Originally posted by OliviaG:
As for addicts - sorry, SMOKERS - setting themselves up as defenders of our freedoms?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Please. Unless smokers also argue for the freedom to light up a fattie or shoot speedballs, it's self-rationalizing baloney.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
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Crśsos:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Crśsos:
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Wrong. "Nanny State" is about the government deciding what's good or bad for us, and then enforcing that decision through law.
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"
quote: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.
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:Which we do, through taxation. It's been well established on previous threads that the tax income from tobacco is more than double the cost to the NHS of smoking.
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.
quote:Yet.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, the government hasn't banned everything.
quote:I am paying for it, through taxation. The government exists to serve the people, not dictate what they can and can't do.
But can you not see that if the government pays for your healthcare,
quote:Advise, yes. Strongly recommend, even. But once it's given us all the facts it should leave the final decision up to us rather than treating us like stupid children who need a nanny to enforce "proper" behaviour.
that gives it the right to, to an extent at least, advise and, in certain circumstances, regulate and proscribe what you get up to?
quote: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?
Yes, but why should I as one taxpayer have to pay for the consequences of the wilful stupidity of another?
quote:Actually it exists to do both. Or are you suggesting there shouldn't be any laws against anything?
The government exists to serve the people, not dictate what they can and can't do.
quote:In reply I would cite Kevin's post above: in an ideal world, just as you pay a higher premium on life and critical illness insurance if you at one extreme engage in dangerous sports or at the other sit on your arse all day eating McDonalds and smoking 80 woodbines a day, so you should pay a higher rate of tax. It would be bloody expensive to administer though...
Originally posted by anteater:
MattBlack:
quote: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?
Yes, but why should I as one taxpayer have to pay for the consequences of the wilful stupidity of another?
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:And the welfare state? That's simply the government deciding what we should insure ourselves against and enforcing it through the tax system. We're adults aren't we? We can decide if we need health insurance, pensions etc., etc. or if we'd rather leave it to luck and have spend more on consumables.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Wrong. "Nanny State" is about the government deciding what's good or bad for us, and then enforcing that decision through law.
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"
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.
quote:Then you're obviously not a regular reader of Marvin (love 'im).
Originally posted by Crśsos:
quote: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.
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.
quote:That is so silly that I have to wonder if you're serious. 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!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Wrong. "Nanny State" is about the government deciding what's good or bad for us, and then enforcing that decision through law.
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"
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.
quote:So what do you believe? That we're all idiotic sheeple doing whatever our Corporate Overlords tell us to do, and in desperate need of kind, loving Nanny State to tell us exactly what to do instead? Because governments never lie to their people for their own benefit, do they?
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:Are you assuming that I'm in favour of that sort of thing?
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: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?
And the corporations that own the media. Do you really believe they let you think independently? Really? This is totally naive.
quote: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.
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:Yes.
You really think you have a choice what you eat and drink?
quote:I'm not anti-GM foods. Anti- some of the business practices surrounding them, maybe, but not the foods themselves.
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:Again, are you assuming that I'm in favour of that sort of thing?
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?
quote:Wait, you think the average seven year old has both the mental faculties and the wherewithal to conduct clinical double-blind trials to conclude that the claims made by a drug manufacturer are fraudulent? That seems absurd to the point of caricture.
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.
quote:Mountains out of molehills is part of my point, isn't it? And I'm not the one who's doing it.
Originally posted by Crśsos:
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.
quote:Well, love you to bits as we do, Marvin, it is a bit of a conundrum. I mean, take yourself as an example. 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. So you can see why we ask the question.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote: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?
And the corporations that own the media. Do you really believe they let you think independently? Really? This is totally naive.
quote: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.
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
quote: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.
Originally posted by anteater:
Anglican Brat:
quote: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.
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
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote: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.
Originally posted by anteater:
The objection is in being treated like a child.
quote:You think that's news to us, huh?
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.
quote:That ain't democracy if a rich person makes the decisions. If I agree with Marvin on one thing, it is that we can actually let most people do much of what they want to, just not really stupid expensive things, and things that harm others. But we really need to boss those who undermine the basis of equality when they pretend that being rich is about freedom for everyone else.
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.
quote:At the risk of sounding like the man in the tinfoil hat, Marvin, that is in fact exactly what big business wants you to think!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote: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.
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.
...
quote:I go out on a limb and say that not smoking is indeed the most "grown up way" to live. After countless studies proving the causal link between smoking and cancer, I consider it horrendously irrational for anyone to take up that lethal habit.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote: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.
Originally posted by anteater:
The objection is in being treated like a child.
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote:Big difference between the relationship between smoking and cancer and the relationship between sexual activity and HIV. In the case of HIV, 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.
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote: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.
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.
quote:These reduce the risk but don't eliminate it, as every advocate of abstinence will tell young people.
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.
quote:Except that the problems with tobacco are not over when the leaves are no longer burning: Third hand smoke
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.
quote:We are not born with an evolutionary drive to smoke. I've never yet met a person who enjoyed their first attempt at smoking.
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.
quote:Croesos, that is a highly country-specific statement. I am not in the relevant country. In THIS country, the sale of incandescents is now highly restricted. I can't roll on down to the local supermarket and get one.
Originally posted by Crśsos:
quote: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.
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.
quote:It seems, then, that the state hasn't been a much of a nanny in your case.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Eh? If I've struggled in the past it's been because of my own mistakes, bad decisions and failures...
quote:So this is the mutton-head response of the nanny.
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.
quote:If I wanted to be particularly stuipid I could, yes. But does anyone seriously think ensuring the availability of drinkable water is on a par with overregulation of individual decision making?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Take the provision of clean water, for instance. You could say that providing only fit-to-drink water is a symptom of the "nanny state".
quote:Are you going to charge everybody else who engages in "unneccessary" activities that are likely to increase their risk of injury or illness more as well? Shall we have a sliding scale of up-front health service costs based on lifestyle, with only those who follow the exact lifestyle dictated by the State getting a truly free service?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can we charge you lots extra for looking after you when you have your greasy heart attack?
quote:You forgot incest and folk dancing.
Originally posted by aumbry:
Soon the only allowable pastimes will be drinking water and buggery.
quote:More slippery slope.
Originally posted by aumbry:
This whole thread is based on an Aunt Sally namely that the Right's attack on the Nanny State is an attack on public services. The attack on the Nanny State is on the destruction of personal freedoms by a know-all coterie of self-regarding health fascists. Banning smoking in all pubs - soon to be followed by the banning of drinking (unless you are a millionaire).The banning of conkers doubtless to be followed by the banning of trees. The banning of fatty foods is on the horizon. The whole Health and Safety gone mad phenomenon. Soon the only allowable pastimes will be drinking water and buggery.
quote:However much the amount of slip allowed on a slope is regulated doesn't matter. A toddler on a wet slide in waterproofs goes at one hell of a lick!
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
quote:More slippery slope.
Originally posted by aumbry:
This whole thread is based on an Aunt Sally namely that the Right's attack on the Nanny State is an attack on public services. The attack on the Nanny State is on the destruction of personal freedoms by a know-all coterie of self-regarding health fascists. Banning smoking in all pubs - soon to be followed by the banning of drinking (unless you are a millionaire).The banning of conkers doubtless to be followed by the banning of trees. The banning of fatty foods is on the horizon. The whole Health and Safety gone mad phenomenon. Soon the only allowable pastimes will be drinking water and buggery.
quote:Yeah, well when we're talking about the State gaining the power to monitor, regulate and control our lives it's a pretty safe bet that the more it gets the more it will take. Governments are evil bastards that won't stop until they've dictated the outcome of every possible decision we can ever make. Not unless they're stopped, anyway - and "this must be stopped" is exactly what I and others are saying.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
More slippery slope.
quote:Nonsense. There is a moderate view, that suggests that there are limits to individual freedoms, and limits to regulation. Balance. The golden mean.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yeah, well when we're talking about the State gaining the power to monitor, regulate and control our lives it's a pretty safe bet that the more it gets the more it will take. Governments are evil bastards that won't stop until they've dictated the outcome of every possible decision we can ever make. Not unless they're stopped, anyway - and "this must be stopped" is exactly what I and others are saying.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
More slippery slope.
quote:Is this just a random observation, or do you mean it as a reply?
Originally posted by Inger:
We are not born with an evolutionary drive to smoke. I've never yet met a person who enjoyed their first attempt at smoking.
quote:What I was really responding to was this post of yours:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:Is this just a random observation, or do you mean it as a reply?
Originally posted by Inger:
We are not born with an evolutionary drive to smoke. I've never yet met a person who enjoyed their first attempt at smoking.
Where I live, there is nothing objectionable about an acquired taste just because it is acquired. Rather the contrary, if anything. In a recent interview, the new concertmaster of the Philadelphia Orchestra recalls how he detested practicing the violin as a child. But he doesn't regret it now.
quote:I would no doubt have done better to quote that, as well as this:
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.
quote:How anyone can see the two as even remotely parallel beats me. I think it's just about the most pointless analogy I've come across in a long while.
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.
quote:That's rather a contradiction. Having a government-issued standard means sub-standard products are banned. Otherwise it's a guideline, not a standard. For example, if the government issues a standard that cholera-infected water is not fit for human consumption, that constitutes a ban on the business of the proud owner of the Cholera Springs™ bottled water company. Coupled with big government anti-fraud laws, this kind of regulation would even make it illegal for him to market his product as "safe for human consumption".
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not against health standards, education, or any amount of information being given so that we can make educated decisions. What I'm against is saying that the existence of those standards means we should be banned from ever choosing something that doesn't meet them.
quote:There is no ban on conkers, at least by any government agency. See The health and safety executive's myth buster page.
Originally posted by aumbry:
This whole thread is based on an Aunt Sally namely that the Right's attack on the Nanny State is an attack on public services. The attack on the Nanny State is on the destruction of personal freedoms by a know-all coterie of self-regarding health fascists. Banning smoking in all pubs - soon to be followed by the banning of drinking (unless you are a millionaire).The banning of conkers doubtless to be followed by the banning of trees. The banning of fatty foods is on the horizon. The whole Health and Safety gone mad phenomenon. Soon the only allowable pastimes will be drinking water and buggery.
quote:The idea that fast food is on the brink of being criminalized is ludicrous. McDonald's and Burger King and other fast food chains still are free to advertise on the airwaves as well as sponsor major athletic and cultural events. The recent regulation some has proposed is that fast food companies should display nutritional information to customers. Asking companies to tell the truth isn't a grievous burden. There are no proposals that I know of to limit or restrict their commercial advertising or their corporate sponsorship. The proposed regulations, far from being a cruel onslaught foisted by a patronizing State, are IMHO relatively mild measures designed to check the power of these fast food giants.
Originally posted by Moth:
quote:There is no ban on conkers, at least by any government agency. See The health and safety executive's myth buster page.
Originally posted by aumbry:
This whole thread is based on an Aunt Sally namely that the Right's attack on the Nanny State is an attack on public services. The attack on the Nanny State is on the destruction of personal freedoms by a know-all coterie of self-regarding health fascists. Banning smoking in all pubs - soon to be followed by the banning of drinking (unless you are a millionaire).The banning of conkers doubtless to be followed by the banning of trees. The banning of fatty foods is on the horizon. The whole Health and Safety gone mad phenomenon. Soon the only allowable pastimes will be drinking water and buggery.
I doubt either drinking or eating fatty foods will be banned either. Taxed possibly, or discouraged, but not banned.
quote:That's fine by me. I'd also have no objection whatsoever to banning the sale of soft drinks and junk food in public schools-- in fact commercial propaganda of all kinds there. In this environment, it's not a question of nanny or no-nanny. The pupils are there. They are required to be there for the purpose of learning. The school acts in loco parentis, and let us hope, with the children's best interest in mind. Exposing them to profiteering (especially in return for a subsidy) is not the act of a benevolent authority.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
fast food companies should display nutritional information to customers.
quote:The limit to individual freedom should be "don't hurt anyone else". The limit to regulation should be "no more than is necessary to ensure the first thing I just said".
Originally posted by no_prophet:
There is a moderate view, that suggests that there are limits to individual freedoms, and limits to regulation. Balance. The golden mean.
quote:It ain't paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Governments as evil bastards? Smacks of paranoid thinking.
quote:The fuck it is. It's a bunch of self-interested, self-perpetuating, corrupt bastard politicians who'd happily sell each and every one of us down the river were it not for the fact that every four or five years they have to somehow convince us to vote for them. And I have no doubt that each and every one of them would happily remove that whole "voting" thing if they thought they could get away with it.
In a democracy, the gov't is us.
quote:You mean politicians?
When people feel alienated from this, then the gov'ts have become co-opted by those who would bend things to their way.
quote:I'm not talking about corporate freedom, I'm talking about individual freedom.
The primary difference between your view and mine, is that I see gov't as having potentiality for good, and see corporate freedom as essentially non-moral, non-ethical and promoting of inequality. Reasoned regulation of all of it is the key. Not discarding.
quote:Which is precisely what insurance companies do. They look at your risk factors, and charge premiums accordingly.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Are you going to charge everybody else who engages in "unneccessary" activities that are likely to increase their risk of injury or illness more as well? Shall we have a sliding scale of up-front health service costs based on lifestyle, with only those who follow the exact lifestyle dictated by the State getting a truly free service?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can we charge you lots extra for looking after you when you have your greasy heart attack?
quote:No, it means they don't get to use the big sticker saying "Up To Government Standards" in their packaging. And people then get to decide to buy it or not accordingly.
Originally posted by Crśsos:
quote:That's rather a contradiction. Having a government-issued standard means sub-standard products are banned.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not against health standards, education, or any amount of information being given so that we can make educated decisions. What I'm against is saying that the existence of those standards means we should be banned from ever choosing something that doesn't meet them.
quote:There's a hell of a lot of myths in some quarters around the whole area of regulation. Most of the regulation I ever see (and I literally write things called regulations) is not about banning things. Frankly, banning things is a heck of a lot simpler and quicker to write, but we don't do it much. Regulation is usually about ensuring quality, transparency and information.
Originally posted by Moth:
quote:There is no ban on conkers, at least by any government agency. See The health and safety executive's myth buster page.
Originally posted by aumbry:
This whole thread is based on an Aunt Sally namely that the Right's attack on the Nanny State is an attack on public services. The attack on the Nanny State is on the destruction of personal freedoms by a know-all coterie of self-regarding health fascists. Banning smoking in all pubs - soon to be followed by the banning of drinking (unless you are a millionaire).The banning of conkers doubtless to be followed by the banning of trees. The banning of fatty foods is on the horizon. The whole Health and Safety gone mad phenomenon. Soon the only allowable pastimes will be drinking water and buggery.
I doubt either drinking or eating fatty foods will be banned either. Taxed possibly, or discouraged, but not banned.
quote:But on what basis? On the basis of a near total lack of information or ability to obtain the information, except by spending a whole lot of time doing research about what experts on the topic have said about it!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And people then get to decide to buy it or not accordingly.
quote:Sorry, Alogon, you've offered absolutely no evidence of this at all. Plenty of things I like are no longer available simply because they weren't popular and the market moved in a different direction.
Originally posted by Alogon:
I have to think that the older style is no longer available because someone in the gummint decided that it wasn't safe enough.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:My money is on the former. In all seriousness. That's the way the world goes for many products, the interesting variations in boutique companies aren't sustainable in a modern ecomony where competition from cheap, bulk, mass-produced versions overwhelms everything else. Being enterprising is simply too risky. The number of different lines produced is cut back.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Either manufacturers have become unusually unenterprising, or something is at work here beyond market forces.
quote:Yes, I know, but it's a ridiculous comment. If the safety regulations banned flip handles, does Black & Decker have any power to un-ban them? No. Only the safety regulations would have the power to un-ban something that the safety regulations banned.
Originally posted by Alogon:
There is a cryptic comment at the bottom of that page about "The swing handles bring back the flexibility that the safety regulations took away."
quote:Yes, I do. In fact, that is exactly what I've been advocating - giving people the information and then letting them choose for themselves.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You don't want me to be able to do what I did yesterday, compare the nutritional information on two packets of sliced ham and pick the one with less salt in it.
quote:There is no ban on conkers, at least by any government agency. See The health and safety executive's myth buster page.
Originally posted by Moth:
[/qb]
quote:Does your state actually forbid any sex unless committed with animals, juveniles, close relatives or people who haven't agreed to it?
Originally posted by Alogon:
Can you name me a left-wing authoritarian state that doesn't restrict sexual activity considerably more than ours does at present?
quote:When the nanny state gets around to controlling sex, it can do it big time, and all for good scientific and economic reasons, too.
Already in the 1920s, erotica was treated as morally and socially subversive. The only legitimate function of sexuality was reproduction. According to the influential party educator and sexologist, Aaron Zalkind, “sexual selection should proceed according to the line of a class revolutionary-proletarian consciousness. The elements of flirtation, courtship, and coquetry should not be introduced into love relationships” (1924). In the article on “Sexual Life” in the first edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1940), the emphasis is exclusively on social control: the dangers of “unhealthy sexual interest” are discussed and the aim of sex education is clearly described as the “rational transmission of sex drive into the sphere of labor and cultural interests....
The history of the Soviet regime was one of sexual repression. Only the means of legitimation and phraseology of this suppression was changeable. In the 1920s, sexuality had to be suppressed in the name of the higher interests of the working class and Socialist revolution. In the 1930s, self-discipline was advocated for the sake of the Soviet state and Communist Party. In the 1950s, state-administrative control was gradually transformed into moral-administrative regulations, this time for the sake of stability of marriage and the family. But with all these ideological differences, the practical message regarding sex remained the same: DON’T DO IT! The Communist image of sexuality was always negative, and the need for strict external social control was always emphasized.
Please. Unless smokers also argue for the freedom to light up a fattie or shoot speedballs, it's self-rationalizing baloney. OliviaGquote:but ... effectively?
Originally posted by Alogon:
<snip>
When the nanny state gets around to controlling sex, it can do it big time, and all for good scientific and economic reasons, too.
quote:Freedom needs all the defenders it can get. The thing about free, or freedom-loving, people is that they are into many different things and it's o.k. What are fatties and speedballs?
Originally posted by OliviaG:
As for addicts - sorry, SMOKERS - setting themselves up as defenders of our freedoms?
quote:Probably not, but so what? The fact that a government can't accomplish its ostensible objective doesn't mean that it can't produce plenty of misery in the attempt. The U.S. "war on drugs" should be proof enough of that.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:but ... effectively?
Originally posted by Alogon:
<snip>
When the nanny state gets around to controlling sex, it can do it big time, and all for good scientific and economic reasons, too.
quote:Many of the requirements also only really apply when you have big business (or many small businesses) (potentially) also providing anti-nannying.
Originally posted by Albertus:
There are good grounds to believe that a lot of these so-called 'elf-&-safety-gone-mad' stories are actually attributable to concerns about being sued if something goes wrong, and I strongly suspect that a good deal of those concerns arise from the insurance companies who don't want to risk a pay-out. So risk, in these cases, is not so much risk of harm to the people involved in any activity, as risk of harm to the insurers' profits. In short, if people are being stopped from doing things, it may well be not the government, but big business that's to blame.
An interesting thought, perhaps, for those who doubt the power of business to exercise control over our lives. [/QB]
quote:You're right, Olivia. "Nanny state" is too benign. Let's use another term, if we can agree on it. I nominate "authoritarian".
Originally posted by OliviaG:
ISTM that "nanny state" is like "political correctness" in that it has no actual meaning other than "stuff I don't like." Calling either Soviet Russia or the USA a nanny state is an insult to nannies everywhere.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Alogon has the right to slice his legs off or electrocute himself with the mower of his choice, dammit! And the State should stop making it so damn difficult to achieve either of those ends.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Unites States is authoritarian because you can't get the lawnmower you want?
quote:Depends on your nanny. Some are strict, some are naughty.
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:You're right, Olivia. "Nanny state" is too benign. Let's use another term, if we can agree on it. I nominate "authoritarian".
Originally posted by OliviaG:
ISTM that "nanny state" is like "political correctness" in that it has no actual meaning other than "stuff I don't like." Calling either Soviet Russia or the USA a nanny state is an insult to nannies everywhere.
quote:I do argue for the legalisation of drugs.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Please. Unless smokers also argue for the freedom to light up a fattie or shoot speedballs, it's self-rationalizing baloney.
quote:Marvin,
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What really gets me about this thread is the amount of people who do want the State to tell them what to do all the time, and who do want to surender their decision-making process to a bunch of corrupt, self-serving politicians.
I guess it's easier to spend your whole life having someone else tell you what to do next rather than having to decide for yourself, but is it really better? I think not.
quote:1. All the time is a gross exaggeration of what the State actually does.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What really gets me about this thread is the amount of people who do want the State to tell them what to do all the time, and who do want to surender their decision-making process to a bunch of corrupt, self-serving politicians.
I guess it's easier to spend your whole life having someone else tell you what to do next rather than having to decide for yourself, but is it really better? I think not.
quote:Go to the mall. Look around. Watch a "door-crasher special" stampede and tell me those aren't zombie consumers. OMG, it's Tuesday, I
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... And as for the notion of "zombie capitalism", that mindless juxtaposition will only be justified when anyone with a skerrick of sense of proportion can come up with any version of capitalism which is remotely as pernicious as the zombie socialism (zombie leaders producing a zombie population) of a Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung or Hoxha. ...
quote:Running in Djibouti
Describe going for a jog:
Abdinasir: When I go out of my house for a run, I always ask myself ‘are you going to die today? Are you going to make it back home?’ But I have to run, there is nothing else for me.
Abdullah: You can’t run all the time. Sometimes you go out for a run and you see people fighting or shooting. You just have to turn around and go back home.
quote:Two of the regimes you point to are utterly defunct, while a third has adopted a form of capitalism that cannot be described as anything other than 'Zombie capitalism'. That leaves Kim-il-sung's banana republic without bananas.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
And as for the notion of "zombie capitalism", that mindless juxtaposition will only be justified when anyone with a skerrick of sense of proportion can come up with any version of capitalism which is remotely as pernicious as the zombie socialism (zombie leaders producing a zombie population) of a Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung or Hoxha.
It can't be done.
quote:Actually thinking of banana republics would the United Fruit Company be an example. Or for that matter the East India Company comes pretty close to Maoesque death tolls.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Two of the regimes you point to are utterly defunct, while a third has adopted a form of capitalism that cannot be described as anything other than 'Zombie capitalism'. That leaves Kim-il-sung's banana republic without bananas.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
And as for the notion of "zombie capitalism", that mindless juxtaposition will only be justified when anyone with a skerrick of sense of proportion can come up with any version of capitalism which is remotely as pernicious as the zombie socialism (zombie leaders producing a zombie population) of a Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung or Hoxha.
It can't be done.
You've got to give capitalism credit for being persistent: many of those who would be better off without it defend it.
quote:The USSR wanted to control peoples' sex lives? No surprise there: Soviet Communism was by defintition an all-pervading ideology. However, there's no necessary connection between holding either big-state or small-state beliefs and wanting to control, or not control, private sexual activity. France, for example, has probably the strongest statist tradition in Europe, and has long had some pretty liberal laws about sex- for example, homosexual activity between adults has not been a crime in France since 1791. OTOH, what about all those US states which long prohibited e.g. heterosexual oral sex, in some cases even between married couples ? You're not telling me that states like Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Utah, (and Florida, where AIUI living in open adultery is still a misdemeanour)have all always been hotbeds of nanny-state interference?
Originally posted by Alogon:
Not yet (although you forgot prostitution. Both parties can consent, but apparently if there's money involved it doesn't count.) But, then, I'm not calling my state left-wing authoritarian, either--yet. Ask me again in ten years.
As for actual left-wing authoritarian states (assuming the term is meaningful)-- we probably wouldn't have enjoyed the sexual environment of the Soviet Union, for example.
Koppel on Sex in the Soviet Union
Gorby, that nice old softie, "is concerned enough to have set up a commission this month to 'take urgent measures to protect social morals.'" [Dec. 1990]. Koppel comments (after hearing horror stories), "Under socialism, the needs and feelings of individuals have always been secondary."
International Encyclopedia of Sexuality - Russia
quote:When the nanny state gets around to controlling sex, it can do it big time, and all for good scientific and economic reasons, too.
Already in the 1920s, erotica was treated as morally and socially subversive. The only legitimate function of sexuality was reproduction. According to the influential party educator and sexologist, Aaron Zalkind, “sexual selection should proceed according to the line of a class revolutionary-proletarian consciousness. The elements of flirtation, courtship, and coquetry should not be introduced into love relationships” (1924). In the article on “Sexual Life” in the first edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1940), the emphasis is exclusively on social control: the dangers of “unhealthy sexual interest” are discussed and the aim of sex education is clearly described as the “rational transmission of sex drive into the sphere of labor and cultural interests....
The history of the Soviet regime was one of sexual repression. Only the means of legitimation and phraseology of this suppression was changeable. In the 1920s, sexuality had to be suppressed in the name of the higher interests of the working class and Socialist revolution. In the 1930s, self-discipline was advocated for the sake of the Soviet state and Communist Party. In the 1950s, state-administrative control was gradually transformed into moral-administrative regulations, this time for the sake of stability of marriage and the family. But with all these ideological differences, the practical message regarding sex remained the same: DON’T DO IT! The Communist image of sexuality was always negative, and the need for strict external social control was always emphasized.
quote:Straw man.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What really gets me about this thread is the amount of people who do want the State to tell them what to do all the time, and who do want to surender their decision-making process to a bunch of corrupt, self-serving politicians.
I guess it's easier to spend your whole life having someone else tell you what to do next rather than having to decide for yourself, but is it really better? I think not.
quote:It wouldn’t matter if they were all defunct.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Two of the regimes you point to are utterly defunct, while a third has adopted a form of capitalism that cannot be described as anything other than 'Zombie capitalism'. That leaves Kim-il-sung's banana republic without bananas.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
And as for the notion of "zombie capitalism", that mindless juxtaposition will only be justified when anyone with a skerrick of sense of proportion can come up with any version of capitalism which is remotely as pernicious as the zombie socialism (zombie leaders producing a zombie population) of a Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung or Hoxha.
It can't be done.
quote:Ah, dear old "false consciousness", the ultimate in Western middle-class omniscience!
You've got to give capitalism credit for being persistent: many of those who would be better off without it defend it.
quote:You sound very confident of that. But look at the rationale. The same reasons which have been invoked to stamp out smoking, require seat belt use, and impose various other restrictions can be turned against "private" sexual activity: namely health and the prevention of disease, hence unnecessary expense. It doesn't matter what an official's ulterior motives may be (and these can exist, as well, as you've pointed out). We've already been conditioned to swallow the argument, complete with the unexamined leap between is and ought.
Originally posted by Albertus:
However, there's no necessary connection between holding either big-state or small-state beliefs and wanting to control, or not control, private sexual activity.
quote:That's the first time I've heard it called 'the playground' but it's as good a term as any. Thanks.
Originally posted by Alogon:
<snip> Ten years ago, a six-year-old was hauled away in handcuffs for kissing a classmate on the playground.
quote:At what point, pray, did you supply the proof?
Originally posted by Alogon:
(3) I suppy the proof.
quote:To quote a coffee mug slogan, “It’s not rocket surgery”.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Kaplan Corday,
I have read and re-read your comments. How you make what you have done of my response to you is a mystery to me. I can say no more.
quote:There are good grounds to believe that a lot of these so-called 'elf-&-safety-gone-mad' stories are actually attributable to concerns about being sued if something goes wrong, and I strongly suspect that a good deal of those concerns arise from the insurance companies who don't want to risk a pay-out. So risk, in these cases, is not so much risk of harm to the people involved in any activity, as risk of harm to the insurers' profits. In short, if people are being stopped from doing things, it may well be not the government, but big business that's to blame.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:There is no ban on conkers, at least by any government agency. See The health and safety executive's myth buster page.
Originally posted by Moth:
quote:Actually, quite often it's because people take court decisions and run with them in quite bizarre ways that the court in question never intended.
Originally posted by aumbry:
If the insurance companies are promoting a risk averse culture then that is because the courts have been too inclined to allow frivolous claims to be made and then given substantial damages that have made them so.
quote:Safety regulations have to take into account that whatever tool or process is involved, it will be done by many, many different people with differing skill levels. People can be tired or distracted. They may not read the instructions thoroughly or follow them precisely. The product or process has to be safe for the user in most reasonably foreseeable circumstances, not just when everything it perfect. Employers are also responsible for the safety of their employees. So it's more than just assuming that since you've changed a light bulb in the past, that millions of people will be able to do so without accident. OliviaG
Originally posted by aumbry:
]There are good grounds to believe that a lot of these so-called 'elf-&-safety-gone-mad' stories are actually attributable to concerns about being sued if something goes wrong, and I strongly suspect that a good deal of those concerns arise from the insurance companies who don't want to risk a pay-out. ...
quote:Yes, I think so. Bear in mind that even having to defend a claim which is pretty much certain to fail can still cost a good deal of time and money, so there's an incentive to play safe. As for the comment above about a council cutting down conker trees- of course, you need to look at why they did that. That's the point I've been trying to make- you have to look beyond the headline.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Actually, quite often it's because people take court decisions and run with them in quite bizarre ways that the court in question never intended.
Originally posted by aumbry:
If the insurance companies are promoting a risk averse culture then that is because the courts have been too inclined to allow frivolous claims to be made and then given substantial damages that have made them so.
quote:That is indeed true re defending even hopeless claims. And it's not an easy one to solve, because there are real problems in getting a definitive response that it's hopeless at an early stage - especially if someone is pursuing a claim for other motives, eg publicity, rather than purely on their assessment of the merits.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Yes, I think so. Bear in mind that even having to defend a claim which is pretty much certain to fail can still cost a good deal of time and money, so there's an incentive to play safe. As for the comment above about a council cutting down conker trees- of course, you need to look at why they did that. That's the point I've been trying to make- you have to look beyond the headline.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Actually, quite often it's because people take court decisions and run with them in quite bizarre ways that the court in question never intended.
Originally posted by aumbry:
If the insurance companies are promoting a risk averse culture then that is because the courts have been too inclined to allow frivolous claims to be made and then given substantial damages that have made them so.
