can you please reread this thread from the top, to see how we got here? you've written a lot just now - but it completely moves the goalposts. You think we're

can you please reread this thread from the top, to see how we got here? you've written a lot just now - but it completely moves the goalposts. You think we're discussing something more, or different, than what we're discussing. We're discussing selling arsenic-laced apples. You're discussing something different now, but here's why I said you were acting like a living, breathing, moving straw man upthread: Let's say I were debating government regulation of food with someone, and I said: "There are people who say '"it's OK to sell an arsenic laced Apple as long as it has a warning on it.", writing "Of course I can. If it's labeled, why not? Maybe somebody wants an arsenic apple; I don't know.". I would now like to address this point...." Then my opponent would interrupt me: "Objection! Wait! Nooooo, that is a straw man! Nobody on Earth seriously believes it's okay to sell arsenic appples as long as they're labelled. I didn't say this! Nobody said this! This is not a position anyone has. You are arguing against a straw man! You're arguing against a wall." Yet, here we are. I quoted you stating that position. That's what we're discussing. Whether it's okay to sell arsenic-laced apples "as long as they're labelled." --> Perhaps we're agreed that it's not okay, and that this shouldn't suddenly be legal? You've raised interesting points about e coli, about unhealthy foods that cause a slow death. Personally, I haven't said anything in this thread about regulation and labeling of these things, except perhaps that the government isn't currently doing it. (not a normative statement.)