New York City bans trans fats

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
This is an example of taking doctrines to ridiculous extremes. Try instead using a little common sense.

[/ QUOTE ] Was it not obvious that that was my point?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is an example of taking doctrines to ridiculous extremes. Try instead using a little common sense.

[/ QUOTE ] Was it not obvious that that was my point?

[/ QUOTE ]

It just seems to happen a lot on this forum. I'll bet some would agree with the absurdity you used as a foil.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
You shout at a blind friend who is about to walk off a cliff, but he thinks you are kidding and keeps walking. Since he's your friend you are pretty sure he doesn't actually want to walk off a cliff. You still don't have the right to use force to stop him. If you are such an extremist that you think this, it's fine by me, but evangelizing about it won't bring many people over to the anarcist side.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a "right" to stop him, of course. That doesn't mean I *wouldn't* in this case.

I don't have a "right" to eat a hambuger, either, yet I do it all the time.

Your scenario as posed sloppily conflates positive and negative rights.

I see a good way for you to improve it significantly given the point you're trying to make.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I cant believe this thread has gone on this long, but this statement stands out:

"The only possible way you could still think that that is a legitimate approach to the world is by being results-oriented and IGNORING THE THOUSANDS OF TIMES IN THE PAST THAT SOMEONE HAS SAID THAT AND BEEN WRONG."

Uhhhh...how about the thousands of times in the past that "someone" has said that and been right?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about them? Thats exactly my point. There is no way to sum them all up. And the times when they are "wrong" are impossible to measure, since we cannot know what would have happened otherwise. In fact, the times they are "right" are impossible to measure as well. This is why this is a terrible time to be results-oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]


"In fact, the times they are "right" are impossible to measure as well. "

Wrong again. It is very easy to measure (to a level of precision that justifies the laws) the lives saved from seat belts, from banning lead base paints, from pulling phen-fen from the market, from restricting tobacco advertising, from asbestos bans etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are all examples of the government interfering with individual free choices.

Good job.

natedogg

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

See, this is the EXACT PROBLEM. You want trans fats gone. Therefore, YOU DO NOT CARE HOW. And this is a fundamental problem for most of us here. This is EXACTLY the results-orientedness I'm talking about. Somehow, you have managed to get to this stage in your life still clinging to the belief that the phrase "I want them gone, I don't care how, it is in people's own best interest" is a good idea, a legitimate way of thinking about things. The only possible way you could still think that that is a legitimate approach to the world is by being results-oriented and IGNORING THE THOUSANDS OF TIMES IN THE PAST THAT SOMEONE HAS SAID THAT AND BEEN WRONG.

So, yes, I think trans-fats are bad, yes, you think trans-fats are bad, and forcing people to stay away from trans-fats against their will IS WAY WAY WORSE.

This is why people say that if government were run by perfect robots it would be the absolute best solution ever. But it isn't. Exactly because of this problem we are having.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, I really do. I think if we were discussing any (well, almost any) other government related question, we would probably agree. I think we have similiar principles.

It sucks that society is to the point that people are stupid and lazy enough to trust the government to control their lives, to tell them what is and isn't healthy and normal and right. It sucks that it even needs to come to this point. And, I think that with trans fat there's a very good argument to be made that the free market was going to take care of things anyway (and I actually made that argument myself when arguing against others when I disagreed with the ban, which was my original assessment).

All I wanted to say was that my order of prefernce would be:

Corporations willingly stopped putting poison in their food > people are smart enough to stop eating poison >>> government stops people from eating poison > people keep eating poison.

I realize that you will say this means I don't share your principles, but just trust me... I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that in this and many other of your posts in this thread, you have been contradicting yourself completely right?

You say "we have similar principles" except you end with:

"government stops people from eating poison > people keep eating poison. "

This is in violation of the principles you claim to hold in concert with the others. It is NOT better for the government to jail people rather than let them make stupid choices. This is in violation of the principles you claim to hold. You don't hold them. Your principles are that it is better to jail people in order to protect them from themselves.

And you have even explicitly said so:
government stops people from eating poison > people keep eating poison

Tell me how your reasoning in favor of this law can't be applied just as rationally to anything else that could ever be considered dangerous or harmful or stupid.

You are advocating that government restrict your online poker gambling. You realize that don't you?

natedogg

[Low Key]

Online poker gambling increases your risk of coronary heart disease?

If you ask me, hydrogenated oils AND reduced fat/fat free milk should all be banned. Aspartame too, for that matter, though it is slightly more tested than Sucralose, even if those tests showed it was a neurotoxin.

Sometimes the FDA does not hold human health in it's interests. Case in point, the lurid story behind aspartame getting passed. So, should cities and states act in the best interest of it's population when the federal government won't? Why not?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I cant believe this thread has gone on this long, but this statement stands out:

"The only possible way you could still think that that is a legitimate approach to the world is by being results-oriented and IGNORING THE THOUSANDS OF TIMES IN THE PAST THAT SOMEONE HAS SAID THAT AND BEEN WRONG."

Uhhhh...how about the thousands of times in the past that "someone" has said that and been right?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about them? Thats exactly my point. There is no way to sum them all up. And the times when they are "wrong" are impossible to measure, since we cannot know what would have happened otherwise. In fact, the times they are "right" are impossible to measure as well. This is why this is a terrible time to be results-oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]


"In fact, the times they are "right" are impossible to measure as well. "

Wrong again. It is very easy to measure (to a level of precision that justifies the laws) the lives saved from seat belts, from banning lead base paints, from pulling phen-fen from the market, from restricting tobacco advertising, from asbestos bans etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are all examples of the government appropriatelyinterfering with individual free choices.

Good job.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]

You are advocating that government restrict your online poker gambling. You realize that don't you?

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not.

[Low Key]

Wait.. Did I just agree with Copernicus?... GAH!

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Online poker gambling increases your risk of coronary heart disease?

If you ask me, hydrogenated oils AND reduced fat/fat free milk should all be banned. Aspartame too, for that matter, though it is slightly more tested than Sucralose, even if those tests showed it was a neurotoxin.


[/ QUOTE ]

of course you do. But I was talking to someone who claims to hold the principle that supports freedom of choice for individuals and opposes having the government intrude into these decisions, which you clearly do not.

you clearly have no problem with letting the govt make all your personal decisions for you and threaten you with jail time should you want to engage in an activity that some legislator deems unsafe.
But again, I was addressing someone who *claims* to think differently.

natedogg