Quote:
Originally Posted by Deckard
I'm all for awareness-raising campaigns funded by public money.
Restrictions on advertising junk food to kids, and on ingredients in school dinners - bring it on. Absolutely no problem with those "incursions on liberty" for the net benefit I believe they will have.
Adults automatically become a different story, and from the quick glance I've had through that link, in this particular case I find myself agreeing with you.
Am I making these judgments arbitrarily? As I've said before, I'm perfectly happy to assess each of these things on a case-by-case basis, and weigh up what I think are the benefits versus the incursions on liberty. I personally don't feel compelled to take an ultra-liberal approach to all health and diet regulation based on the slippery slope argument, because it assumes we've taken - to date - the correct stance on every possible ingredient or chemical, legal or illegal and mustn't change anything - and I simply don't believe that.
|
i agree with this
i think the hyperventilating about mandatory exercise and govt. mandated intake is more for humor's sake than anything realistic.
there are people with sense, and there are people that willingly peddle what is blatantly unecessary to people who think it's normal when it isnt.
listen, i'll go for a
luther burger when the time is right (and oh, it will be someday), but the widespread acceptance in restaurants that the sky's the limit on salt and butter and everything horrible for people that'll mask an otherwise unappealing and sub-par meal is soemthing i dont mind being aggressively attacked.
slippery slope arguments are the easiest thing to construct and assume a linear sequence to the horrible, awful conclusion presented. it can be valid at times, but i just find it so lazy and hard to take seriously.