3 ms·

Maybe we should force them to exercise too? Or perhaps we should take a vote on what is definitively healthy and restrict the public's diet to pre-approved item

Maybe we should force them to exercise too? Or perhaps we should take a vote on what is definitively healthy and restrict the public's diet to pre-approved items? If China has social credits, maybe the west needs government enforced health credits? As it is, FDA bureaucrats are appointed, not elected. What are the costs of deferring individuals' choices to a mob's vote or to the whims of appointed bureaucrats? Advocates of centrally planned societies will always point to the purported benefits of their authoritarian models. At what point is the individual responsible for his own health? If we absolve the individual of all personal responsibility and replace it with a set of all encompassing dictates - What does it mean to be a free human being in such a society? How would this differ from being property of the state?

cyphar 8y ago
Watch out for that slippery slope, the first step is a doozy!
- justtopost 8y ago
  But its not wrong, hes just arguing poorly. Explain to me why I should not have ultimate control of what I do with my body?
  - CptFribble 8y ago
    Imagine you're a farmer with a bunch of free-range chickens. Your responsibility is to make sure they all live long, healthy, happy, and free. There's a poisonous plant that sticks through the fence in a corner of the range. You tell all the chickens to stay away, that it will make them sick and kill them, but every year about 10-15% of them eat it anyway, and you're constantly dealing with the illness and death it causes. And you can't tear out the plant, because it's not growing on your property, it's just coming through the fence. The problem, is that the plant didn't get there on it's own. A pack of wolves planted it, and at night they plaster the side of the coop with flyers saying how smooth and cool the plant is. But when you try to tear down the posters, or cut back the plant, all the libertarian chickens come out and yell about individual freedoms. Humans aren't rational actors. We're emotional creatures of habit who are highly susceptible to advertising. If anything, we shouldn't ban the item in question, we should just make it really expensive, and disallow any forms of advertising. That means besides no TV, no magazines, no billboards, no visible smoking anywhere in media, not visible on shelves on any store anywhere, etc. If we take away tobacco companies' power to emotionally manipulate humans, maybe not as many people will choose to throw their health away.
    - provolone 8y ago
      You're joined by Akerlof & Shiller when you claim: >Humans aren't rational actors. We're emotional creatures of habit who are highly susceptible to advertising Adbusters would agree with your claim that: >we should just make it really expensive, and disallow any forms of advertising. That means besides no TV, no magazines, no billboards, no visible smoking anywhere in media, not visible on shelves on any store anywhere, etc. https://www.amazon.com/Phishing-Phools-Economics-Manipulation-Deception-ebook/dp/B00WAM14RE https://www.amazon.com/Phishing-Phools-Economics-Manipulatio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Athedailybell.com+adbusters https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Athedailybell.com+adbu... https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amises.org+shiller https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amises.org+shiller https://www.google.com/search?q=nobel+prize+in+economics+fake https://www.google.com/search?q=nobel+prize+in+economics+fak... Your comparison of a farmer owning chickens for profit/consumption to a government benevolently lording over citizens is illustrative. For the sake of being explicit, I don't think humans should be regarded as chattel. If you find this an apt comparison, we may have to agree to disagree. Thanks.
- provolone 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
  - cyphar 8y ago
    Reducto ad absurdum only works if the next steps are inevitable and follow logically (an example would be something like a mathematical proof using proof-by-contradiction). The slippery slope fallacy is a case where you use some theoretically possible extreme end-point to justify why the current proposal is unacceptable. Are you arguing that having health credits in the USA and legally mandated exercise is the only logical next step after banning menthol cigarettes? If you aren't, then you aren't using reducto ad absurdum. If you are, then it's trivial to disprove (in Australia, snuff has been illegal to sell since the late 1980s and we don't have "health credits" today -- many other substances bad for your health were made illegal in the US and you don't have "health credits" today).
    - provolone 8y ago
      I have not suggested that health credits are the inevitable conclusion of banning any tobacco product. I have posed a specific set of questions about the logic of prohibiting products for heath purposes. You have chosen to tilt by snark & technicality instead of answering these questions. If we accept that the government (or a group of bureaucrats) knows what is best for the health of divers individuals, then why not? If we accept that 30 minutes of exercise is good for health and that it is appropriate to compel individuals into healthy choices, then why not? If we accept that two parallel lines will never intersect, then why should air traffic controllers worry? It is plain and obvious where this logic leads. Claiming a slippery slope is a dodge imho.
      - cyphar 8y ago
        First of all, you didn't originally pose a specific set of questions. You just outlined a nightmare scenario with rhetorical questions. To your point here, "then why not" isn't an example of a logical deduction. You're also intentionally ignoring that the discussion here is the banning of a subset of products that we know for certain cause many incredibly serious health problems and is one of the leading causes of premature death in many countries around the world. Smoking is bad for everyone, so making decisions on a "divers[sic] set of individuals" is completely reasonable -- unless you're arguing that smoking is good for some peoples' health? I agree that if the government (for instance) started banning high-fat foods that there would be reason to say that this is overstepping the mark. But that's not what's happening. > and that it is appropriate to compel individuals into healthy choices That's not what's happening. > If we accept that two parallel lines will never intersect, then why should air traffic controllers worry? Not only is this a non-sequitur, it's also an awful example of a logical deduction and actually undermines your other examples of "reasonable" questions.

cyphar 8y ago

Watch out for that slippery slope, the first step is a doozy!

justtopost 8y ago
But its not wrong, hes just arguing poorly. Explain to me why I should not have ultimate control of what I do with my body?
- CptFribble 8y ago
  Imagine you're a farmer with a bunch of free-range chickens. Your responsibility is to make sure they all live long, healthy, happy, and free. There's a poisonous plant that sticks through the fence in a corner of the range. You tell all the chickens to stay away, that it will make them sick and kill them, but every year about 10-15% of them eat it anyway, and you're constantly dealing with the illness and death it causes. And you can't tear out the plant, because it's not growing on your property, it's just coming through the fence. The problem, is that the plant didn't get there on it's own. A pack of wolves planted it, and at night they plaster the side of the coop with flyers saying how smooth and cool the plant is. But when you try to tear down the posters, or cut back the plant, all the libertarian chickens come out and yell about individual freedoms. Humans aren't rational actors. We're emotional creatures of habit who are highly susceptible to advertising. If anything, we shouldn't ban the item in question, we should just make it really expensive, and disallow any forms of advertising. That means besides no TV, no magazines, no billboards, no visible smoking anywhere in media, not visible on shelves on any store anywhere, etc. If we take away tobacco companies' power to emotionally manipulate humans, maybe not as many people will choose to throw their health away.
  - provolone 8y ago
    You're joined by Akerlof & Shiller when you claim: >Humans aren't rational actors. We're emotional creatures of habit who are highly susceptible to advertising Adbusters would agree with your claim that: >we should just make it really expensive, and disallow any forms of advertising. That means besides no TV, no magazines, no billboards, no visible smoking anywhere in media, not visible on shelves on any store anywhere, etc. https://www.amazon.com/Phishing-Phools-Economics-Manipulation-Deception-ebook/dp/B00WAM14RE https://www.amazon.com/Phishing-Phools-Economics-Manipulatio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Athedailybell.com+adbusters https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Athedailybell.com+adbu... https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amises.org+shiller https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amises.org+shiller https://www.google.com/search?q=nobel+prize+in+economics+fake https://www.google.com/search?q=nobel+prize+in+economics+fak... Your comparison of a farmer owning chickens for profit/consumption to a government benevolently lording over citizens is illustrative. For the sake of being explicit, I don't think humans should be regarded as chattel. If you find this an apt comparison, we may have to agree to disagree. Thanks.
provolone 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
- cyphar 8y ago
  Reducto ad absurdum only works if the next steps are inevitable and follow logically (an example would be something like a mathematical proof using proof-by-contradiction). The slippery slope fallacy is a case where you use some theoretically possible extreme end-point to justify why the current proposal is unacceptable. Are you arguing that having health credits in the USA and legally mandated exercise is the only logical next step after banning menthol cigarettes? If you aren't, then you aren't using reducto ad absurdum. If you are, then it's trivial to disprove (in Australia, snuff has been illegal to sell since the late 1980s and we don't have "health credits" today -- many other substances bad for your health were made illegal in the US and you don't have "health credits" today).
  - provolone 8y ago
    I have not suggested that health credits are the inevitable conclusion of banning any tobacco product. I have posed a specific set of questions about the logic of prohibiting products for heath purposes. You have chosen to tilt by snark & technicality instead of answering these questions. If we accept that the government (or a group of bureaucrats) knows what is best for the health of divers individuals, then why not? If we accept that 30 minutes of exercise is good for health and that it is appropriate to compel individuals into healthy choices, then why not? If we accept that two parallel lines will never intersect, then why should air traffic controllers worry? It is plain and obvious where this logic leads. Claiming a slippery slope is a dodge imho.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      First of all, you didn't originally pose a specific set of questions. You just outlined a nightmare scenario with rhetorical questions. To your point here, "then why not" isn't an example of a logical deduction. You're also intentionally ignoring that the discussion here is the banning of a subset of products that we know for certain cause many incredibly serious health problems and is one of the leading causes of premature death in many countries around the world. Smoking is bad for everyone, so making decisions on a "divers[sic] set of individuals" is completely reasonable -- unless you're arguing that smoking is good for some peoples' health? I agree that if the government (for instance) started banning high-fat foods that there would be reason to say that this is overstepping the mark. But that's not what's happening. > and that it is appropriate to compel individuals into healthy choices That's not what's happening. > If we accept that two parallel lines will never intersect, then why should air traffic controllers worry? Not only is this a non-sequitur, it's also an awful example of a logical deduction and actually undermines your other examples of "reasonable" questions.