What swear words would Jesus use?

[shanek]

Actually, it's not ignorance. Shanek already knows the answers to most of his "questions" because they were already answered in the thread that slingblade was referring to.

No, they weren't. They were whitewashed, asserted, and obfuscated, but they were never answered.

1. Sinclair never claimed that human "meat" was being sold. Sinclair told the story of one man who accidentally fell into the lard rendering vats, and the resulting product was supposedly sold.

From Chapter 9:

"Worst of any, however, were the fertilizer men, and those who served in the cooking rooms. These people could not be shown to the visitor,--for the odor of a fertilizer man would scare any ordinary visitor at a hundred yards, and as for the other men, who worked in tank rooms full of steam, and in some of which there were open vats near the level of the floor, their peculiar trouble was that they fell into the vats; and when they were fished out, there was never enough of them left to be worth exhibiting,--sometimes they would be overlooked for days, till all but the bones of them had gone out to the world as Durham's Pure Leaf Lard!"

THEY fell into the vats...THEY would be overlooked...All but the bones of THEM had gone out to the world. YOU ARE WRONG!!!

The "where are all the widows" bit is just more of the same strawman.

None of the THEY mentioned above were married? Even if they weren't, they didn't have mothers? Siblings? ANYONE who would miss them?

So, why would Shanek ask questions that had already been answered? I can think of two reasons:
1. He simply forgot. In which case he is dismissing Sinclair as a "woo" without even knowing what Sinclair's claims were.
2. He simply doesn't care. Repeating the same objections over and over will eventually convince someone that there must be something to it.

3. You're a liar and the questions were never answered at all.

 

[slingblade]

Here's what I want to know:

What's the ultimate point? Supposing we indulge Shanek for a moment and agree in principle that: A. Sinclair fabricated every word; B. The Neill-Reynolds report fabricated every word; C. the government expanded its powers to inspect food-preparation falsely.

So what? I mean, so what do we want to do about it now? Get rid of the FDA and turn all drug and food regulation over to private companies?

Why? I mean, you cited two articles about how horrible (supposedly) the FDA is at approving new drugs. True or not, what does that have to do with inspecting restaurants for food safety? I'm not knowledgeable enough to know just what role the FDA plays in my local health department's regulation of food sanitation. If we get rid of the FDA, does that automatically mean my state health department loses the power to inspect and certify food preparation locations? Wouldn't my state government still have the power to inspect and certify or reject?

What are we really arguing here? Sinclair's veracity, or the powers of the government?

 

[Orwell]

There is a logical fallicy here, somewhere.

If x people die because a drug that was ultimately found to be safe and effective was tied up in the regulatory process it begs the question of the potential impact of drugs that were not effective and dangerous that were ultimately never released. Of course a drug that works could have saved lives if it were released earlier, that is just hindsight but what about those that don't. This seems like a highly dishonest argument.

Yup, yup, yup. I've already mentioned this, but not as explicitly as you just did.

 

[shanek]

So what? I mean, so what do we want to do about it now?

How about, stop perpetuating the myth, for one? This discussion only came about because people cited The Jungle as if it were authoritative.

Get rid of the FDA and turn all drug and food regulation over to private companies?

Works for me.

Why? I mean, you cited two articles about how horrible (supposedly) the FDA is at approving new drugs. True or not, what does that have to do with inspecting restaurants for food safety?

Food safety is a separate issue, but the FDA covers all of that.

If we get rid of the FDA, does that automatically mean my state health department loses the power to inspect and certify food preparation locations?

No. In fact, your state is allowed under the Constitution to do so (by virtue of the fact that they aren't restricted from doing so by Article I Section 10). The Feds aren't, as they aren't given the power under Article I Secion 8.

Wouldn't my state government still have the power to inspect and certify or reject?

Yes.

What are we really arguing here?

That people shouldn't be using Sinclair's book as authoritative.

 

[Darat]

So we can go back to food safety laws now and address the arguments put forward about why they are unfortunately necessary in the real world?

 

[richardm]

Wait a second Shanek; do I misunderstand or would local government still be able to certify or shut down food establishments under your plan? And you would be satisfied with that? Because to be honest I can't see what the functional difference is between that and federally mandated inspections.

If that is not the plan, then, as Darat says, back to the question of necessity!

 

[shanek]

Wait a second Shanek; do I misunderstand or would local government still be able to certify or shut down food establishments under your plan?

Well, according to Libertarianism it's wrong for any of them to use force to tell other people how to run their business or what they can put into their own body.

And you would be satisfied with that?

I'd try to reform or repeal the laws in my state, but otherwise I'd be pretty satisfied. I wouldn't try to tell people in other states what they should be doing. Then we can have real-world experiences to tell us for sure which way works better.

Because to be honest I can't see what the functional difference is between that and federally mandated inspections.

It's called "federalism" and "state sovereignity," something we've lost way too much of.

 

[CFLarsen]

There is a logical fallicy here, somewhere.

If x people die because a drug that was ultimately found to be safe and effective was tied up in the regulatory process it begs the question of the potential impact of drugs that were not effective and dangerous that were ultimately never released. Of course a drug that works could have saved lives if it were released earlier, that is just hindsight but what about those that don't. This seems like a highly dishonest argument.

It is obvious what would happen: Those ineffective and dangerous drugs would simply be on the market, until it was discovered that they killed people.

Shanek doesn't care about those unfortunate people at all. It is THEIR BODIES, remember? They can croak, for all he cares.

 

[Manny]

In case anyone is tracking actual facts here, the FDA does not conduct or mandate the conduct of inspections of restaurants or other retail food establishments. That is a state concern, often done through municipalities.

The FDA also does not inspect meat processing facilities. That's the USDA.

 

[Ed]

Well, according to Libertarianism it's wrong for any of them to use force to tell other people how to run their business or what they can put into their own body.
.

Which begs the question of how an addict can continue to make an informed choice, which they cannot which is why drugs are dangerous.

I know Shane, you kicked numerous addictions so everyone should be able to. Does not work for me in the slightest.

 

[shanek]

In case anyone is tracking actual facts here, the FDA does not conduct or mandate the conduct of inspections of restaurants or other retail food establishments. That is a state concern, often done through municipalities.

The FDA also does not inspect meat processing facilities. That's the USDA.

You are correct on both counts. As I clarified above, the FDA I mentioned earlier referred to the Food and Drug Act, not the Food and Drug Administration.

 

[shanek]

Which begs the question of how an addict can continue to make an informed choice, which they cannot which is why drugs are dangerous.

We've been through this before. The person makes the initial choice to take the addictive substance. And as any addiction expert will tell you (I cited many), the key element in beating an addiction is CHOOSING TO DO SO.

 

[kmortis]

But that's the part that's had the biggest effect on us. That's the part that led directly to the FDA.

The agency grew from a single chemist in the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1862 (From The FDA's Own site.)

The Jungle 1906 (From THe Berkely Digital Library)

so....A book help start a federal agency 24 years before it was ever published.....neat.

 

[CFLarsen]

We've been through this before. The person makes the initial choice to take the addictive substance. And as any addiction expert will tell you (I cited many), the key element in beating an addiction is CHOOSING TO DO SO.

So, people who are addicts choose to be addicts?

Wow.

 

[Ed]

We've been through this before. The person makes the initial choice to take the addictive substance. And as any addiction expert will tell you (I cited many), the key element in beating an addiction is CHOOSING TO DO SO.

Right, and the addiction has no impact on the perons ability to make a choice.

 

[Orwell]

We've been through this before. The person makes the initial choice to take the addictive substance. And as any addiction expert will tell you (I cited many), the key element in beating an addiction is CHOOSING TO DO SO.

That's our Shanek!

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

THEY fell into the vats...THEY would be overlooked...All but the bones of THEM had gone out to the world. YOU ARE WRONG!!!

You are correct. I misremembered the number of people he claimed this happened to. My point remains. Sinclair did not claim that human meat was being sold, so your demand for testing of "meat" was simply a diversion. For the difference between lard and meat, consult your local butcher.

None of the THEY mentioned above were married? Even if they weren't, they didn't have mothers? Siblings? ANYONE who would miss them?

Your hysterical demand that I provide evidence for I story I already said was not confirmed is really quite bizarre. Really.

You're a liar and the questions were never answered at all.

I encourage people to read the thread for themselves: it is only one page of a three page thread. Oh, and speaking of lying, maybe you could give me the name of "the first (private) transcontinental highway."

 

[shanek]

You are correct. I misremembered the number of people he claimed this happened to. My point remains.

No, it doesn't. Get picky all you want about meat and lard, but the fact is there is NO evidence corroborating the HEARSAY evidence Sinclair collected. No testing of the final product, no direct witnesses, no missing person reports, NOTHING.

 

[Orwell]

No, it doesn't. Get picky all you want about meat and lard, but the fact is there is NO evidence corroborating the HEARSAY evidence Sinclair collected. No testing of the final product, no direct witnesses, no missing person reports, NOTHING.

Woa, so much certainty over something written over 100 years ago! It's like he was there, man!

That's our Shanek.

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

The Neill/Reynolds report did not confirm this particular story, but it is harped upon to divert attention from the items which were confirmed.

I rest my case.