4 ms·

Please stop and think before you write. Of course you do want the state to dictate sources. I suspect you want want your food to be regulated, your buildings

Please stop and think before you write. Of course you do want the state to dictate sources. I suspect you want want your food to be regulated, your buildings to be engineered, your planes to be certified. Society places all kinds of restrictions on sources. It is also finally time we start moving away from pets being "products" and towards them being living things.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Not the person you were replying to but I want my food, my buildings, etc to have acceptable performance. What is acceptable can roughly be summed up as "safe to eat and safe to inhabit" and I don't really care how that's achieved so long as the negative impact of whatever means are used is minimized. I have no special love or hatred for regulation. Regulation is also not a binary yes or no, on or off value. Something can be regulated not at all or regulated to an infinite degree. Regulation has a lot of negative externalities it places upon society and we need to be cognizant of those trade-offs when we use it. I'm generally very supportive of regulation that mandates transparency or that information be made available so that the consumer can better make their own choices (nutrition facts, those energy usage stickers on appliances, etc, are not perfect but solidly a net win IMO) because it tends to have very little by the way of negative trade-offs. I would really prefer to see CA try some sort of softer approach that nudges consumers toward the "right" pet purchasing decisions rather than going for the ban hammer right away. Edit: why is this an unacceptable opinion?
- warmwaffles 8y ago
  Because this is the internet. Obey the echo chamber or suffer the consequences.
  - sctb 8y ago
    Could you please take another pass through the guidelines and make an effort comment civilly and substantively? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
solatic 8y ago
Which are reasons to regulate the conditions in so-called puppy mills, not reasons to ban them altogether. Should the US have altogether banned the sale of meat for human consumption after Upton Sinclair published The Jungle? What a ridiculous notion.
warmwaffles 8y ago
> Please stop and think before you write. Take your own advice as well. Government regulation is not always good. FDA is not a fantastic organization as which you allude to. Planes being certified is not a controlling of source. You know that you can apply for a experimental license and can fly experimental airplanes without having to do your so called "certified". Licenses and certifications don't mean anything. The state licenses drivers all the time, doesn't mean it is safer by doing that. Malpractice still occurs even when doctors are licensed. Accidents still happen with government regulation. Please stop and think before _you_ write.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

Not the person you were replying to but I want my food, my buildings, etc to have acceptable performance. What is acceptable can roughly be summed up as "safe to eat and safe to inhabit" and I don't really care how that's achieved so long as the negative impact of whatever means are used is minimized. I have no special love or hatred for regulation. Regulation is also not a binary yes or no, on or off value. Something can be regulated not at all or regulated to an infinite degree. Regulation has a lot of negative externalities it places upon society and we need to be cognizant of those trade-offs when we use it. I'm generally very supportive of regulation that mandates transparency or that information be made available so that the consumer can better make their own choices (nutrition facts, those energy usage stickers on appliances, etc, are not perfect but solidly a net win IMO) because it tends to have very little by the way of negative trade-offs. I would really prefer to see CA try some sort of softer approach that nudges consumers toward the "right" pet purchasing decisions rather than going for the ban hammer right away. Edit: why is this an unacceptable opinion?

warmwaffles 8y ago
Because this is the internet. Obey the echo chamber or suffer the consequences.
- sctb 8y ago
  Could you please take another pass through the guidelines and make an effort comment civilly and substantively? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

solatic 8y ago

Which are reasons to regulate the conditions in so-called puppy mills, not reasons to ban them altogether. Should the US have altogether banned the sale of meat for human consumption after Upton Sinclair published The Jungle? What a ridiculous notion.

warmwaffles 8y ago

> Please stop and think before you write. Take your own advice as well. Government regulation is not always good. FDA is not a fantastic organization as which you allude to. Planes being certified is not a controlling of source. You know that you can apply for a experimental license and can fly experimental airplanes without having to do your so called "certified". Licenses and certifications don't mean anything. The state licenses drivers all the time, doesn't mean it is safer by doing that. Malpractice still occurs even when doctors are licensed. Accidents still happen with government regulation. Please stop and think before _you_ write.