation? PhD had just started to discuss other topics!

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Ahh so now you’re a dietician and an obesity expert? Actually I’ve heard for some Americans soda is a huge number of extra calories and that reducing this intake could help them shed a few pounds here and there. And w know even as little as 10 lb weight loss can improve cardiovascular health. So no I disagree with you and don’t believe we can take your conclusions at faith – that’s why we ace religion.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          And so we judge a laws validity based on how long it’s been with us and we impose someone’s religious version of morality on the people. Sorry which book do we reference again? Christianity because it’s currently en vogue?

  7. ThePhDScientist says:

    Haha actually Dirk beat me too it. I was just going to ask to follow your logic on that one… Not being able to order a 64 oz big gulp is an abomination of your freedom but denying gays the ability to marry is somewhat of a freedom gray zone?

    • suyts says:

      For people who don’t view it as a morality issue, the equivocating is fairly apt. But, there is still a rather large distinction. The ban on gay marriage takes no action. It is in place in most places. (This is how Romney and Obama get away with their choosing not to choose even though they state seemingly opposite positions)

      However, in the instance of the “big gulp”, it takes an intentional act of deprivation. Specifically, Bloomberg sat around his office one day and decided he knew better than the population, and that he was going to limit their serving size…. of pop or whatever.

      See the difference? No overt actions need taken to limit the rules of marriage. They’re already in place. People like Obama can say…. “I’m for it!”, but if they do nothing, nothing changes. Nothing is won, but nothing is lost.

      But, if Bloomberg’s acts on his thoughts, then nothing can be gained (in view of individual rights) but, a liberty can be lost.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        I completely disagree. First off the ban on gay marriage was an “action” that already got enacted in many places. And continues to do so – see North Carolina. These bans did not exist until gay couples tried to get married in Minnesota circa 1970 at which point the bigots who hate gays decided they were uncomfortable with them being able to marry the person they love and so they went to the polls (or used other means) to specifically redefine marriage as a religious practice being between a man and woman (despite ample evidence to the contrary that religion does not get to claim marriage as its own). Any that’s a whole different storey…

        But the government modifies behaviors all the time – they modify corporate behavior using a tools conservative Republicans are generally in favor of, namely the TAX BREAK. So perhaps people would feel differently if Bloomberg merely offered a tax credit to fast food chains who agree to eliminate the big gulp and biggie size?

        Again let’s remember what we’re talking about here. When I was a kid the sm, med, large sizes were somewhere in the neighborhood of 4-6oz, 8-12oz, and maybe 16-20oz. Is it so tragic to go back to this time. Have we all gotten such higher metabolic needs in the past 30 years that we require 44 oz of Cola?

      • suyts says:

        The “ban” was de facto law. Prior to….

        “…… specifically redefine marriage as a religious practice being between a man and woman (despite ample evidence to the contrary that religion does not get to claim marriage as its own). Any that’s a whole different storey…”

        Well, it isn’t. And this is the entire problem. It is true that the origins of marriage and the world wide practice of marriage do not necessarily mean a religious ceremony, people of the Christian faith do consider and practice that it is. (This is why priests and preachers can perform the wedding ceremony.)

        So, when I take a vow, before God, to lead my family in the Christian faith and all of the other things, then there is no ceremony which, in accordance to my faith, can equate to a gay marriage. They are incongruent, and in my faith, incompatible.

        As to some of the other things you’ve written about… taxes, rights to hospital visits, funeral…. etc. I really don’t have a problem with them. It seems to me, if I wanted to designate you as a caregiver in certain situations (previously mentioned), that’s between you and me and no one else’ business. And so, this is the impasse.

        And, even this wouldn’t be such a big insurmountable thing, except, the courts have taken the right of association away. And worse, they’ve taken the rights of a public domain away as well. And, this is why you see the state bans occurring.

        As to behavior modification via the tax code. Yes, they do. But, for most of us, we consider the default tax rate as zero. The money we earn isn’t the government’s. It is ours. We pay taxes to ensure for the common defense, domestic tranquility, and to facility commerce. Any thing else is an usurpation.

        “Is it so tragic to go back to this time?” No, I’d prefer it. But, it would be tragic to allow people to be forced to do so.

        PhD, I appreciate you engaging. This topic (gay marriage) is one I’d just as soon pass on, but, I take pride in the fact that this blog is open for dialogue on sensitive topics. So, …..

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          You’re right we should pass on it. There is no defending being against gay marriage except in a religious superiority context and religion cannot and should not be used to justify legislation – since religion cannot (and some may should not) be proven true or false. Moving on…

  8. ThePhDScientist says:

    Boy Dirk you sure do now how to show your true homophobia! You’re now an implying that gays and lesbians have more STDs then straight folks. I guess when you lack any real argument against same sex marriage you have to take it there. Guess who the biggest incubators of gonorrhea and chlamydia are? You guessed it straight men and women!

    And yeah denying a couple the right to marriage and limiting the size of someones drink are so similar!!! You make the argument of a brilliant 2 year old! Shame on you Suyts – it’s the most idiotic illogical argument ever…is that also how assess scientific validity with similar logic?

    • suyts says:

      So, you were going to use Dirk’s argument, but then when he used it, you didn’t think it proper…… okay.

      But, you do know he was using the “health argument” which is used by the “big gulp” phobes. You know, gonorrhea and chlamydia are not the only diseases transmitted by sexual activity. I’m surprised you’d want to venture there. Many years ago, I worked as an immunology technician…… long story. I’ll write about it one day.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Yup i’ll gladly go there. And I’ll gladly talk Immunology until you’re blue in the face – it is a favorite subject of mine. You want to talk honestly let’s do it. Here comes the big surprise HIV infection is higher among gay men in the United States. Yup that’s true! It’s true that world wide the VAST VAST majority of HIV infection is spread by heterosexuals in Africa and other undeveloped countries.

        But let’s stick with the United States. You guys are actually making a great public health argument in favor of gay marriage. One of the presumed reasons for increased HIV infection in gay men is of course increased numbers of sexual partners. Yet, when gay men find a lifetime partner, the anti-marriage folks want to marginalize those relationships and deny those men the same right to a happy marriage that they themselves can have. So by all means bring on the health argument! More gay couples in committed, loving, monogamous marriages would certainly be great for gay public health!

    • DirkH says:

      PhdScientist, I am not homophobic. I just wanted to point out that you want more freedoms for you (which is to a certain degree entirely fine with me) and less freedom for others.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        No you’re not homophobic: you just don’t support gays being allowed to marry and you posted that limiting gay marriage might result in less STDs. So let me ask you this, when I say that “fat people shouldn’t be allowed to marry or adopt children because they’ll produce fat babies and be a public health burden” and also that they could be skinny if they weren’t so lazy. Would it then be fair for me to say I’m not taking a discriminatory, derogatory, fat-o-phobic position?

  9. ThePhDScientist says:

    And on the blue laws, which you seem to have no problem with. Can’t we just call Bloomberg’s no big gulp law, a blue law? It is certainly against Christianity and good morals to be a glutton – is it not? Can you think of anything more gluttonous than an already overweight individual downing 44+ ounces of Coca Cola in a single setting. Or are we again picking and choosing which morals we legislate? Alcohol, homosexuality etc?

    • suyts says:

      Lol, I’m not a fan of blue laws. But, does a big gulp necessitate gluttony? What if they planned on drinking out of it for a while?

      And, yes, we pick the morals we legislate. When it comes to things such as murder and whatnot, I’m fairly glad for that. But, we do seem to carry it too far, no? How is it you can be so much for one which attempts to legislate minutia of our lives, but so much the other way on such a controversial subject?

      Ph, I’ll be back in a bit. I’ve a missionary couple brother and sister to welcome home, and mom’s cooking a roast.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        I think you’ve got that backwards my friend. It is not controversial to be in favor of marriage equality for all people – in fact it’s a rather backwards argument to try and defend anti-gay marriage statues. These backwards and often very awkward arguments are best exemplified by reading transcripts of the California case and the pro-proposition 8 lawyers arguments – as they read like complete and utter B.S. Without being able to argue Christianity in court there is really zero logical or more importantly scientific/health/psychological case to be made against gay marriage. In fact the best evidence you’ll find in those regards point to the detriment of treating gays as second class citizens in the marriage debate….So here’s our dilemma, you’re asking a whole class of people to be ok with not being able to marry the person that they love and i’m taking a big gulp a way from overweight and obese Americans. Who has the most controversial proposal?

    • DirkH says:

      ThePhDScientist says:
      June 5, 2012 at 5:42 pm
      “Can you think of anything more gluttonous than an already overweight individual downing 44+ ounces of Coca Cola in a single setting.”

      You call that gluttony and against christianity, so obviously you are an extreme follower of Thomas Aquinas or a similar denomination. I am not, I am agnostic. I am also not overweight.

      Will you deny me my 44+ ounces of Coca Cola because of your rigid christianity?

      You seek more freedom for ascetic christians like yourself and less freedom for everybody else. I have no religious concept of gluttony; it stems back to days of scarcity that are long past us.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        I could care less about gluttony. I’m merely making the point that if we’re going to legislate against gay marriage because somehow we have some moral and religious obligations to uphold then we better treat the immortal sin of gluttony the exact same way. Otherwise we’re all a bunch of hypocrites who think we get to decide that one sin is worse than the other. We say well since most of us are fat – it’s ok to be fat, but since there’s not really all that many gays we’ll go ahead and persecute and discriminate against there right to gay to marriage. BUT, don’t touch my big GULP! H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S!

        • DirkH says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          June 5, 2012 at 9:13 pm
          “I could care less about gluttony. I’m merely making the point that if we’re going to legislate against gay marriage because somehow we have some moral and religious obligations to uphold then we better treat the immortal sin of gluttony the exact same way.”

          Your christian denomination holds that gluttony is an “immortal sin”? Could you point me to the source in the Bible that says so?

  10. ThePhDScientist says:

    Guess Dirk doesn’t know the seven deadly sins or the Roman Catholic Churche’s seven virtues. Yes DIRK, being fat is just as bad as being gay! So go ahead start discriminating against the fats the same way you do the gays, it is only fair to be an equal opportunity bigot!

    • Me says:

      What about your pride in the Bullshit your pushing?

    • suyts says:

      Ph, I’m not sure that Dirk is an adherent to the Catholic faith, or any other faith. The argument only works when talking to people of faith.

      A minor correction. I believe it is gluttony, which is one of the deadly sins. There are other causes for one being “fat”.

      But, in the faith I practice, you are correct, there is no distinction for a sin. No one is better for having only lied vs someone who would commit adultery, or anything else. We are all sinners and have fallen short of the Glory of God. No one is better than anyone else. Hate the sin, love the sinner. There is only one sin which is unpardonable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s