Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean
So then you see no validity to the observation that once a "health"-inspired law is passed, the same people move on to the next item to battle, and then the next? How exactly is making that observation and having a problem with the trend it showcases being "lazy"?
.
|
in a way. the observation seems sound, and it makes sense on the surface but it assumes a linear continuum that "x will lead to y will lead to z" when it's more likely that "x will lead to y will lead to 7, j, and ยง, making z basically a fever dream"
the thing about clumsy legislation like this is that there's always going to be a lot of people a lot less patient than you and i who will make a lot of noise when people like this (especially people like this) get too brave and push the wrong nerve completely. and things get rescinded, rewritten, reapproached, retried, and eventually some medium is found that's more effective than invisible pamphlets in fast food places, yet not as oppressive as outlawing food.
and so far, on the face of it, harassing restaurants to try a little harder and not shit up our meal simply because they're cheaper isnt something i have a problem with because i dont see that leading to illicit burgers. that's just not realistic.
so, in my mind, when slippery slop (ha, pun) arguments can be used to substantiate and give equal weight to both reasonable conjecture and outright conspiracy, it does turn into an easy device rather than anything i want to seriously think about.