|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 04/21/2010 : 10:17:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Originally posted by Fripp
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
So because people don't think for themselves the government should do it for them?
|
I'm not advocating that the government "think" for individuals, but numerous studies (no, I don't have links to them yet) have shown that people are their own worst enemy; that is, they make decisions that are more detrimental to their well-being than they are beneficial.
|
I still don't think that people being their own worst enemy is a reason to legislate many things. It's the individuals own damn problem if they can't make good decisions. I make plenty of bad decisions, not because I'm ignorant but because these bad decisions are usually FUN!
|
But why should I have to pay higher health care costs just so food preparation companies can be free to put out a dangerous product? That is the result when more and more people have to be treated for heart disease, strokes and other illnesses related to hypertension. Insurance costs go up. Is the solution for me the freedom to not have health insurance?
Did you know that the premiums for auto insurance are down due to things like seat belt laws? The auto industry is forced to put seat belts and airbags in their product. In fact, they have been forced to do many things to improve the safety of their product. I benefit directly from those regulations.
And that's all that this is. It's not tyranny unless you think that companies should have more freedoms than you do. And in the case of salt, the shaker's will still be on the table. Unlike seat belt laws, you will still be free to add salt to your food.
Where is the common sense here among those who are calling this tyranny? I think common sense is lost on those who take a strong ideological position. In the name of freedom, let's shoot ourselves in the foot and pay higher health care premiums. Yeah, that makes sense. Call it the price of freedom. And keep saying that to yourselves as you fork over more and more money. I strongly doubt that the food industry will lose any money over this particular suggested regulation. People will still buy packaged food and go out to eat.
Economic issues aside, I'm siding with the scientists recommendations. Otherwise, why bother funding the science?
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2010 : 10:33:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
There again it should not be government's place to do that. It is the consumers place to demand it from the companies. |
With a government "of the people, by the people and for the people," there should be no such distinction. If Congress passes laws regulating the salt content of processed foods, that's "the will of the people" in action. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2010 : 10:39:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Then it is a matter of where each individual's sympathies lie. I have sympathies for many situations but I can equally say " fuck 'em" to many people's situations without feeing bad about myself. |
Darwin was using "we" in the global sense. He was talking about what's normal within society, he wasn't giving license for the occasional sociopath to do whatever his own lack of sympathies suggested.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2010 : 10:58:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
There again it should not be government's place to do that. It is the consumers place to demand it from the companies. |
With a government "of the people, by the people and for the people," there should be no such distinction. If Congress passes laws regulating the salt content of processed foods, that's "the will of the people" in action.
|
Sometimes I forget that it is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people". In practice it seems to be more "Us against Them"
Quite frankly I don't see congress as really caring about "the will of the people". They seem to care more about "the will of the lobbyists". Which in essence is still the will of the people I guess but is seriously skewed toward one specific ideology which is not necessarily the will of the MAJORITY of the people.(I love long, run-on sentences)
Thinking about politics makes my head hurt.
Which is why I like the subject of personal philosophy better.
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2010 : 11:08:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Then it is a matter of where each individual's sympathies lie. I have sympathies for many situations but I can equally say " fuck 'em" to many people's situations without feeing bad about myself. |
Darwin was using "we" in the global sense. He was talking about what's normal within society, he wasn't giving license for the occasional sociopath to do whatever his own lack of sympathies suggested.
|
Hey! I resemble that remark! We sociopaths have rights too dontchaknow! |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2010 : 11:32:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
| Companies should be able to put as much salt in something as they want. They already have to declare on each package how much is in there. |
Part of this is to regulate how much salt is used in restaurants. Here, customers have no idea how much salt is going into the food they eat.
|
Most restaurants are required to release nutritional facts. All large chains do it and lots of state/local laws require smaller ones to release it. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2010 : 11:34:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Quite frankly I don't see congress as really caring about "the will of the people". They seem to care more about "the will of the lobbyists".
|
Correct, but that's actually another subject. In fact, it further shows that business has far more power and rights than the individual. Most, if not all, lobbyists are funded by corporate interests or specific industries all in the effort to have more business-favorable legislation passed to the detriment of the individual. And now that the SCOTUS has passed the "no limit to corporate funding" to political races, the "people" have no chance whatsoever. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2010 : 11:35:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Another great thing for me to think about. If Darwinism works for evolving species then why not for evolving society? |
The thing is, even Darwin repudiated social Darwinism:The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.— The Descent of Man (my bold)
|
As far as I can tell, Darwin's views are of no consequence here. He didn't study societies. Not that I'm supporting social Darwinism, but that isn't an argument against it. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 04/21/2010 11:35:45 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2010 : 11:36:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Sometimes I forget that it is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people". In practice it seems to be more "Us against Them"
Quite frankly I don't see congress as really caring about "the will of the people". They seem to care more about "the will of the lobbyists". Which in essence is still the will of the people I guess but is seriously skewed toward one specific ideology which is not necessarily the will of the MAJORITY of the people.(I love long, run-on sentences)
Thinking about politics makes my head hurt. |
Yeah, well, the Will of the People seems to be to allow lobbyists to run roughshod over the legislature. Perhaps that will change someday. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2010 : 11:41:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Although I am always suspicious when Oprah enters the picture. Point being that if Oprah made a claim about life style or health, how I know Oprah the claim is likely to be incorrect.
|
This is a logical fallacy. Regardless of who said it, for someone to get sued because they said "Because of mad cow, I'm going to think twice before I eat a hamburger" is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Believe me, I'm no fan of Oprah, but the fact that someone of her stature was sued for such a benign statement magnifies how dire the situation is. Fortunately for Oprah, she's got deep pockets. If I were sued, I wouldn't stand a chance. BTW, she was acquitted. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2010 : 11:50:35 [Permalink]
|
Though I may be guilty of taking it to a logical extreme, to anyone who thinks that less government is better, try going to Somalia sometime. That country is barely-contained anarchy. They literally seem two weeks out of the Stone Age.
Also, anyone using a phone, driving on a road, eating food and NOT getting sick, and even visiting and posting to this site, should thank the government for all these luxuries. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2010 : 11:54:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
As far as I can tell, Darwin's views are of no consequence here. He didn't study societies. Not that I'm supporting social Darwinism, but that isn't an argument against it. |
Historical interest only.
And defending social Darwinism on strictly logical, free-market sorts of terms is easy. It's defending it on a moral basis that's difficult. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2010 : 12:02:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Where is the common sense here among those who are calling this tyranny? I think common sense is lost on those who take a strong ideological position. In the name of freedom, let's shoot ourselves in the foot and pay higher health care premiums. Yeah, that makes sense. Call it the price of freedom. And keep saying that to yourselves as you fork over more and more money. I strongly doubt that the food industry will lose any money over this particular suggested regulation. |
I don't think this particular issue is that important, so I don't really want to argue it anymore, but in a wider sense, does what you have said not posit utility above literally all ideals? Is it never right to forgo a positive result to preserve some ideal?
I think the same arguments without a doubt would apply to any unhealthy foods, probably alcohol, dangerous activities (whenever someone defines what qualifies as a dangerous activity -- a power I'm reluctant to give to government), and generally anything government chooses to call a danger to public health.
I'm honestly not trying to make a slippery slope argument, but how far away is it to consider an idea or set of ideas to be a danger to society? It's not without precedent, communists weren't so popular in the 40s-50s, even if it was purely support for ideas and not "Communists with a big C." I think the FCC at times borders on the extreme currently in media in the name of protecting children from seeing things. We have significant movements to regulate content on the Internet.
| Economic issues aside, I'm siding with the scientists recommendations. Otherwise, why bother funding the science? |
Which scientists' recommendations? No one disagrees with the nutritional recommendations, so the political recommendations? What does it have to do with their science? As far as I know, they haven't done studies on the effects of their political recommendations. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 04/21/2010 : 13:00:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Probably one of the worst decisions in American jurisprudence was to give corporations the full legal status of actual human beings.
|
I'd like to see a law that prevents a corporation from performing abortion on a planned branching of their business.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2010 : 13:15:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I don't think this particular issue is that important, so I don't really want to argue it anymore, but in a wider sense, does what you have said not posit utility above literally all ideals? Is it never right to forgo a positive result to preserve some ideal? |
In the wider sense, the ideal being followed by us liberals is the promotion of the general welfare (possibly with a smattering of ensuring domestic tranquility and securing the blessings of liberty).
And the results we liberals forgo to preserve ideals don't generally involve people's health. We preserve the ideal of free speech by ignoring the probably "positive result" of locking up and shutting up all Neo-Nazis, NAMBLA members, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc.. We demand throwing out the convictions of criminals if the search warrant was absent or falsified. We insist that even people with the stupidest, self-defeating ideologies be allowed to vote, and that even people with horrifically absurd beliefs be allowed to worship as they please. Etc.
Again, these activities generally don't affect a citizen's health. Bad speech should be countered by more speech, not an arrest. But even the highest ideals cannot help prevent a myocardial infarction, or a drunken truck driver, or tainted medications. Etc.| I think the same arguments without a doubt would apply to any unhealthy foods, probably alcohol, dangerous activities (whenever someone defines what qualifies as a dangerous activity -- a power I'm reluctant to give to government), and generally anything government chooses to call a danger to public health. |
And the government has already labeled "recreational" drugs as a dangerous activity, along with prostitution, child pornography, rape, murder, speeding, driving drunk, etc., etc..| I'm honestly not trying to make a slippery slope argument, but how far away is it to consider an idea or set of ideas to be a danger to society? It's not without precedent, communists weren't so popular in the 40s-50s, even if it was purely support for ideas and not "Communists with a big C." I think the FCC at times borders on the extreme currently in media in the name of protecting children from seeing things. We have significant movements to regulate content on the Internet. |
Yes, there needs to be a balancing act. We've already swung too far into the "nanny State," when for a while (less so today) parents felt outraged if local, state or the Federal government didn't criminalize the slightest damn insults to their delicate childrens' sensibilities. The pendulum seems to be swinging back towards greater personal responsibility, but we still have a problem when people can't or won't take control of themselves. And that problem will always exist, because humans aren't rationality machines.| Which scientists' recommendations? No one disagrees with the nutritional recommendations, so the political recommendations? What does it have to do with their science? As far as I know, they haven't done studies on the effects of their political recommendations. |
The linked-to story speaks about the 40 years of failed policy on this issue, does it not? The IOM is noting that the previous political recommendations are a complete failure. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
So it starts
