He doesn't even believe that corporations should have to provide a list of their ingredients, notwithstanding GMO elements. There's not much of a debate to be had here.
Maybe you should state outright what you think telemann's response "tells" you, rather than pretend that you're not in fact directly insulting him by speaking only circumspectly.
Begging the question, circular logic. blah blah blah. Paternalistic like Oslo suggested.
Yes - this seems roughly where, in Jeff's thinking, we've reached the root level. There's really no way we're going to be able to get him to see that his judgment about what information is "necessary" on a label - to the extent he deigns to allow that mandatory labeling might be appropriate - necessarily incorporates an evaluative framework that he takes to be simply self-evident.
It would take hundreds of words to explain, and all of it would just go over his head. What's "necessary" on a box of aspirin, say? Doesn't the notion of necessity contemplate some range of intended uses? So don't we have to make some judgment about the relation of a product to its use, as well as its user?
There's really no way we're going to be able to get him to see that his judgment about what information is "necessary" on a label - to the extent he deigns to allow that mandatory labeling might be appropriate - necessarily incorporates an evaluative framework that he takes to be simply self-evident,,,, It would take hundreds of words to explain, and all of it would just go over his head.
Exactly, and I want 35.00 an hour for my tutoring fees ;) But I appreciate your explanations though, since you are a real expert #yay #enpowerment
A good argument from you would be to explain why GMO labeling is necessary information, thus explaining why introducing other hypothetical labeling information that a "consumer has the right to know" would be unnecessary.
And here's where we can tip the slippery slope right back in your direction. Because what is necessary information, on a product label? Is it the country of origin? Is it the precise ordering of ingredients? Is it the nutrient information? Is there any reason we "need" to know how a new garment of clothing should be laundered? And why is "necessary information" a relevant criterion, anyway
( ... )
It's just trolling that's tolerated for reasons I've never understood...
It's not "trolling" to say that some third party takes a position that they do, in fact, hold, as you've so conveniently demonstrated here. How on earth could it be trolling?
That seems a remarkably inconsistent position for Jeff to take, given his advocacy for a free market of informed individuals and companies: one would almost think that withholding information would create some sort of dissymmetry in the marketplace...or at least an asymmetry, if that's the word I'm stretching for.
For whatever reason, he thinks that the market for information on products is one that should be entirely voluntary and consumer-driven. If you want to know whether products you consume have peanuts in them, it's up to you to find that out.
The problem is that to looks a little too like cyber-bullying the vulnerable.In what sense does it look like "cyber-bullying?" All that I have done here is provide a (what I believe to be true and fair) account of what Jeff has publicly said on a particular subject. This is a public forum in which he participates, so if it is not true and fair, he by all means is free to say so. (Although it turns out that it is exactly that, as he has demonstrated
( ... )
Well, that's how Fox News exists.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Yes - this seems roughly where, in Jeff's thinking, we've reached the root level. There's really no way we're going to be able to get him to see that his judgment about what information is "necessary" on a label - to the extent he deigns to allow that mandatory labeling might be appropriate - necessarily incorporates an evaluative framework that he takes to be simply self-evident.
It would take hundreds of words to explain, and all of it would just go over his head. What's "necessary" on a box of aspirin, say? Doesn't the notion of necessity contemplate some range of intended uses? So don't we have to make some judgment about the relation of a product to its use, as well as its user?
Reply
Exactly, and I want 35.00 an hour for my tutoring fees ;) But I appreciate your explanations though, since you are a real expert
#yay #enpowerment
Reply
Reply
And here's where we can tip the slippery slope right back in your direction. Because what is necessary information, on a product label? Is it the country of origin? Is it the precise ordering of ingredients? Is it the nutrient information? Is there any reason we "need" to know how a new garment of clothing should be laundered? And why is "necessary information" a relevant criterion, anyway ( ... )
Reply
It's not "trolling" to say that some third party takes a position that they do, in fact, hold, as you've so conveniently demonstrated here. How on earth could it be trolling?
Reply
For whatever reason, he thinks that the market for information on products is one that should be entirely voluntary and consumer-driven. If you want to know whether products you consume have peanuts in them, it's up to you to find that out.
The problem is that to looks a little too like cyber-bullying the vulnerable.In what sense does it look like "cyber-bullying?" All that I have done here is provide a (what I believe to be true and fair) account of what Jeff has publicly said on a particular subject. This is a public forum in which he participates, so if it is not true and fair, he by all means is free to say so. (Although it turns out that it is exactly that, as he has demonstrated ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment