I said prove it, not cite someone else claiming the same thing as you are.
What swear words would Jesus use?
- Thread starter Lisa Simpson
- Start date
I said prove it, not cite someone else claiming the same thing as you are.
Er a few things.
1) It is you that is proposing something different to what is already in place so in the context of the discussion it is actually not up to me to provide proof that you are wrong but for you to provide proof you are right.
2) I was citing a source for my claim that milk was adulterated by having chalk added to it pre food safety laws.
3) Since you won't accept facts and reasoning as proof what would constitute proof for you?
I have provided copious amounts of evidence for this in numerous threads throughout my history on this forum. Don't act like I'm making wild claims and not backing them up.
Geez, you people cite The Jungle as evidence (how can any skeptic worth his salt possibly take that book seriously?), for crying out loud!
Well, as to the cost
As to the mandated use, I have had 3 major house renovations done and the stuff had to be ul approved. You seem surprised by this.
Then please provide the evidence that is related to the discussion in this thread that supports your opinion.
"you people" - I take it you are now answering someone else's post?
I looked; I only found four instances of it being mentioned in the US Code:
Garage door openers (Title 45 Section 2056) (the only mention of it in the section on consumer product safety standards)
Government building projects in Latin-American countries (Title 22 Section 2152e)
Title 46, Section 3305, which states, "There are those who have a desire to see the scope and standards of inspection be more specific in law similar to those presently applicable to boilers and boiler plating that predate 1871. The Committee believes this serves no useful purpose since the specifics are either antiquated or too limiting and have, in fact, been superceded by the statutorily authorized adoption of various industrial specifications, standards, and codes by the Coast Guard. These include...Underwriters Laboratories (UL), and many others."
Title 42, Section 14332, regarding the recycling of rechargable batteries, which says, "The Administrator shall grant an exemption on the basis of evidence supplied to the Administrator that the manufacturer has been unable to commence manufacturing the rechargeable consumer product in compliance with the requirements of this section and with an equivalent level of product performance without the product...violating requirements for approvals from governmental agencies or widely recognized private standard-setting organizations (including Underwriters Laboratories)."
That's IT. Hardly comprehensive of all of the products UL tests and approves over the 111 years UL has been in existance, so hardly supporting the point, "Do you think that if the government did not force their "services" on the public they would be in business?"
Garage door openers (Title 45 Section 2056) (the only mention of it in the section on consumer product safety standards)
Government building projects in Latin-American countries (Title 22 Section 2152e)
Title 46, Section 3305, which states, "There are those who have a desire to see the scope and standards of inspection be more specific in law similar to those presently applicable to boilers and boiler plating that predate 1871. The Committee believes this serves no useful purpose since the specifics are either antiquated or too limiting and have, in fact, been superceded by the statutorily authorized adoption of various industrial specifications, standards, and codes by the Coast Guard. These include...Underwriters Laboratories (UL), and many others."
Title 42, Section 14332, regarding the recycling of rechargable batteries, which says, "The Administrator shall grant an exemption on the basis of evidence supplied to the Administrator that the manufacturer has been unable to commence manufacturing the rechargeable consumer product in compliance with the requirements of this section and with an equivalent level of product performance without the product...violating requirements for approvals from governmental agencies or widely recognized private standard-setting organizations (including Underwriters Laboratories)."
That's IT. Hardly comprehensive of all of the products UL tests and approves over the 111 years UL has been in existance, so hardly supporting the point, "Do you think that if the government did not force their "services" on the public they would be in business?"
Can we get back to food safety laws please?
Regarding TragicMonkey's comment about alcohol:
That's the US Code. I deal with CT and my town. You didn't look hard enough.
slingblade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,466
No, not at all. But one can hardly cite one such agency and claim that all future similar agencies will perform in the same manner. Grossly small sample.
One also cannot cite the past record of one agency as a reliable indicator of the future performance of an agency which does not yet exist. This is the same as saying that because all previous U.S. presidents have been male, then all future presidents will be male.
Finally, have you any proof that UL has never engaged in any less-than- sterling practices, bnribery in particular? Ever? Because proving no one at UL has ever taken a bribe, particularly if the bribery was never detected, is impossible, isn't it?
These are basic logical fallacies. I don't think you're trying to compare apples and oranges . . . maybe more like Granny Smiths and Red Delicious. But your arguments don't hold.
And if you'd care to split hairs, I'll go so far as to say "The Jungle" was a fictionalized account . . . of actual practices rampant throughout the meat-packing industry.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/history2.html:
"Then, in 1906, Upton Sinclair published his socialist novel, THE JUNGLE, aimed, as he later said, at people's hearts but hitting their stomachs instead. His few pages describing filthy conditions in Chicago's packing plants, widely reported and confirmed by governmental inquiry, cut meat sales in half, angered President Roosevelt, and pushed a meat inspection bill aimed at protecting the domestic market through the Congress." (emphasis mine)
There are TONS of such organizations. Stop whining.
Several points:
First of all, this was just the Chicago meat-packers, who comprised less than half of the market. So why were the others all so lily-white and pure? (Hint: follow the money)
Second, this was NOT a free market at the time. There were hundreds of inspectors inspecting the Chicago plants just as there were elsewhere. The number of inspectors who would have to have been bought out is staggering (not to mention all the workers and other witnesses who would have to have been silenced). This is a conspiracy theory of the highest proportion: not one single whistleblower, to anyone except a second-rate author trying to start a Socialist revolution?
Third, where's the evidence? Where's the testing of beef bought at the market showing the presence of human meat or mouse droppings? Where are all the widows to say their husband went to work at the meat plant and never came home? Why are the only witnesses giving second-hand hearsay evidence?
Fourth, why do you claim that it was supported by "governmental inquiry," when the only government inquiry that supported it was made over a periof of only a couple of weeks by two guys who admitted they had no expertise in the subject, and ignoring all of the criticism in the Congressional record?
Fifth, "loss of sales" is somehow evidence for anything other than a lot of bogus panic? You probably believe leaky breast implants are harming people, too...
slingblade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,466
You first.
I happen to know your views have already been thoroughly denounced and debunked in another thread on this same topic ("The Jungle"), and I have nothing better to add to the words of your opponent, who made a great case against you. (Yes, I read it all.) You couldn't argue it there, and you can't argue it here.
(and as to your comment: "why do you claim that it was supported by "governmental inquiry,""
if you'll take the time to actually read what's before you, you'll find I didn't make the claim, I only quoted it. The FDA is the actual claimant, so go pester them. Me, I have to get a unit plan together, because guess what book I was just asked to teach next semester? Mmm-hmm.)
Now go away, boy; you bother me.
Last edited:
I have dealt with them 3 times now in detail. You said it was only madaed in two places, you don't understand how building codes work, that was my only point.
As far as 50 years ago, who cares. It is law now and has the force of government behind it. Hardly "independent" rather a creature of the government.
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince?
slingblade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,466
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
I'd rather ask Torak. It's the whole "Phantom of the Opera" thing he's got going on.
I don't care; it's still not true.
Where is the EVIDENCE for Sinclair's allegations?