3 ms·

These two things could both be true: 1) Banning certain restaurants would have a positive net effect on society. 2) Any government with the authority to ban r

by baddox 10y ago

These two things could both be true: 1) Banning certain restaurants would have a positive net effect on society. 2) Any government with the authority to ban restaurants would choose which restaurants to ban incorrectly, due to honest mistakes, influence from lobbying, or other reasons, and the end net effect on society would be negative.

concinds 10y ago
Ok. 1. I support ban/taxes on junk food. 2. Government doesn't do it, does something else. 3. I' still not satisfied, and still support ban/taxes on junk food. I have opinions. So do you. What the government does is irrelevant to what I believe.
- baddox 10y ago
  I don't get it. Would you rather the government have the authority to ban restaurants, or not? "The government only banning the restaurants that ought to be banned" isn't an option, unless you have good ideas on how to structure government. The opinion we're discussing is whether governments ought to be able to ban restaurants, so what governments do is absolutely relevant.
  - concinds 10y ago
    Those distinctions are contrived and arbitrary. I'm saying the government should ban it. You're arguing the government should, but shouldn't be able to. That only makes sense if you adhere to a set of arbitrary political "principles", which I view as nonsense. Government needs to solve problems, not obey imaginary rules.
yazaddaruvala 10y ago
All rules should be quantitative. Not qualitative. Qualitative: We are banning "junk food". (What constitutes junk food?) Quantitative: We are banning any foods where the sugar content exceeds 1% (Where this number can become increasingly stricter) of the food's mass. eg. Coke is 9% sugar[0]; 39 / (355 + 39 + 39 + .045) = 0.09. [0] http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/coca-cola-12oz-canned-regular-coke-211966712 http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/coca-cola-12oz-can...
- baddox 10y ago
  Of course, that's a somewhat better idea, but I was specifically responding to a claim that banning McDonald's would have a positive effect on society. Your idea is inevitably going to have problems as well. What about selling table sugar itself? What about fruit, which can also be around 10% sugar? What about desserts and confectionery? Are we really wanting the government to ban those completely?

by baddox 10y ago

concinds 10y ago

Ok. 1. I support ban/taxes on junk food. 2. Government doesn't do it, does something else. 3. I' still not satisfied, and still support ban/taxes on junk food. I have opinions. So do you. What the government does is irrelevant to what I believe.

baddox 10y ago
I don't get it. Would you rather the government have the authority to ban restaurants, or not? "The government only banning the restaurants that ought to be banned" isn't an option, unless you have good ideas on how to structure government. The opinion we're discussing is whether governments ought to be able to ban restaurants, so what governments do is absolutely relevant.
- concinds 10y ago
  Those distinctions are contrived and arbitrary. I'm saying the government should ban it. You're arguing the government should, but shouldn't be able to. That only makes sense if you adhere to a set of arbitrary political "principles", which I view as nonsense. Government needs to solve problems, not obey imaginary rules.

yazaddaruvala 10y ago

All rules should be quantitative. Not qualitative. Qualitative: We are banning "junk food". (What constitutes junk food?) Quantitative: We are banning any foods where the sugar content exceeds 1% (Where this number can become increasingly stricter) of the food's mass. eg. Coke is 9% sugar[0]; 39 / (355 + 39 + 39 + .045) = 0.09. [0] http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/coca-cola-12oz-canned-regular-coke-211966712 http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/coca-cola-12oz-can...

baddox 10y ago
Of course, that's a somewhat better idea, but I was specifically responding to a claim that banning McDonald's would have a positive effect on society. Your idea is inevitably going to have problems as well. What about selling table sugar itself? What about fruit, which can also be around 10% sugar? What about desserts and confectionery? Are we really wanting the government to ban those completely?