|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 12:44:05 [Permalink]
|
| Also on your list of things corporations don't do... They do most or all of those things, just in a roundabout way.(through corrupting the people/system who can do those things to you) |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 04/22/2010 12:44:40 |
 |
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
 Posted - 04/22/2010 : 13:21:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
"The people" need to look past the fact of whether they think too much salt is bad or good for you and ask themselves instead " Is this something government needs to be involved in?". In this particular case my answer is a big NO.
I will fight to the end to keep the majority from having influence in my life simply because they are the majority. I find the ideology that is perpetuated by the masses is usually fundamentaly wrong.
|
You are contradicting yourself. I'm not surprised, free market mythologists always do so at some point. When I pointed out that I am hampered in my goal to live healthily because there most products have salt in them because I am in a minority, you felt this was irrelevant.
But now suddenly the majority should not have an influence in your life? Which is it? If you don't want the masses to have influence on your food, getting the salt out is the way to go. Then the decision to put salt in is truly and wholy your.
|
In this particular instance I do not feel I am contradicting myself. Of course you may be hampered in your quest for low sodium food, I'm not arguing that. I am arguing about what the best way is to go about changing things. Should the government do it or should the citizens do it themselves?
I detect a bit of snark in your reply.I'd like to make you aware of one thing. I actually like it when people point out when I am contradicting myself. When that happens it means that there is a flaw in my reasoning and I had better go back and re-evaluate my position. It's kind of like an audit. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 14:37:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Should the government do it or should the citizens do it themselves? |
Why can't the citizens do it through the government officials they've elected to represent their interests?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 14:41:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Corporations do not take the money I earn by force. |
No, but they gladly see you getting forced to pay for it. Gasoline for your car, electricity for your home. Your very way of life makes those two essential, and threatening to withdraw them is a kind of force.
| Corporations do not take property away for not paying property taxes. |
Banks and companies can have the court put your house on foreclosure if you can't pay them for services used, can't they?
| Corporations do not take money for driving on roads that are paid for. |
Don't you have roads with toll-booths where you pay to use the roads owned by corporations?
| Corporations do not take money by force because someone dies. |
If a relative dies, aren't you obligated to pay a mortuary to dispose of the body? I'm not sure how it works in USA. In Sweden, basic mortuary service is tax-funded.
| Corporations do not force the government to be ethical in their finances. |
Yes they do. They can threat the government with lawsuits if it is found that the government unethically favours the business of one company and not another.
No, wait... My bad. The Bush administration gave Halliburton non-bid contracts with impunity.
| Corporations do not tell me how much salt can be in a product I buy. |
No, they would rather not tell you they have an excessive amount of salt in it at all. The less you know about it, the better off they would be since you'd be in the dark about what they add to the food.
| Corporations do not tell me I cannot smoke in a private restaurant or bar. |
The bar or restaurant can tell you not to smoke in their establishment.
| Corporations do not waste my money on pork. |
A lot of CEOs, shareholders, and bankers take a lot more salary and bonuses than warranted from the corporations that sell you products for prices higher than they need to be. They are wasting money you have paid.
| Corporations do not spend more of my money than they earn. |
Of course they do. They charge you more than they have to when they sell you stuff, because they are operating for profit. Then give that money to shareholders.
| Corporations do not send our citizens to die in wars. |
No, republican governments does. Corporations only send soldiers to other countries (like Iraq) where they 'accidentally' kill unarmed civilians.
And before you object by saying that Clinton did too, let me remind you that USA is a charter member of UN, and UN requested military assistance in Balkan. (Scandinavian countries participated too). And while there _are_ Swedish troops in Afghanistan presently, they are there under UN flag.
| Corporations do not tell me I need topay for a permit to put an awning on my house. |
Though I own my apartment, I need to have my condominium board's permit to put one up.
| Corporations do not force me to buy healthcare. |
No, they would rather watch while you die if you won't pay your health care bill.
Corporations have much less affect on our lives than government does, therefore it is much more likely to be oppressive over corporations.
|
What planet are you living on?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 14:48:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Should the government do it or should the citizens do it themselves? |
Why can't the citizens do it through the government officials they've elected to represent their interests?
|
Because it's not the government's place (in my opinion) to solve this problem. This is the type of problem can can be solved by the citizens using (or not using) their pocketbooks. The companies are not doing anything criminal. The consumers simply want less salt. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 14:52:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
"The people" need to look past the fact of whether they think too much salt is bad or good for you and ask themselves instead " Is this something government needs to be involved in?". In this particular case my answer is a big NO. |
You're evidence is contrary to evidence.
1) As have been pointed out: health care issue, and costs, for both the government and yourself (and me, had I been an American citizen).
2) 40 years with no effect when trying to inform the public clearly indicates that that public don't want to, or can't, look out for themselves. Then someone else need to do it for them.
I will fight to the end to keep the majority from having influence in my life simply because they are the majority. I find the ideology that is perpetuated by the masses is usually fundamentaly wrong.
|
Given the last 10 years of American politics, I can surely understand you. However, when living in a community, you sometimes have to sacrifice some small amount of liberty to harm yourself by ignorance, for the greater good of the community.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 15:55:28 [Permalink]
|
You're evidence is contrary to evidence.
1) As have been pointed out: health care issue, and costs, for both the government and yourself (and me, had I been an American citizen).
2) 40 years with no effect when trying to inform the public clearly indicates that that public don't want to, or can't, look out for themselves. Then someone else need to do it for them.
|
1) I would need to see an accurate projection by an unbiased 3rd party to know how true this might be. I have a feeling it would be impossible to do.
2) This statement only goes to show that the general public doesn't really care. I whole heartedly disagree that the people should be nannied because they don't want to take the time to look out for their own health. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 16:47:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
But that is not how our constitution is written. The will of the people cannot (or is not supposed to) override our rights given to us in the constitution. |
The Constitution doesn't "give" us any rights, it guarantees that certain rights will not be trampled (even though it takes court action to fix the trampling that constantly occurs). Prohibition most certainly reflected "the will of the people" in revoking the right to drink alcohol. And when "the people" figured out that that was a stupid thing to do, "the will of the people" fixed it.| I am not saying salt is a right only that your statement does not apply to all situations. |
I'm saying that we elect representatives to do things for us with the powers of government. The Defense of Marriage Act is the result of "the will of the people" to be bigoted idiots, for example.| Also, in real life this is not always the case. Even though over 53% of the people did not want the current healthcare bill passed it was still passed over the will of the people. |
Less than half of "the people" didn't want any healthcare bill passed. The rest of that 53% were upset that the bill didn't go far enough, and their representatives largely said, "we're going to get as much as we can get right now, we'll work on getting more later." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 17:17:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
My answer was that if we regulate salt in foods then the the corporation has less freedom to offer in their product. |
And you get more personal freedom, since you're not going to be taking the salt out of food in your kitchen. Once it's in there, it's staying. You can only add, so by having the manufacturer add less, you get more freedom of salt.| It may not affect the individual as much... |
Actually, that's the whole point: lowering salt intake leads to longer lives. Which in turn will lead to people buying more of the corporations' products, boosting the bottom line. It's win-win.| ...but a company (many are small family owned such as restaurants) have more regulations that are not needed when we can choose what we eat. |
You're ignoring history, here. The Food and Drug Administration, the Agriculture Department and local health departments all serve to do what individuals cannot do: ensure that the quality of our foods generally meet certain standards. Without them, even Mom-and-Pop joints would save money by buying borderline supplies and gambling that nobody would sue.| There are as many natural food stores where I live as regular stores. |
Isn't it amazing the amount of freedom you have under all these tyrannical food regulations?| Does anyone really think eating at most restaurants is healthy? If the government can regualate salt for our health, then why can't they regulate smaller portions? |
Baby steps, Robb, baby steps.
Hell, Chicago has already banned foie gras for public health reasons. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 17:55:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
"The people" need to look past the fact of whether they think too much salt is bad or good for you and ask themselves instead " Is this something government needs to be involved in?". In this particular case my answer is a big NO. |
Yes, we know. Those of us who are more liberal think that the government should play a role in public health issues.
Hey, would you rather we regulate brand names more strictly? If I were on a 2,000 calorie diet, I could get a full 20% of my recommended sodium intake after eating only 5.5% of my recommended calories just by having a single Healthy Choice Beef Pot Roast cup of soup. It says "Healthy" right in the name of the product! In big fucking letters! How could it be bad for me?
Maybe soup is the wrong thing to look at. How about a full meal? The Country Breaded Chicken has 23% of my sodium for 17% of my calories.
Do they need to put that much salt in these foods, or are they just doing it because salt is calorie-free and makes just about anything taste better, so consumers buy more?
So, should we mandate that companies can't use the word "healthy" unless their products really are healthy?| I will fight to the end to keep the majority from having influence in my life simply because they are the majority. I find the ideology that is perpetuated by the masses is usually fundamentaly wrong. |
Then you should be working to change the government to something other than the representative republic that it is (because we're only one step removed from direct mob rule, and the Republicans clearly already wish they could legislate according to polls). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 18:01:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Now my question is if we really needed the whole thing to get so far up into the legislative system... |
When did it get to the "legislation system" at all? We've been talking about nothing more than IOM recommendations. And their recommandations are that:- 40 years of attempting to educate the public about sodium have failed, and
- if food producers don't voluntarily meet the recommendation's standards, they should be forced to do so.
| ...or could the citizens have organized themselves good enough to present this to the food producers without government interference. |
The education of the citizenry has failed. On what basis would they organize? And how is the government not an organized citizenry? You keep making this distinction that I don't think is valid. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 18:15:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
| Corporations do not take money for driving on roads that are paid for. |
Roads need constant maintenance and therefore money. By your argument, why should I pay for MS Windows 7 becuase it's already paid for. |
Good catch, Fripp.
I can also tell Robb that the private partnership that owns the toll road near my home is seeking to turn a profit, and so will indeed take money for a road that is paid for.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 19:26:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Because it's not the government's place (in my opinion) to solve this problem. This is the type of problem can can be solved by the citizens using (or not using) their pocketbooks. The companies are not doing anything criminal. The consumers simply want less salt.
|
As long as the FDA exist then, as has been said many times in this thread already, they are simply fulfilling their primary purpose which is "to protect citizens from products that are inherently unsafe." Since no one is arguing that over consumption of salt is harmless, and we have known about the harm for a very long time, this seems like a slam dunk to me. I'm not sure why anyone is getting their knickers in a bind over this. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 20:30:06 [Permalink]
|
Though dangerously understaffed, government agricultural inspectors check meat processing plants to assure that the bacteria (Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Staph, etc.) are in safely low numbers. This inconveniences the meat-packers, costs them money, and sometimes disrupts production and/or shuts down their plants. But all meat-packers face the inspection regime, so they are at least competing on an even playing field. Consumers wanting more bacteria in their meats are shit out of luck, but can always let their meats rot at home, inconvenient as that may be.
Government regulations restricting the amount of one ingredient in processed foods would require no teams of on-site inspectors, but such regulation would probably pay off quickly in better health for the population.
Too much salt is implicated in the following health problems, per Wikipedia:Evidence supports the link between excess salt consumption and a number of conditions including: - Heartburn.
- Osteoporosis: One report shows that a high salt diet does reduce bone density in women. Yet "While high salt intakes have been associated with detrimental effects on bone health, there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusions."
- Gastric cancer (stomach cancer) is associated with high levels of sodium, "but the evidence does not generally relate to foods typically consumed in the UK." However, in Japan, salt consumption is higher.
- Hypertension (high blood pressure): "Since 1994, the evidence of an association between dietary salt intakes and blood pressure has increased. The data have been consistent in various study populations and across the age range in adults." A large scale study from 2007 has shown that people with high-normal blood pressure who significantly reduced the amount of salt in their diet decreased their chances of developing cardiovascular disease by 25% over the following 10 to 15 years. Their risk of dying from cardiovascular disease decreased by 20%.
- Left ventricular hypertrophy (cardiac enlargement): "Evidence suggests that high salt intake causes left ventricular hypertrophy, a strong risk factor for cardiovascular disease, independently of blood pressure effects." "…there is accumulating evidence that high salt intake predicts left ventricular hypertrophy. "Excessive salt (sodium) intake, combined with an inadequate intake of water, can cause hypernatremia. It can exacerbate renal disease.
- Edema (BE: oedema): A decrease in salt intake has been suggested to treat edema (fluid retention).
- Duodenal ulcers and gastric ulcers.
- Death: Ingestion of large amounts of salt in a short time (about 1 g per kg of body weight) can be fatal. Salt solutions have been used in ancient China as a method of suicide (especially by the nobility, since salt was quite valuable). Deaths have also resulted from attempted use of salt solutions as emetics, forced salt intake, and accidental confusion of salt with sugar in child food.
|
Again, Consumers are not even inconvenienced by proposed salt regulations, but are simply given the ability to chose for themselves how much salt is in their food. Corporations are hardly even inconvenienced, and even save money by not having to buy as much salt as previously.
How is salt regulation for processed foods different in kind or principle from meat inspection laws, except by being easier and cheaper and more convenient for all concerned?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 02:15:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Starman
While some of Robbs examples are true by definition (eg property taxes), is there any of the examples where corporations does not at least do similar things? |
Well give us some examples. |
Other posters have now given you several good examples. Originally posted by Robb
Corporations have much less affect on our lives than government does, therefore it is much more likely to be oppressive over corporations. |
Unless Robb lives on Cuba, China or in North Korea, this statement is just plain stupid.
|
Can you explain to me why corporations are more oppressive than the government? |
The stupid part is the first sentence "Corporations have much less affect on our lives than government", the other sentence is just your guess.
I get my pay check from a corporation. Even though we have high tax rates in Sweden most of that pay check goes to different corporations as most of what I consume is produced or offered by corporations. Several of these corporations can easily and quickly make my life make my life quite miserable if they decided to and could get away with it. One of the worsts things the government could do to me is to let them.
Of course, the government prevents me from doing to my asshole neighbor what I would like to do, so I'm a bit oppressed. I have to be diplomatic instead. Not as satisfying, but probably better in the long run. Still, stupid regulations!
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
| Edited by - Starman on 04/23/2010 02:17:21 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
So it starts
