• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?

Should the Federal Government push food processors into lowering salt content?


  • Total voters
    46
You need to brush up on your reading comprehension, first, seeing as I never said anything remotely close to "right not to an abortion".

That's not something like "People have a right to live in a region that doesn't allow abortions".

Yes, that's what you really said.

It makes as much sense.

Do people have a right to freedom of religion, but also a right to live where there are no Muslims or Jews too? Or freedom of the press, but also a right to live in a place where they don't have to see other people reading stuff they don't like?

By the way, it is ironic that you used a logical fallacy (the strawman) to claim I need to brush up on my logic skills.

Hmmm. How exactly does one have a right to something and also a right to live where nobody can get it at the same time?
 
Just curious, does the same logic apply to arsenic? Do the companies "have a right to put as much arsenic into their product as they want to." Or a can baby formula company put as much dog feces into its product as it wants to without telling anyone?

I see no problem with regulatory oversight.

I just disagree with intrastate trade being regulated by the Feds. Interstate trade is all theirs.

If it's properly labled then yes. A food manufacturer isn't going to sell something as immediately dangerous as arsenic in their food, but I do see your point. However, it is still up to the consumer to have reasonable knowledge of what they're buying. The amount of salt per serving, serving sizes, and how the amount makes up daily recommended intake are all on the container. I would consider that within the realm of reasonable knowledge.
 
Should we have no speed limits at all, or no regulation of alcohol though?

Well speed limits are another argument, but yes, we do have be reasonable. The point of my post is that just because something another person does can affect you, that doesn't give you the right to control them.
 
Well speed limits are another argument, but yes, we do have be reasonable. The point of my post is that just because something another person does can affect you, that doesn't give you the right to control them.

Right. But sometimes it does. That's the whole basis of civil society - some things you are free to do despite their effect on others, some you're not.
 
Yes, that's what you really said.

No it isn't, which is why you need to brush up on reading comprehension.


The first step is to make an effort to understand what you are reading instead of inventing completely different meanings and steadfastly adhering to theses inventions.

It makes as much sense.

If you put no effort into understanding, you will never achieve understanding.

Do people have a right to freedom of religion, but also a right to live where there are no Muslims or Jews too? Or freedom of the press, but also a right to live in a place where they don't have to see other people reading stuff they don't like?

Yes, they have that right. And they can exercise said right by moving to a region where these people aren't present. It's not like every neighborhood has a mandatory Muslim or Jew or guy reading certain books.

If someone they don't like moves next door, they merely have to move again to exercise their right.

Are you in favor of banning people's right to move into the neighborhood of their choosing? :confused: Do you not believe it is the right of a person to move to a place of their choosing?

Hmmm. How exactly does one have a right to something and also a right to live where nobody can get it at the same time?

It's about choice. It is impossible to prevent a woman from exercising her right to abort her child. She will always be free to use a coat hanger in her own home. That's why abortion is a right.

If it could not be self-administered (and I don't give a rat's ass about safety, there is no right to have an abortion safely) it would not be a right.

What isn't a right is legal access to a service-provider for abortions.

This is why your argument is a strawman. You mistakenly believe that my statement that a woman has the right to an abortion extends beyond the simple right to abort the fetus and into the right to have a service provided at cost.

Not all rights are freely exercised.
 
A food manufacturer isn't going to sell something as immediately dangerous as arsenic in their food

The only problem with that is that they actually do sell food that has arsenic added, albeit indirectly.

However, it is still up to the consumer to have reasonable knowledge of what they're buying. The amount of salt per serving, serving sizes, and how the amount makes up daily recommended intake are all on the container. I would consider that within the realm of reasonable knowledge.

I agree. That's perfectly reasonable
 
Last edited:
Right. But sometimes it does. That's the whole basis of civil society - some things you are free to do despite their effect on others, some you're not.

And I don't consider what I eat to be any of your business. Yes, it could raise the costs in the future slightly. However, I see this as a reason to privatize more care instead of using some control of my life as an excuse to control more.
 
No it isn't, which is why you need to brush up on reading comprehension.


The first step is to make an effort to understand what you are reading instead of inventing completely different meanings and steadfastly adhering to theses inventions.



If you put no effort into understanding, you will never achieve understanding.



Yes, they have that right. And they can exercise said right by moving to a region where these people aren't present. It's not like every neighborhood has a mandatory Muslim or Jew or guy reading certain books.

If someone they don't like moves next door, they merely have to move again to exercise their right.

Are you in favor of banning people's right to move into the neighborhood of their choosing? :confused: Do you not believe it is the right of a person to move to a place of their choosing?



It's about choice. It is impossible to prevent a woman from exercising her right to abort her child. She will always be free to use a coat hanger in her own home. That's why abortion is a right.

If it could not be self-administered (and I don't give a rat's ass about safety, there is no right to have an abortion safely) it would not be a right.

What isn't a right is legal access to a service-provider for abortions.

This is why your argument is a strawman. You mistakenly believe that my statement that a woman has the right to an abortion extends beyond the simple right to abort the fetus and into the right to have a service provided at cost.

Not all rights are freely exercised.

I just can't respond without laughing. I'm sorry, but it's clear this is going to be hopeless.
 
And I don't consider what I eat to be any of your business. Yes, it could raise the costs in the future slightly. However, I see this as a reason to privatize more care instead of using some control of my life as an excuse to control more.

And that's fine.

As long as you acknowledge that there are cases where it is the business of government to regulate things, and you stay consistent.

So do you think the government should stop all regulation of food, including screening for deadly diseases?
 
And that's fine.

As long as you acknowledge that there are cases where it is the business of government to regulate things, and you stay consistent.

So do you think the government should stop all regulation of food, including screening for deadly diseases?

If something is a clear and present danger like significant amounts of cyanide in the food maybe. Something like salt, no.
 
I just can't respond without laughing. I'm sorry, but it's clear this is going to be hopeless.

That's unfortunate.

I would give up too if any potential response I could give were so asinine that even I couldn't help but laugh at their stupidity.

Would you be willing to respond if I promised not to laugh at you for it?
 
It's about choice. It is impossible to prevent a woman from exercising her right to abort her child. She will always be free to use a coat hanger in her own home. That's why abortion is a right.

So you're saying since it's impossible to stop someone from killing an absolute stranger that murder is a right.

You've a nice touch at refusing to use logic.
 
So you're saying since it's impossible to stop someone from killing an absolute stranger that murder is a right.

Yes. It is a right. It's one we as a society have decided is not an inalienable one.

Society decides to alienate or not alienate rights. That doesn't change the fact that they exist.

You've a nice touch at refusing to use logic.

I finfd it odd that the same people who prove time and time again that they are utterly incapable of using logic without relying almost entirely on fallacies are the only one's who say that about my logic.
 
Yes. It is a right. It's one we as a society have decided is not an inalienable one.

It goes without saying that we were talking about inalienable rights only.
 
It goes without saying that we were talking about inalienable rights only.

No, it doesn't go without saying. What a silly assumption. :lol: If you don't add the limiting qualifier, the question about rights becomes all-inclusive. It's kind of an important qualifier if that is what you intend to ask. Failing to add it changes the meaning of the sentence.

I would never have said that having an abortion is a woman's inalienable right.
 
Last edited:
Absurd. Fed Gov't just loves intervening in the public's life, don't they?

What's next? Are they going to prohibit sugar because it has a proclivity to make kids hyper?

Seems the guv't doesn't remember what happened the last time they prohibited a substance (not including the massive WODs failure).

Salteasies and saltleggers will be all the rage.
 
Absurd. Fed Gov't just loves intervening in the public's life, don't they?

What's next? Are they going to prohibit sugar because it has a proclivity to make kids hyper?

It would be nice if they stopped subsidizing corn. Corn starch is way worse than sugar and is a huge reason so many people are so fat in this country.

Seems the guv't doesn't remember what happened the last time they prohibited a substance (not including the massive WODs failure).

Salteasies and saltleggers will be all the rage.

I don't think the idea is to make salt illegal.
 
I know, but in essence, they're prohibiting high-salt content, which tastes better to a good portion of the pop.

People are free to grab the little salt packets that are in every fast food joint and make use of them.
 
I know, but in essence, they're prohibiting high-salt content, which tastes better to a good portion of the pop.

Most people own salt-shakers.

It's easy to add salt if you want it. It's pretty hard to remove salt from food if you don't want it.
 
Back
Top Bottom