EPTCalifornia Raids Rawesome Food - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
[Agony]x90
United States853 Posts
| ||
|
Voros
United States222 Posts
On August 07 2011 01:41 Derez wrote: While they might be an imposition now, it's only because of the rapid growth of the organic food industry over the last few years. When legislation banning the sale of raw milk was passed, it was highly relevant, due to standards of health and hygiene way below what they can be/are now and contamination was way more likely. The government banning the sale of a certain product is not an imposition of your freedom, as long as there's good reason for it. There used to be a good reason to do so, but with current standards of hygiene that can be achieved in dairy farms (not to mention safety during transport), it might not be anymore and needs to be relevaluted for that reason. Not everything is 'the government acting in it's best interest'. In the case of raw milk sales, they had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting public health--raw milk may or may not be mildly more dangerous than its pasteurized cousin, but it is by no stretch of the imagination a threat to public health. Even if it were, free societies recognize that citizens have the right to do things that are not good for their health, even things that you and I might consider foolish. If you want to sit at home and drink unpasteurized orange juice and eat raw, unpasteurized eggs, that is your natural right. We have fallen so far from the Jeffersonian ideal that we're now left to debate not whether "storing eggs at an improper temperature" should be a felony, but whether it should be applied in Rawesome's case. It's a sad state of affairs, but it's the path the U.S. has been on for more than a century now. The government passing any law curtailing individual rights is by definition an imposition on everyone's freedom. Further, anyone who believes that the government does things for its citizens' benefit has a poor understanding of power and how it is utilized & maintained, even under the best circumstances and with the best of initial intentions. When the state acts, its citizens should be always be asking qui bono. | ||
|
antikk555
85 Posts
On August 06 2011 14:29 shinosai wrote: It's my opinion here that this raid was absurd, and so is California law. How dare the government try and tell us what is healthy, when they created the joke that is known as the food pyramid. And whether or not you think raw milk is unsafe, what right do they have to regulate what I choose to drink. It's not even a drug! A large part of the law is to protect some idiots and their children from idiots like you. | ||
|
Tippecanoe
United States342 Posts
On August 07 2011 02:15 antikk555 wrote: A large part of the law is to protect some idiots and their children from idiots like you. Good thing the government is debating over making the "keeping children safe from pornography act by keeping track of our internet history" a law is going to keep not only me, but my children safe. But this is another argument for another thread. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On August 07 2011 02:15 antikk555 wrote: A large part of the law is to protect some idiots and their children from idiots like you. The police raided an organic raw milk store. Therefore organic raw milk must be unsafe. Is there anything wrong with this logic? | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On August 07 2011 02:15 antikk555 wrote: A large part of the law is to protect some idiots and their children from idiots like you. A large part of laws in general, yes, but pretty much all laws regarding agriculture are to protect big agribusiness from any possible threat to their profits, real or imagined. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On August 07 2011 02:03 Voros wrote: In the case of raw milk sales, they had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting public health--raw milk may or may not be mildly more dangerous than its pasteurized cousin, but it is by no stretch of the imagination a threat to public health. Even if it were, free societies recognize that citizens have the right to do things that are not good for their health, even things that you and I might consider foolish. If you want to sit at home and drink unpasteurized orange juice and eat raw, unpasteurized eggs, that is your natural right. We have fallen so far from the Jeffersonian ideal that we're now left to debate not whether "storing eggs at an improper temperature" should be a felony, but whether it should be applied in Rawesome's case. It's a sad state of affairs, but it's the path the U.S. has been on for more than a century now. The government passing any law curtailing individual rights is by definition an imposition on everyone's freedom. Further, anyone who believes that the government does things for its citizens' benefit has a poor understanding of power and how it is utilized & maintained, even under the best circumstances and with the best of initial intentions. When the state acts, its citizens should be always be asking qui bono. Right now, raw milk might or might not be more dangerous then the pasteurized version, but that argument has only become true in recent years. Only when you can assure a clean milking environment, a safe, cooled method of transportation, etc, you can safely sell raw milk. That simply wasn't achievable 40 years ago. At that point, severely limiting raw milk sales and assuring very basic safety precautions (which is what pasteurization is), was benificial as a whole to society. Safety assurances are demanded on everything from cars to microwaves to handguns, none of them limit your freedom of choice, all they do is regulate reasonable expectations from consumers (buying food from a supermarket shouldn't normally get me sick). Furthermore, you're free to go to the store, buy eggs, leave them in your living room and eat them a week or 3 later. What you're not allowed to do is buy eggs, store them in a van in a parking lot somewhere for several weeks, and then sell them. At that point you're only making people sick and it should be a felony to do so. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On August 07 2011 02:28 caradoc wrote: The police raided an organic raw milk store. Therefore organic raw milk must be unsafe. Is there anything wrong with this logic? I'm sure both the FDA and CDC are heavily invested in agribusiness, and have too much to lose by letting us believe that raw milk is healthy. PS The CDC doesn't care about agribusiness. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On August 07 2011 02:28 HunterX11 wrote: A large part of laws in general, yes, but pretty much all laws regarding agriculture are to protect big agribusiness from any possible threat to their profits, real or imagined. oh the threat IS real. raw organic milk is extremely difficult to produce on a large national scale that the corporations operate at. Meanwhile sales of raw milk in 2010 increased 25% while sales of pasteurized milk declined 3% in California. If we assume that the loss of pasteurized sales is directly related to organic sales this means that the organic raw milk market now accounts for up to 12% of the total milk consumed, and if the rate continues, pasteurized milk sales will decline by 5% next year. | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
On August 07 2011 02:28 HunterX11 wrote: A large part of laws in general, yes, but pretty much all laws regarding agriculture are to protect big agribusiness from any possible threat to their profits, real or imagined. We've been pasteurizing milk and killing pathogens for 200 years. Hard to believe big argibuisness has been suppressing the people like this for so long. THE MAN'S PUTTING YOU DOWN MAN...! right. | ||
|
Eknoid4
United States902 Posts
| ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On August 07 2011 02:33 Chargelot wrote: I'm sure both the FDA and CDC are heavily invested in agribusiness, and have too much to lose by letting us believe that raw milk is healthy. PS The CDC doesn't care about agribusiness. ?? the FDA is demonstrably in the pocket of corporations. Its not even controversial. Just look at GM food approval vis-a-vis the plethora of animal studies that show (among other things) immune system dysfunction, kidney problems, gastrointestinal disease, reproductive problems... What about the CDC? | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On August 07 2011 02:20 Tippecanoe wrote: Good thing the government is debating over making the "keeping children safe from pornography act by keeping track of our internet history" a law is going to keep not only me, but my children safe. But this is another argument for another thread. You do know the act calls for databases to be made upon request of court subpoena in order to track down child pornographers. not to track history in order to prevent children from seeing pornography. On August 07 2011 02:49 travis wrote: I think that's a very naive view of something that would really just be another link in the chain of devolution of our freedoms. wasn't gonna bring that up just pointed out that he knows nothing of the act by the way he titled it only made that obvious. So i listed the intent of the act if it overreaches from that i'm not to say. On August 07 2011 02:34 Gamegene wrote: We've been pasteurizing milk and killing pathogens for 200 years. Hard to believe big argibuisness has been suppressing the people like this for so long. THE MAN'S PUTTING YOU DOWN MAN...! right. Putting you down from your right to have constant diarrhea! Next thing you know the man is not gonna let me drink from nature water! | ||
|
Treadmill
Canada2833 Posts
He was allegedly not read his rights. is a mistaken impression that everyone gets from cop shows. First off if you aren't in the US this doesn't apply at all. And in the USA you need to be read your miranda rights before the cops interrogate you, NOT at the time of arrest. But since every cop show, everywhere, shows the "you have the right to..." while banging the guys head against the cop car, its what we think is the case. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
And it seems to me that posts like these on TL are made by the same bunch of anti-government extremists. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On August 07 2011 02:35 semantics wrote: You do know the act calls for databases to be made upon request of court subpoena in order to track down child pornographers. not to track history in order to prevent children from seeing pornography. I think that's a very naive view of something that would really just be another link in the chain of devolution of our freedoms. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
| ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On August 07 2011 02:46 andrewlt wrote: People are confusing organic and pasteurized, it seems. And it seems to me that posts like these on TL are made by the same bunch of anti-government extremists. Lets deconstruct this term of yours 'same bunch of anti-government extremists'. + Show Spoiler + First of all, your use of the term 'same bunch' presupposes a small closed set of individuals. Secondly, a simple google search will show that usage of 'anti-government extremists' accounts for over 10% of the total usage of 'anti-government'-- this implies that the term is not only a set expression, but there is some element of equating 'anti-government' in general with extremism. This association is amplified by your usage of the term to denote a small set of individuals within the community. A simple google search of extremism shows a strong connotation with islamic terrorism. Currently a very bad thing to be labeled as or associated with. Essentially first you are saying that to be against a specific government action means that you are against 'the government' and also that to be against the government is to be 'an extremist'. You do this implicitly, without stating it outright, through your usage of terms. When paired with your usage of the term 'small group' -- you are marginalizing any dissent against any government action at all by implying that dissent is only by a small group who do not, by implication, share the views of the majority, and who share characteristics with terrorists. You are basically normalizing the status quo, eliminating the possiblity of dissent, and basically obfuscating the argument here and shitting up the thread in general. Do you work for Fox news or something? fuck. go away. tldr; basically saying that usage of terms like this is a way of normalizing the status quo and marginalizing dissent. | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
On August 07 2011 02:53 caradoc wrote: Lets deconstruct this term of yours 'same bunch of anti-government extremists'. First of all, your use of the term 'same bunch' presupposes a small closed set of individuals. Secondly, a simple google search will show that usage of 'anti-government extremists' accounts for over 10% of the total usage of 'anti-government'-- this implies that the term is not only a set expression, but there is some element of equating 'anti-government' in general with extremism. This association is amplified by your usage of the term to denote a small set of individuals within the community. A simple google search of extremism shows a strong connotation with islamic terrorism. Currently a very bad thing to be labeled as or associated with. Essentially first you are saying that to be against a specific government action means that you are against 'the government' and also that to be against the government is to be 'an extremist'. When paired with your usage of the term 'small group' -- you are marginalizing any dissent against the government at all by implying that dissent is only by a small group who do not, by implication, share the views of the majority. You are basically normalizing the status quo. Do you work for Fox news or something? fuck. go away. This argument has gone from food to government to Islamic terrorism to Fox News. Seriously? Fuck. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On August 07 2011 02:53 caradoc wrote: Lets deconstruct this term of yours 'same bunch of anti-government extremists'. First of all, your use of the term 'same bunch' presupposes a small closed set of individuals. Secondly, a simple google search will show that usage of 'anti-government extremists' accounts for over 10% of the total usage of 'anti-government'-- this implies that the term is not only a set expression, but there is some element of equating 'anti-government' in general with extremism. This association is amplified by your usage of the term to denote a small set of individuals within the community. A simple google search of extremism shows a strong connotation with islamic terrorism. Currently a very bad thing to be labeled as or associated with. Essentially first you are saying that to be against a specific government action means that you are against 'the government' and also that to be against the government is to be 'an extremist'. You do this implicitly, without stating it outright, through your usage of terms. When paired with your usage of the term 'small group' -- you are marginalizing any dissent against any government action at all by implying that dissent is only by a small group who do not, by implication, share the views of the majority. You are basically normalizing the status quo. Do you work for Fox news or something? fuck. go away. What the hell are you babbling about? | ||
| ||
