Posted                          

quote:

---

Divine Comedy wrote in the Eye of the Needle (lyrics)
The cars in the churchyard are shiny and German
Distinctly at odds with the theme of the sermon
And during communion I study the people
Threading themselves through the eye of the needle

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Smoking is an obvious example. Other botherations not much to my liking are mandatory wearing of seat belts (on principle, although it is a good idea and I do it), and the creeping prohibition of incandescent light bulbs.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Smoking is an obvious example. Other botherations not much to my liking are mandatory wearing of seat belts (on principle, although it is a good idea and I do it), and the creeping prohibition of incandescent light bulbs.

---

The whole incandescent light bulb thing has always seemed to be a petty and paranoid thing to get obsessed over. It's kind of like getting all worked up that you can't buy leaded gasoline anymore. Even if it were true, it seems a very strange (mole)hill on which to make a stand.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I was actually quite worried about it initially on health grounds. I'm a migraine sufferer and certain flourescent lights are a known trigger for me, with their subliminal flicker. Epilepsy sufferers were also concerned for the same reason.

Happily, it seems that as the technology improves, the risks (for me at least) are much less. Only the cheapest compact fluorescents might still have the subliminal flicker problem. BUT, it is worth noting that one of the first compact fluoros I bought was indeed a risk, and I threw it out after a very short period of time.

The concern wasn't so much for life in my own house, where I could choose to buy better globes, but the idea that I would risk a migraine every time I entered any other house. That's not a molehill at all in my book. And it certainly wouldn't be a molehill for someone at risk of epileptic seizures.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I was actually quite worried about it initially on health grounds. I'm a migraine sufferer and certain flourescent lights are a known trigger for me, with their subliminal flicker. Epilepsy sufferers were also concerned for the same reason.

Happily, it seems that as the technology improves, the risks (for me at least) are much less. Only the cheapest compact fluorescents might still have the subliminal flicker problem. BUT, it is worth noting that one of the first compact fluoros I bought was indeed a risk, and I threw it out after a very short period of time.

The concern wasn't so much for life in my own house, where I could choose to buy better globes, but the idea that I would risk a migraine every time I entered any other house. That's not a molehill at all in my book. And it certainly wouldn't be a molehill for someone at risk of epileptic seizures.

---

That's not just a problem with compact fluorescent lights, but any ballasted light fixture (which includes the more common long-tube fluorescents, metal halides, mercury vapor lamps, etc.) The big factor for human sensitivity is whether they're electronically or magnetically ballasted.

Magnetically ballasted lamps (which are the less efficient variety) flicker at whatever the local AC power frequency is (50 Hz in Europe, 60 Hz in North America). This is slow enough to be perceptible to about one person in three and can cause problems for those who are particularly sensitive (like migraine sufferers or epileptics). The more efficient electronically ballasted lamps flicker at a rate somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 Hz, which is way too fast to register in human perception.

The upshot of this impromptu lesson in lighting efficiency is that the new standards are actually quite beneficial to anyone sensitive to low-frequency flickering light since they're mostly geared towards phasing out magnetically ballasted lamps. This means not just compact fluorescents but shifting long-tube fixtures from T-12 (the thick tubes, which are almost all magnetically ballasted) to T-8 (the thinner tubes, almost always electronically ballasted) or T-5 (the really thin tubes that are always electronically ballasted). While this isn't a big factor for domestic use, it can be a huge factor in determining which businesses a flicker-sensitive person can patronize.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes. You're not telling me anything I didn't already know. The entire point is that with incandescent bulbs, the whole question of "what kind of ballast" never even had to come up. I am explaining to you that there was a cause for concern. All you're telling me is that the concern has been addressed, not that there was no reason to be concerned in the first place.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
"Nanny state" seems be used pejoratively to label both something that actually has many good points and to express a hypocritical ideology. The correct term is "welfare state"

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The regulation of behaviour stems, I suppose from the unwritten social contract that arises out of haveing a state-funded NHS eg: don't want to where a seatbelt? Fine, go ahead. Just don't expect to be treated by the NHS when you catapult yourself through the windscreen.

---

quote:

---

Wanto to light up? Ok, but (a) don't do it near anyone else and (b) pay for your own treatment for cancer and / or heart disease.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, the government hasn't banned everything.

---

quote:

---

But can you not see that if the government pays for your healthcare,

---

quote:

---

that gives it the right to, to an extent at least, advise and, in certain circumstances, regulate and proscribe what you get up to?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Yes, but why should I as one taxpayer have to pay for the consequences of the wilful stupidity of another?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The government exists to serve the people, not dictate what they can and can't do.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
MattBlack:

quote:

---

Yes, but why should I as one taxpayer have to pay for the consequences of the wilful stupidity of another?

---

Which is why, if everyone were of that persuasion, the welfare state becomes the controlling nanny state. And presumably you are the judge of what is stupid? Running a marathon for charity? Hill-walking? Sport? (Musn't have competitive sport, or people may try and then they may hurt themselves). Whatever could have any health consequences. Where does it stop?

As you will have gather I dislike the Nanny state intensely. At least is proves that tight-arsed puritanism is not particularly a sin of religious people.

I do think the OP is very misleading. in not referring to any of the control actions which is precisely what some people want to see and others to get rid of. I hope that the only way to get rid of creeping state control isn't to get rid of the welfare state. Presumably then you would allow us our freedom.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's ludicrous, though. They might as well ban everything that can possibly cause someone to end up in hospital and force us all to live in sterile conditions with only vetted and approved food and water to consume, wrapped up in cotton wool so that we can't hurt ourselves and injected with prozac so we don't all go crazy from the sheer hell of it all.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
"Nanny state" seems be used pejoratively to label both something that actually has many good points and to express a hypocritical ideology. The correct term is "welfare state"

---

Wrong. "Nanny State" is about the government deciding what's good or bad for us, and then enforcing that decision through law.

We're adults, dammit, and we should have the right to decide what's good or bad for us on our own. We neither need nor want the State to be telling us exactly what we can and can't eat, drink, smoke, watch or read. Shit, at the rate they're going they'll be telling us what we can and can't think soon.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's ludicrous, though. They might as well ban everything that can possibly cause someone to end up in hospital and force us all to live in sterile conditions with only vetted and approved food and water to consume, wrapped up in cotton wool so that we can't hurt ourselves and injected with prozac so we don't all go crazy from the sheer hell of it all.

---

Wow, it's been a while since I've heard someone advance the idea that food safety regulations and clean water standards are an intolerable tyranny.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
"Nanny state" seems be used pejoratively to label both something that actually has many good points and to express a hypocritical ideology. The correct term is "welfare state"

---

Wrong. "Nanny State" is about the government deciding what's good or bad for us, and then enforcing that decision through law.

We're adults, dammit, and we should have the right to decide what's good or bad for us on our own. We neither need nor want the State to be telling us exactly what we can and can't eat, drink, smoke, watch or read. Shit, at the rate they're going they'll be telling us what we can and can't think soon.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
Adults decide what's good or bad on their own? Governments not telling us what to eat or drink? You have to be kidding! What to think? Really you believe this? Oh me oh my!

---

quote:

---

If you're a banker, auto manufacturer, hyper rich corporatist, you own the government such that when you rise up on your piggy hind legs, make decisions and torpedo your company, you get bzillions from the gov't in cash handouts.

---

quote:

---

And the corporations that own the media. Do you really believe they let you think independently? Really? This is totally naive.

---

quote:

---

Ask advertisers what you should believe and chug your high fructose corn syrop beverage all the way to the emergency room for diabetes health care you won't get.

---

quote:

---

You really think you have a choice what you eat and drink?

---

quote:

---

Never heard of GMOs that are mixed in with non-GMOs and how Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Dow Chem are forcing their frankenfood onto the world market.

---

quote:

---

Manipulating WTO? Never heard of corn farmer subsidies, who have packed so much sugar into foodstuffs that they can only think we need to burn it in our gas tanks? Forced Mexicans off the farm into border town drug exporters?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Advertisers want me to buy their product, and tell all sorts of lies to try to persuade me to do so. But because I'm neither a total fucking leotard nor six years old I don't take their claims at face value, and I make my own damn mind up about what to buy.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The whole incandescent light bulb thing has always seemed to be a petty and paranoid thing to get obsessed over. It's kind of like getting all worked up that you can't buy leaded gasoline anymore. Even if it were true, it seems a very strange (mole)hill on which to make a stand.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

And the corporations that own the media. Do you really believe they let you think independently? Really? This is totally naive.

---

So what should I believe? That they're all nefariously controlling my thoughts? Do you think we should invest in tinfoil hats to protect us from their evil mindray? Or should we let kind, loving Nanny State tell us what the real truth is? Because governments never lie to their people for their own benefit, do they?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

What I don't get by people who cry "Nanny state" whenever the issue is anti-smoking regulations or insisting that fast food restaurants publish nutritional information is that by in large, these policies save money for the tax payer in the long run

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
Anglican Brat:

quote:

---

What I don't get by people who cry "Nanny state" whenever the issue is anti-smoking regulations or insisting that fast food restaurants publish nutritional information is that by in large, these policies save money for the tax payer in the long run

---

For someone who objects to the Nanny-state, it's not at all necessary to deny that they will often be a good reason for what they say. The objection is in being treated like a child.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
There you are, by your own admission (see your past posts passim) not exactly raking it in and indeed having found things a bit tough from time to time, yet you pretty consistently argue in favour of the particular version of the capitalist system that keeps screwing you.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
The objection is in being treated like a child.

---

Then stop behaving like a child. Show a bit of consideration for others by keeping your fags at home, and eat a grown-up balanced diet. If we all could behave that way then the nanny state would not be required.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What I don't get by people who cry "Nanny state" whenever the issue is anti-smoking regulations or insisting that fast food restaurants publish nutritional information is that by in large, these policies save money for the tax payer in the long run.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Stephen King wrote in the above referenced link
Most rich folks paying 28 percent taxes do not give out another 28 percent of their income to charity. Most rich folks like to keep their dough. They don't strip their bank accounts and investment portfolios. They keep them and then pass them on to their children, their children's children. And what they do give away is - like the monies my wife and I donate - totally at their own discretion. That's the rich-guy philosophy in a nutshell: don't tell us how to use our money; we'll tell you.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
There you are, by your own admission (see your past posts passim) not exactly raking it in and indeed having found things a bit tough from time to time, yet you pretty consistently argue in favour of the particular version of the capitalist system that keeps screwing you.

---

Eh? If I've struggled in the past it's been because of my own mistakes, bad decisions and failures, not because of some shadowy conspiracy dedicated to keeping me down.
...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
The objection is in being treated like a child.

---

Then stop behaving like a child. Show a bit of consideration for others by keeping your fags at home, and eat a grown-up balanced diet. If we all could behave that way then the nanny state would not be required.

---

So the only way to prevent the State from forcing us all to live in a certain way is to live that way of our own free will.

Wait, what?

Who the hell is anyone to say that there's only one "grown-up" way to live, and anyone who doesn't live that way is a child who needs to be controlled? Seriously, what the fuck?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
After countless studies proving the causal link between smoking and cancer, I consider it horrendously irrational for anyone to take up that lethal habit.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
After countless studies proving the causal link between smoking and cancer, I consider it horrendously irrational for anyone to take up that lethal habit.

---

For "smoking and cancer" why not just substitute "sex and AIDS"? You'd have a slam dunk case there, too. Think of all the money that would be saved on medical care if people never had non-reproductive sex. Maybe it's only just a matter of time before that shoe will drop, too.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
there are certain conditions that a person can engage in to prevent or ameliorate the risk to HIV (such as using condoms and/or limiting one's sexual partners.

---

quote:

---

I don't know of any instance where one can smoke and not be substantively at risk at contacting any of its negative effects.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Go ahead, call me immature and irrational all you want. I don't need scientific studies. People essentially knew the truth way back in Sir Walter Raleigh's day. I smoke a pipe, by the way, never cigarettes, but that probably doesn't mollify you in the least.

If the concern is children as passengers, this is understandable. So ban smoking in cars when children are present, not even when the driver is the only occupant. This should be a simple enough distinction. But is it made?

---

quote:

---

Scientific American from above link
Third-hand smoke refers to the tobacco toxins that build up over time—one cigarette will coat the surface of a certain room [a second cigarette will add another coat, and so on]. The third-hand smoke is the stuff that remains [after visible or "second-hand smoke" has dissipated from the air]
....
Who gets exposure to those surfaces? Babies and children are closer to [surfaces such as floors]. They tend to touch or even mouth [put their mouths to] the contaminated surfaces. Imagine a teething infant.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:


Smoking and sex outside of marriage are both so unnecessary! How can a rational, mature, and economically responsible society possibly discourage one while continuing to allow (and often celebrate) the other?

Nice try wiggling out of the parallels; but as the saying goes, no cigar.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes. You're not telling me anything I didn't already know. The entire point is that with incandescent bulbs, the whole question of "what kind of ballast" never even had to come up. I am explaining to you that there was a cause for concern. All you're telling me is that the concern has been addressed, not that there was no reason to be concerned in the first place.

---

Actually I'm saying both. The alleged federal "ban" on incandescent light bulbs is a paranoid fiction. Not only was an outright ban never contemplated, the higher energy standards actually helped move existing incandescent technologies from the lab to market.

---