No Happy Meals for SanFran

[xj0hnx]

Your argument not nonsensical, and if you follow it through to the logical conclusion, really stupid.

The only thing nonsensical is arguing for removing freedoms you don't care about, and crying when one's you do get removed.

 

[fskimospy]

The only thing nonsensical is arguing for removing freedoms you don't care about, and crying when one's you do get removed.

When the government came for candy cigarettes,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a bubblegum factory owner.

When the government came for the soda machines in high schools,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a soda manufacturer.

When the government came for Happy Meal toys,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a McDonald's franchise owner.

Truly, we face a crisis today.

If you think this has to do with freedom, that ship sailed a very long time ago. Your attempt to compare the regulation of happy meal toys to the institutionalized discrimination against gays and the imprisonment of millions coupled with the militarization of law enforcement brought on by the war on drugs, all I can say is:
"that argument is really stupid"

 

[ShawnD1]

Your attempt to compare the regulation of happy meal toys to the institutionalized discrimination against gays and the imprisonment of millions coupled with the militarization of law enforcement brought on by the war on drugs, all I can say is:
"that argument is really stupid"

It's not that far off. See if you can swap words in a sentence and have the sentence still accurately describe what people are thinking. That's generally a good start.

Gay sex happy meals should be illegal because gays fatties have a ridiculously short average life span. Gays fatties are 10x more likely to die from AIDS heart attacks before the age of 60. They are a serious burden on our healthcare system. Drugs to inhibit HIV high cholesterol are incredibly expensive. Some people would argue that being gay fat is genetic or caused by hormones or some other silly idea. That's totally wrong. Being gay fat is a choice. You choose to put a dick burger in your ass mouth. We need to protect people from themselves. Yeah I know not everyone likes pussy vegetables, but it's something we need to deal with. I made the conversion myself. When I was college, I once put 2 dicks burgers in my mouth at the same time. It was so awesome. I had semen mayo all over my face. When I kissed my girlfriend about an hour later, she said my mouth tasted salty greasy. That was when I knew that she knew. I had to kill that bitch before she told my parents.


I can't remember where I was going with that story.

 

[werepossum]

Socialism is inherently an attack on freedom. Both cannot exist together. The minute someone else pays for you, they get to control you. Think of it as having to live with your parent's rules when you live under their roof.

Prohibition and the war on drugs SHOULD have taught us that social behavior modification through rule of law is fruitless and only ends up with everyone being less free, and no better off.

But no. The authoritarian mentality lives on. And the mentality is no different. It is all a form of legislating morality. The progressives are no better than, nor different from the religious right.

The only absurdity here is that you see a difference. There is none. They ARE the same mentality. Drugs were banned in an attempt to stem drug abuse. It failed miserably. Now happy meals are banned in an attempt to stem obesity. Wanna guess how this will end? How many more restrictive food laws will be passed before you realize you can no more legislate away obesity than you can drug abuse, or teenage pregnancy, or gay sex, or alcoholism, or smoking...?

The religious right and progressive left are EXACTLY the same. They just have a different list of sins they wish to control through authoritarian force of law.

Spot on, and well written.

Uhmm, social modification through the rule of law takes place in every single society on earth, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. There are some areas where it does not work, but there are plenty where it does. Seriously, your entire premise is baffling in its fundamental ignorance. Your knowledge of civics seems comparable to your knowledge of statistics. (by the way, I did notice that after insulting everyone and calling them delusional partisans, you promptly disappeared without apology when the real math came out)

All laws are attacks on freedom, because all laws are either prohibiting people from taking actions they wish to, or compelling people to do things they don't want to do. This is not a novel or interesting idea. What you guys are trying to do is a common debating tactic to try and use an individual case to disprove an entire viewpoint, which is pretty dishonest.

What's interesting though is that your response had almost nothing to do with what I wrote. You spoke negatively of using the principle of a cost to society as a basis for laws, and my post was pointing out how utterly ridiculous what you said was.

None of us spoke negatively of using the principle of a cost to society as a basis for laws; we are merely saying that there should be a compelling public interest that can only be satisfied through that law. Not everything with a cost to society deserves to be banned, less we find ourselves totally in thrall with nothing permitted, no freedom, and no function beyond funding the government that supposedly serves us.

You are right to say that all laws are attacks on freedom, yet you immediately dismiss that as legitimate grounds for opposing a law. The religious right (well, not me) support laws banning gay marriage because of a perceived societal benefit - preserving our traditional society. The progressive left supports banning toys with Happy Meals because of a perceived societal benefit - eliminating childhood obesity. Both represent authoritarian behavior, which naturally stems from having such a powerful, all-intrusive government. Both are wrong. Neither goal, repressing gay visibility to the "good old days" or reducing childhood obesity, will be accomplished. But the negative effects of both will endure, and become the new baseline from which further assaults on freedom will be launched from both ends.

That is why we speak of a compelling societal benefit that can only be achieved using that law. Every law has a perceived societal benefit, and every law does societal damage, even if only a concurrent loss of freedom, which is why any societal benefit must be compelling, must be clearly achievable by the proposed law, and must ONLY be achievable by the proposed law to make that law worthwhile. Discouraging murder is a compelling societal benefit; oppressing gays and taking toys away from children are NOT compelling societal benefits. In fact, nothing for which the remedy can be as simple as minding your own damned business, whether the thing offending you is a gay couple or a butterball kid, deserves a law to ban it. Think principles, not issues, and preserve freedom as much as possible.

 

[fskimospy]

The rights to have sex with and marry who you wish are recognized fundamental rights by the US Supreme Court. This means that the government must meet an exceptionally high burden to regulate them.

The right to include toys with food you sell is not a recognized fundamental right by the US Supreme Court. That means the government must meet an exceptionally low burden to regulate them.

This argument is silly.

 

[werepossum]

It's not that far off. See if you can swap words in a sentence and have the sentence still accurately describe what people are thinking. That's generally a good start.

Gay sex happy meals should be illegal because gays fatties have a ridiculously short average life span. Gays fatties are 10x more likely to die from AIDS heart attacks before the age of 60. They are a serious burden on our healthcare system. Drugs to inhibit HIV high cholesterol are incredibly expensive. Some people would argue that being gay fat is genetic or caused by hormones or some other silly idea. That's totally wrong. Being gay fat is a choice. You choose to put a dick burger in your ass mouth. We need to protect people from themselves. Yeah I know not everyone likes pussy vegetables, but it's something we need to deal with. I made the conversion myself. When I was college, I once put 2 dicks burgers in my mouth at the same time. It was so awesome. I had semen mayo all over my face. When I kissed my girlfriend about an hour later, she said my mouth tasted salty greasy. That was when I knew that she knew. I had to kill that bitch before she told my parents.


I can't remember where I was going with that story.

 

[fskimospy]

None of us spoke negatively of using the principle of a cost to society as a basis for laws; we are merely saying that there should be a compelling public interest that can only be satisfied through that law. Not everything with a cost to society deserves to be banned, less we find ourselves totally in thrall with nothing permitted, no freedom, and no function beyond funding the government that supposedly serves us.

You are right to say that all laws are attacks on freedom, yet you immediately dismiss that as legitimate grounds for opposing a law. The religious right (well, not me) support laws banning gay marriage because of a perceived societal benefit - preserving our traditional society. The progressive left supports banning toys with Happy Meals because of a perceived societal benefit - eliminating childhood obesity. Both represent authoritarian behavior, which naturally stems from having such a powerful, all-intrusive government. Both are wrong. Neither goal, repressing gay visibility to the "good old days" or reducing childhood obesity, will be accomplished. But the negative effects of both will endure, and become the new baseline from which further assaults on freedom will be launched from both ends.

That is why we speak of a compelling societal benefit that can only be achieved using that law. Every law has a perceived societal benefit, and every law does societal damage, even if only a concurrent loss of freedom, which is why any societal benefit must be compelling, must be clearly achievable by the proposed law, and must ONLY be achievable by the proposed law to make that law worthwhile. Discouraging murder is a compelling societal benefit; oppressing gays and taking toys away from children are NOT compelling societal benefits. In fact, nothing for which the remedy can be as simple as minding your own damned business, whether the thing offending you is a gay couple or a butterball kid, deserves a law to ban it. Think principles, not issues, and preserve freedom as much as possible.

Actually, Amused did exactly that:

When you use the "cost to society" arguement to pass laws restricting rights and freedoms, you only prove that socialism is anathema to freedom.

How that could be taken as anything but speaking poorly of the 'cost to society' argument is beyond me.

Your guys' stand for the principles of freedom in defense of happy meals would be hilarious if you weren't serious. I'm sure everything you wrote sounds really good to you, but all it shows to me is that you guys haven't spent any time thinking of the consequences of your ideology. (this is a problem of libertarianism generally)

I'm not sure if you intend to put forth this idea specifically, but the phrase 'compelling interest' means something very specific under the law, and applying that standard to all laws would simply lead to a country being ungovernable. It's the failure to understand how some things are an assault on fundamental constitutional rights and some things are the regulation of a Happy Meal that makes this argument so ridiculous.

There's a very specific reason our legal system treats the two differently, and that's the answer to everything you've posted in this thread.

 

[BudAshes]

Happy meals are crack for kids. I can't say i have a problem with this. I ate so many when I was a kid and really that is just colon cancer waiting to happen.

 

[werepossum]

Actually, Amused did exactly that:

When you use the "cost to society" arguement to pass laws restricting rights and freedoms, you only prove that socialism is anathema to freedom.

How that could be taken as anything but speaking poorly of the 'cost to society' argument is beyond me.

Your guys' stand for the principles of freedom in defense of happy meals would be hilarious if you weren't serious. I'm sure everything you wrote sounds really good to you, but all it shows to me is that you guys haven't spent any time thinking of the consequences of your ideology. (this is a problem of libertarianism generally)

I'm not sure if you intend to put forth this idea specifically, but the phrase 'compelling interest' means something very specific under the law, and applying that standard to all laws would simply lead to a country being ungovernable. It's the failure to understand how some things are an assault on fundamental constitutional rights and some things are the regulation of a Happy Meal that makes this argument so ridiculous.

There's a very specific reason our legal system treats the two differently, and that's the answer to everything you've posted in this thread.

Again, he is saying merely that just because something has a cost to society is not reason to ban it. Your position is that it's okay to ban this because of the "cost to society". EVERYTHING has a cost to society - automobiles, ski lifts, motorcycles, pogo sticks, porn, waffles. For some bizarre reason you've elected to defend this silly law because of the perceived "cost to society." If you take the position that anything with any cost to society may be banned, this would effectively make us North Korea, existing only to serve government (in the name of society) and prevented from doing anything that might cost government (society.) This is why socialism is such a threat to freedom and must always be watched closely, because socialists always think they are the experts on every possible subject, always think the answer to every problem is for government to control individuals' actions, and always accept the curtailment of others' freedom "for the good of society."

 

[fskimospy]

Again, he is saying merely that just because something has a cost to society is not reason to ban it. Your position is that it's okay to ban this because of the "cost to society". EVERYTHING has a cost to society - automobiles, ski lifts, motorcycles, pogo sticks, porn, waffles. For some bizarre reason you've elected to defend this silly law because of the perceived "cost to society." If you take the position that anything with any cost to society may be banned, this would effectively make us North Korea, existing only to serve government (in the name of society) and prevented from doing anything that might cost government (society.) This is why socialism is such a threat to freedom and must always be watched closely, because socialists always think they are the experts on every possible subject, always think the answer to every problem is for government to control individuals' actions, and always accept the curtailment of others' freedom "for the good of society."

That is not my position in any way, shape, or form and I have never said anything even remotely approaching that. I also have never defended this law, only criticized the ridiculous reaction to it. Opposing this law because it is dumb is one thing, but the idea that the government should radically alter the way in which we make laws in the way that you guys have suggested would be catastrophic to the functioning of society. It's pure silliness.

You guys are tilting at windmills.

 

[JSt0rm]

So, San Francisco's always-informed government, complete with nutritional experts, has decreed that 600 calories is the cut-off point.

Wow.. I cannot think of anything that could matter less to nutrition and health than the number of calories.

Nuts are high in calories; is 650 calories worth of nuts more or less healthy than 650 calories in a Happy Meal? Hint: the nuts are *way* more healthy

This law is idiotic.

Hi there. You seem to be also missing information. They also limit the amounts of fat in those meals. I'm not going to sit here and regurgitate information that you all in your outrage have clearly overlooked.

I feel bad for you as 650 calories of macadamia nuts isn't good for you. Lots of fail diet information out there in the world. For instance, there is no such thing as a Atlantic salmon it is a name for farm raised salmon. I'm not saying you don't know that but its a common problem based on deceptive advertising.

kisses.

 

[JSt0rm]

You guys are tilting at windmills.

Epic

 

[ElFenix]

The rights to have sex with and marry who you wish are recognized fundamental rights by the US Supreme Court. This means that the government must meet an exceptionally high burden to regulate them.

The right to include toys with food you sell is not a recognized fundamental right by the US Supreme Court. That means the government must meet an exceptionally low burden to regulate them.

This argument is silly.

people who opposed the bill of rights did so often because they believed that people would decide the rights enumerated therein were more important than others due solely to the fact that they were enumerated therein. seems they were prescient.

 

[BudAshes]

UNhealthy fast food is probably one of the biggest issues facing america today. Stuffing our faces with diabetes and cancer is not a good thing for our future.

 

[ElFenix]

UNhealthy fast food is probably one of the biggest issues facing america today. Stuffing our faces with diabetes and cancer is not a good thing for our future.

so maybe we should start by ending the subsidies on it :hmm:

 

[fskimospy]

people who opposed the bill of rights did so often because they believed that people would decide the rights enumerated therein were more important than others due solely to the fact that they were enumerated therein. seems they were prescient.

The right I just referred to isn't an enumerated right.

This thread is rapidly descending into comedy hour.

 

[ElFenix]

The right I just referred to isn't an enumerated right.

This thread is rapidly descending into comedy hour.

i was going to add in that the post was tangential to what you posted and didn't necessarily deal with your content, but i went off on an other tangent of subsidies and then went to find the cheese thing from the NYT last week.

anyway, no, but there's absolutely nothing in the constitution suggesting that any right receive more or less scrutiny from the courts, and that's exactly what the opponents of the bill of rights were worried about, and it's exactly what has happened. hell, if you read the privacy cases the court has made up this 'halo' theory that the right to privacy is the 'halo' that ties together explicitly enumerated rights and so the court has determined that privacy is in the bill of rights and that's why it gets strict scrutiny, not because it's deserving of strict scrutiny on its own. it's a completely convoluted line of reasoning.

 

[werepossum]

That is not my position in any way, shape, or form and I have never said anything even remotely approaching that. I also have never defended this law, only criticized the ridiculous reaction to it. Opposing this law because it is dumb is one thing, but the idea that the government should radically alter the way in which we make laws in the way that you guys have suggested would be catastrophic to the functioning of society. It's pure silliness.

You guys are tilting at windmills.

So you don't support the law, you're merely opposing opposition to the law for fear that if government can't ban toys in Happy Meals society will be somehow unable to function? You really think Western civilization is based on government's ability to make silly, near-random laws? Really? You really think this, it's not just the least lame justification you can find to defend the progressives' every action? You really think that if laws without a compelling societal interest could not be made, if government were unable to ban behavior with even the slightest cost to society, society would fall apart? Wow. I don't think even Craig has expressed the view that criticizing government's silly laws somehow threatens society, but okay. Your world must be a scary, scary place.

That's no ballot initiative, it's a mortal threat to society! Duck! OMG, it's coming right at us!

 

[fskimospy]

i was going to add in that the post was tangential to what you posted and didn't necessarily deal with your content, but i went off on an other tangent of subsidies and then went to find the cheese thing from the NYT last week.

anyway, no, but there's absolutely nothing in the constitution suggesting that any right receive more or less scrutiny from the courts, and that's exactly what the opponents of the bill of rights were worried about, and it's exactly what has happened. hell, if you read the privacy cases the court has made up this 'halo' theory that the right to privacy is the 'halo' that ties together explicitly enumerated rights and so the court has determined that privacy is in the bill of rights and that's why it gets strict scrutiny, not because it's deserving of strict scrutiny on its own. it's a completely convoluted line of reasoning.

That's not what they were worried about at all, they were worried that enumerating a set of righhts would lead people to believe the people held only those. The courts do not give preferential treatment to certain rights. They are either rights we are determined to be guaranteed, or they aren't.

 

[fskimospy]

So you don't support the law, you're merely opposing opposition to the law for fear that if government can't ban toys in Happy Meals society will be somehow unable to function? You really think Western civilization is based on government's ability to make silly, near-random laws? Really? You really think this, it's not just the least lame justification you can find to defend the progressives' every action? You really think that if laws without a compelling societal interest could not be made, if government were unable to ban behavior with even the slightest cost to society, society would fall apart? Wow. I don't think even Craig has expressed the view that criticizing government's silly laws somehow threatens society, but okay. Your world must be a scary, scary place.

That's no ballot initiative, it's a mortal threat to society! Duck! OMG, it's coming right at us!

No, the burden it would place on enacting even small regulation would make governance impossible if we did things how you want. This is why we don't. Like I have said, you haven't thought through the consequences of your actions.

 

[DominionSeraph]

lol, someone hit a nerve.

Indeed. To have such people around removes the usefulness of certain shortcuts, which is really annoying. It's quite the irritation to have to do 10x the work to catch certain assumptions and then still have no result because you're dealing with morons.

In the top 50%, things are ok. Once you bring in the bottom 50%, things go all askew. You can no longer bank on certain aspects of a person's rationality and perception. You cannot use their projected image to formulate a baseline because their projection has no basis in reality.
In a room with only people with an IQ of ~110 and above, everybody will basically be on the same page. Their methods will be similar. 160's may do certain things faster and with more precision, but not necessarily due to fundamental differences in procedure.
You start bringing in 80's, though, and everything changes. Their procedures are absolute crap, and you can't get them to fix their procedures because the procedure they use to judge the validity of their procedures is also crap.
They're perpetual victims of their own stupidity, and to have them around changes the entire social dynamic. It really sucks having to be on constant watch for idiots and to need a constant noise cancellation routine in operation.

Much better to be among smart people.

A shop full of just Electronic Technicians is a wonderous thing. Bring in Radiomen and... you have to hope they're of the "cute" and "female" variety and don't make the mistake of saying too much.

 

[DominionSeraph]

It's worth noting that happy meals are also sold in Canada, France, Britain, Australia, Germany, Sweden, etc. All of those countries have wildly different obesity rates.

Nah let's forget all of those other factors and just say it's the toys.

The people of the United States would not accept a change of their entire root system. Government is limited to what they will accept, and they will only accept band-aids.
To point out that other countries have different root systems and thus different results says nothing about whether a band-aid might have some effect.

Marketing is a powerful thing. Companies would not spend billions of dollars a year on it if it were not. So placing restrictions on marketing may have an effect. Restrictions on marketing also place no restrictions on consumers, so Americans still have all their freedoms intact.

 

[bfdd]

The people of the United States would not accept a change of their entire root system. Government is limited to what they will accept, and they will only accept band-aids.
To point out that other countries have different root systems and thus different results says nothing about whether a band-aid might have some effect.

Marketing is a powerful thing. Companies would not spend billions of dollars a year on it if it were not. So placing restrictions on marketing may have an effect. Restrictions on marketing also place no restrictions on consumers, so Americans still have all their freedoms intact.

Guess we can't point at other countries Health Care industries to make comparisons with ours either right? Can't look at how different drinking ages affect people or gun policies, all of that shit is off the table now.

 

[Corn]

Restrictions on marketing also place no restrictions on consumers, so Americans still have all their freedoms intact.

Unless you're an American who wants to market his wares......then not so much.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Guess we can't point at other countries Health Care industries to make comparisons with ours either right? Can't look at how different drinking ages affect people or gun policies, all of that shit is off the table now.

Wow, holy affirmation of the consequent!

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Read.

edit: Better for fallacies:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/