You have to be trolling me now. You even accepted my premise as fact and still pull this card.
I...I did? Let's not call each other trolls - we disagree, that's all it is.
99.9% is a guarantee. If I give you 99.9 to 1 odds on winning roulette you would be withdrawing all your money from your bank account before I could finish the sentence. If you claim that 99.9% is not a guarantee then you have no idea what the word means.
lol, okay.
Nobody was talking about what consumers do with their regulated food. We're talking about government regulation on producers, not your wife.
You missed my point. My point was to bring up the reality that most regulation could be deemed unnecessary if consumers were more careful, and that no amount of regulation can fix stupid consumer choices.
my response to that was that I had no sympathy for producers that willingly create tainted food.
Nor do you have sympathy for producers who a) do not create tainted food but b) are forced out of the market by the bigger boys due to your regulatory desires.
Alright, this is proof positive that you ignored my link 2 replies ago.
I was looking for more than Wikipedia clones, sorry.
When I have countless sources on my side, and you have a boxed-up book, who looks like the conspiracy theorist? Food regulation is a century old and NOBODY is claiming that the primary purpose was to reduce competition.
If you need to toss that sort of nonsense around, you and I won't go far. But plenty of places discuss it in various forms, such as this (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1239523). Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal is not boxed up, and you have yet to even admit I pointed it out...
The thing I don't understand is... why? Why do you scoff at the facts of the matter? What do you gain by denying history? I'll never, for the life of me, understand your stubbornness.
First, I'm not denying history. Second, I'm stubborn about the facts - I'm not saying food regulation has been or is worthless, I'm merely asking you to also note that it has significant negatives associated with it.
You ask "Why?" Because people need to stop trying to get the government to solve every problem they have.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 20/7/11 00:27 (UTC)I...I did? Let's not call each other trolls - we disagree, that's all it is.
99.9% is a guarantee. If I give you 99.9 to 1 odds on winning roulette you would be withdrawing all your money from your bank account before I could finish the sentence. If you claim that 99.9% is not a guarantee then you have no idea what the word means.
lol, okay.
Nobody was talking about what consumers do with their regulated food. We're talking about government regulation on producers, not your wife.
You missed my point. My point was to bring up the reality that most regulation could be deemed unnecessary if consumers were more careful, and that no amount of regulation can fix stupid consumer choices.
my response to that was that I had no sympathy for producers that willingly create tainted food.
Nor do you have sympathy for producers who a) do not create tainted food but b) are forced out of the market by the bigger boys due to your regulatory desires.
Alright, this is proof positive that you ignored my link 2 replies ago.
I was looking for more than Wikipedia clones, sorry.
When I have countless sources on my side, and you have a boxed-up book, who looks like the conspiracy theorist? Food regulation is a century old and NOBODY is claiming that the primary purpose was to reduce competition.
If you need to toss that sort of nonsense around, you and I won't go far. But plenty of places discuss it in various forms, such as this (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1239523). Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal is not boxed up, and you have yet to even admit I pointed it out...
The thing I don't understand is... why? Why do you scoff at the facts of the matter? What do you gain by denying history? I'll never, for the life of me, understand your stubbornness.
First, I'm not denying history. Second, I'm stubborn about the facts - I'm not saying food regulation has been or is worthless, I'm merely asking you to also note that it has significant negatives associated with it.
You ask "Why?" Because people need to stop trying to get the government to solve every problem they have.