Political Cartoons

Ah, free speech for false advertising.
Well, that's how Fox News exists.

From:

This is timely, since Vermont passed a statue allowing GMO labeling. (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/04/24/306442972/bracing-for-a-battle-vermont-passes-gmo-labeling-bill)

For the past few years, consumer advocates have been ratcheting up the pressure on states and the federal government to require labeling, arguing that information about GMOs is essential if we're to make informed decisions about what food to buy. Meanwhile, the food industry has resisted the idea of labeling, arguing that GMOs are safe and that labeling costs would be passed onto consumers. Allen Williams grows corn and soybeans for Clarkson Grain, which has been selling GMO-free grain to Japan for years.But recently, they changed their tune a bit. As we in February, a food industry coalition representing farmers, seed companies and other food producers who rely heavily on GMO ingredients said they support voluntary labeling standards. And they asked the Food and Drug Administration to outline what they might look like.

Without getting into the nuts and bolts of the GMO debate when I say I'm pro labeling, since consumers should be allowed to be informed about their purchasing choices.

From:

Jeff's argument on GMO labeling is so funny. He says that GMO labeling shouldn't be required, because it'll just feed the misplaced fears people have over GMOs. But that's a paternalistic argument - it's essentially saying that we should shape government policy so that it channels people to "freely" make choices we deem to be best for them. I wonder where else we could apply that rationale...

From:

fizzyland.livejournal.com

But, but... profits.

From:

johnny9fingers.livejournal.com

From:

It's just trolling that's tolerated for reasons I've never understood and don't care to speculate as to why anymore, so I just ignore. I don't even see it most of the time.

My position is that GMO labeling doesn't provide any relevant information (because GMOs aren't unsafe, and the existence of genetic modification does not actually change anything of interest), and that labeling is an end-around on GMO bans because the anti-GMO campaign has been so successful at causing suspicion in the population to try and get "the informed market" to abandon them in the marketplace.

If a company wants to market their goods as containing genetically altered foods, that's fine by me. It's compelling them to do so that I have a problem with, and you know that requirement won't carry over to, say, seedless watermelon.

From:

404.livejournal.com

It's been pretty much his schtick for the last few months. Disappointing that the regulars and whatever mods are here don't do something about it. One of the reasons why I've stopped participating as much as I used to here.

From:

404 - your entire schtick is trolling. And if you've stopped participating because of me, it's only been because I haven't been prohibited by inconsistent rule application by barely-literate mods from telling you so.

From:

404.livejournal.com

You're right, you are not the main reason I stopped participating here, you're just the standard bearer for a group here that revels in harassing and running off anyone that disagrees with you.

From:

404, you precious little martyr, no one wants to run you off just because they disagree with you. Indeed, I think that I speak for this group for whom I've apparently become "the standard bearer" when I say that we love disagreeing with you. We also love pointing out all of your white-knighting and whining, because it's just so cute.

Now - is that a harassing comment? If it is, why?

It is so strange to me when people who are in favor of liberty end up having a lot of trouble with its exercise. We're supposed to have this wonderful marketplace of ideas, where no speech is too harsh, no idea too ridiculous, to be properly subject to any kind of regulation, but the moment a fauxbertarian finds themselves subjected too directly to contempt, they're off to some privately-administered forum where the moderators enforce some constantly-evolving standard of civility.

No one wants to run you off. As a matter of fact, most of us can't run you off, even if we wanted to - as Jeff has so ably demonstrated by sticking to his guns for longer than I've been around. This isn't some town on some western frontier where there's a rail with your name on it, if too many of us get tired of you. This is a forum where your level of engagement is entirely up to you. It seems to me that the response to "harassing" comments more logically would be just not to respond, as a matter being one too tiresome to pursue, rather than to take oneself to be "attacked" or being "run off." In that case, your lack of participation would look more like mere boredom than "harassment." But "harassment" is the word you've chosen to describe our failure to respond to you in the kindly way you, for whatever reason, expect of us. Why?

From:

yes-justice.livejournal.com

But you haven't stopped participating.

From:

From:

labeling is an end-around on GMO bans because the anti-GMO campaign has been so successful at causing suspicion in the population to try and get "the informed market" to abandon them in the marketplace.

But for a true celebrant of individual freedom and freedom of speech, shouldn't the answer be more speech. It's not like the megacorps behind these GMO foods don't have the money to fight that information war. Indeed, our political discussions on their spending in our campaigns is more relevantly worried about their being able to overwhelm all other parties in the battle in the marketplace of ideas.

One of the reasons why we focus on you can also be seen in this case. It's remarkable how you are willing to bend over backwards to protect the interest of these megacorps, even at the cost of what one might think to be your true principles of freedom.

From:

I would not bar any outside group from noting whether something was genetically modified independently, either. This is an issue of compelled speech as much as free speech. Free, not equal.

From:

Forget this GMO thing. Do you think it's wrong to compel companies to provide nutritional labels and ingredients as well?

Secondly, do you approve of companies being free to purposely mislead consumers as indicated in the original post? Do you support that as free speech as well?

From:

I have a difficult time justifying label laws, yes.

As for the OP issue (or at least the POM/Coke suit, I haven't watch the video and don't plan to), it's a little more complicated than "purposely mislead," and, truly, the idea that there would be some sort of government agency or group to decide whether speech was "true" or not is chilling. False speech is still free speech.

From:

The founders would be mightily surprised to learn that the First Amendment prohibited laws against fraud and perjury, but hey, who am I, a lawyer? Ha! Ha! Ha!

From:

So you'd be all for the government putting stuff in the water and not telling anyone? Or does that need to be labelled because it's the government?

From:

It's not like taps come with labels on them from town to town. Yes, though, government is different. You can't opt out, you often can't compete.

From:

I can opt out of buying food? Tell me more!

From:

johnny9fingers.livejournal.com

All the GMO's passed thus far appear to be safe. We've done this before. Shall I quote Russell on the problem of induction to you?

And accurate labelling identifying origins, grape variety, vintage, and wine-maker informs a buyer's market in at least one area I'm aware of.

Everything sold for consumption should be labelled with the information the consumer wants, or the consumer should be able to reject it and buy an alternative that does label it's contents properly. Surely that is the position you must defend, isn't it?

The difference between your position and mine is just one of timing: I'm anticipating the market in the light of the popular desire to have such information, and allowing those stupid to their own advantage to have a level playing field with the enlightened folk who labelled their food in the light of consumer demand. It's almost like a democracy, but one where money buys influence.

From:

All the GMO's passed thus far appear to be safe. We've done this before. Shall I quote Russell on the problem of induction to you?

I think you did last time this came up. Let's label if and when there's a reason to, not just because.

Everything sold for consumption should be labelled with the information the consumer wants, or the consumer should be able to reject it and buy an alternative that does label it's contents properly. Surely that is the position you must defend, isn't it?

Okay, so where does that line sit? I don't love labeling laws at all, but I can at least see the point in labeling relevant information. What is the relevance of whether a genetic modification exists in the food being sold specifically? "People should know" implies that there's something about that food they should know about and be wary of.

From:

What is the relevance of whether a genetic modification exists in the food being sold specifically? "People should know" implies that there's something about that food they should know about and be wary of.

And so they're just better off not knowing. See? Paternalistic.

From:

moonshaz.livejournal.com

I think that if people want to know that a product contains GMOs, they have the right to know. Whether you or I think their reason for wanting to know is silly doesn't change that, imo.

From:

The issue is that it's really irrelevant. What if I want to know the square footage of the plant it's produced in, or the age of the butcher cutting my meat. Should that be on there, too? Where do we stop?

From:

slippery slope
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

From:

The slippery slope is already being invoked with the labeling.

More to the point, it's not an "extreme hypothetical," as the basis for labeling GMOs is that "the consumer has a right to know" information that is irrelevant to its experience.

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. It's telling that you instead chose this direction, distracting from the topic in order to advance some false point.

Sorry to ruin your party, though.

From:

The slippery slope is already being invoked with the labeling.

as the basis for labeling GMOs is that "the consumer has a right to know" information that is irrelevant to its experience.

Begging the question, circular logic. blah blah blah. Paternalistic like Oslo suggested. And lots of stomping those Libertarian feet.

It's telling that you instead chose this direction, distracting from the topic in order to advance some false point.

So sorry to ruin your party (not really *wink*).

From:

And yet you still have no answers. Telling.

From:

Yeah it tells me your begging the quesitons, and pointing out your logical fallacies is so much fun!

From:

That's what we're waiting for from you, yes.

From:

That's nice!

From:

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.

From:

Very true, and I'm not into debating with robots anyway.

From:

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.

From:

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?

From:

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

Edited Date: 2014-05-01 12:28 am (UTC)

From:

Oh, god - if I could bill him my hourly rate... it would probably bankrupt him.

From:

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 would seem to me that the standard to apply here is found by asking: what kinds of information do people want to know, when they are purchasing a product? What kinds of information are relevant to their estimation of value and the assessment and comparison of prices? All that "labeling" needs to accomplish, I think, is to draw out the information that there's a market demand for. When we do that, we accomplish two things: we reduce the transaction costs for making purchases, and we ensure a more efficient matching of supply to demand. If I value a tomato with only tomato genes in it more highly than I value a tomato with pig genes, then it makes sense for labeling to enable me to avoid over-paying for things I don't want, regardless of whether my reasons behind the preference make any sense.

From:

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?

From:

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.)

Jeff endures and engages in far more severe "cyber-bullying" than I have undertaken here, and I am far less kind to others in this community than I have been with him at my worst, but as far as I've ever seen, neither you nor anyone else has undertaken to scold me or others for doing so. It seems to me that what's triggering your reaction here is the fact that I am referring to him obliquely, rather than in a direct exchange. What's ironic about that, of course, is that it is the only way in which he engages with me, now.

I'm sure Jeff is a resilient sort of cove, and fully capable of getting into his own hot water: but if this path is to be taken, which I advise against, cite references please.

Simply put, no. I read Jeff's comments. I think about them and often attempt to engage them thoughtfully, even though I know he won't respond. I remember things that he's said, and I understand and know enough about his views to be able to say both general and specific things about them. I am not going to restrain myself from commenting about his views unless and until I can gather links from thousands of comments over dozens of posts that will enable anyone else to assess what I say for themselves. If you don't think I have a leg to stand on, fine - don't believe me.

Jeff's Argument from cited discussion + reference and link is at least ethically neutral, I reckon.

Absent any demonstration from you that what I'm doing is ethically dubious in the first place, apart from your gut-feel, I'm disinclined to care what you think.

From:

Hehe, statue ;)

From:

"This video is not available in your country"

Even on YouTube.

FUCK YOU RUPERT!!!!! *shakes fist*

From: