DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Does Flouride Exposure Lower Intelligence In Children?

**nasxbrtyol** · 08-05-2012, 11:00 AM

Where did I say it was anyone else's fault if they're fat?

And because clearly, your libertarian, it's-up-to-individuals bullshit is working... I'm sure any form of government regulation is alarming to someone who deems universal healthcare "Bolshevism." You bitch about the costs of health care, what do you think one of the major contributors is? [hint: it isn't malpractice suits]

You spent so much time putting words that I haven't said in my mouth, that you forgot to have a point in there, besides a personal attack.

... would you like to eat your foot if I put up some links of me talking about the healthcare costs of obesity? Or would you like to find where I call the concept of universal healthcare Bolshevism? [hint: it's hard to find, given that I haven't said it]

You rely an awful lot on the so-frequently used lines of the faux progressives. That Bolshevism accusation is a dead giveaway.

Given your professional background, you of all people should know better.

I do know better. Nobody listens.

There's no pancea to eliminate obesity, but you damn well better at least have alternative ideas to reduce it before you criticize mine. Doing nothing isn't an option.

Well, actually neither of the latter two clauses is true. 1) I can certainly criticize an idea without knowing an alternative, 2) because doing nothing is a real option. It's not necessarily a good option, but it's the null hypothesis that you have to dismiss before embarking on creating a mountain of regulation that will impose restrictions yet likely do nil to remedy the situation.

I think your problem is that you think that some problems can be solved tomorrow, if you just write a law to solve them. I have news for you - people are slow, conservative, selfish, predictable animals, and changing them is damn hard. You can appeal to their self-interest, or you can make them afraid... but constructive forces come mostly out of historical inevitability rather than regulation. If you doubt it, consider how well the Prohibition did... or the "war on drugs". ****, even gun control. Think of the latter 1980s->late 1990s = tons of new regulation... crime goes down, people cheer "it's working -> more regulation, less crime". Mid 2000s->early 2010s = almost all the previous regulation (and more) rolled back... crime goes down. The left: "dead silence". Should take it as a lesson. Correlation != causation. Not everything in the world is a single variable equation that can be affected by regulation. In fact, very few things are.

08-05-2012, 11:00 AM	#32
nasxbrtyol Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 389 Senior Member	Where did I say it was anyone else's fault if they're fat? And because clearly, your libertarian, it's-up-to-individuals bullshit is working... I'm sure any form of government regulation is alarming to someone who deems universal healthcare "Bolshevism." You bitch about the costs of health care, what do you think one of the major contributors is? [hint: it isn't malpractice suits] You spent so much time putting words that I haven't said in my mouth, that you forgot to have a point in there, besides a personal attack. ... would you like to eat your foot if I put up some links of me talking about the healthcare costs of obesity? Or would you like to find where I call the concept of universal healthcare Bolshevism? [hint: it's hard to find, given that I haven't said it] You rely an awful lot on the so-frequently used lines of the faux progressives. That Bolshevism accusation is a dead giveaway. Given your professional background, you of all people should know better. I do know better. Nobody listens. There's no pancea to eliminate obesity, but you damn well better at least have alternative ideas to reduce it before you criticize mine. Doing nothing isn't an option. Well, actually neither of the latter two clauses is true. 1) I can certainly criticize an idea without knowing an alternative, 2) because doing nothing is a real option. It's not necessarily a good option, but it's the null hypothesis that you have to dismiss before embarking on creating a mountain of regulation that will impose restrictions yet likely do nil to remedy the situation. I think your problem is that you think that some problems can be solved tomorrow, if you just write a law to solve them. I have news for you - people are slow, conservative, selfish, predictable animals, and changing them is damn hard. You can appeal to their self-interest, or you can make them afraid... but constructive forces come mostly out of historical inevitability rather than regulation. If you doubt it, consider how well the Prohibition did... or the "war on drugs". ****, even gun control. Think of the latter 1980s->late 1990s = tons of new regulation... crime goes down, people cheer "it's working -> more regulation, less crime". Mid 2000s->early 2010s = almost all the previous regulation (and more) rolled back... crime goes down. The left: "dead silence". Should take it as a lesson. Correlation != causation. Not everything in the world is a single variable equation that can be affected by regulation. In fact, very few things are.
	Quote