"No, this is exactly what I am saying. I don't know why people always assume I'm arguing for the ideal when I'm not. I guess because it's easier to argue against me if you just assume my position to be something that it's not."
I know that is exactly what you are saying, I wasn't claiming any different. What I was doing is pointing out that you have never actually offered any evidence in support of the position. You stated it as a truism and then argued from there. I am telling you that your truism is not being accepted as proven so your entire argument falls apart unless you have some evidence somewhere that government regulations offer a measurable improvement over all possible alternatives.
I am practically begging you to try to support that argument here and you are not doing it, the closest you come is to say "well we passed the regulations and then food got safer", which is like my saying the New England Patriots never won the Superbowl until after Al Qaeda attacked on 9-11 therefore if Al Qaeda had not attacked the Patriots would never have won a Superbowl.
Yes, we passed the regulations, and the food got safer but there were a million other factors flying around at the same time including a massive increase in science and technology and a massive increase in public concern about health. Those 2 forces alone would have driven the food to get safer, perhaps not as safe as the regulations, or perhaps left to their own devices even better systems of safety would have been developed.
In the end however simply saying A happened before B therefore A caused B is sloppy thinking at best, and more likely intentionally disingenuous to prove a point.
So what evidence do you have that regulation and not improved science and technology was the primary driver of increases in food safety?
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 03:53 (UTC)I know that is exactly what you are saying, I wasn't claiming any different. What I was doing is pointing out that you have never actually offered any evidence in support of the position. You stated it as a truism and then argued from there. I am telling you that your truism is not being accepted as proven so your entire argument falls apart unless you have some evidence somewhere that government regulations offer a measurable improvement over all possible alternatives.
I am practically begging you to try to support that argument here and you are not doing it, the closest you come is to say "well we passed the regulations and then food got safer", which is like my saying the New England Patriots never won the Superbowl until after Al Qaeda attacked on 9-11 therefore if Al Qaeda had not attacked the Patriots would never have won a Superbowl.
Yes, we passed the regulations, and the food got safer but there were a million other factors flying around at the same time including a massive increase in science and technology and a massive increase in public concern about health. Those 2 forces alone would have driven the food to get safer, perhaps not as safe as the regulations, or perhaps left to their own devices even better systems of safety would have been developed.
In the end however simply saying A happened before B therefore A caused B is sloppy thinking at best, and more likely intentionally disingenuous to prove a point.
So what evidence do you have that regulation and not improved science and technology was the primary driver of increases in food safety?