Seems kind of slippery-slopey...

[Sean]

Originally Posted by dubman

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.

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"?

As far as I'm concerned, coercion is simply the wrong way to encourage better eating habits. Education is the way to go if you want lasting change that people won't be bitter and resentful of. Like you mentioned with the "luther burger", I try to eat pretty well, but every now and then I want to go get myself a Tommy Burger, or a Martha Stewart Dog from Pink's (that's right - the Martha Stewart Dog - trust me, it's fantastic and not what you would expect), and I don't want some asshole who decided that no one should ever eat such horribly unhealthy food stripping me of my opportunity to do it. It's not their place to tell me when I can or can't indulge in the occasional unhealthy yet delicious meal.

Where all this will end up is anyone's guess, but there's no denying that there's an active effort being made to legislate what we can and can't eat, and I don't agree with the extent it's going to one bit. It's one thing to have a Food and Drug Administration that can monitor the safe handling and preparation of food, but another entirely to legislate how much salt can be used in a recipe.