California Raids Rawesome Food - Page 16

On August 07 2011 10:47 xarthaz wrote:
Safe does not imply good.

That is the fundamental problem with the regulation argument.Like the example that was: government puts your brain into subsistence chamber with necessary nutrients to maximize life expectancy of your brain. That would be the safest life possible. But a bad one, for many people

The product "harming customer" situation is a case of mismatch. That the subject of action perceiving action(selling good product) to be different than what action actually was(selling dud/hazard) which is not a case of the action good, subject of action good system that refutes utilitarian justifications of regulation. In other words, scams and frauds are subject to management.

Safe does not imply good.

On August 07 2011 10:47 xarthaz wrote:
Safe does not imply good.

That is the fundamental problem with the regulation argument.Like the example that was: government puts your brain into subsistence chamber with necessary nutrients to maximize life expectancy of your brain. That would be the safest life possible. But a bad one, for many people

On August 07 2011 10:58 FallDownMarigold wrote:


xarthaz, normal people in the normal, logical world value 'good' in the case of food as meaning 'does not increase your risk to becoming sick'. normal people do not opt out of this form of 'good' for what might taste better AT THE EXPENSE OF HEALTH OUTLAYS.

On August 07 2011 10:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:


This is the worst, most awful kind of circular logic. Any example that contradicts my argument is invalid because it contradicts my argument. Only "action good" actions are valid to use as foundation for my arguments based on universal irrefutable praxeological self-evident truths, "action bad" actions are not valid to use as foundation for an argument against my universal irrefutable praxeological self-evident truths.



Safe implies safe, which most people make a value judgment as "good."

So there you are again, being a hypocrite, declaring your value judgments superior to others'.

On August 07 2011 11:02 xarthaz wrote:


Nothing to do with my value judgements, the refutation of utilitarian justification of regulation comes from valuations of actors and the subjects of their action, as i presented the argument in page 15. You two gentlemen have in your last post however engaged in an appeal to objective value or projection of your own judgements onto others. Classic fallacies of economics.

Nothing to do with my value judgements,

the refutation of utilitarian justification of regulation comes from valuations of actors and the subjects of their action,

You two gentlemen have in your last post however engaged in an appeal to objective value or projection of your own judgements onto others. Classic fallacies of economics.

On August 07 2011 11:23 xarthaz wrote:
The thread has become about opinions on should statements ("should gvt regulate milk"). The fundamental two possibilities that can imply a should statement is direct valuation of action("gvt should regulate milk just because") OR valuation of some principle which answers the question("should regulate because its safe").

The supporters of milk regulation have taken the noble road, that of being men of principle. At first, the principle was safety. When i pointed out what else the safety principle implies, FallDownMarigold and DeepElemBlues changed their principle from safety to democracy("most people think.." "normal people ..."). This is very important in regards to the debate, as this completely changes the justification. Suddenly, all the safety arguments, science quotations etc that have been debated for 15 pages become irrelevant. Just by the change of the principle of their ethics.

Now i pointed the unpleasentries of democracy. Will the principle change again? Interesting to see.

On August 07 2011 11:23 xarthaz wrote:
The thread has become about opinions on should statements ("should gvt regulate milk"). The fundamental two possibilities that can imply a should statement is direct valuation of action("gvt should regulate milk just because") OR valuation of some principle which answers the question("should regulate because its safe").

The supporters of milk regulation have taken the noble road, that of being men of principle. At first, the principle was safety. When i pointed out what else the safety principle implies, FallDownMarigold and DeepElemBlues changed their principle from safety to democracy("most people think.." "normal people ..."). This is very important in regards to the debate, as this completely changes the justification. Suddenly, all the safety arguments, science quotations etc that have been debated for 15 pages become irrelevant. Just by the change of the principle of their ethics.

Now i pointed the unpleasentries of democracy. Will the principle change again? Interesting to see.

On August 07 2011 11:28 mahnini wrote:

what the fuck are you talking about?

On August 07 2011 11:33 xarthaz wrote:
Cardoc, sure perhaps so. But the point of the post was: FallDownMarigold and DeepElemBlues THEMSELVES denounced from the safety argument, when i pointed out the other conclusion of safety argument(everyone being dismantled with their brain in incubator). Instead, they changed it to an appeal to majority, or democracy argument. As such, it is not even necessary to argue against the safety claim any more.

On August 07 2011 11:33 AoN.DimSum wrote:
dont worry xarthaz, I'm on your side. From what gathered (I asked eshlow :D) raw milk is fine as long you get it from your local farm. They would use a minimal amount of cows so the risk of disease is low.

On August 06 2011 15:47 Jibba wrote:

What evidence is there that anyone follows the food pyramid? You grew up learning to brush and floss after every meal, didn't you? How many people do you know who do that?

You can't say "the food pyramid's nutritional recommendations are bad, because since it was released obesity has gone up." That's a fallacy. You can certainly show that its recommendations are poor, and I doubt it would be hard to do, but the evidence you quoted is meaningless. If you're going to argue it, give it a proper defense.

It is of interest to consider the opinion of the American Medical Association (AMA) with respect to the first implementation of dietary guidelines [80]. In an editorial, it was stated:

We believe that it would be inappropriate at this time to adopt proposed national dietary goals as set forth in the Report on Dietary Goals for the United States. The evidence for assuming that benefits to be derived from the adoption of such universal dietary goals as set forth in the Report is not conclusive and there is potential for harmful effects from a radical long-term dietary change as would occur through adoption of the proposed national goals.

The guidelines recommended at that time show great similarity to the current recommendations:

The Report sets forth six dietary goals of the United States. These goals are as follows:

1.Increased carbohydrate consumption to account for 55% to 60% of energy (caloric) intake.

2.Reduce overall fat consumption from approximately 40% to 30% of energy intake.

3.Reduce saturated fat consumption to account for about 10% of total energy intake; and balance that with polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, which should account for about 10% of energy intake.

4.Reduce cholesterol consumption to about 300 mg/day.

5.Reduce sugar consumption by about 40% to account for about 15% total energy intake.

6.Reduce salt consumption by 50% to 85% to approximately 3 gm/day


In the three decades since, carbohydrate consumption has increased; overall fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol consumption have decreased to near or below targeted levels; caloric intake remains within recommended levels; and leisure-time physical activity has increased slightly (pp. D1-1, D3-10, B2-3). At the same time, scientific evidence in favor of these recommendations remains inconclusive, and we must consider the possibility that the “potential for harmful effects” has in fact been realized. Notably, “the prevalence of overweight and obesity in the US has increased dramatically in the past three decades” (A4); the number of Americans diagnosed with T2D has tripled [81].

The AMA concludes:

The Report suggests that the incidence of heart disease, cancer, hypertension, diabetes, obesity and tooth decay could be reduced by making qualitative and quantitative changes in “the American diet.” The goals are laudable; however, the American Medical Association believes that there are insufficient data to recommend such changes in the diet on a nationwide scale.

Laudable as the goals were, the application of those recommendations has constituted a population-wide dietary experiment that should be brought to a halt. Lack of supporting evidence limits the value of the proposed recommendations as guidance for the consumer or as the basis of public health policy. We ask whether the Dietary Guidelines for Americans process as it stands should continue or whether there might not be better alternatives.

It is time for public health leaders, scientists, and clinicians to stop blaming Americans for not following the recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and instead to re-examine the process used to formulate the US dietary guidelines and determine whether or not it is still appropriate for our current needs.

On August 07 2011 11:37 dAPhREAk wrote:


how would you know if they use the "minimal amount of cows" if it is not regulated? just going to trust a company who is trying to make a profit. ergo, gov't regulation. booyah~!

On August 07 2011 11:33 xarthaz wrote:
Cardoc, sure perhaps so. But the point of the post was: FallDownMarigold and DeepElemBlues THEMSELVES denounced from the safety argument, when i pointed out the other conclusion of safety argument(everyone being dismantled with their brain in incubator). Instead, they changed it to an appeal to majority, or democracy argument. As such, it is not even necessary to argue against the safety claim any more.