4 ms·

Of course I can. If it's labeled, why not? Maybe somebody wants an arsenic apple; I don't know. I don't judge people that way. Moreover, and far more import

by jMyles 11y ago

Of course I can. If it's labeled, why not? Maybe somebody wants an arsenic apple; I don't know. I don't judge people that way. Moreover, and far more importantly, it seems evident that, once government starts making these sorts of decisions, it quickly makes them only for its own interests.

logicallee 11y ago
what are the government's "own interests"? why do you think they are currently okay with me going to a grocery store and buying some chips with 200% of my recommended sodium intake, but not some chips with a warning that it might contain arsenic and not to eat it under any circumstances, then I eat it and then I die? do you seriously think the latter would be OK if, say, it makes the company more than it loses in sales? that the free market will just 'sort it out'? and if you think that, then why wouldn't you think it would magically solve the labelling problem? (no labelling required, since consumers would just boycott companies that aren't in the habit of properly labeling its lead-, mercury- and arsenic-laced potato chips)... I'm not asking tricky questions here, your position is like saying the Earth is flat. I mean, due to the example we're using, apple with arsenic in them but labelled with this information, it's like a very extreme position. Normally it would be a straw man - nobody would seriously suggest that this is okay.
- jMyles 11y ago
  I was going to put some thought into a response, but I read your reply again and it's just too full of vitriol and angst for me to know where to begin. Comparing a reasonably widely-held, studied, and written-about economic model to the flat earth society? You give me nothing to go on here. Perhaps you're young and haven't read much yet - I don't know. I suggest a history of economics course in college. As for your very first question: the government's interests aren't terribly hard to identify, especially in the case of the USA, where the government is a hegemonic empire. It seeks to enrich its corporate sponsors, expand its capacity to exact violence against its detractors, and find equilibrium in its body politic via panem et circenses. It's reasonably transparent I think. As for your slippery slope bit about being able to sell unlabeled arsenic: I like what works. The current system clearly isn't working for most people for most purposes. My understanding is that drug overdoses were at record lows during the period after the Pure Food and Drug Act but before drug prohibition. I take this, and other data like it, as evidence that this configuration is a decent balance.
  - logicallee 11y ago
    jMyles, the whole current discussion is only about selling apples that are laced with arsenic and will kill you, as long as they're labelled properly. that's what we're talking about. that's the only thing under discussion. we're discussing a straw man, except that you actually brought it up, so it's not a straw man. obviously no one wants the status quo to change to that. (not even you, even though you aren't sure.) like, literally nobody. (even people who say they do, don't actually want to have to start reading labels on their fruit to make sure they won't die.) there's almost nothing to go on in this discussion, we're talking - only - about such an extreme viewpoint. Anyway what interests of the "hegemonic empire" does the fact that I can eat an apple without reading its label and not die, serve? You can't say "oh that's easy - the hegemonic empire doesn't want its stormtroopers - that would be its population - to die, because they can't fight for hte hegemonic empire or pay their taxes" because if that were the case it would ALSO be in the interests of the "hegemonic empire" to ban grossly unhealthy foods so people don't die of heart disease - the U.S. has the lowest life expectancy among rich countries in part for this reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe... But they don't do that, or many other things. there's just no answer to why my grocery store isn't allowed to sell arsenic-laced apples as long as they're labelled, except the COMPLETELY OBVIOUS one that the government does its basic job and protects people from this thing. there's just no other answer. the mental contortions you would have to go through to believe that they're "seeking to enrich their corporate sponsors" and that's why you can't sell arsenic-laced apples is just - I mean, come on. The reason you would have to put "some thought" into answering my questoins - even though they're super simple - is the same as why a flat-earther would have to put "some thought" into answering the question of why someone can broadcat an image of a spinning, round, Earth, from space. This requires some explanation, because the idea that the Earth is actually flat is so obviously untenable. I was on the debate team in high school, out of these two statements: "Resolved: the Earth is a flat disc, not a round sphere-like object in space" and "Resolved: it ought to be legal to sell apples that are or might be arsenic-laced and deadly to consumers as long as a label is affixed to them informing consumers of this fact" it is absolutely easier to argue the affirmative of the former. It's just sooo easy, all you have to explain is a few images from space, everything else people don't have any personal experience with. Even the bible is on your side. There are people who believe this http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Flat_Earth http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Flat_Earth - on the other hand, everyone has purchased apples. You won't find anyone who would have been okay with them being arsenic-laced, as long as there is a label on them. It's just not something anyone can actually argue - which is why you go off on this totally irrelevant tangent about enriching corporate sponsors. this entire thread with me discusses nothing but why the government shouldn't deregulate selling poisoned food. That's it. it's obvious. completely obvious. Excuse me if there is some vitriol, but I'm not okay with someone arguing a position that I have to start reading labels on my fruits to make sure I don't die. It's not a position you can take. It's why you had originally gotten downvoted when you asked "in theory, why not". me dying of fruit is not a small price to pay for your right to test some alternative economic theory. you're arguing for my death. (or massive, massive personal inconvenience.) you know, you can just admit you're wrong. Why not just reply and say: "You're right, it's obvious to me why labeling fruit shouldn't let you lace them with poison. I was really just thinking about other cases, my apologies." in other cases, sure you could be right.

by jMyles 11y ago

logicallee 11y ago

what are the government's "own interests"? why do you think they are currently okay with me going to a grocery store and buying some chips with 200% of my recommended sodium intake, but not some chips with a warning that it might contain arsenic and not to eat it under any circumstances, then I eat it and then I die? do you seriously think the latter would be OK if, say, it makes the company more than it loses in sales? that the free market will just 'sort it out'? and if you think that, then why wouldn't you think it would magically solve the labelling problem? (no labelling required, since consumers would just boycott companies that aren't in the habit of properly labeling its lead-, mercury- and arsenic-laced potato chips)... I'm not asking tricky questions here, your position is like saying the Earth is flat. I mean, due to the example we're using, apple with arsenic in them but labelled with this information, it's like a very extreme position. Normally it would be a straw man - nobody would seriously suggest that this is okay.

jMyles 11y ago
I was going to put some thought into a response, but I read your reply again and it's just too full of vitriol and angst for me to know where to begin. Comparing a reasonably widely-held, studied, and written-about economic model to the flat earth society? You give me nothing to go on here. Perhaps you're young and haven't read much yet - I don't know. I suggest a history of economics course in college. As for your very first question: the government's interests aren't terribly hard to identify, especially in the case of the USA, where the government is a hegemonic empire. It seeks to enrich its corporate sponsors, expand its capacity to exact violence against its detractors, and find equilibrium in its body politic via panem et circenses. It's reasonably transparent I think. As for your slippery slope bit about being able to sell unlabeled arsenic: I like what works. The current system clearly isn't working for most people for most purposes. My understanding is that drug overdoses were at record lows during the period after the Pure Food and Drug Act but before drug prohibition. I take this, and other data like it, as evidence that this configuration is a decent balance.
- logicallee 11y ago
  jMyles, the whole current discussion is only about selling apples that are laced with arsenic and will kill you, as long as they're labelled properly. that's what we're talking about. that's the only thing under discussion. we're discussing a straw man, except that you actually brought it up, so it's not a straw man. obviously no one wants the status quo to change to that. (not even you, even though you aren't sure.) like, literally nobody. (even people who say they do, don't actually want to have to start reading labels on their fruit to make sure they won't die.) there's almost nothing to go on in this discussion, we're talking - only - about such an extreme viewpoint. Anyway what interests of the "hegemonic empire" does the fact that I can eat an apple without reading its label and not die, serve? You can't say "oh that's easy - the hegemonic empire doesn't want its stormtroopers - that would be its population - to die, because they can't fight for hte hegemonic empire or pay their taxes" because if that were the case it would ALSO be in the interests of the "hegemonic empire" to ban grossly unhealthy foods so people don't die of heart disease - the U.S. has the lowest life expectancy among rich countries in part for this reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe... But they don't do that, or many other things. there's just no answer to why my grocery store isn't allowed to sell arsenic-laced apples as long as they're labelled, except the COMPLETELY OBVIOUS one that the government does its basic job and protects people from this thing. there's just no other answer. the mental contortions you would have to go through to believe that they're "seeking to enrich their corporate sponsors" and that's why you can't sell arsenic-laced apples is just - I mean, come on. The reason you would have to put "some thought" into answering my questoins - even though they're super simple - is the same as why a flat-earther would have to put "some thought" into answering the question of why someone can broadcat an image of a spinning, round, Earth, from space. This requires some explanation, because the idea that the Earth is actually flat is so obviously untenable. I was on the debate team in high school, out of these two statements: "Resolved: the Earth is a flat disc, not a round sphere-like object in space" and "Resolved: it ought to be legal to sell apples that are or might be arsenic-laced and deadly to consumers as long as a label is affixed to them informing consumers of this fact" it is absolutely easier to argue the affirmative of the former. It's just sooo easy, all you have to explain is a few images from space, everything else people don't have any personal experience with. Even the bible is on your side. There are people who believe this http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Flat_Earth http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Flat_Earth - on the other hand, everyone has purchased apples. You won't find anyone who would have been okay with them being arsenic-laced, as long as there is a label on them. It's just not something anyone can actually argue - which is why you go off on this totally irrelevant tangent about enriching corporate sponsors. this entire thread with me discusses nothing but why the government shouldn't deregulate selling poisoned food. That's it. it's obvious. completely obvious. Excuse me if there is some vitriol, but I'm not okay with someone arguing a position that I have to start reading labels on my fruits to make sure I don't die. It's not a position you can take. It's why you had originally gotten downvoted when you asked "in theory, why not". me dying of fruit is not a small price to pay for your right to test some alternative economic theory. you're arguing for my death. (or massive, massive personal inconvenience.) you know, you can just admit you're wrong. Why not just reply and say: "You're right, it's obvious to me why labeling fruit shouldn't let you lace them with poison. I was really just thinking about other cases, my apologies." in other cases, sure you could be right.