4 ms·

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 w

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.

jMyles 11y ago
Now that you are being somewhat civil, I'm wishing I had more time to engage. Just a couple quick things and then I really have to dip from this thread, at least for now: * You are using the word "strawman," but I don't think you actually mean strawman. I think you are trying to describe a slippery slope. Strawman is a fallacy wherein one debater misrepresents the position of another, and then uses this weaker misrepresentation as the basis for a response. In fact, it's exactly what you are doing when you 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" - this is a position I didn't take, don't hold, and which weakens your position to argue against. You are talking to a wall. * You say: > 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. ...and I'm just given pause because it's almost like you aren't living in the same world as the rest of us. You do need to read labels. There are poisons in food. People do die from food - quick, sickening deaths like from e-coli in fast food and, in much greater numbers, slow, miserable deaths from obesity and diabecity. Do you not realize that these are the main causes of death in our society? I mean... is it possible that this just hasn't occurred to you? You made direct reference to it in your comment, but the points seems to have been lost on you. So, on one hand, the FDA has failed to stop toxic food from becoming the biggest cause of premature death in society. On the other hand, the FDA, along with its state counterparts, have stopped low-cost, healthy food from entering the food supply and threatening the quasi-monopolies held by a few small, giant corporate agriculture sponsors. To pull out just one example - but you can find more every day across the country - just down the road from where I sit in Michigan: the Michigan Dept. of Agriculture actually forced a farm co-op to dump hundreds of gallons of milk and to destroy over a thousand free-range eggs because they were deemed for 'sale' instead the property of the co-op: http://www.wnem.com/story/26116053/farmers-forced-to-dump-produce-for-operating-without-license http://www.wnem.com/story/26116053/farmers-forced-to-dump-pr... I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here; maybe you just didn't realize these things were happening. But it's bad. The food is bad, and it's mostly various arms of the government that are making it so. And please, bottle the acid with your stormtroopers bit. It's much simpler than that, of course: it's about money. There's no complex shroud of intent here. Huge agricultural companies pay the government to make their products the only game in town. It's really not much more complicated than that. This is par for the course; there is no example in history of government making the food supply safer, and even less so in the center of empire. As a habit, empires push unhealthy food and drugs on their own populous and that of their colonies. This is the basic dynamic of the opium war, of alcohol prohibition, and of drug prohibition today. At the end of the day, I prefer that it be legal for people to sell ridiculous, snake-oily products, even unto properly labeled arsenic apples, then to have to choose between subsidized poison and scarce real food. Arsenic apples are not a threat to food security. Nobody will even try to sell them. And if they do, nobody will buy them. Hill High Dairy being shut down is a threat to food security. These are not hypotheticals; these are the actual choices we have to make about the role, if any, for government to play in assisting adults in securing healthy food.

jMyles 11y ago

Now that you are being somewhat civil, I'm wishing I had more time to engage. Just a couple quick things and then I really have to dip from this thread, at least for now: * You are using the word "strawman," but I don't think you actually mean strawman. I think you are trying to describe a slippery slope. Strawman is a fallacy wherein one debater misrepresents the position of another, and then uses this weaker misrepresentation as the basis for a response. In fact, it's exactly what you are doing when you 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" - this is a position I didn't take, don't hold, and which weakens your position to argue against. You are talking to a wall. * You say: > 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. ...and I'm just given pause because it's almost like you aren't living in the same world as the rest of us. You do need to read labels. There are poisons in food. People do die from food - quick, sickening deaths like from e-coli in fast food and, in much greater numbers, slow, miserable deaths from obesity and diabecity. Do you not realize that these are the main causes of death in our society? I mean... is it possible that this just hasn't occurred to you? You made direct reference to it in your comment, but the points seems to have been lost on you. So, on one hand, the FDA has failed to stop toxic food from becoming the biggest cause of premature death in society. On the other hand, the FDA, along with its state counterparts, have stopped low-cost, healthy food from entering the food supply and threatening the quasi-monopolies held by a few small, giant corporate agriculture sponsors. To pull out just one example - but you can find more every day across the country - just down the road from where I sit in Michigan: the Michigan Dept. of Agriculture actually forced a farm co-op to dump hundreds of gallons of milk and to destroy over a thousand free-range eggs because they were deemed for 'sale' instead the property of the co-op: http://www.wnem.com/story/26116053/farmers-forced-to-dump-produce-for-operating-without-license http://www.wnem.com/story/26116053/farmers-forced-to-dump-pr... I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here; maybe you just didn't realize these things were happening. But it's bad. The food is bad, and it's mostly various arms of the government that are making it so. And please, bottle the acid with your stormtroopers bit. It's much simpler than that, of course: it's about money. There's no complex shroud of intent here. Huge agricultural companies pay the government to make their products the only game in town. It's really not much more complicated than that. This is par for the course; there is no example in history of government making the food supply safer, and even less so in the center of empire. As a habit, empires push unhealthy food and drugs on their own populous and that of their colonies. This is the basic dynamic of the opium war, of alcohol prohibition, and of drug prohibition today. At the end of the day, I prefer that it be legal for people to sell ridiculous, snake-oily products, even unto properly labeled arsenic apples, then to have to choose between subsidized poison and scarce real food. Arsenic apples are not a threat to food security. Nobody will even try to sell them. And if they do, nobody will buy them. Hill High Dairy being shut down is a threat to food security. These are not hypotheticals; these are the actual choices we have to make about the role, if any, for government to play in assisting adults in securing healthy food.