Steroid wrote:I remember reading a story how, in World War II, Coca-Cola ensure that every soldier, no matter where he was stationed, could get a Coke for five cents.
What about the story of how they did that to avoid the sugar ration
, and to ensure market penetration? Or how about the one where it was happy to sell millions of bottles
to the Nazi regime during WWII?
Steroid wrote:Don’t go into the details of how this isn’t a ban, that anyone who wants can have as much as they want. . . this isn’t even about the money.
Why not? Because your rhetoric appeals to nostalgia and the idea that soft drink in general is 'American', but doesn't mention specifically that drinking it in refillable cups of more than half a litre is part of this tradition?
Steroid wrote:There have always been taxes and bottle deposits, but they never said to drink less soda.
What? That's a blatant lie — from the same Wikipedia page in "1936, Coca-Cola was deemed unsuitable for children due to its sugar content and additives." Furthermore, for at least as long as I've been able to understand the news they've been suggesting that we drink less
sugary drinks, especially soft drinks.
For one's health 'they've' been saying for decades to drink less soft drink, and if it's not a lie it's ridiculously ignorant of you to say that.
Steroid wrote:Bloomberg is taking all the history I detailed above, crumpling it up, and throwing it in the trash.
What? He's reaching into the past and rewriting history now? It's going to undo it? No, that's insane rhetoric. You're being deliberately hyperbolic — this law doesn't say 'no one may drink soft drink', but limits the manner in which it may be served. How can you not understand the difference? You definitely don't strike me as that stupid.
Steroid wrote:See, throughout that history, no one ever put a moral component to drinking a soda.
the one putting a 'moral' component to drinking it, with massive appeals to patriotism and nostalgia. No one in this argument has been trying to apply a 'moral' element — all the arguments have been for health
reasons, while 'morality' is the crux of your
And you can still do this if the law goes through.
Steroid wrote:You might not be able to afford the soda, or you might have better things to do at that time than drink the soda, but up until now, the attitude was that if you’re thirsty, you find a store, buy a soda, and let the sweet goodness run down your throat.
Seriously Steroid, it's almost as if you're being deliberately deceitful in misrepresenting the law to the point of propaganda. If you want a soft drink, go and buy a soft drink.
No one is removing your ability to do so. You're the only person who can't seem to comprehend this point. The law is designed to ban half-litre container refills, not soft drink.
Steroid wrote:That’s tyranny. That’s cultural destruction every bit as much as the genocides of Rwanda or the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. You don’t have to have a body count to kill a culture. Ancient Rome was culturally dead long before the barbarians reached the gates. And our culture is heading for the same cause of death: slow suicide.
That is utterly foul. Not being able to refill containers of soft drink above half a litre is somehow equivalent or even comparable to the slaughter of eight hundred thousand
people, the rape of hundreds of thousands of women and girls? No, I reject that notion with utter disgust. Changing the largest refillable cup size is not
cultural genocide, and if you believe it is you're living on so different a plane of reality I don't know how you can even pretend to communicate with us.
The rest of your post isn't even worth addressing as it has absolutely nothing to do with this.