US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1356
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On October 21 2014 11:38 ZeaL. wrote: Does that not make you even the slightest bit uncomfortable? That policy concerning things the majority of the population does not understand is up for popular vote? I guess if 80% of our population doesn't "believe in" vaccines and global warming, well fuck all that. Everyone is a layman on 90% of the topics that politics address. Obviously it concerns me that people oppose vaccination, but that doesn't mean that I'd start to vaccinate people without their consent. If you don't label gm-food with the intention of selling people products they would otherwise not buy that is exactly what you're doing. | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
On October 21 2014 11:38 ZeaL. wrote: Does that not make you even the slightest bit uncomfortable? That policy concerning things the majority of the population does not understand is up for popular vote? I guess if 80% of our population doesn't "believe in" vaccines and global warming, well fuck all that. It's a label. I can't stretch that enough. A stupid little info label. Yes it's not enough and by all accounts a flawed law/way to educate people, especially since it's probably more about patenting issues than health safety issues. And still, by that logic we should abandon democracy altogether. I have a proposal and would add something very special - forbidding "stupid" opinions. That will show all them stoopiders. Americans abandoning the untouchable sanctity of FREEDOM. Now I've seen it all. | ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41091 Posts
In the United States, 21 cities have restricted sharing food with homeless people through legislation or community pressure since January 2013, and about 10 other cities are in the process of doing so, the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) said in a report released Monday. “One of the most narrow-minded ideas when it comes to homelessness and food-sharing is that sharing food with people in need enables them to remain homeless,” the report said. The report was released a day before Fort Lauderdale, Florida, was set to vote “on the city’s third ordinance this year that will target the life-sustaining activities of people experiencing homelessness,” the NCH said in a news release. “If the biggest crimes we had to worry about in this country were sitting, sleeping (in public places) and eating and sharing food, we would be in a freaking good state,” said Paul Boden, director of Western Regional Advocacy Project, the organization that launched the Homeless Bill of Rights campaign, an ongoing movement to introduce legislation in California and Oregon to "overturn local laws targeted to remove people from public space." Source | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 21 2014 09:35 IgnE wrote: What are the costs of labeling? Spell them out for us. My argument was that yes consumers should have a right to know if they ask for it, and that increasing transparency on food labels would rebuild some of the consumers' goodwill toward the food industry. It doesn't really matter that much either way. I don't care if some corporations lose some sales because all the soy in their processed garbage comes from Monsanto. Labeling is a small step towards increased transparency about food sourcing, and I think we can all agree that knowing where your food comes from is a good thing. No one is really sure how much the labeling would cost, but it has the potential to affect the entire supply chain. An example: That's one of the main arguments presented by the anti-labeling campaigns. The other is the potential increase in production costs. That's the concern of former Washington state agriculture director and full-time farmer Dan Newhouse. As a farmer who grows some GMO and some non-GMO, he says it's going to be hard work keeping them separate. He imagines moving a harvester from a field of one kind of corn to the other. "I'd have to be able to clean that harvester so well, that there's not one kernel of [GMO] corn on that machine," Newhouse says. "So I would not be able to guarantee that there's no commingling." Opponents of mandatory labeling say the extra effort would increase the price of food by an average of $450 a year, for a family of four. While an independent study by the Washington State Academy of Sciences agreed that labeling would come with a cost, it noted that it's impossible to calculate how much that cost would be. Link Side note - Vermont's GMO labeling law includes a fund for anticipated legal defenses (source). | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 21 2014 12:59 IgnE wrote: So costs are just a bogeyman then. No. There's no way to place an exact figure on the costs, but to call the costs a 'boogeyman' is flat out wrong. | ||
NovaTheFeared
United States7201 Posts
EDIT: If you want to look for a model on voluntary labeling think of any number of labeling fads based on diets like gluten free etc. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
NovaTheFeared
United States7201 Posts
On October 21 2014 13:20 IgnE wrote: That's stupid. The FDA has nothing to do with a democratic vote on whether to label foods. It has quite a lot to do with it actually. Since the vote is to override the FDA's determination that GMO foods are safe and do not need labeling. The advocates believe GMO foods are unsafe and need to be labeled so they can avoid them. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
So firstly the vote is not about whether the FDA is being "overruled." Secondly, even if it were, that would be a valid exercise of democratic power. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 21 2014 13:29 IgnE wrote: So it's okay to stand against scientists/experts if you can call it democratic process and impute motives to the advocates -- your special interest groups that fight on the side of the angels. Hmm, I wonder if you flinch when suddenly its the scientists/experts you want to hold the day, damn the democratic process because you don't agree with the motives.No, those are two overlapping regimes. If people voted to prominently label all foods with added sugar then that also would be a valid democratic measure. The advocates just want to inform the consumers; the consumers then can choose how they will. The FDA has its own procedures that are suited for different purposes. There's nothing contradictory about having both. So firstly the vote is not about whether the FDA is being "overruled." Secondly, even if it were, that would be a valid exercise of democratic power. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
It's honestly confusing what you people are arguing. This isn't about standing against anything. This isn't about whether GMO people are right or wrong. This isn't a referendum on whether the public is going to "overrule" the scientists. If there's a ballot initiative and the people decide they want to do something, they should be able to do it. | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
On October 21 2014 14:59 Danglars wrote: So it's okay to stand against scientists/experts if you can call it democratic process and impute motives to the advocates -- your special interest groups that fight on the side of the angels. Hmm, I wonder if you flinch when suddenly its the scientists/experts you want to hold the day, damn the democratic process because you don't agree with the motives. You tend to agree a lot with Conservative ideology and might be familiar with the evangelical vote. You tell me/us. | ||
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On October 21 2014 11:52 Doublemint wrote: It's a label. I can't stretch that enough. A stupid little info label. Yes it's not enough and by all accounts a flawed law/way to educate people, especially since it's probably more about patenting issues than health safety issues. And still, by that logic we should abandon democracy altogether. I have a proposal and would add something very special - forbidding "stupid" opinions. That will show all them stoopiders. Americans abandoning the untouchable sanctity of FREEDOM. Now I've seen it all. Hm, and you must be missing the part where activist groups are preparing for a labeled world where they can organize boycotts and protests, with the end goal of banning GM crops entirely. It's highly disingenuous for left-wingers to say they're doing this in the interest of consumer habits, when they're literally opposed to consumerism. You're illustrating it yourself when you say you support labels even as you admit they're not informative and not relevant to food safety. EDIT: My personal opinion is if you can prove that GMO crops pose a serious health risk to consumers, then I'd be all for labeling or more rigorous safety regulations. Which is what happens with allergens and with animal hormones. But when the arguments are either hypotheticals about splicing pigs with oranges or talking about Monsanto as a litigious company, I don't think there's any serious substance to it. | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
On October 21 2014 16:57 coverpunch wrote: Hm, and you must be missing the part where activist groups are preparing for a labeled world where they can organize boycotts and protests, with the end goal of banning GM crops entirely. It's highly disingenuous for left-wingers to say they're doing this in the interest of consumer habits, when they're literally opposed to consumerism. You're illustrating it yourself when you say you support labels even as you admit they're not informative and not relevant to food safety. EDIT: My personal opinion is if you can prove that GMO crops pose a serious health risk to consumers, then I'd be all for labeling or more rigorous safety regulations. Which is what happens with allergens and with animal hormones. But when the arguments are either hypotheticals about splicing pigs with oranges or talking about Monsanto as a litigious company, I don't think there's any serious substance to it. Had to chuckle at that. What do I care what some activists are doing or planning to do... I am hardly against GMOs. I want it labelled. Period. People in EU are just way more timid and "conservative" when it comes to food and GMOs. That's also why there's such strong opposition to TTIP, among other preposterous terms proposed there. //edit: A labeled world. Damn. What a world would that be. Would I want to live there? + Show Spoiler + LOL ///edit: nowhere did I say that I generally think labels are worthless. you are putting words in my mouth. In this particular case the law is apparently flawed. many (more conservative leaning) people in this thread tend to believe that, and I had it mentioned a couple of times while I read up on the topic. I tend to agree with their criticism. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 21 2014 15:35 IgnE wrote: Yeah talk about confusing! I feel I've spent half my responses trying to advance the argument that people can be idiots and the right to decide they want to be idiots. Now you affect to take that position, but the very next time its a social issue you're against, I know it'll be reduced to some rights & privilege defense. Once its not GMOs but economic freedoms, it can't be left to democracy ... it simply must be surrendered to administrative law which knows best and insulates us from those sheer excesses of idiots. Hmmm I wonder if you can tell the difference between thinking the electorate are idiots and thinking the electorate shouldn't be able to decide anything. People can be idiots and still have the right to decide they want to be idiots. It's honestly confusing what you people are arguing. This isn't about standing against anything. This isn't about whether GMO people are right or wrong. This isn't a referendum on whether the public is going to "overrule" the scientists. If there's a ballot initiative and the people decide they want to do something, they should be able to do it. It really hasn't anything to do with the form of a ballot initiative. You simply can dismiss the substance of your own prior stands because you selectively choose to see no harm. It's about rationality except for what you turn a blind eye to, because then idiots are permitted to remain idiots with political power and you deign not to sieze it from them. | ||
| ||