2012 US Presidential Election

[AceHigh]

What if an owner want their establishment to cater to smokers? Newsflash, there is no need for a smoking ban in order for proprietors to set their own rules in their establishments. Since you are so supportive of shoving your lifestyle down other's throat, I guess you wouldn't be against others doing the same to you? Like go full vegan, get converted to some religion and be subjected to a curfew because you should have a healthy daily rhythm. Social engineering for the win!

[Nikkoru]

As for soft drinks cup sizes, there are better ways for governments to influence health. They could, for instance, put a small tax on escalating sizes of beverages so were less inclined to ingest so much. Or, better still, simply ensure people are better educated about nutrition and fund programs to develop a more health-inclined culture in your city. Banning them outright simply antagonizes people and doesn't change the fact that they still have poor eating habits.

Would've made much more sense to ban free refills.

I agree to an extent, but people rarely actually utilize refills to any significant degree.

The logic behind the law is, by making the cups reasonably sized to begin with the consumer will be more conscious of their intake. Should they choose to refill or purchase another cup they're immediately and consciously aware they're doing so.  Something people typically aren't thinking about when they're half-way through a Big-Gulp. It's a psychological trick that genuinely works, people have different eating habits depending on how their food/drink is presented, especially the appearance of portion sizes. You might be satiated half-way through your meal, but you're still going to eat/drink the rest, that's fairly natural. Reduce the portions and suggest completion of the meal, and that changes. You very rarely hear of people ordering another main after the first -- we anticipate our hunger usually well beyond what it actually is.   

[Tiffanys]

Over 600,000 people die every year from second hand smoke... It has nothing to do with "lifestyle." That's like saying juggling biochemical weapons in populated public venues is a "lifestyle." Fucking bullshit.

If you want to kill yourself, then have right at it. But do the shit where it doesn't affect other people's health and their lives.

Someone going vegan doesn't make you vegan, in fact it doesn't affect you whatsoever. But someone smoking does affect you, because of secondhand smoke.

[AceHigh]

And if you don't want to hang around with smokers, nobody is forcing you to visit the places where they hang out. Banning places where smokers can gather and smoke to their content is irrational and has nothing to do with second hand smoking.

It's just social engineering that aims to make it very hard for smokers to find any spot to smoke any more and thus force them to quit through inconvenience. All public places already banned smoke long ago, there is no valid reason to ban it on privately owned establishments.

One of the bullshit political parties in my country actually suggested to ban smoking in cars. The reason they presented is a real kicker: think of the children! Yeah, they actually claim that smoking in cars should be banned for everyone just because some parents may be irresponsible. Every time they make up such bullshit just to take away yet another spot where smokers can smoke. I am not a smoker myself, but I can't morally support such witch hunt and discrimination as everything else labelled as "social engineering".

[Monkeyfinger]

Next they'll start requiring people to wear condoms, like they did in LA.

[occasional]

One of the bullshit political parties in my country actually suggested to ban smoking in cars. The reason they presented is a real kicker: think of the children! Yeah, they actually claim that smoking in cars should be banned for everyone just because some parents may be irresponsible.

Isn't smoking in a car with children illegal already?

[jaybug]

One of the bullshit political parties in my country actually suggested to ban smoking in cars. The reason they presented is a real kicker: think of the children! Yeah, they actually claim that smoking in cars should be banned for everyone just because some parents may be irresponsible.

Isn't smoking in a car with children illegal already?

Uh...not if they have their medical marijuana card??? Or...if  whatever they are smoking causes them to vote Republican in future??? And if it is like the Oregon Cell phone while driving law, smoking only a ticketable violation if doing some other violation concurrently. ( My mother voted for it while she was in the state legislature, but she still can't stop using her phone while she drives. sigh)

[Burkingam]

@AceHigh They banned smoking in public places in 2008 with the Quebec's Tobacco Act. At first I was against, just like you AceHigh and for the same reasons. Although many people was in favor, there was also people yelling "dictatorship" and "discrimination against smokers" all over the place. Bar owners would complain on TV that it's gonna ruin their industry. There was caricatures in the news paper people smokers being sent in concentration camps. Oh the humanity it was the End of the world!

Turns out reality fell short of the drama. Every bars didn't start going bankrupt. We didn't have to create a special anti-tobacco police force. Nobody was stone but a mob for smoking in front of children. What actually happened is that smokers spent a few mouths whining and eventually got over it and now we can finally go wherever we want without the smell. Now it's just part of our culture. You want to smoke, you go outside. Even most smokers I speak to nowadays are satisfied by this law.

What really made me change my mind was the effect on public health. Turns out it's a lot harder to stop smoking if every places you usually go to allow smoking. As a result from the law, in the year following the act's enforcement, the percentage of smoker fell dramatically. I wish I could remember the exact numbers. Something ridiculous like 10-20% of all smokers who quit.

Ultimately what makes a policy a good policy is it's effect on actual people. This law is gonna save thousands of lives. 

If someone really wants to smoke cigaret we are not gonna do it and if someone really want's to drink enough soda to drown himself he can buy two bottles instead of one, in other words, if people really want to hurt themselves, they will, it doesn't mean we should make it as easy as possible. You can argue all day long about how building a fence around a mine field is gonna ripe people from their right to blow themselves I don't give a shit. A policy which improves people's life is a good policy.

[AceHigh]

You can argue all day long about how building a fence around a mine field is gonna ripe people from their right to blow themselves I don't give a shit.

You don't have to give a shit, ultimately I explained to you how some laws are specifically aimed at forcing behaviour change and habits commonly known as "social engineering" and why the term is distasteful and rather insulting to a human being which is supposed to live in a free world and having control over his life. In conclusion it doesn't make me an anarchist as you so ignorantly labelled me, since I support laws that keep order in our society.

[Burkingam]

You don't have to give a shit, ultimately I explained to you how some laws are specifically aimed at forcing behaviour change and habits commonly known as "social engineering" and why the term is distasteful and rather insulting to a human being which is supposed to live in a free world and having control over his life. In conclusion it doesn't make me an anarchist as you so ignorantly labelled me, since I support laws that keep order in our society.

The kind of freedom you appear to be talking about doesn't exist, AceHigh. It is impossible in our world to make a decision in a vacuum. Any choice you make is always the result of external influence.

The restaurant who sell oversize sodas is just as guilty of "distastefully" trying to force behaviors on its clients as the NYC who ban them. Again people are perfectly capable to buy several small sodas in a restaurant where they don't sell big ones. The difference is that they won't. All NYC are doing is taking an environment which influences people toward self-destructing behaviors and they are modify it to mitigate its negative influence. The restaurant owner is pushing them to hurt themselves and NYC is pushing them to stop hurting themselves and we are supposed to think that NYC are the bad one.

You might find it distasteful to be treated like a puppet but that won't change anything to the fact that you are just a puppet.

[sdedalus83]

The restaurant who sell oversize sodas is just as guilty of "distastefully" trying to force behaviors on its clients as the NYC who ban them. Again people are perfectly capable to buy several small sodas in a restaurant where they don't sell big ones. The difference is that they won't.

Yeah, because it's really fucking convenient to buy several small fountain drinks when you're on the road/in a movie theater.

If you want to force a change in behavior, impose a luxury tax on meals which pass a certain caloric threshold.  At least then you'd be encouraging the restaurant to change its menu.  Banning fountain drinks larger than 16 ounces will just push these places to sell prepackaged drinks.

[AceHigh]

Now look who is all morbidly pessimistic.

No, without social engineering there is a diversity, the beauty of the free market! I can choose to eat giant sized junk food, I can also choose to go to a restaurant for some traditional dinner, or I can go to gourmet restaurant and eat exclusive cuisine. The choices are many and in urban area they are vast.

Social engineering bans only remove choices and/or equalize them to the same boring shit. If you paint such a grim picture of "damned if you do, damned if you don't", it only tells much more about you as a person... or rather a puppet as you would have said it.

[Bob2004]

No idea if it's been posted already, and I'm far too lazy to read back and check, but I just stumbled across this video, and it largely sums up my opinion of the election (beyond the general distaste I feel at how ridiculously right wing most people in America seem to be).

Also, re. smoking bans - as someone who enjoys having a couple of pints of beer and a chat with my mates, it is so, so, so wonderful to be able to do that without having to be constantly choking on the vile, smelly smoke drifting around the pub. Not smoking in public indoor places should just be normal good manners as far as I'm concerned, but since smokers don't seem to appreciate how disgusting it is for everyone else, there isn't really much choice but to use the law to force them to exhibit a bit of common decency.

[Burkingam]

@sdedalus83 Sure. Whichever works best.

No, without social engineering there is a diversity, the beauty of the free market! I can choose to eat giant sized junk food, I can also choose to go to a restaurant for some traditional dinner, or I can go to gourmet restaurant and eat exclusive cuisine. The choices are many and in urban area they are vast.

Social engineering bans only remove choices and/or equalize them to the same boring shit. If you paint such a grim picture of "damned if you do, damned if you don't", it only tells much more about you as a person... or rather a puppet as you would have said it.

And to take my personal experience with tobacco laws, it came more or less from A: All restaurants and bars are smoker friendly,  to B: All restaurants and bars are smoke free. Not much change in level of diversity, not that I would even care.

Now look who is all morbidly pessimistic.

It's only pessimistic from your point of view, not from mine. Contrarily to my mortality, my lack of libertarian freewill doesn't make me uncomfortable even one bit. I don't care where behaviors are coming from, all I care about are their consequences.

[jaybug]

Now if only artificial fragrances were determined to be carcinogenic. Damn they smell bad.

Speaking of smell bad, good thing my farts aren't carcinogenic.

I've been wondering. Romney lost by less than 2% of the popular vote. And it was the large urban centers of the west that pushed Obama over the top, and provided the disparity in electoral votes.

So why is it a new thing, that the Republicans did poorly in urban centers? When those who historically voted Republican, move away from large urban centers A.S.A.P. I think the real challenge for the GOP will be to begin to make progress in those large urban centers. But how do they do that and satisfy their more rural constituencies? Flash to the past for you, that is what the moderate wing of the GOP used to do.

So, the Dems have alienated 20% of their party, as shown by the margin of victory Obama over Romney. How long until they have achieved their idea of party purity, and have the same problem, but in reverse to that of the GOP?

[Bob2004]

It's because urban areas tend to be richer, and as a result better educated. Which means they're better able to make reasoned judgements on who to vote for - and therefore don't vote republican. And that sounds like I'm just bashing republicans, but it's actually generally true. There've been a couple of studies examining it, I think, although I can't remember the names of any off the top of my head.

[jaybug]

Bob, if that were true, we would never hear how inner city schools are such pieces of crap. Having the highest tax bases, and the lowest graduation rates.

It's as if you assume that once a person is out of the big city and bright lights, that they are in the wilderness. That there are no wealthy farmers. Oh, you hear about them, all right, every time the death tax comes up. You want them to be next on the chopping block.

They don't vote Republican, because that would stop all the free money the inner city people have been getting. They would have to go get jobs instead, retire later, rely upon their own initiative to make their own life better.

[zherok]

They don't vote Republican, because that would stop all the free money the inner city people have been getting. They would have to go get jobs instead, retire later, rely upon their own initiative to make their own life better.

Pretty sure we already talked about states that receive the most federal money for what they send. I even color coded them. Why keep bringing it up?

[Nikkoru]

I've been wondering. Romney lost by less than 2% of the popular vote.

Actually it's likely to be <3% -- the preliminary count being somewhat inadequate.

They don't vote Republican, because that would stop all the free money the inner city people have been getting. They would have to go get jobs instead, retire later, rely upon their own initiative to make their own life better.

Ah yes, the 47% of parasites.

Perhaps they don't vote republican because people such as yourself keep acting as if they're something unpleasant you've stepped on.

[Tiffanys]

The thing that pisses me off about this whole cup size thing... is that they always give you the smallest cup for water. Like what the fuck am I going to do with that? It's going to last like 2 sips and not even half the meal... especially considering 98% of it is filled with ice.

Though, I guess that's because water is free here and they don't want to lose money on the cups. I'd prefer to be charged for the cups by default though... Have to actually tell people you want a large cup and no ice....