LA blocks new ghetto fast food joints

[Shogun]

I've never had a problem with the one against taking human life.

...unless it's wrapped up in some bullshit "iraq has nukes" rhetoric?

Again, tell me what other liberties you don't mind to be restricted... the books you read, perhaps? Websites you visit? Games you play? Music you listen to? No one makes anyone eat fast food.

 

[editec]

Dumb..deDumb Dumb Duuuuuuuumb!

Dumb dedumb

dumb dedumb dedumb

dumb de Dumb

dumb de DUMB
dumb dedumb dedumb

DUMB DEDUMB!

 

[Shogun]

Did you feel that the Ferlinghetti trial was Dub de dumb dumb dumb?

 

[manifold]

...unless it's wrapped up in some bullshit "iraq has nukes" rhetoric?

Again, tell me what other liberties you don't mind to be restricted... the books you read, perhaps? Websites you visit? Games you play? Music you listen to? No one makes anyone eat fast food.

I don't mind needing a license to operate a motor vehicle.

I don't mind not being allowed to urniate in public.

I don't mind laws restricting one's liberty to hang hog in front of cute little college chicks.

I don't mind surrendering the liberty to turn my back yard into a land fill.

I don't mind laws restricting my liberty to defraud stupid people.

I don't mind laws restricting my liberty to unwittingly purchase tainted perishables.

To name a few...


Oh, and I almost forgot, I don't mind laws restricting one's liberty to use their local library to surf for porn while rubbing one out under the desk.

 

[Bern80]

You seem awfully hung up on this restriction of choice epiphany you've recently experienced. ALL laws are a restriction of choice by definition. May I assume you're not advocating anarchy? The debate is not about whether it's okay for governments to restrict choice. They can. Always have, always will. The debate should always be on a case by case basis and consider whether the proposed restriction is legal and necessary. Clearly, the fast food moratorium is not illegal, but the need for the restriction is the part I'm not sold on.

My belief on it is pretty simple as to the choices people should be allowed to make. For things like rights or choices to be valid in a free society they must be all inclusive. That is you should have the freedom to choose whatever you want up until those choices prevent someone else from doing the same. That isn't the case here. This is just more nanny state legislation.

 

[manifold]

My belief on it is pretty simple as to the choices people should be allowed to make. For things like rights or choices to be valid in a free society they must be all inclusive. That is you should have the freedom to choose whatever you want up until those choices prevent someone else from doing the same. That isn't the case here. This is just more nanny state legislation.

So you think you should be allowed to turn your backyard into a landfill if that is what you choose? How about instead of a septic tank and leaching field, I pipe my shit into the street? You ok with that too?

 

[Angel Heart]

What about the food stamps they are getting for being poor. Wouldn't they be able to make healthy choices with that.

Fact Sheet on Resources, Income, and Benefits

The amounts given are there based on income and how they figure the numbers.

Family of 4 can get up to $542 a month in food stamps. They can make up to $2,238 a month and still receive stamps.

I think the government should have less control in our lives not more. If a person chooses to eat unhealthy, that's their choice.

 

[Shogun]

I don't mind needing a license to operate a motor vehicle.

driving is a privilage, not a right.

I don't mind not being allowed to urniate in public.

Are you telling me you've never done so in an alley after the bar closed?

I don't mind laws restricting one's liberty to hang hog in front of cute little college chicks.

Do cute college chicks have the same right to choose to see hanged hog like you do to eat fast food?

I don't mind surrendering the liberty to turn my back yard into a land fill.

Do fast food joints pose the same generalized health risk as a landfill?

I don't mind laws restricting my liberty to defraud stupid people.

Are fast food joints luring you into their drive thrus with fraudulent consumer practices?

I don't mind laws restricting my liberty to unwittingly purchase tainted perishables.

Do fast food joints sell tainted food?

To name a few...

WEAK. just like the whole "murder" scenario, each of your examples are easily tossed on ridiculous logic that amounts to forcing a square through a round hole.


Oh, and I almost forgot, I don't mind laws restricting one's liberty to use their local library to surf for porn while rubbing one out under the desk.

Given that a library is a public place I should think not.. Are fast food joints a private business are operated by collective taxes?

WE DO STILL ALLOW JACK OFF BOOTHS IN SEX SHOPS. you know.. private business..

 

[Shogun]

So you think you should be allowed to turn your backyard into a landfill if that is what you choose? How about instead of a septic tank and leaching field, I pipe my shit into the street? You ok with that too?

The hazard of your example extends to the general public. Can you say the same when Ravi eats her third fucking double quarter pounder?

 

[manifold]

blah blah blah...Another rant demonstrating how he missed the point entirely and just likes to hear himself think...blah blah blah

The point is that governments restrict liberty. Always have and always will.

DO YOU DENY THIS BASIC TRUTH?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you do not.

Therefore, the argument that governments do not retain the fundamental right to restrict liberty is a losing argument...EVERY TIME. The heart of the matter in question is simply whether this instance of restriction, on balance, does more good than harm. I'm not convinced either way. The first person that can frame the argument properly and make a solid case either for or against, may win my heart and mind on the matter. So far, nobody has come anywhere close...just a bunch of threadbare rhetoric.

 

[manifold]

The hazard of your example extends to the general public. Can you say the same when Ravi eats her third fucking double quarter pounder?

This law doesn't restrict Ravi's liberty to engorge herself on quarter pounders to her hearts content.

Therefore...




























Irrelevent.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A city has the right to zone, to change zoning laws, to restrict business for any number of reasons. Public safety being one, Public health being another. I do not like bans, but the city has the right to do so. They have not ruled out future business just put a hold on it for now, citing a public health concern.

Their solution is idiotic though, those people are not going to be able to afford better restaurants. They need to work on getting cheap large chain food stores in the area.

IF you believe a city has the right to zone, then this is nothing more than that. If you do not, then no matter of argument will sway you.

 

[Shogun]

This law doesn't restrict Ravi's liberty to engorge herself on quarter pounders to her hearts content.
Therefore...
Irrelevent.

actually, in THIS case, it does restrict her right to gorge herself on any new fast food options. THAT is the point.

 

[Bern80]

So you think you should be allowed to turn your backyard into a landfill if that is what you choose? How about instead of a septic tank and leaching field, I pipe my shit into the street? You ok with that too?

The answer to that is an answer to a question I guess I thought was obvious.

 

[Shogun]

The point is that governments restrict liberty. Always have and always will.

DO YOU DENY THIS BASIC TRUTH?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you do not.

Therefore, the argument that governments do not retain the fundamental right to restrict liberty is a losing argument...EVERY TIME. The heart of the matter in question is simply whether this instance of restriction, on balance, does more good than harm. I'm not convinced either way. The first person that can frame the argument properly and make a solid case either for or against, may win my heart and mind on the matter. So far, nobody has come anywhere close...just a bunch of threadbare rhetoric.

From the Federal Ninth on down, you are wrong. It's not illegal to consume fast food.


But, hey.. your opinion is noted and I look forward to seeing you apply the same standard the next time the gov restricts something that you think is worth the liberty to defend.

 

[Ravi]

Ravi doesn't eat quarter pounders kids.

 

[Alpha1]

The far left idiots can sure come up with some great reasons to support Fascism....
Rationalism at its best....

 

[busara]

The far left idiots can sure come up with some great reasons to support Fascism....
Rationalism at its best....

and the far right come up with great reasons to support anarchism. me, i think the in-between is best

 

[doeton]

They need to work on getting cheap large chain food stores in the area.

all the more reason cities need the power of eminent domain.

 

[Alpha1]

fast food is cheap. it is also extremely unhealthy. often people dont have time to make their own food, or they cant afford to get an oven or pots and pans, etc, to make their own food. the only choice left is mcD's

Cheap your ass....the same 6 bucks it takes to buy a fast food meal at McDonalds will buy enough grocery store food to feed a family of 4, a healthy breakfast for at least a couple of days...eggs, milk and bread....assuming they don't eat like pigs....