Seems kind of slippery-slopey...

[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.

[Strangelet]

i swear to god I can't believe this isn't an article at the onion. If I were a new yorker I'd be incensed by the condescension of it. These people won't rest until we live off three jars of wheat grass gerber baby food and report to copulsory yoga classes. i'm going to fucking spend the day glowering at the world through cigarette smoke and over cheeseburgers.

edit: that's actually me on a daily basis, but today it will mean something goddammit

[dubman]

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.

[IsiliRunite]

Salt is fucking delicious.

The only problem is that you need to eat more and more to get the same kick, over time.

Its not that unhealthy...it just adds onto pre-exisiting unhealthiness. Like type 2 diabetes, obesity, or general lack of giving a fuck about one's body.

[sola sistim]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Salt is fucking delicious.

it brings out the flavor in normally shitty food.

[IsiliRunite]

Originally Posted by sola sistim

it brings out the flavor in normally shitty food.

I think you're right.

[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.

[dubman]

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 §, 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.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by dubman

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.

This is the same city that put the kabosh on trans fats. This is more than an argument it's emperical at this point. So really the burden is on you to argue salt in itself isn't an absurd overreach. I also think it shows a dramatically undeserved trust in government go along with the salt crusade when it's merely a condiment on industrial overly processed poison that all comes from the same warehouse and microwaved to taste

[IsiliRunite]

There were almost no consumer-upside to restaurants using trans fats... almost like a poison. Salt is much, much different...

I think that is when we've jumped off the consumer advocacy shit and onto the oily slope.