What do you think of the proposed soda tax?

[bicker]

One study?

Read the research and stop making a fool of yourself. Dr. Wing has been doing this a very long time, and has lots of data backing up her research. Dr. James Anderson corroborated her findings.

And so far you haven't presented even one study refuting their research.

Correlation is one of the weakest connections that can be made in a "study."

Better than relying on what LPZ_Stitch! happens to want to believer, which is apparently the entirety of your perspective.

Did you know that there's a correlation between eating bread and committing crime?

Do you have a point? Or are you just trying to distract attention away from facts that you don't like, because you have no facts of your own.

That would be *your* science, I assume?

No: Medical science. Not your personal preference. Not your gut feel.

No, it's not obvious at all.

I think that's because you're grasping at straws. That's your right.

Most people don't have the luxury of making "healthy choices" all the time.

Explain to us, if you would deign to give some real information instead of just continuing your puerile ridicule of science that you don't like, how someone doesn't have the "luxury" of drinking water instead of sugary soda.

Nice selective quoting, there ... in my first post on this thread I stated:
"The real issue is as simple as ladycollector put it; calories-in-and-calories-out. Until people know what they need and what calories are in the food they eat, no taxes are going to make the slightest difference.... "

No not selecting quoting... quoting for relevance. The point I made, very forcefully and perhaps so much so that you've decided to try to squirm your way out of the discussion by essentially defecating on it instead of dealing in facts, was that there is far more to it than calories in and calories out because we're human beings not machines.

 

[FergieTCat]

why do you need to verify that Bicker met/appeared with the DR? I've no big stake in this argument, but this seems unnecessary.

what you can do - as I did - is Google the Dr. You find numerous studies by this woman. She seems to have a great body of research in this realm and seems to be quite knowledgeable, etc. I am not saying I am taking any side in this, but if you want some validation, it would seem more reasonable to look into the Dr and the research rather than Bickers relationship with the DR or identity.

Because if Bicker is presenting himself to be so knowlegable on a subject that he appeared on national television alongside of a doctor (who apparently has a very good reputation), I'd like to be able to verify that.

 

[bicker]

I'm calling you on that. You have never stated your real name and there's no way for anyone to verify that statement.

If you are trying to call me a liar, at least have the decency of doing it clearly.

 

[bicker]

Because if Bicker is presenting himself to be so knowlegable on a subject that he appeared on national television alongside of a doctor (who apparently has a very good reputation), I'd like to be able to verify that.

If all you got out of what I wrote was that the fact that I was there meant anything, then you're not reading for comprehension. Dr. Wing is who matters, not me. My skills, in this regard, is simply remembering being there, and remembering what Dr. Wing said.

 

[FergieTCat]

If all you got out of what I wrote was that the fact that I was there meant anything, then you're not reading for comprehension. Dr. Wing is who matters, not me. My skills, in this regard, is simply remembering being there, and remembering what Dr. Wing said.

If you are trying to call me a liar, at least have the decency of doing it clearly.

No, what I got out of what you wrote was the fact that you believe your opinion is the most accurate on the thread because you appeared on national television with a doctor who has done a lot of research on the subject. By stating that, you are implying that your views are equally as educated and accurate as Dr. Wing. And since you won't state your name, no one can find out if that is the case.

However, I will give you points for the masterful deflection of my question.

 

[bicker]

You're attacking me personally. The most responsible thing I can do is deflect.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

Because if Bicker is presenting himself to be so knowlegable on a subject that he appeared on national television alongside of a doctor (who apparently has a very good reputation), I'd like to be able to verify that.

go for it, but I don't see the point...either the research is good or it isn't. The Dr. is the expert, not Bicker. Seems unnecessary.

 

[FergieTCat]

You're attacking me personally. The most responsible thing I can do is deflect.

I think many other posters on this thread can accuse you of the exact same thing.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

Read the research and stop making a fool of yourself. Dr. Wing has been doing this a very long time, and has lots of data backing up her research. Dr. James Anderson corroborated her findings.

I read it. I even quoted some of it. So what?

And so far you haven't presented even one study refuting their research.

Why should I need to refute it? Since when should the findings of one (or a few) studies be the basis of US tax policy?!?

Explain to us, if you would deign to give some real information instead of just continuing your puerile ridicule of science that you don't like, how someone doesn't have the "luxury" of drinking water instead of sugary soda.

You stated yourself that the "sugary drinks tax" was just the first step. OK, I"ll grant you drinking water will/should be cheaper than drinking soda. Fine.

What about what's next? When fats are taxed, or salt, or lack-of-enough-fiber or whatever else the "research" indicates that next tax target should be?

No not selecting quoting... quoting for relevance. The point I made, very forcefully and perhaps so much so that you've decided to try to squirm your way out of the discussion by essentially defecating on it instead of dealing in facts, was that there is far more to it than calories in and calories out because we're human beings not machines.

I'm not "squirming" out of anything. You're deliberately picking one statement over another.

At no point did I ever state, or even intend to state, the the simplest statement is the be-all-end-all. It's nothing more than the boiling down of a complicated issue into something I feel like typing on this message board.

When you eat more calories than you need, you gain weight. When you eat less calories than you need, you lose weight. For most of the people out there, 3500 calories/per week (excess or cut) equals 1lb. of fat/week (gained or lost)... studies have proven that (and, so has anecdotal evidence, as well).

Sure there are thousands of reason why people eat more than they need. That still doesn't change the basic equation....

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

Read the research and stop making a fool of yourself.

Better than relying on what LPZ_Stitch! happens to want to believer, which is apparently the entirety of your perspective.

Do you have a point?

Explain to us, if you would deign to give some real information instead of just continuing your puerile ridicule of science

...you've decided to try to squirm your way out of the discussion by essentially defecating on it instead of dealing in facts...

You're attacking me personally. The most responsible thing I can do is deflect.

And, you think *you're* being personally attacked!! HA! HA! HA!

 

[mikess]

I personally would abhor living in a society like that, but I respect your right to desire our society to be like that.

Well see that is why I love the USA. "I" have the right to choose what is right for my family.

Should someone be punished or fined for speeding, murder, ect? Yes. Should someone be punished or fined for drinking a coke or not buying health insurance? No.

Once the government starts taxing and mandating because a few old lawmakers think they know what's best, our democracy is over.

Wasn't there a tax on a specific drink (tea) that was one of the last straws before the Revolution?

 

[bicker]

And, you think *you're* being personally attacked!! HA! HA! HA!

Yes, I do. Nothing you quoted there was anything close to being called a liar. The first is a colloquialism and was reinforced in this message you just posted by again putting a foolish smiley in a message instead of dealing with this serious topic seriously. The second characterized what was written in this thread as being limited to personal belief instead of facts, such as reference to the work of a specific researcher. The third is another colloquialism indicating that the words quoted did not lead to a conclusion relevant to what was being discussed. The fourth was yet again a reference to not dealing with this serious topic seriously. The fifth was a third reference to not dealing with this serious topic seriously.

Not personal attacks. All were comments about what was written, not insinuating anything about the poster as a person.

 

[bicker]

Well see that is why I love the USA. "I" have the right to choose what is right for my family. Should someone be punished or fined for speeding, murder, ect? Yes. Should someone be punished or fined for drinking a coke or not buying health insurance? No.

However, the issue is that your "Yes" and "No" does not get to prevail over anyone else's. The folks who support this tax get to make their strongest arguments, and if those arguments prevail, the tax does as well, and should.

Once the government starts taxing and mandating because a few old lawmakers think they know what's best, our democracy is over.

Just because you lose a vote doesn't mean that democracy is over. Indeed, it means the exact opposite.

Wasn't there a tax on a specific drink (tea) that was one of the last straws before the Revolution?

That was about taxation without representation. This is taxation with representation. And again, just because you lose a vote doesn't mean that your perspective wasn't represented.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

All were comments about what was written, not insinuating anything about the poster as a person.

Riiiiiiight!

Why can't you just be honest?

Every one of those statements was *exactly* about insinuating something about me as a person. I'm a fool, my opinions are based upon nothing but my own feelings, it's just "puerile ridicule", just "defecating on it" ... yeah, says nothing about me as a poster....

You can certainly state (essentially); "I don't think you're taking this seriously" without accusing someone of "defecating" on the discussion, or that they're making a "fool" of themselves because you seem to think they haven't read the research*. That's language purely designed to denigrate the poster and their position; in this case, me.

*Hey, news flash for you: you can read about someone's research and *not* think "OMG!! This is so earthshattering that we should change the way the economy of a nation works! Right NOW!!!"

 

[lillygator]

sometimes you just need the ignore button....that is one poster who has to have the last word and always assumes they are right.

 

[parrotbay]

sometimes you just need the ignore button....that is one poster who has to have the last word and always assumes they are right.

Agreed. Does not matter what anyones view is on this issue, that one person's opinion is final. Over. The end. The research says so.

 

[bicker]

Riiiiiiight!

Here again, just with your spelling, you're not being serious.

Why can't you just be honest?

I have been completely honest.

I do note that my perspective upsets you, and others. That's a shame but one would expect that the response would be research that rebuts what Dr. Wing's research found, instead of this silliness.

Just because more people don't like what I outlined, and are working very hard to try to distract attention away from it with personal attacks, doesn't mean it isn't the absolute truth. It has been proven by the research, which makes this whole bit at the end of this thread pretty darned silly.

 

[schmitty]

Do it, we are a couple trillion in debt and this will help ease the debt.

 

[thmar]

We're taxed enough...the answer isn't more taxes, it's less spending!!

 

[DisneyCowgirl]

I am a thin adult and I drink what many would consider to be an outrageous amount of diet soda every day--a tax on that is not going to help with my obesity problem (which I don't have). And I already pay plenty in taxes, plus now my flexible spending account can't be used for over-the-counter stuff so I'll be paying even more taxes. So step away from my diet dr. pepper and no one gets hurt!