By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg ignited a firestorm on this blog and elsewhere for his proposal to ban all but 16 ounce containers of sodas, energy drinks, sweetened iced teas and other sugary beverages in restaurants, movie theaters, sports arenas and food carts (they will still be available in supermarkets and bodegas). Wondering why he’d make a proposal that could not possibly help him politically and was likely to draw the ire of Big Soda, I did a little research. Here is the abbreviated case against cola:
- Weight Increase. Using high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener, a 20 oz can of soda contains the equivalent of anywhere between 17 (Coke) and 20 (Pepsi) teaspoons of sugar per can. Drinking just one regular 20 oz soda per day adds about 225 calories to our daily diet or about 7000 calories a month which, without concomitant exercise, translates to 2 pounds a month of 24 pounds of weight gain per year. And that’s just one per day. Many American teens average 3 per day. Since 1978, the consumption of sugary drinks has skyrocketed. Back then we soda was a puny 3% of our caloric intake and milk chimed in at 8%. The numbers are now almost reversed with soda making up about 7% of our daily caloric intake. If you’re interested, here’s the sugar content of many popular drinks.
- Insulin Blaster. Americans with type 2 diabetes has tripled from 6.6 million in 1980 to 20.8 million today. Why? One major reason might be soda. Researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and Harvard Medical School analyzed the data from the Nurses Heath Study II. They concluded that “women who drank one or more sugary drinks a day gained more weight and were 83% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than those who imbibed less than once a month.” The researchers also noted that, “rapidly absorbed carbohydrates like high fructose corn syrup put more strain on insulin-producing cells than other foods.” When sugar enters the bloodstream quickly, the pancreas has to secrete large amounts of insulin for the body to process it. Some scientists believe that the unceasing demands that a soda habit places on the pancreas may ultimately leave it unable to keep up with the body’s need for insulin.
- Tooth Dissolver. Soda is a known enemy of tooth enamel due to its high acidity. In a series of studies, Professor Poonam Jain, director of community dentistry at Southern Illinois University School of Dental Medicine, tested various sodas by measuring their pH–an indication of acidity. Battery acid, for example, has a pH of 1; water scores a 7. Jain found that sugar-sweetened sodas came in at about 2.5, while diet sodas scored 3.2. “The acidity can dissolve the mineral content of the enamel, making the teeth weaker, more sensitive, and more susceptible to decay,” he contends.
- Bone Dissolver. In the 1950s we drank 3 cups of milk for every one cup of soda. Now those numbers are reversed and we’ve seen an increase in osteoporosis as a result. In 2000, research at the Harvard School of Public Health disclosed that brittle bones were a particular problem for soda drinking adolescent girls. The study of 460 high schoolers found that girls who drank carbonated soft drinks were three times as likely to break their arms and legs as those who consumed other drinks. And the problem continues into advanced age. Grace Wyshak, PhD, a biostatistician and the study’s lead researcher, believes something in colas is interfering with the body’s ability to use calcium. This is a big problem, she says, “because girls will be more susceptible to fractures later in life if they don’t acquire optimal bone mass in adolescence.”
- Caffeine Addiction. Many in the medical community consider caffeine a psychoactive substance. In fact, almost 90% of Americans consume it daily. It reacts with the central nervous system and stimulates the body. The caffeine in just one can of sugar-free diet soda ” is associated with a 48 percent increased risk of ‘metabolic syndrome,’ which plays a major role in heart disease and diabetes.”
Diet soda fairs no better with new research indicating its sugar less formula may well trigger food cravings and thus leads to weigh gain. It contains equal or more amounts of acid and caffeine and provides little in the way of nutritional benefits.
Bloomberg’s proposal then makes sense both from a public health perspective and from the point of view of logic. Why then all the resistance? Are we like spoiled children refusing to “eat our vegetables” because we just don’t want to eat them? Are we afraid of government depriving us of the products we take for granted and really, really like? Or are we just rationalizing our own indulgences under the banner of freedom of choice?
Basically, are we endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to harm ourselves for our own pleasure and increase the costs to our fellows and our future generations as they are forced to pay for all the bad health choices we make?
What do you think?
Sources: Prevention Magazine; ABC News; Healthy Resources
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
A professor called upon a student who had been dozing.
“Mr. Smith, tell us who was the greatest German philosopher in the 18th Century!”
Smith looked up, bleary-eyed. “I can’t.”
If either of you wish to throw something at me after that, I perfectly understand.
You Kant really argue against the value of thinking for yourself over strict systemic adherence, especially in the light of what Gödels on in the universe.
Bob,Esq:
“What a lame straw man Mark. As you can plainly see from the portion of what you quoted above I did not lambaste the quote you nearly plagiarized from an encyclopedia. Rather, I ridiculed your attempt to dismiss Kant entirely in lieu of answering my direct questions regarding Kant.”
************************
No, Bob, you said I didn’t understand Kant when I explained his moral philosophy was premised on the existence of God and an immortal human soul. We all can read English and your assertions that either I “don’t comprehend” or “haven’t read” seem clear enough. Your verbal dekeing on what you obviously said aside, even you have to admit that either you’re right or the acknowledged expert on Kant in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (not Wiki as you assert) I cited is right. It’s either A or not A. You can’t have it both ways. Not being an expert myself, I tracked the expert’s assertion almost verbatim. I thought it a good test of your knowledge and so it was.
I knew all that Kantian didactic of yours was hyperbolic puffery but I wanted to see just how far off the reservation you would go with it. You never disappoint.
That Kant premises his philosophy of morals on the existence of an anthropomorphic God and the immortality of the human soul is beyond dispute and amply demonstrates the sand-like basis of his philosophy. Kant calls them “moral certainties.” That you ignore this fact when caught in your ignorance of it explains a lot. However, it’s doesn’t explain your obsequious adherence to Kant, nor your outright refusal to think for yourself except perhaps to project your own extreme opinions on license (not freedom, mind you) through a fractured prism of what you (and precious few others) believe to be Kant’s musings. It was Kant himself who coined the maxim “Think for Yourself.”(Selbstdenken). Quite the irony.
For you, Kant’s philosophy means individual freedom unfettered by responsibility to society as a whole. That’s not what Kant said, but a few lines here and there about juridical duties versus ethical duties seem to pass as analysis and support for you.
What Kant clearly said in his political writings was that “There is nothing more sacred in the wide world than the right of others. They are inviolable. Woe unto him who trespasses upon the right of another and tramples it underfoot!” (Lectures on Ethics). That’s Bloomberg’s implicit message about abusing yourself to such an extent such that others will have to pay your freight.
Finally, and like I said, I’ll let the readers decide if anything you say about Kant is correct or if you are a mere poser.Since you sort of stepped right in it with your recent comment, your judgment and interpretation is … well … kind of discredited in my admittedly non-expert view of Kant. Thus I’m not the most unbiased of judges.
Gene,
I assure you I did not argue from the parts to the whole regarding Mark’s arguments with me regarding civil liberties. However, in the interest of avoiding even the appearance of a ‘fallacy of composition’ you can preface my comments with
“in all my arguments with Mark”
Mespo: “Funny you picked that quote to lambaste.”
What a lame straw man Mark. As you can plainly see from the portion of what you quoted above I did not lambaste the quote you nearly plagiarized from an encyclopedia. Rather, I ridiculed your attempt to dismiss Kant entirely in lieu of answering my direct questions regarding Kant.
To wit:
Mespo: “Here we have a classic objective depiction of the consumer’s reckless self-indulgence contrasted to Bloomberg’s politically self-sacrificing act motivated by concern for the public’s well-being. In essence, a duty to the public good as Kant might say.”
How might he say that Mark? How would Kant make the nexus between a duty towards self (duty of virtue) and a juridical duty towards the public? Please, cite me chapter and verse my friend.
Mespo: “Kant never advocated a right to any size soda at the theater and certainly wouldn’t have appreciated a selfish motive as the basis for the “right” to soda in general. Bloomberg would precisely fulfill Kant’s moral imperative as it appears he is acting against self for the good of the public out of sense of duty.”
That’s right Mark; only because your representation of Kant’s schematic of duties is fraudulent and misleading; thus the reason I ask you cite chapter and verse. You have completely glossed over the distinction between juridical duties and ethical duties and the reason the latter cannot be coerced by external legislation.
Did Kant advocate that coercion, in the form of juridical duties, can be used as a hindrance to freedom of choice?
AND WHAT WAS YOUR REPLY?
Mespo: “…he who warned the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringin’ those bells and, um, makin’ sure as he’s ridin’ his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we’re gonna be secure and we were gonna be free. And we we’re gonna be armed.”
Sorry, my bad. That was Sarah Palin describing the ride of Paul Revere. But who can blame me since your reply had an incredibly similar ‘ring’ to it.
Mespo: “By the way, Kant does himself in — philosophically speaking — by premising all of his morality (the “highest good”) on the assumption of the immortality of the human soul and the belief in an anthropomorphic God who cares about the human condition.”
So instead of answering the questions I posed, you chose instead to paraphrase a portion of an online encyclopedia of philosophy; jazzing it up with atheistic sarcasm. However, in your zeal to dismiss Kant entirely, you didn’t even manage to cite the portion of the encyclopedia entry that even remotely addressed the questions I posed to you.
One need not have any knowledge of Kant whatsoever to conclude that you’re not familiar with Kant’s philosophy despite your attempts to represent otherwise. No wonder why it sounded like Sarah Palin’s description of Paul Revere’s ride.
Thus your comment: “I merely analyzed Bloomberg’s actions in Kantian terms.”
is pure excrement.
Let us now return to the categorical imperative, i.e. ‘adopt only that maxim that you would will to become a universal law’
These are your words Mark; are they not?
“Well with such authoritative sources as Wikipedia at your disposal, your assertion must be true. I suggest you read more before you get into arguments with folks who demonstrably know quite a bit more than you do..”
**Rather I think that**
Bob,
While I have disagreed with Mark on several of the topics you just mentioned, especially Lincoln issue, I still think you overstate his position. He’s many things, but an absolutist in re attacking civil liberties isn’t one of them. I’ve seen him defend them too and so have you. That he is willing to make exceptions and alternative arguments for positions that you or I might find contrary to freedom or the rule of law does not mean he has “consistently demonstrated that he does not believe in freedom or the rule of law.” In the examination of his positions in toto, I think that statement becomes a fallacy of composition by the use of the word “consistently”. I didn’t say you weren’t making a valid point about his positions. I most certainly won’t go so far as to defend all of Lincoln’s actions based on either outcome or necessity and it is well known I think Bush should be in prison. Rather I that you are overstating them because you use absolute terms. It’s a fine distinction, but it is a distinction.
Gene,
When I make a comment like “people like Mespo would have you believe that the state has the power to make ANY law simply because of an expressed good intention” it’s only because I’ve witnessed it first hand in my arguments with him.
The man has absolutely no regard for the doctrine of specifically enumerated powers and bases his arguments for the exercise of power not granted by the constitution solely on his intentions of the end justifying the means. He’ll have you believe that the survival of the nation is perpetually in question and will quote you Lincoln in the context of the Civil War to justify dismantling the constitution to achieve his aims.
Look at his arguments regarding the executive’s overreaching of power in the name of a war on “terror.” Look at the way he juices his rhetoric with fear and the remembrance of fear, i.e. invoking 9/11, as justification for decimating civil liberties. About the only thing missing from his arguments is the “Smoking Gun/In The Form of a Mushroom Cloud” metaphor used by the Bush Administration to defraud the country into war.
I know you consider him a friend Gene, but that doesn’t mean you’re entitled to lie to yourself in the name of preserving a friendship.
In his unfettered support of policies that attack our civil liberties, Mark has consistently demonstrated that he does not believe in freedom or the rule of law. He believes first and foremost in assuaging his own anxieties and insecurities; he believes in total control.
What if someone is diabetic and is having hypoglycemia (very low blood sugar). They need something like soda fast to prevent serious risks to their health, and even death.
Additionally, obesity is a many headed beast and cannot be slain by something lame like limiting soda. There is no cure for obesity that has been scientifically proven to work other than drastically reducing calories. Unfortunately, those of us who have yo-yo dieted know that drastically reducing calories can be counter-productive as the rebound that occurs after the diet is over can make you gain even more than what you started with. The only effective (70-80%) way of losing weight long term for many is bariatric surgery, be it the more dangerous gastric bypass to the less dangerous gastric sleeve to the even less severe gastric banding. The reason it works is it reduces hunger as well as stomach capacity. No hunger+less ability to eat+severe calorie restriction=weight loss. There is less psychological trauma to the dieter thus less chance of rebound even when the stomach stretches.
Gene H:
“I think “[p]eople like Mespo would have you believe that the state has the power to make ANY law simply because of an expressed good intention” is a bit of an overstatement of his position.”
**************************
Of course, I said no such thing. I merely analyzed Bloomberg’s actions in Kantian terms. But Bob never lets a good fact stand in the way of trotting out his apparently unlettered (see above) take on Emmanuel Kant on just about every topic. I wonder if his Kant book collection would qualify as a religious donation on his taxes?
Bob,Esq:
“Mespo: ‘By the way, Kant does himself in — philosophically speaking — by premising all of his morality (the “highest good”) on the assumption of the immortality of the human soul and the belief in an anthropomorphic God who cares about the human condition.’
Love the way you can criticize Kant without exhibiting a scintilla of evidence that you either comprehend his philosophy or even read a single word of what he wrote. Why else would I ask you to cite chapter and verse if it wasn’t perfectly clear to anyone who knows Kant’s philosophy that you were talking out of your ass.”
***********************
Funny you picked that quote to lambaste. Far be it from me to question your encyclopedic and self-proclaimed knowledge of Kant. Not wishing to unjustifiably question your undergraduate mastery of the topic, I turned to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) for a little refresher on Kant before writing my argument. Lo, and behold, right in Section 6 of the article on “Emmanuel Kant’ we find the following passage:
Our duty to promote the highest good, on Kant’s view, is the sum of all moral duties, and we can fulfill this duty only if we believe that the highest good is a possible state of affairs. Furthermore, we can believe that the highest good is possible only if we also believe in the immortality of the soul and the existence of God, according to Kant. On this basis, he claims that it is morally necessary to believe in the immortality of the soul and the existence of God, which he calls postulates of pure practical reason.
So it seems your understanding of Kant is … shall we say … incomplete, or perhaps your interpretation of Kant dwarfs Professor Michael Rohlf who wrote the peer-reviewed entry for the SEP. So you are either quite full to the brim of sh*t or you’ve found something in Kant that scads of academics who spent years on just this topic … how did you so elegantly put it … pulled from their a**es.”
I am happy to let the readers decide which is the case:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#MorFre
Bob,
Not to speak for mespo, but knowing you both oddly enough the almost identical length of time, I think “[p]eople like Mespo would have you believe that the state has the power to make ANY law simply because of an expressed good intention” is a bit of an overstatement of his position.
I’m certain he’ll correct me if I’m wrong.
Bob, Esq., there is someone who has the power to make any law, and to make it as a bill of attainder and to apply it to just one person or to several people and to make it impossible to challenge: a judge. “Folks like Mespo” are only lawyers; it takes a judge to completely subvert the entire process and usurp all three branches of government. First, the judge enters an order that is not within his power, but remember, in order to challenge that two things have to happen: (1) He has to ENTER the order and make it a written reality so it can be challenged; and (2) you have to have the money to appeal it. THEN, he gets to enforce it himself. Now, if a legislature makes a law, they don’t get to enforce it themselves; they have to leave it to the administrative and judicial branches. But a judicially created “law” can be enforced by a judicial officer, who orders the administrative agencies and personnel to do what he wants them to do! Now you have two out of three branches down for the count. And if you’re worried about the judicial branch reacting to this because they, after all, are supposed to be making the laws — try getting any of them interested in this peculiar anomaly. They say, “We can’t comment on that; it’s before a court.”
So a person can go from citizen of the United States to property of anyone at all in three easy steps, all taken by one judge, without a wrinkle.
Throw a stone; you will hit someone who has had this happen but who hasn’t figured out how!
For the record, one need not have read Kant to appreciate the fact that there is a line between the individual’s duties to one’s self and duties owed to the state. This is the basic formula upon which the social compact is formed; distinguishing usurpation from tyranny and alienable from inalienable rights.
People like Mespo would have you believe that the state has the power to make ANY law simply because of an expressed good intention. That’s simply not true. Once you buy that premise, the social compact is dissolved and folks like Mespo convert you from Citizen of the United States into Property of the United States.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY
Everything I know about Philosophy.
(And if you know where to look you can see me at 0:17)
Bob Esq:
thank you, very interesting.
You know, I used to tell kids, “Freedom is limited. The freedom of your hand is limited to where my face ISN’T!” They would laugh, but they would get it.
And for those who haven’t read Kant but understand the basic ideas of freedom and decency, here’s a nifty summary of what Kant was talking about.
Feel free to compare it to Mespo’s alleged summary and see for yourself how full of it he is.
“If we take the Metaphysics of Morals as giving his final views on the relation between morality and right, maybe we can see his essential argument as follows:
1. Our essence as humans is to be (or become) self-determining beings
2. Self-determination entails rational deliberation about how to act
3. Rational deliberation entails treating oneself as self-authoritative (as an ‘end’)
4. Rationally this entails that we must treat other humans as self-authoritative too (this is the essential content of morality)
5. Self-determination also entails that we may coerce each other so as to guarantee each a sphere of freedom, in the sense of external unconstraint, for their own choices, for such a sphere is necessary for self-determination
6. But in doing so we must all treat each other in the same way for we are all equally self-determining beings
7. So this coercion must conform to the principle of guaranteeing individual freedom under universal rules (the principle of right)
8. Finally, self-determination entails that we must establish a common authority to implement the principle of right in positive laws, for without this we will be unable to coerce each other in a consistent way
9.These laws must be must be such that all can support them while being true to their essence as self-determining and self-authoritative beings (a ‘principle of public right’, though he never uses that phrase)
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/sefd0/crsold/tt1034/tt1034kant.htm
Mark,
There is a reason I asked you to cite where Kant agrees with your argument; and that is because he DOESN’T.
In lieu of me doing your research for you by providing quotes that refute your position, giving you a leg up as to what points to attempt to twist, I chose instead to ‘let the perp provide the details’ so to speak.
You can’t provide quotes Mark because you haven’t the foggiest idea of what you’re talking about. Your attempt to cobble concepts together and hold it off as Kant’s philosophy is as discordant and unintelligible as a 3 year old beating pots and pans together.
And not for nothing, it’s ONLY because I understand Kant’s philosophy that I can fit it within the framework of the social compact.
Mespo: “By the way, Kant does himself in — philosophically speaking — by premising all of his morality (the “highest good”) on the assumption of the immortality of the human soul and the belief in an anthropomorphic God who cares about the human condition. Precious little proof of either, so I wouldn’t get too worked up about this 18th Century Prussian moralizer or his take on the problems of today.”
Love the way you can criticize Kant without exhibiting a scintilla of evidence that you either comprehend his philosophy or even read a single word of what he wrote. Why else would I ask you to cite chapter and verse if it wasn’t perfectly clear to anyone who knows Kant’s philosophy that you were talking out of your ass.
Again…
“All duties are either duties of right, that is, juridical duties (officia juris), or duties of virtue, that is, ethical duties (officia virtutis s. ethica). Juridical duties are such as may be promulgated by external legislation; ethical duties are those for which such legislation is not possible. The reason why the latter cannot be properly made the subject of external legislation is because they relate to an end or final purpose, which is itself, at the same time, embraced in these duties, and which it is a duty for the individual to have as such. But no external legislation can cause any one to adopt a particular intention, or to propose to himself a certain purpose; for this depends upon an internal condition or act of the mind itself.” — Immanuel Kant
In order to keep the social compact from failing for being illusory, there must be a distinction between alienable and inalienable rights. How a man or woman fulfills their duties of virtue, i.e. ethical duties toward self (such as refraining from over indulging in sugary drinks) CAN NEVER be made a duty of right owed to the state. Because promulgating a duty of virtue as if it were a duty of right is a clear exercise of power over the individual’s property in himself and is tyranny per se.
Mark, you don’t believe in freedom or rule of law; all you believe in is control.
You’re a disgrace to the document you swore to defend.