Middlebury College Bans Energy Drinks, Linking Use to Alcohol, 'High-Risk' Sex
131 replies, posted
I can think of a drink much more linked to alcohol abuse than Red Bull.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875375]So you're an admitted troll, cool.
There's a reason I made my argument generalized. I'm arguing against the foundational beliefs behind a decision like this, not the single decision made by this one university.[/QUOTE]
i am not a troll. you just decided to pick a stupid hill to fight on.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875371]The intent is what matters. Stopping the sale of something that people wren't buying is, in effect, acting in order to better serve your customers. Stopping the sale of something because you don't think it's good for them is acting in order to paternalistically stop them from making their own choices that you think are bad.[/QUOTE]
by your logic, it would be a bad thing on apples part to stop manufacturing their products in sweatshops because its up to the consumer as to whether or not to buy sweatshop goods? wouldnt not selling sweatshop goods in the first place be better idea?
kinda like how instead of continuing to sell proven to be bad for you energy drinks to their paying students, the school stopped altogether
They give a pretty reasonable justification, there's nothing wrong with this.
those FASCISTSS!
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875127]Mmm, gotta love some good ol' nanny state.[/QUOTE]
Maybe if people stopped acting like babies we wouldn't need nannies.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49875413]Maybe if people stopped acting like babies we wouldn't need nannies.[/QUOTE]
I love this because it perfectly sums up the difference between us.
I see people making bad decisions and conclude that they should be free to make those decisions, but also get the consequences.
You see people making bad decisions and you feel that you are so superior to them that you need to take away those freedoms in order to protect them from themselves.
[editline]5th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49875400]by your logic, it would be a bad thing on apples part to stop manufacturing their products in sweatshops because its up to the consumer as to whether or not to buy sweatshop goods? wouldnt not selling sweatshop goods in the first place be better idea?
kinda like how instead of continuing to sell proven to be bad for you energy drinks to their paying students, the school stopped altogether[/QUOTE]
Using sweatshops or not using sweatshops does not tell consumers what to do or not do. I'm not seeing the connection.
thsi college is taking away student freedoms by not selling monster in their store! this is bullshit! why cant we ride the manitees?!
"taking away freedom"
stop that bullshit lol it's an energy drink that they can still buy and drink
the school simply believes they aren't good for their students and they don't want to contribute to an unhealthy thing
that's all there is to it
[editline]6th March 2016[/editline]
the fact that this school is still allowing them to buy and drink is a positive sign that says "we think it's bad and we won't be part of it but you can still do it if you want to"
[editline]6th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE]Guayaki Yerba Mate, an energy shot made from organic tea that's considered a healthier alternative, will still be available in campus cafes[/QUOTE]
they aren't even completely getting rid of the energy drinks but rather replacing them with something healthier!
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875423]I love this because it perfectly sums up the difference between us.
I see people making bad decisions and conclude that they should be free to make those decisions, but also get the consequences.
You see people making bad decisions and you feel that you are so superior to them that you need to take away those freedoms in order to protect them from themselves.
[editline]5th March 2016[/editline]
Using sweatshops or not using sweatshops does not tell consumers what to do or not do. I'm not seeing the connection.[/QUOTE]
Your existence is not a neatly seperated bubble of rugged individualism imprevious to the actions of others. When people make bad decisions, they can easily effect others then the dumbass who made the bad decision. Drunk driving is illegal not because people see themselves as being superior to drunk drivers, its because drunk driving reeeeaaallly fucks up people beyond the drunk driver.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875423]I love this because it perfectly sums up the difference between us.
I see people making bad decisions and conclude that they should be free to make those decisions, but also get the consequences.
You see people making bad decisions and you feel that you are so superior to them that you need to take away those freedoms in order to protect them from themselves.[/QUOTE]
When their bad decisions start to affect me, yes, I would very much like them to stop.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49875499]When their bad decisions start to affect me, yes, I would very much like them to stop.[/QUOTE]
Why is everyone bringing this up when it's irrelevant to the topic at hand? Drinking energy drinks doesn't effect anyone else.
There are exceptions to most every rule, but that doesn't invalidate the general rule. An action that has a clear effect on other people is one of those exceptions.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49875499]When their bad decisions start to affect me, yes, I would very much like them to stop.[/QUOTE]
That's nanny state supporter talk, boy.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875506]Why is everyone bringing this up when it's irrelevant to the topic at hand? Drinking energy drinks doesn't effect anyone else.
There are exceptions to most every rule, but that doesn't invalidate the general rule.[/QUOTE]
I was, much like you, arguing for the general case. Unless you want to talk about this specific case?
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49875509]I was, much like you, arguing for the general case. Unless you want to talk about this specific case?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you're even talking about. Both of your statements have been specific, not general. They both apply to specific cases within the general paradigm of whether acting out of paternalistic intent is good or not.
The general point is that acting paternalistically, with the intent to deprive someone of choice because you don't believe that they are able to choose for themselves, is wrong.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875520]I'm not sure what you're even talking about. Both of your statements have been specific, not general. They both apply to specific cases within the general paradigm of whether acting out of paternalistic intent is good or not.
The general point is that acting paternalistically, with the intent to deprive someone of choice because you don't believe that they are able to choose for themselves, is wrong.[/QUOTE]
And I'm saying that in general, most actions have impact beyond oneself and therefore may be subject to some form of oversight. I have said nothing about this specific case.
So how does that apply in real life? Is every oversight morally acceptable then?
Your point seems to be so generalized as to be useless when evaluating actual decisions.
I grew up in Middlebury, very small town. You can just buy an energy drink at the store if you want. Not sure if there is anything very near the campus though, I never hung around that area. I mean it's a small enough town.
If anything they banned purchasing them because Vermont is an extremely left-wing anti-corporate state. They don't even have billboards or walmarts. I wouldn't be surprised if someone bans coca-cola products or whatever else triggers them in the future.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875520]
The general point is that acting paternalistically, with the intent to deprive someone of choice because you don't believe that they are able to choose for themselves, is wrong.[/QUOTE]
lmbo r u fore real dude? do you honestly believe the school came to this decision with the intention of taking choice away from students?
[editline]5th March 2016[/editline]
like, what choice is the school taking away here?
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875205]That changes nothing. It's a legal drink and students should be allowed to make their own choice on whether to buy it. The campus store is there to provide a service to the students, not tell them what's good for them. (and that doesn't even include the private sales from franchised locations on campus)[/QUOTE]
If the university wants to stop selling a product of any sort, that's well within their rights to do that. Morality doesn't enter into it. Students can get their energy drinks elsewhere.
You can't force a store to sell something. If you could, I'd have a much more accessible supply of Japanese notebook refills...
[QUOTE=woolio1;49875690]This logic would mean that the store would have to sell anything and everything students would need, obviously a store can't do that. If the university wants to stop selling a product of any sort, that's well within their rights to do that. Students can get their energy drinks elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
No, it wouldn't. If you don't sell something for economic reasons (like there not being enough demand or there being no profit), then you are justified. Those are necessary in order to run a successful business.
I keep saying this: it's about intent. The intent of this university is to make "good" choices for the students because they are not responsible enough to make those choices for themselves.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875700]No, it wouldn't. If you don't sell something for economic reasons (like there not being enough demand or there being no profit), then you are justified. Those are necessary in order to run a successful business.
I keep saying this: it's about intent. The intent of this university is to make "good" choices for the students because they are not responsible enough to make those choices for themselves.[/QUOTE]
I realized this after I made my original argument, and edited my post.
@ Below: I'm making an argument without consideration of morality. That's something nobody else here seems to be doing. If the university doesn't want to sell energy drinks to students, they can make that call. Whether it's right or not doesn't matter, morals are irrelevant in this case. This is how the free market works.
I should also point out that I did read the thread, and you all still seem very much caught in an argument of morals and intent. That's a flawed argument, because we're talking about an application of values in a free market system. The university has the right to perform this action, they performed it, and that's all we can really say about it. Value judgments don't matter.
Please read the thread, it's only 2 pages. You've brought up two things that we've already gone past.
I already talked about the difference between saying that someone shouldn't do something and saying that someone shouldn't have the right to do something as well... We can discuss the moral foundation and implications of an action without saying that the action should be illegal.
[QUOTE=woolio1;49875704]I realized this after I made my original argument, and edited my post.
@ Below: I'm making an argument without consideration of morality. That's something nobody else here seems to be doing. If the university doesn't want to sell energy drinks to students, they can make that call. Whether it's right or not doesn't matter, morals are irrelevant in this case. This is how the free market works.[/QUOTE]
Sure, if we ignore morality, then there's no discussion to be had. I, personally, think that acting morally is important. If you don't, fine, but that doesn't end the discussion.
There's a reason private establishments without a monopolistic market, like this university, don't do this sort of thing. The free market wouldn't allow it. I don't even know if this store is expected to make a profit.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875730]Sure, if we ignore morality, then there's no discussion to be had. I, personally, think that acting morally is important. If you don't, fine, but that doesn't end the discussion.[/QUOTE]
The only other discussion to be had, then, is that you disagree with the university's call. And there's only one argument there, which you're free to make. But restating the same argument over two pages of discussion is hardly a discussion to be had.
I'm not totally sure there's any sort of discussion to be had here at all, really.
[QUOTE=woolio1;49875743]The only other discussion to be had, then, is that you disagree with the university's call. And there's only one argument there, which you're free to make. But restating the same argument over two pages of discussion is hardly a discussion to be had.[/QUOTE]
I get it, you're nihilistic on the topic of morality. If you don't care about the discussion, then don't participate.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875730]Sure, if we ignore morality, then there's no discussion to be had. I, personally, think that acting morally is important. If you don't, fine, [B]but that doesn't end the discussion.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
no, but ignoring a post directed at you does :v:
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49875753]no, but ignoring a post directed at you does :v:[/QUOTE]
I tend to ignore posters who are obviously not interested in an honest discussion. You've shown that you're here to mock and demagogue the issue.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875540]So how does that apply in real life? Is every oversight morally acceptable then?
Your point seems to be so generalized as to be useless when evaluating actual decisions.[/QUOTE]
I'm curious. By what measure do you deem "paternalistic" actions immoral?
[QUOTE=Levelog;49875256]And if the college uses some type of on campus currency in conjunction with meal plans, they effectively have made many student unable to get energy drinks. Many students rely on that as pretty much their only spending money.[/QUOTE]
Not really, I've yet to go to a campus that doesn't have a convenience store within walking distance of their dorms, my campus is probably the unusual one because the dorms are in a weird isolated place, but most have some convenience or gas station very close by
Plus being realistic, you don't grocery shop at the school run stores, you take a bus or bum a ride to Walmart because the school run store won't really have much more than snack sized foods and probably some cerials
Like you go to the food courts for meals but you don't really want to buy everything else at the schools convenience store because it's marked up and not in any appreciable size, idk why this is a moralistic debate, my school closed its bar and stopped selling beer a decade ago because they didn't want to provide that kind of service, all it did was mean the local gas station now carries a mountain of natty lite cases
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.