Local brewery allows employees to smoke while brewing...

[brandonlovesbeer]

***Oops. Was reading and accidentally hit send.

 

[Braufessor]

Yeah but from a food preparation standpoint you wouldn't spit in the soup or smoke while you prepared it and then tell the inspector that it was cool because you planned to boil the soup afterwards.

It was cool when Dogfish Head did it
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DU1QvXghc8[/ame]

 

[Baabaadoo]

Let me ask you this - If you got critically ill from eating contaminated food, and you found out that the producer did not follow the guidelines for sanitation, would you file a lawsuit? What if you found glass in your Coke?

If you extrapolate your position, it should be ok for a business to refuse service to someone because you don't like their lifestyle/hair color/skin color/gender/religion/national origin. We've worked long and hard to overcome discrimination. That's the slippery slope of removing regulations (especially when it comes to WHO a business serves).

Like Corky said, too many people have to suffer before the market corrects the problem, if it ever does.

That is part of the law. They follow their set business guidelines that they set and its up to the customer to be informed. You're referring to no governmental regulation. I'm saying we shouldn't governmentally dictate how the free people run their business. The law would require the business to follow their guidelines, which would be enforced by audits and the customer's money. If they don't follow it, it's a clear violation and they would file a lawsuit. It's simple. If their product is sub-par, the competition will drive them out or the law suit(s) would kill the reputation and it suffers. You're straw-manning my argument. Please read more closely.

We do this type of certification based business already! I work in the biopharmaceutical industry. If we loose certifications from failing audits, our products aren't able to be sold in certain areas(ISO as one example). Non-governmentally sanctioned audits that permit the products to be shown that they meet a quality not dictated by the business. That way if you see for example (making up an example) NSB-national safe brewing certification on a brewpub you know that it's been audited into following policies that are widely recognized to be safe and kosher.

Under my position, it would be okay for a business to refuse service for any number of those reasons. Why not? It's their money! It's their business! We've worked long and hard to legislate people into submission? We're going to fine you to death if you don't sell your product/service to the people we tell you? This is freedom? This is justified? Sounds like socialism nanny state to me. Sounds hypocritical to me. How's it non-discriminatory (sound/good treatment of different people) to say you don't have a choice in how you run your business?

Oh, and yes. This approach to law would definitely render many governmentally sanctioned groups that control people useless. YAY! less taxes and I control more of my money. Less indentured servitude to the government. It would definitely rock the boat, but isn't that what America does? Hysterically (not lately), it gives the people a choice. Thats what the civil war was about and all of the major topics of any political issue are surrounded on. Choice.

 

[ericbw]

That is part of the law. They follow their set business guidelines that they set and its up to the customer to be informed. You're referring to no governmental regulation. I'm saying we shouldn't governmentally dictate how the free people run their business. The law would require the business to follow their guidelines, which would be enforced by audits and the customer's money. If they don't follow it, it's a clear violation and they would file a lawsuit. It's simple. If their product is sub-par, the competition will drive them out or the law suit(s) would kill the reputation and it suffers. You're straw-manning my argument. Please read more closely.

We do this type of certification based business already! I work in the biopharmaceutical industry. If we loose certifications from failing audits, our products aren't able to be sold in certain areas(ISO as one example). Non-governmentally sanctioned audits that permit the products to be shown that they meet a quality not dictated by the business. That way if you see for example (making up an example) NSB-national safe brewing certification on a brewpub you know that it's been audited into following policies that are widely recognized to be safe and kosher.

Under my position, it would be okay for a business to refuse service for any number of those reasons. Why not? It's their money! It's their business! We've worked long and hard to legislate people into submission? We're going to fine you to death if you don't sell your product/service to the people we tell you? This is freedom? This is justified? Sounds like socialism nanny state to me. Sounds hypocritical to me. How's it non-discriminatory (sound/good treatment of different people) to say you don't have a choice in how you run your business?

Oh, and yes. This approach to law would definitely render many governmentally sanctioned groups that control people useless. YAY! less taxes and I control more of my money. Less indentured servitude to the government. It would definitely rock the boat, but isn't that what America does? Hysterically (not lately), it gives the people a choice. Thats what the civil war was about and all of the major topics of any political issue are surrounded on. Choice.

Bottom line is that under your position, if a business doesn't want to sell to someone because if the color of their skin, that's ok.

That seems like a bad idea.

Government regs keep us safer.

 

[passedpawn]

Bottom line is that under your position, if a business doesn't want to sell to someone because if the color of their skin, that's ok.

That seems like a bad idea.

Government regs keep us safer.

Do you know what a straw man argument is?

 

[Baabaadoo]

^thank you @passedpawn

I don't think he know what he's actually aware of the logical fallacy he's making.

@ericbw, How does government regs keep us safer? Statistically speaking, what force has killed the most people? Government. Why? Because the people who make the best decision for me is myself. I asked you previously to read closely. Please address the portions of my previous statement that you quoted which address the imperialistic logic you use.

A debate isn't much of a debate if you don't actually address the premises of your logic that I undermine. You don't make much of a case if you keep restating your position.

 

[Murphys_Law]

I've read through most of this thread and can see some concerns (health, etc) about smoking but where do we stand re: farting near wort? I wonder if maybe that is the source of some off flavors!?

 

[soccerdad]

Are they hiring?

 

[ericbw]

Do you know what a straw man argument is?

Yes.

 

[bob1852]

I've read through most of this thread and can see some concerns (health, etc) about smoking but where do we stand re: farting near wort? I wonder if maybe that is the source of some off flavors!?

Science has the answers you seek...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121900/

 

[Pkrd]

Are they hiring?

Don't you read the news?
Smokers have a life expectancy of like 6 days. They'll certainly be hiring by next week.

 

[afro_lou]

...Statistically speaking, what force has killed the most people? Government. ...

Don't mean to jump in on your tet a tet, but care to back up that claim? Purely in the interest of science and logic.

 

[ericbw]

Don't mean to jump in on your tet a tet, but care to back up that claim? Purely in the interest of science and logic.

There's no evidence to back it up. There's a philosophy behind it. The philosophy is that government goes too far in controlling our lives.

So even if it is safer to have regulations, there are people who feel it's an unfair trade off.

That's a philosophy, which is fine. I just happen to think it's a philosophy that puts the weakest members of a society at greater risk.

 

[ericbw]

Don't you read the news?

Smokers have a life expectancy of like 6 days. They'll certainly be hiring by next week.

It's not about smoking.

 

[applescrap]

Great read, and lots of great points. Even though this situation is commercial, I cant help but think of all the pictures of where and how most people brew. Hell, I brew outside, that cant be too sanitary. I am sure all the garages i have seen would pass usda regulations. I know, i know, this is different its commercial for the public.

If I have to take a side, I would say smoke f...in out back, but what kind of hypocrite would i be then. While golfing, I chain smoke cigars, i piss every three holes, grab clubs that are never clean, and then drink beer and take down a bag of peanuts. Now I dont know about you all, but that is seeming a little gross. If you have a problem with the smoking, due to hand sanitation, i cant fault you, i do too. That being said, you are likely being a little hypocritical/hypochondriac about all this imo. I chug diet rock stars for crying out loud, and i am worried about a smoker touching a mash paddle. Ever taste your cooking spoon, ever eat something without washing your hands? Think about all the stuff you touched and all the other people who touched it and everything that was on it before you ate something without washing your hands. This thinking leads people to the bubble. If I were to swab a house, a toothbrush, etc...there would be a lot more to worry about. Yes, it's unsanitary (absolutely), but it seems being human is as well. How about animals in the brewhouse? How clean are they? How about pet owners? I am sure some of you pet and love your animals and then eat a slice of pizza, while watching a football game. Would animal in brewhouse be worse? Or they are accepted because people love dogs, not smoking.

The bottom line is anyone who lacks handwashing and sanitary regard in this professional, commercial environment seemingly would lack all kinds of other stuff, especially in denver or la. But in the south where some of this stuff has been accepted to this day that might not be true and this person could be a great brewer.

 

[Steveruch]

I've read through most of this thread and can see some concerns (health, etc) about smoking but where do we stand re: farting near wort?

I've heard of using carbon dioxide and nitrogen; methane's a new one on me.

 

[Lefou]

This could give entire butt a whole new meaning.
I'm just getting over Doritos flavored beer and yeast screaming. What's next?

 

[Baabaadoo]

There's no evidence to back it up. There's a philosophy behind it. The philosophy is that government goes too far in controlling our lives.

So even if it is safer to have regulations, there are people who feel it's an unfair trade off.

That's a philosophy, which is fine. I just happen to think it's a philosophy that puts the weakest members of a society at greater risk.

Still have yet to prove the philosophy wrong. You still straw-man it and claim to have slain something that you don't understand. I'll prove it by proving yet another uninformed opinion wrong:

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Note: Many citations and information linked on the bottom of this source. Biggest notable tragedies are stalin, pol pot, mao, and hitler.

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM
university of hawaii democide statistics. Excessive volume of information. TONS of figures and tables to make it pretty easy to understand for lazy people.

The point of the above information is that government has estimated to killed 260 million of its own people in the 20th century. It's statistically more likely to loose your life due to health problems, as noted here. Government in the 20th century has killed more than all deaths combined due to traffic accidents, war, homicide, and alcohol. Idk why I attempt to explain all this. It isn't like you've actually yet to provide philosophical or factually based statistics. Another groundless claim of yours that I have undermined that you'll ignore most of.

Remove government from dictating how to run my life and let my business be exactly that. Mine!

 

[ericbw]

I have no intent of proving your philosophy "wrong." I simply disagree with it being the best way for the most people. It's awesome for you. Your value is maximum individual liberty. Mine is maximum society benefit (the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one).

I didn't create or claim to slay a straw man. Repeating the term "straw man" doesn't make a stronger argument.

I'll go read your links now, because I have an open mind.

 

[ericbw]

Great read, and lots of great points. Even though this situation is commercial, I cant help but think of all the pictures of where and how most people brew. Hell, I brew outside, that cant be too sanitary. I am sure all the garages i have seen would pass usda regulations. I know, i know, this is different its commercial for the public.

If I have to take a side, I would say smoke f...in out back, but what kind of hypocrite would i be then. While golfing, I chain smoke cigars, i piss every three holes, grab clubs that are never clean, and then drink beer and take down a bag of peanuts. Now I dont know about you all, but that is seeming a little gross. If you have a problem with the smoking, due to hand sanitation, i cant fault you, i do too. That being said, you are likely being a little hypocritical/hypochondriac about all this imo. I chug diet rock stars for crying out loud, and i am worried about a smoker touching a mash paddle. Ever taste your cooking spoon, ever eat something without washing your hands? Think about all the stuff you touched and all the other people who touched it and everything that was on it before you ate something without washing your hands. This thinking leads people to the bubble. If I were to swab a house, a toothbrush, etc...there would be a lot more to worry about. Yes, it's unsanitary (absolutely), but it seems being human is as well. How about animals in the brewhouse? How clean are they? How about pet owners? I am sure some of you pet and love your animals and then eat a slice of pizza, while watching a football game. Would animal in brewhouse be worse? Or they are accepted because people love dogs, not smoking.

The bottom line is anyone who lacks handwashing and sanitary regard in this professional, commercial environment seemingly would lack all kinds of other stuff, especially in denver or la. But in the south where some of this stuff has been accepted to this day that might not be true and this person could be a great brewer.

I think it's one thing to do those things for yourself - you accept the risk. In a commercial (or any group) situation, I think we all should look out for the risks of others.

I do most of those things, too!

For what it's worth, if I'm cooking for others, I don't taste what I cook and then use the spoon again. Clean spoon each taste. If it's for me, no problem. If anyone else is eating, even family, I keep it clean.

I don't think animals in the brewhouse is good either. That's just me.

 

[ericbw]

Still have yet to prove the philosophy wrong. You still straw-man it and claim to have slain something that you don't understand. I'll prove it by proving yet another uninformed opinion wrong:

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Note: Many citations and information linked on the bottom of this source. Biggest notable tragedies are stalin, pol pot, mao, and hitler.

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM
university of hawaii democide statistics. Excessive volume of information. TONS of figures and tables to make it pretty easy to understand for lazy people.

The point of the above information is that government has estimated to killed 260 million of its own people in the 20th century. It's statistically more likely to loose your life due to health problems, as noted here. Government in the 20th century has killed more than all deaths combined due to traffic accidents, war, homicide, and alcohol. Idk why I attempt to explain all this. It isn't like you've actually yet to provide philosophical or factually based statistics. Another groundless claim of yours that I have undermined that you'll ignore most of.

Remove government from dictating how to run my life and let my business be exactly that. Mine!

You have abandoned logic.

"I'll prove it by proving yet another uninformed opinion wrong" means nothing. Proving one thing doesn't bolster an argument about another very tenuously connected thing. Bernoulli was responsible for all pilots' deaths in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and Korea, yet your links make no reference. That seems like you've glossed over an important factor.

These are stats on governments (more accurately certain leaders) who have caused death, either in war or through simply killing groups of people (genocide). That doesn't dispute that food safety regs are better for society.

You've proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are skeptical of government. Governments sometimes kill. Ok. What does that have to do with food safety?

 

[Dcpcooks]

Who reads homebrew talk on their phone while in the bathroom? Cause that's really gross

 

[ericbw]

Who reads homebrew talk on their phone while in the bathroom? Cause that's really gross

Agreed!

 

[Baabaadoo]

I have no intent of proving your philosophy "wrong." I simply disagree with it being the best way for the most people. It's awesome for you. Your value is maximum individual liberty. Mine is maximum society benefit (the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one).

If you have no intent of proving my philosophy wrong, then why are you posting at all? That's what a debate is. "Philosophy- a particular system of philosophical thought(ideas)." My goal is maximum individual liberty. That is the only proper definition of liberty. Maximum societal benefit? So you're a social justice proponent then? There's many problems with that philosophy, which Ben Shapiro summarizes perfectly. I'm not going to touch the rebuke of social justice. Ben does it too perfectly. Any attempt on my part would detract from his genius.

I didn't create or claim to slay a straw man. Repeating the term "straw man" doesn't make a stronger argument.

I'll go read your links now, because I have an open mind.

You misrepresent my posts and my objections, which is by definition strawmanning. You misrepresent them into something that can be dismissed easily.

What is having an open mind? Following the evidence. Prove you have an open mind by, not only providing evidence, but following it. Provide evidence for your premises and then follow those premises logically. You've yet to do both so by that standard, no. You're not open.

You have abandoned logic.

"I'll prove it by proving yet another uninformed opinion wrong" means nothing. Proving one thing doesn't bolster an argument about another very tenuously connected thing. Bernoulli was responsible for all pilots' deaths in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and Korea, yet your links make no reference. That seems like you've glossed over an important factor.

Proving you wrong does, in the long run, mean nothing regarding what reality reflects. You're wrong regardless of what happens in this discussion. As embolded, you make think that the connection between government historically being terrible at managing other people's lives means that I should be okay with them over regulating mine? That's tenuously connected? Ermm...wrong again

Bernoulli is a physics principal. Physics principals are not responsible for deaths in those wars. Corrupt governments were. Actual people were. Stop extrapolating so poorly. They have references. Look at the posts. Actually read! I linked those specifically because they have TONS of sources.

These are stats on governments (more accurately certain leaders) who have caused death, either in war or through simply killing groups of people (genocide). That doesn't dispute that food safety regs are better for society.

What do you think government is? A computer? A government is filled with leaders, also known as people. This example is to prove that government historically is bad at looking out for its citizens. I mean look at the U.S. constitution. It's the ultimate historical document that draws the line in the sand regarding governmental involvement. It's literally a document for the free people to let them be free from a dictating government, like the one the earliest and current U.S. citizens immigrated from. If governments are historically terrible at managing even something as basic as keeping its citizens alive, why would we want to give more power to them?

You've proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are skeptical of government. Governments sometimes kill. Ok. What does that have to do with food safety?

Due to the facts I site, yes. That's certainly the direction history indicates. Government is bad at almost everything, except braking things. This is why the U.S. is so innovative historically. The U.S. is a country for the people, not itself. That's rare, but we need to keep it that way. Let the people run their own lives, pay for their own commodities, etc.

Summary:

I want to just take a moment and put all this into perspective. Why is all this relevant to some guy smoking next to some must? I mean really? Is this justified?

Here's my point. Follow the standard that the law sets for the business it's in. The law states specific health standards, as you outline here. They don't follow the standards that the law outlines, but we are taking this past that. We are asking, 'how should the law legislate a business's activity'? This brewpub is an example. It isn't about what offends people; it's about what's justified.

Point blank: The law should only require that the standards we set for our own business be met and require it to be clear and publicized. The business should set that standard, as I quote:

That is part of the law. They follow their set business guidelines that they set and its up to the customer to be informed. You're referring to no governmental regulation. I'm saying we shouldn't governmentally dictate how the free people run their business. The law would require the business to follow their guidelines, which would be enforced by audits and the customer's money. If they don't follow it, it's a clear violation and they would file a lawsuit. It's simple. If their product is sub-par, the competition will drive them out or the law suit(s) would kill the reputation and it suffers.

 

[Mainer]

There's no evidence to back it up. There's a philosophy behind it. The philosophy is that government goes too far in controlling our lives.

So even if it is safer to have regulations, there are people who feel it's an unfair trade off.

That's a philosophy, which is fine. I just happen to think it's a philosophy that puts the weakest members of a society at greater risk.

"Government is bad" is a philosophy.
"Statistically speaking, government has killed more people than any other force" is a claim at objective fact.

Just pointing that out.

(Dammit, you guys sucked me back in.)

 

[ericbw]

If you have no intent of proving my philosophy wrong, then why are you posting at all? That's what a debate is. "Philosophy- a particular system of philosophical thought(ideas)." My goal is maximum individual liberty. That is the only proper definition of liberty. Maximum societal benefit? So you're a social justice proponent then? There's many problems with that philosophy, which Ben Shapiro summarizes here and in many other videos perfectly. I'm not going to touch the rebuke of social justice. Ben does it too perfectly. Any attempt on my part would detract from his genius.



You misrepresent my posts and my objections, which is by definition strawmanning. You misrepresent them into something that can be dismissed easily.

What is having an open mind? Following the evidence. Prove you have an open mind by, not only providing evidence, but following it. Provide evidence for your premises and then follow those premises logically. You've yet to do both so by that standard, no. You're not open.



Proving you wrong does, in the long run, mean nothing regarding what reality reflects. You're wrong regardless of what happens in this discussion. As embolded, you make think that the connection between government historically being terrible at managing other people's lives means that I should be okay with them over regulating mine? That's tenuously connected? Ermm...wrong again

Bernoulli is a physics principal. Physics principals are not responsible for deaths in those wars. Corrupt governments were. Actual people were. Stop extrapolating so poorly. They have references. Look at the posts. Actually read! I linked those specifically because they have TONS of sources.



What do you think government is? A computer? A government is filled with leaders, also known as people. This example is to prove that government historically is bad at looking out for its citizens. I mean look at the U.S. constitution. It's the ultimate historical document that draws the line in the sand regarding governmental involvement. It's literally a document for the free people to let them be free from a dictating government, like the one the earliest and current U.S. citizens immigrated from. If governments are historically terrible at managing even something as basic as keeping its citizens alive, why would we want to give more power to them?



Due to the facts I site, yes. That's certainly the direction history indicates. Government is bad at almost everything, except braking things. This is why the U.S. is so innovative historically. The U.S. is a country for the people, not itself. That's rare, but we need to keep it that way. Let the people run their own lives, pay for their own commodities, etc.

Summary:

I want to just take a moment and put all this into perspective. Why is all this relevant to some guy smoking next to some must? I mean really? Is this justified?

Here's my point. Follow the standard that the law sets for the business it's in. The law states specific health standards, as you outline here. They don't follow the standards that the law outlines, but we are taking this past that. We are asking, 'how should the law outline a business runs'? This brewpub is an example. It isn't about what offends people; it's about what's just.

Point blank: The law should only require the standards that we hold our business to to be clear and publicized. The business should set that standard, as I quote:

I'm not misrepresenting your position. Your position is that the government shouldn't tell you what to do ever. That the government should not create regulations for how businesses run. That the government shouldn't oppose discrimination. Because you believe that each person should be allowed to do what they want to do, how they want, when they want, where, and with whom.

I'm probably not a proponent of "social justice" in the pejorative way that you mean it, but yes, I am in favor of what is in the best interest for the most people, even if it means that I have to give up some of my own freedoms. I don't mind my privacy being violated at the airport because I know that it helps keep everyone safe. I don't mind drunk driving laws because it benefits everyone. I don't mind anti-discrimination laws because it's not only better for society, but specifically helps the weakest members of our society.

Eventually the mods will stop this thread, which is their right. If they deem it too out of hand for the forum, and not the most beneficial for the forum, that's what they'll do. (Personally, unless and until someone calls names or makes threats, or otherwise is flat out "mean," I think we're having a discussion, even if it's passionate and even heated. I don't like mods shutting down threads. But I'm willing to go along with it if it's for the community's benefit.)

And just so we're clear, your position also includes "You're wrong regardless of what happens in this discussion." That's the opposite of open minded. No matter what evidence, no matter what you hear, you already know that an opposing viewpoint will always be "wrong." (Opinions and perspectives, when informed, as mine are, aren't "wrong." They might be different from yours, but that doesn't make them necessarily "wrong" unless only yours is "right." Again, open minded discussion.)

Here's the tenuous connection that you are building on: governments have done bad things to their own citizens and others. Therefore, all government involvement leads to harm. That's the crux of your argument. That's a tenuous link. And you posted irrelevant stuff about genocide to show that government regulations of all kinds are bad. That's tenuous.

But you picked up on my sarcasm about Bernoulli. Without his contributions, there would be no airplanes, and thus no war plans, and thus no pilots who died in combat. Bernoulli made flight possible, therefore he is responsible for deaths. That's a tenuous link and it makes no sense.

Hitler killed people, therefore governments always kill people, therefore government regulations are bad. Tenuous.

Governments also provide protection. Obviously you have to pick side if you use a war example, but when one government attacks or defends against another, it (at least ostensibly) does so to protect its citizens or allies. At the very least, it is to protect the interests of its citizens or allies.

Government regulations of food production cut down on contamination with infectious stuff (say anthrax or something) as well as allergens. So they take away your freedom to not wash your hands coming out of the restroom, in exchange for the rest of us having a reasonable expectation that your hands are clean when you make food. That seems like a small liberty to give up - you should wash your hands anyway.

"If governments are historically terrible at managing even something as basic as keeping its citizens alive..." You have not shown that to be a fact to build on. That's not a "given." For example, using the articles you linked earlier, you would have to show that LBJ caused X number of American deaths, compared to Y number of Americans living at the time whose death he did not cause. I will bet you $1 that there were more living than the 30,000 (or whatever) deaths attributed to him in that article.

That's not a solid basis for governments being historically "terrible at... keeping its citizens alive."

"Government is bad at almost everything..." Again, that's a viewpoint, but it's not really supported. To support that, you would have to make a list of everything government does, and then categorize them into things government does badly and does well.

And this is not a specific government, but government as an institution. And that institution since the beginning of time, as you're arguing against a concept. Talk about a straw man! In your explanations, "government" is a straw man that you have set up and knocked down.

"Follow the standard that the law sets for the business it's in." It's kind of hard to separate "the law" from "the government." That's how the law is made, implemented, and enforced.

But, "The law should only require the standards that we hold our business to to be clear and publicized."

So a company makes a product and as long as it says clearly, "This product is manufactured in a way that might endanger your health, according to some people, but hey, we're telling you about it, so it's cool" then it's ok. Like a cigarette warning - only it would be on all food. Baby food should be manufactured with no standards, as long as there is a sign that says so. Cars should have no regulations, as long as there's a sign that says "Buyer Beware!"

Businesses would set their own standards, and as long as they pass the audit against their own standards, it's fine. If people eat or drink their products and get sick, then the market will sort it out.

And don't let someone with the wrong last name go there, or someone with different colored skin. Because they can refuse service to anyone they want.

We had all that before. It was called the Middle Ages. We've come a long way from that. It seems to work better when we protect each other, even if it means one person has to give up the right to be dirty. Hand washing is not oppression.

I was so hoping for some examples of how the government has allowed drugs on the market that killed people. Like even one reference to Thalidomide or something. Instead, your dislike for government hangs on links to how many people were killed by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

Seriously - "Hitler was a bad guy, so I shouldn't be told to wash my hands. Live Free or Die!"

This is why I said that it's not about evidence, it's about a philosophy, and because of that, you and I won't agree. My philosophy is that the benefit of society is more important than individual liberty. Liberty is important, but less important than taking care of other humans. It's not about being right or wrong, we just see things differently.

And yes, there is a line, and I agree with you to a certain point about government interference. But only to a certain point.

 

[Calichusetts]

Ummmm...yeah.....

 

[Baabaadoo]

I'm not misrepresenting your position. Your position is that the government shouldn't tell you what to do ever. That the government should not create regulations for how businesses run. That the government shouldn't oppose discrimination. Because you believe that each person should be allowed to do what they want to do, how they want, when they want, where, and with whom.

Wrong. You are misrepresenting it. I'll prove it right here: My position isn't that government shouldn't tell you what to do ever. It's, in business regulation, to make them set a standard for themselves, publish it, and keep to it. That's a standard. I believe in other obvious ones as well such as: outlawing rape/murder. Again. There you go.

I'm probably not a proponent of "social justice" in the pejorative way that you mean it, but yes, I am in favor of what is in the best interest for the most people, even if it means that I have to give up some of my own freedoms. I don't mind my privacy being violated at the airport because I know that it helps keep everyone safe. I don't mind drunk driving laws because it benefits everyone. I don't mind anti-discrimination laws because it's not only better for society, but specifically helps the weakest members of our society.

Eventually the mods will stop this thread, which is their right. If they deem it too out of hand for the forum, and not the most beneficial for the forum, that's what they'll do. (Personally, unless and until someone calls names or makes threats, or otherwise is flat out "mean," I think we're having a discussion, even if it's passionate and even heated. I don't like mods shutting down threads. But I'm willing to go along with it if it's for the community's benefit.)

And just so we're clear, your position also includes "You're wrong regardless of what happens in this discussion." That's the opposite of open minded. No matter what evidence, no matter what you hear, you already know that an opposing viewpoint will always be "wrong." (Opinions and perspectives, when informed, as mine are, aren't "wrong." They might be different from yours, but that doesn't make them necessarily "wrong" unless only yours is "right." Again, open minded discussion.)

That isn't the opposite of open minded. That's the definition of the word objective. Objective truth means truth/facts exist outside of perception/bias/belief/conception. The fact that I believe I am right regardless of what you believe is a mere extension of that properly basic belief, which most people would agree with. Being close minded is not being open to considering another person's belief. Facts are facts. Some people are just very misinformed. Me believing that you are one of those people doesn't make me arrogant/ignorant/inconsiderate.

As for the forum comments, I agree and have tried my best to keep this relevant to the original post. Even when analyzing the deeper precepts that of governmental regulatory law. It's a tough line to walk no doubt. I welcome mods to come and assist in this conversation.

Here's the tenuous connection that you are building on: governments have done bad things to their own citizens and others. Therefore, all government involvement leads to harm. That's the crux of your argument. That's a tenuous link. And you posted irrelevant stuff about genocide to show that government regulations of all kinds are bad. That's tenuous.

But you picked up on my sarcasm about Bernoulli. Without his contributions, there would be no airplanes, and thus no war plans, and thus no pilots who died in combat. Bernoulli made flight possible, therefore he is responsible for deaths. That's a tenuous link and it makes no sense.

Hitler killed people, therefore governments always kill people, therefore government regulations are bad. Tenuous.

Governments also provide protection. Obviously you have to pick side if you use a war example, but when one government attacks or defends against another, it (at least ostensibly) does so to protect its citizens or allies. At the very least, it is to protect the interests of its citizens or allies.

This is a vary basic concept and is not tenuous. It's directly linked. Governments are not a physics law. Hitler is one person, but there are MANY others, which I previously site. Government does provide protection and there's a clear line where they do provide protection, but that protection is limited to preventing violent crime and ensuring our inalienable rights. Government has a minimal place in regulation of business. The free market is very capable at regulating itself (with a couple of exceptions such as monopolies), which I believe their to be an issue with, but those are exceptions, not the rule.

So you believe Hitler was justified simply because he was protecting himself? He and many other governments have a long history of constant encroachment of our inalienable rights. Again, to say that I don't want them in my business is a logical extension of that.

Government regulations of food production cut down on contamination with infectious stuff (say anthrax or something) as well as allergens. So they take away your freedom to not wash your hands coming out of the restroom, in exchange for the rest of us having a reasonable expectation that your hands are clean when you make food. That seems like a small liberty to give up - you should wash your hands anyway.

"If governments are historically terrible at managing even something as basic as keeping its citizens alive..." You have not shown that to be a fact to build on. That's not a "given." For example, using the articles you linked earlier, you would have to show that LBJ caused X number of American deaths, compared to Y number of Americans living at the time whose death he did not cause. I will bet you $1 that there were more living than the 30,000 (or whatever) deaths attributed to him in that article.

That's not a solid basis for governments being historically "terrible at... keeping its citizens alive."

"Government is bad at almost everything..." Again, that's a viewpoint, but it's not really supported. To support that, you would have to make a list of everything government does, and then categorize them into things government does badly and does well.

And this is not a specific government, but government as an institution. And that institution since the beginning of time, as you're arguing against a concept. Talk about a straw man! In your explanations, "government" is a straw man that you have set up and knocked down.

"Follow the standard that the law sets for the business it's in." It's kind of hard to separate "the law" from "the government." That's how the law is made, implemented, and enforced.

But, "The law should only require the standards that we hold our business to to be clear and publicized."

So a company makes a product and as long as it says clearly, "This product is manufactured in a way that might endanger your health, according to some people, but hey, we're telling you about it, so it's cool" then it's ok. Like a cigarette warning - only it would be on all food. Baby food should be manufactured with no standards, as long as there is a sign that says so. Cars should have no regulations, as long as there's a sign that says "Buyer Beware!"

Yes it's okay for a product to be manufactured and be dangerous as long as the manufacture states clearly that it's made in that way. if the buyer is okay with it, who cares? If you don't like it, don't buy it and don't support the business! If you still believe that governments are not historically terrible, then go get some actual life experience. Go visit Venezuela or North Korea. There's some real life experience for ya. I could list 100 more.

Businesses would set their own standards, and as long as they pass the audit against their own standards, it's fine. If people eat or drink their products and get sick, then the market will sort it out.

And don't let someone with the wrong last name go there, or someone with different colored skin. Because they can refuse service to anyone they want.

We had all that before. It was called the Middle Ages. We've come a long way from that. It seems to work better when we protect each other, even if it means one person has to give up the right to be dirty. Hand washing is not oppression.

I was so hoping for some examples of how the government has allowed drugs on the market that killed people. Like even one reference to Thalidomide or something. Instead, your dislike for government hangs on links to how many people were killed by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

Seriously - "Hitler was a bad guy, so I shouldn't be told to wash my hands. Live Free or Die!"

This is why I said that it's not about evidence, it's about a philosophy, and because of that, you and I won't agree. My philosophy is that the benefit of society is more important than individual liberty. Liberty is important, but less important than taking care of other humans. It's not about being right or wrong, we just see things differently.

And yes, there is a line, and I agree with you to a certain point about government interference. But only to a certain point.

It's all about evidence! Without it, there's no argument for anything at all. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are EXTREME examples. I am not doing all the research for you. Put some effort into fact finding. Do I need to literally spell everything out for you? There's tons of example of modern day corruption with today's leaders. I'm using historically accepted obvious ones. People generally won't support discrimination, like that seen in the jim-crow days. Do you really think a business would last if it posted all it's practices on it's doors? This means they'd be required to say:

We don't store our meat at the recommended temp range. We don't wash our hands. We don't serve or support people of these ethnicities.

People would run to other more innovative outlets and compete more than the government allows today resulting in more jobs and GDP. Force all business to be an open door to show how they do what they do regarding health practices and this economy would explode with productivity.

 

[Baabaadoo]

Ummmm...yeah.....

Wrong. I even summarized where this discussion came from previously.

 

[applescrap]

Ummmm...yeah.....

Me no like this post.