Here come the salt police!!!!

[manifold]

So why come on here and rail on something being ZOMG!! uNconStItUtionAL!!

If people are going to do that...then when I ask to discuss that topic with *gasp* constitutional arguments...people say "look it really doesnt matter - these are just opinions" - why do it?

It's fine to post opinions on here - that's all this place is. But daily I see posts on here about how shit is unconstitutional - citing almost nothing in support of it - and I was hoping to actually follow a train of thought to its conclusion.

Why didn't you post a thread in the "Law and Justice System" forum if you wanted to rail the legalities of this issue. This forum is for thought and opinions. Sorry I won't play this game with you.
I still say you are a sheep if you let this government intrude into your daily life as to the use of salt. How's that for an opinion?

Allow me to play devil's advocate for just one moment here...

Even though you don't like it, you too are allowing this government to intrude into your daily life as to the use of salt. Does that make you a reluctant sheep?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're equivocating with the word salt. You're making salt out to be just some simple seasoning that cant harm people. Clearly it can.

Just because you have warm, fuzzy feelings (read as: it has legitimate, non-dangerous uses) about salt doesnt mean it can't be just as harmful as stuff you'd instantly accept as poison.

If it wasn't harmful at all, I wouldnt be posting responses to you. Your time on USMB might have you assuming that a bunch of people want to become government slaves, but I'm not one of them. You can reject that notion if you want - but it's going to make our discussion devolve rather quickly.

Personal responsibility and independent decision-making are HUGELY HUGELY important concepts and I'll defend them as well. But I have yet to hear a legal argument about why FDA is not within its authority to mandate levels.

So it comes down to goverment legalities with you. Well look at it this way, first it's salt, then it's sugars, then it's BBQing. Now lets get with the mercury in the fish....can't eat fish any longer. See wherehis is going? To think, it just started with that little salt thingy. no big deal huh?

As you noted before, this is your opinion. My opinion, based on logic 101, is your opinon is a classic logical fallacy, known far and wide as the Slippery Slope.

 

[Meister]

So why come on here and rail on something being ZOMG!! uNconStItUtionAL!!

If people are going to do that...then when I ask to discuss that topic with *gasp* constitutional arguments...people say "look it really doesnt matter - these are just opinions" - why do it?

It's fine to post opinions on here - that's all this place is. But daily I see posts on here about how shit is unconstitutional - citing almost nothing in support of it - and I was hoping to actually follow a train of thought to its conclusion.

Why didn't you post a thread in the "Law and Justice System" forum if you wanted to rail the legalities of this issue. This forum is for thought and opinions. Sorry I won't play this game with you.
I still say you are a sheep if you let this government intrude into your daily life as to the use of salt. How's that for an opinion?

Allow me to play devil's advocate for just one moment here...

Even though you don't like it, you too are allowing this government to intrude into your daily life as to the use of salt. Does that make you a reluctant sheep?

Not at all, it makes me a criminal.

 

[manifold]

You're equivocating with the word salt. You're making salt out to be just some simple seasoning that cant harm people. Clearly it can.

Just because you have warm, fuzzy feelings (read as: it has legitimate, non-dangerous uses) about salt doesnt mean it can't be just as harmful as stuff you'd instantly accept as poison.

If it wasn't harmful at all, I wouldnt be posting responses to you. Your time on USMB might have you assuming that a bunch of people want to become government slaves, but I'm not one of them. You can reject that notion if you want - but it's going to make our discussion devolve rather quickly.

Personal responsibility and independent decision-making are HUGELY HUGELY important concepts and I'll defend them as well. But I have yet to hear a legal argument about why FDA is not within its authority to mandate levels.

So it comes down to goverment legalities with you. Well look at it this way, first it's salt, then it's sugars, then it's BBQing. Now lets get with the mercury in the fish....can't eat fish any longer. See wherehis is going? To think, it just started with that little salt thingy. no big deal huh?

As you noted before, this is your opinion. My opinion, based on logic 101, is your opinon is a classic logical fallacy, known far and wide as the Slippery Slope.

Fail.

Regardles of it's applicability, the slippery slope argument is not a logical fallacy.

 

[Meister]

You're equivocating with the word salt. You're making salt out to be just some simple seasoning that cant harm people. Clearly it can.

Just because you have warm, fuzzy feelings (read as: it has legitimate, non-dangerous uses) about salt doesnt mean it can't be just as harmful as stuff you'd instantly accept as poison.

If it wasn't harmful at all, I wouldnt be posting responses to you. Your time on USMB might have you assuming that a bunch of people want to become government slaves, but I'm not one of them. You can reject that notion if you want - but it's going to make our discussion devolve rather quickly.

Personal responsibility and independent decision-making are HUGELY HUGELY important concepts and I'll defend them as well. But I have yet to hear a legal argument about why FDA is not within its authority to mandate levels.

So it comes down to goverment legalities with you. Well look at it this way, first it's salt, then it's sugars, then it's BBQing. Now lets get with the mercury in the fish....can't eat fish any longer. See wherehis is going? To think, it just started with that little salt thingy. no big deal huh?

As you noted before, this is your opinion. My opinion, based on logic 101, is your opinon is a classic logical fallacy, known far and wide as the Slippery Slope.

wry, you already know that I don't give a shit about any opinion that originates from the bay area.

 

[Vanquish]

Manifold, believe it or not, I like where your head's at.

Back earlier on you called Diamond Dave to task:

Are you honestly trying to make the case that government regulation of commerce is an unconstitutional infringment of individual rights???

Which was exactly what he was trying to do. And in other threads where this topic has been referenced, that's what other people are doing.

When people start making hugek, sweeping comments about freedoms being infringed upon...how is that NOT calling something unconstitutional?

Don't get me wrong...I'm ready to drop the subject of constitutionality if others are willing to drop the "this is an infringement on our protected freedoms" bullshit.

"Why didn't you post a thread in the "Law and Justice System" forum if you wanted to rail the legalities of this issue. This forum is for thought and opinions. Sorry I won't play this game with you."

Meister, If this forum is just for thoughts and opinions....I dont want you to EVER reference the Constitution to ever back up your thoughts and opinions. People in this forum cite to their opinions about the constitution all the time...where's the line there? Seriously? Where's the line? You want to say something's an abuse of government power...but how do you actually prove that or back it up?

I'll wait for an answer on that.

I'm not a sheep. Your continual recitation of that insult means you're not willing to discuss things without insulting people...which makes you not worth talking to.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When do we say, "ENOUGH!!!"?

(You can also thank the FDA for driving my grandfather to ruin. He was working on organic medicines that aid the human immune system in battling diseases, even cancer -- and that was in 50's and 60's)

 

[Wry Catcher]

So it comes down to goverment legalities with you. Well look at it this way, first it's salt, then it's sugars, then it's BBQing. Now lets get with the mercury in the fish....can't eat fish any longer. See wherehis is going? To think, it just started with that little salt thingy. no big deal huh?

As you noted before, this is your opinion. My opinion, based on logic 101, is your opinon is a classic logical fallacy, known far and wide as the Slippery Slope.

Fail.

Regardles of it's applicability, the slippery slope argument is not a logical fallacy.

Fallacies

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberals need their own state, let them take CA and the government can control every aspect of their lives

 

[Meister]

Manifold, believe it or not, I like where your head's at.

Back earlier on you called Diamond Dave to task:

Are you honestly trying to make the case that government regulation of commerce is an unconstitutional infringment of individual rights???

Which was exactly what he was trying to do. And in other threads where this topic has been referenced, that's what other people are doing.

When people start making hugek, sweeping comments about freedoms being infringed upon...how is that NOT calling something unconstitutional?

Don't get me wrong...I'm ready to drop the subject of constitutionality if others are willing to drop the "this is an infringement on our protected freedoms" bullshit.

"Why didn't you post a thread in the "Law and Justice System" forum if you wanted to rail the legalities of this issue. This forum is for thought and opinions. Sorry I won't play this game with you."

Meister, If this forum is just for thoughts and opinions....I dont want you to EVER reference the Constitution to ever back up your thoughts and opinions. People in this forum cite to their opinions about the constitution all the time...where's the line there? Seriously? Where's the line? You want to say something's an abuse of government power...but how do you actually prove that or back it up?

I'll wait for an answer on that.

I'm not a sheep. Your continual recitation of that insult means you're not willing to discuss things without insulting people...which makes you not worth talking to.

If your willing to get in line with the government over stepping its authority on such absurd mandates.....what would you call it? Call it a potato if you want, but it is what it is.

By the way....I don't back up my opinions with the Constitution. I rely on a good common sense, something you should practice.

 

[manifold]

As you noted before, this is your opinion. My opinion, based on logic 101, is your opinon is a classic logical fallacy, known far and wide as the Slippery Slope.

Fail.

Regardles of it's applicability, the slippery slope argument is not a logical fallacy.

Fallacies

Double fail.

Since the slippery slope argument involves speculation about what may happen if a first step is taken, it cannot be a logical fallacy. It may be illogical, hyperbolic, unsubstantiated or even downright retarded, but that is not what makes something a logical fallacy.

Even your own link admits that sometimes the argument is reasonable.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Manifold, believe it or not, I like where your head's at.

Back earlier on you called Diamond Dave to task:

Are you honestly trying to make the case that government regulation of commerce is an unconstitutional infringment of individual rights???

Which was exactly what he was trying to do. And in other threads where this topic has been referenced, that's what other people are doing.

When people start making hugek, sweeping comments about freedoms being infringed upon...how is that NOT calling something unconstitutional?

Don't get me wrong...I'm ready to drop the subject of constitutionality if others are willing to drop the "this is an infringement on our protected freedoms" bullshit.

"Why didn't you post a thread in the "Law and Justice System" forum if you wanted to rail the legalities of this issue. This forum is for thought and opinions. Sorry I won't play this game with you."

Meister, If this forum is just for thoughts and opinions....I dont want you to EVER reference the Constitution to ever back up your thoughts and opinions. People in this forum cite to their opinions about the constitution all the time...where's the line there? Seriously? Where's the line? You want to say something's an abuse of government power...but how do you actually prove that or back it up?

I'll wait for an answer on that.

I'm not a sheep. Your continual recitation of that insult means you're not willing to discuss things without insulting people...which makes you not worth talking to.

If your willing to get in line with the government over stepping its authority on such absurd mandates.....what would you call it? Call it a potato if you want, but it is what it is.

By the way....I don't back up my opinions with the Constitution. I rely on a good common sense, something you should practice.

Actually you rely on your interpretation of the Constitution and your "Common Sense" was penned by Madison in #40 I recall. That too was a logical fallacy, see "appeals to authority".

 

[Vanquish]

Manifold, believe it or not, I like where your head's at.

Back earlier on you called Diamond Dave to task:

Are you honestly trying to make the case that government regulation of commerce is an unconstitutional infringment of individual rights???

Which was exactly what he was trying to do. And in other threads where this topic has been referenced, that's what other people are doing.

When people start making hugek, sweeping comments about freedoms being infringed upon...how is that NOT calling something unconstitutional?

Don't get me wrong...I'm ready to drop the subject of constitutionality if others are willing to drop the "this is an infringement on our protected freedoms" bullshit.

"Why didn't you post a thread in the "Law and Justice System" forum if you wanted to rail the legalities of this issue. This forum is for thought and opinions. Sorry I won't play this game with you."

Meister, If this forum is just for thoughts and opinions....I dont want you to EVER reference the Constitution to ever back up your thoughts and opinions. People in this forum cite to their opinions about the constitution all the time...where's the line there? Seriously? Where's the line? You want to say something's an abuse of government power...but how do you actually prove that or back it up?

I'll wait for an answer on that.

I'm not a sheep. Your continual recitation of that insult means you're not willing to discuss things without insulting people...which makes you not worth talking to.

If your willing to get in line with the government over stepping its authority on such absurd mandates.....what would you call it? Call it a potato if you want, but it is what it is.

By the way....I don't back up my opinions with the Constitution. I rely on a good common sense, something you should practice.

So you're admitting, right here and now, that you don't use the Constitution to back up your opinions regarding the government overstepping its bounds....when it's the best document to use on the subject. When it's the ultimate source.



I hate to tell you, but there's a lot about the law that's counter-intuitive (i.e. you can't just common sense it out)

Thanks for giving me another name to put on my list of nonsensicals. I love opposing viewpoints, but not partisan hacks.

 

[Meister]

Manifold, believe it or not, I like where your head's at.

Back earlier on you called Diamond Dave to task:


Which was exactly what he was trying to do. And in other threads where this topic has been referenced, that's what other people are doing.

When people start making hugek, sweeping comments about freedoms being infringed upon...how is that NOT calling something unconstitutional?

Don't get me wrong...I'm ready to drop the subject of constitutionality if others are willing to drop the "this is an infringement on our protected freedoms" bullshit.



Meister, If this forum is just for thoughts and opinions....I dont want you to EVER reference the Constitution to ever back up your thoughts and opinions. People in this forum cite to their opinions about the constitution all the time...where's the line there? Seriously? Where's the line? You want to say something's an abuse of government power...but how do you actually prove that or back it up?

I'll wait for an answer on that.

I'm not a sheep. Your continual recitation of that insult means you're not willing to discuss things without insulting people...which makes you not worth talking to.

If your willing to get in line with the government over stepping its authority on such absurd mandates.....what would you call it? Call it a potato if you want, but it is what it is.

By the way....I don't back up my opinions with the Constitution. I rely on a good common sense, something you should practice.

Actually you rely on your interpretation of the Constitution and your "Common Sense" was penned by Madison in #40 I recall. That too was a logical fallacy, see "appeals to authority".

If I recall right, you wanted som links about 'General Welfare'....is that what your talking about? I did do some research on that debate with the constitution with you....my bad.
But your opinion was no more effective than mine was, wry, so your logical fallacy is in the eyes of the beholder. We just differ in what you and I want from our government. Bottom line...I don't trust any of them, but they are a neccessary evil, just like Cod's Liver Oil.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Fail.

Regardles of it's applicability, the slippery slope argument is not a logical fallacy.

Fallacies

Double fail.

Since the slippery slope argument involves speculation about what may happen if a first step is taken, it cannot be a logical fallacy. It may be illogical, hyperbolic, unsubstantiated or even downright retarded, but that is not what makes something a logical fallacy.

Even your own link admits that sometimes the argument is reasonable.

Sure. As presented in the first case, it was a logical fallacy. In the case of causal links, there is truth that a slippery slope argument is valid. Without the links, it's simply hyperbole and no valid conclusion can be drawn.

 

[Meister]

Manifold, believe it or not, I like where your head's at.

Back earlier on you called Diamond Dave to task:


Which was exactly what he was trying to do. And in other threads where this topic has been referenced, that's what other people are doing.

When people start making hugek, sweeping comments about freedoms being infringed upon...how is that NOT calling something unconstitutional?

Don't get me wrong...I'm ready to drop the subject of constitutionality if others are willing to drop the "this is an infringement on our protected freedoms" bullshit.



Meister, If this forum is just for thoughts and opinions....I dont want you to EVER reference the Constitution to ever back up your thoughts and opinions. People in this forum cite to their opinions about the constitution all the time...where's the line there? Seriously? Where's the line? You want to say something's an abuse of government power...but how do you actually prove that or back it up?

I'll wait for an answer on that.

I'm not a sheep. Your continual recitation of that insult means you're not willing to discuss things without insulting people...which makes you not worth talking to.

If your willing to get in line with the government over stepping its authority on such absurd mandates.....what would you call it? Call it a potato if you want, but it is what it is.

By the way....I don't back up my opinions with the Constitution. I rely on a good common sense, something you should practice.

So you're admitting, right here and now, that you don't use the Constitution to back up your opinions regarding the government overstepping its bounds....when it's the best document to use on the subject. When it's the ultimate source.



I hate to tell you, but there's a lot about the law that's counter-intuitive (i.e. you can't just common sense it out)

Thanks for giving me another name to put on my list of nonsensicals. I love opposing viewpoints, but not partisan hacks.

I believe in our Constitution, the wording of the Constitution as it would be etched in stone. I won't grab the Constitution to make my cases in a debate. I use my common sense for that. I hope you can comprehend what i just said, because I have an idea that you think that the Constitution is a living document.
I am partisan, and you are partisan...I can admit it, but you seem to think your not? Everyonne is partisan.

Any 5 judges can look at a case and all 5 can come away with a different opinions...go figure. Which one is really right? usually it will be the one you agree with, no?

 

[Vanquish]

If your willing to get in line with the government over stepping its authority on such absurd mandates.....what would you call it? Call it a potato if you want, but it is what it is.

By the way....I don't back up my opinions with the Constitution. I rely on a good common sense, something you should practice.

So you're admitting, right here and now, that you don't use the Constitution to back up your opinions regarding the government overstepping its bounds....when it's the best document to use on the subject. When it's the ultimate source.



I hate to tell you, but there's a lot about the law that's counter-intuitive (i.e. you can't just common sense it out)

Thanks for giving me another name to put on my list of nonsensicals. I love opposing viewpoints, but not partisan hacks.

I believe in our Constitution, the wording of the Constitution as it would be etched in stone. I won't grab the Constitution to make my cases in a debate. I use my common sense for that. I hope you can comprehend what i just said, because I have an idea that you think that the Constitution is a living document.
I am partisan, and you are partisan...I can admit it, but you seem to think your not? Everyonne is partisan.

Any 5 judges can look at a case and all 5 can come away with a different decision...go figure. Which one is really right? usually it will be the one you agree with, no?

What's this living document bullshit. Where the FUCK did you get that idea.

You're obviously trying to put words in my mouth or attack me for a position I dont have.

For the record, I'm a texualist with some originalist mixed in. I think that the word should be the word. If the law is written "A,B,C" then we should hold people to that. I feel some originalism is necessary, because the Founders meant specific things when they wrote the Constitution.

The idea of living document has been fucked over by people who want judicial activism. No judges dont get to make law from the bench. The constitution IS a living document...but ONLY in so much as the legislature can amend it through the correct process.

Everyone is partisan? Sure. I'll agree with that...but I dont brainlessly cling to one side's ideology. I strive to go where the good ideas are...no matter which side they're on.

Read the sig. Learn the sig. Love the sig.

 

[editec]

Until now, the government has pushed the food industry to voluntarily reduce salt and tried to educate consumers about the dangers of excessive sodium. But in a study to be released Wednesday, an expert panel convened by the Institute of Medicine concludes that those measures have failed. The panel will recommend that the government take action, according to sources familiar with the findings.

According to the latest research, sodium intake isn’t really a health problem for normal adults. An Einstein University study in 2008 showed no connection between cardiovascular disease risk and higher-sodium diets:

But why let science spoil all of the nanny-state fun? Don’t let facts get in the way of a crisis model for government intervention. After all, it’s for your own good, which the elites in the federal bureaucracy obviously understand better than you do.

Hot Air Blog Archive Great news: FDA to regulate salt in processed foods

Should have seen this one coming.

This is actually a very good idea.

SAlt makes things taste better.

Too much so still makes things taste better.

This really is another example of a tragedy of the commons.

So the food processors started us down a road where almost everything has too damned much salt in it.

Now expecting any single food processor to remove that excess salt is a mistake.

But imposing a slow but steady removal of salt from ALL food processors is a good idea.

Eventually all the food we purchase willhave less salt, and as we get used to eating less salt in processed food, we won't even miss it if its done slowly and steadily over time.

Replace the word SALT with heroin, and you'll begin to get why this is such a good idea.

Salt is, after all, an addictive substance, too.

Get used to using too much, and you must have too much or food doesn't taste right.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Until now, the government has pushed the food industry to voluntarily reduce salt and tried to educate consumers about the dangers of excessive sodium. But in a study to be released Wednesday, an expert panel convened by the Institute of Medicine concludes that those measures have failed. The panel will recommend that the government take action, according to sources familiar with the findings.

According to the latest research, sodium intake isn’t really a health problem for normal adults. An Einstein University study in 2008 showed no connection between cardiovascular disease risk and higher-sodium diets:

But why let science spoil all of the nanny-state fun? Don’t let facts get in the way of a crisis model for government intervention. After all, it’s for your own good, which the elites in the federal bureaucracy obviously understand better than you do.

Hot Air Blog Archive Great news: FDA to regulate salt in processed foods

Should have seen this one coming.

"hot air blog". Hmm, maybe because it is nothing but hot air?

 

[Dr Gregg]

Until now, the government has pushed the food industry to voluntarily reduce salt and tried to educate consumers about the dangers of excessive sodium. But in a study to be released Wednesday, an expert panel convened by the Institute of Medicine concludes that those measures have failed. The panel will recommend that the government take action, according to sources familiar with the findings.

But why let science spoil all of the nanny-state fun? Don’t let facts get in the way of a crisis model for government intervention. After all, it’s for your own good, which the elites in the federal bureaucracy obviously understand better than you do.

Hot Air Blog Archive Great news: FDA to regulate salt in processed foods

Should have seen this one coming.

They're lowering the salt content of processed food slowly. I don't see anything wrong in that.

Processed foods have so much other garbage added it doesn't really matter how much they lower the sodium content anyway, it still won't make it good for you to eat. You can still take a salt shaker and kill yourself with the stuff anyway.

Yeah, this is most definitely a problem of today. both of the spouses need to work in order to get by, and its hard to make a meal from all fresh ingredients all the time, when you work your ass off all day long and have other responsibilities at home.