hyperdulia again Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the parameters of secular authority. To me this is the most frightening statement imaginable: Who says the state does not have authority over your diet? It smacks of tolalitarianism and of a deep enmity towards freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autumn Dusk Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I think it depends on the control of the food system. If there is a government says that they are setting up an organization for the control of safe food then the common person can go to any store and buy food they know someone's watched over. It dosn't work 100% of the time, but in general its much safer than chaos. If you personally want to take a risk with food, raw milk, alcohol, tobacco, certain chemical fats, then go right ahead. However, don't expect the government to pay for one cent of your medical care or even go public transit to seek that care. You only have rights to do with your body what you want when you can %100 care for it without government help. If you can't do that tough. You're just like a kid who can't eat candy, its part of what you give up for having someone to wipe your bum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaHilarious Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 [quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1403418' date='Oct 15 2007, 10:12 PM']I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the parameters of secular authority. To me this is the most frightening statement imaginable: Who says the state does not have authority over your diet? It smacks of tolalitarianism and of a deep enmity towards freedom.[/quote] It's called the FDA. They regulate what we are allowed to sell and eat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 Yes the FDA does exist Papa! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 Whether or not it should is my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaHilarious Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 [quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1403418' date='Oct 15 2007, 10:12 PM']It smacks of tolalitarianism and of a deep enmity towards freedom.[/quote] Real classy, calling me names because I used the FDA as an example of government authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 honestly had i known the FDA was what you were talking about I wouldn't have said it. i'm the grandchild of a jewish-catholic refugee from nazism. my mind went immediately to totalitarianism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaHilarious Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 [quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1403443' date='Oct 15 2007, 10:34 PM']honestly had i known the FDA was what you were talking about I wouldn't have said it. i'm the grandchild of a jewish-catholic refugee from nazism. my mind went immediately to totalitarianism.[/quote] okay. thanks for the explanation. just a little confusion then. no worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autumn Dusk Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I believe there should be an authority. We know what's in our food, we are bound by law to get food that is not expired, in correct packaging, and more or less safe. No authority, no safe foods in the long run. Ther'd probably be a few notable "safe" companies to eat from, but after that nothing. However, even "safe" companies don't always produce "safe" food. Anyone remember beechnut? In the 1980's they sold colored water as baby apple juice, until they were caught and prosecuted. I think alot more of that would go on if there wasn't an FDA. On the other hand who's to say FDA knows anything. The've turned the food pyramid into a food obliesk. They change their minds about eggs every week and there's more "scientific opinions" on chocolate than there are on latin mass. FDA is good for the masses. FDA is good to protect children from being fed dangerous food because its cheap. However, if as a knowledgeable citizen you want to go out and buy a food go right ahead, but that piece of food dosn't come with the same rights to health as the one at the grocer that the FDA approves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 Autumn I'm actually talking about something larger than the FDA--the powers that the government exercises in general, over where we can school our children, who we can "marry," etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 Your posts are very thoughtful and not all mean spirited Autumn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photosynthesis Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I think that the government should do everything within its power to prevent people from popping their collars up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaHilarious Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 [quote name='photosynthesis' post='1403453' date='Oct 15 2007, 10:48 PM']I think that the government should do everything within its power to prevent people from popping their collars up.[/quote] are the collars in question edible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autumn Dusk Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 [quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1403452' date='Oct 16 2007, 01:47 AM']Your posts are very thoughtful and not all mean spirited Autumn. [/quote] I can fix that if you want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 wait where are the hardcore republican conservative christians. to outlaw fatty foods, or at least people from eating unhealthy generally. hardcore republicans, not true libertarians, outlaw anything sinful, after all. i could see liberals outlawing fatty foods too. depends on how you look at it i guess. but from hardcore con point of view, they'd ban it cause it's sinful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now