Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 166 to 175 of 175

Thread: Out of control

  1. #166
    Heisman

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    McKinney, Texas, United States
    Posts
    11,787
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    Ok, you aren't interested in a serious discussion... and that's cool.

    I'd say the majority of people in the US now think it's completely reasonable to ask restaurant merchants to disclose calorie contents.

    Sorry if that offends your sense of self.
    Because I think your suggestion that its a good idea to pay to have a regulation or law mandating placards in all restaurant/bars about "the dangers of DUI" is simply ludicrous, I'm not interested in serious discussion? Bzzzttt, wrong! Sorry, but thanks for playing. Everyone has been educated in many ways in many places about the danger of DUI. Another law or regulation to mandate that restaurants and bars purchase and display such signs is simply ridiculous and will have no effect at all.

    Disagreeing with you does not mean I'm not interested in a serious discussion, although your inflated sense of importance of YOUR opinion vs. any one else's comes through loud and clear in MANY of these Cafe discussions.

  2. #167
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,620
    Quote Originally Posted by McKinneyTXHusker View Post
    Because I think your suggestion that its a good idea to pay to have a regulation or law mandating placards in all restaurant/bars about "the dangers of DUI" is simply ludicrous, I'm not interested in serious discussion? Bzzzttt, wrong! Sorry, but thanks for playing. Everyone has been educated in many ways in many places about the danger of DUI. Another law or regulation to mandate that restaurants and bars purchase and display such signs is simply ridiculous and will have no effect at all.

    Disagreeing with you does not mean I'm not interested in a serious discussion, although your inflated sense of importance of YOUR opinion vs. any one else's comes through loud and clear in MANY of these Cafe discussions.
    I was responding to your suggestion that they put a fire warning on fireplaces. Was that serious proposal on your part?

    What you don't seem to get is that your evasiveness has led us down these ridiculous paths. For instance, we are only talking about DUI warnings because you brought up a ban on alcohol as some sort of reasonable analogy to requiring restaurants to disclose calorie contents.

    Do you see why it's tough to take you seriously?

  3. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    I was responding to your suggestion that they put a fire warning on fireplaces. Was that serious proposal on your part?

    What you don't seem to get is that your evasiveness has led us down these ridiculous paths. For instance, we are only talking about DUI warnings because you brought up a ban on alcohol as some sort of reasonable analogy to requiring restaurants to disclose calorie contents.

    Do you see why it's tough to take you seriously?
    POTY Nominee

  4. #169
    Heisman

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    McKinney, Texas, United States
    Posts
    11,787
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    I was responding to your suggestion that they put a fire warning on fireplaces. Was that serious proposal on your part?
    I feel it is due the same amount of serious consideration as your suggestion that we place DUI warnings in bars & restaurants. That was my point - which I know you know.

    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    What you don't seem to get is that your evasiveness has led us down these ridiculous paths. For instance, we are only talking about DUI warnings because you brought up a ban on alcohol as some sort of reasonable analogy to requiring restaurants to disclose calorie contents.

    Do you see why it's tough to take you seriously?
    You better go back and read the thread again. I did NOT bring up the possible ban on alcohol. I only weighed in when you presented the ridiculous notion of DUI warning signs in bars and restaurants. FWIW, I completely agree that a potential ban on alcohol is maybe even MORE ridiculous than your suggestion of the DUI warning signs.

    I'll accept that apology whenever you want to admit that you're totally wrong on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Huskerwirejay View Post
    POTY Nominee
    Quiet over there in the children's gallery!

  5. #170
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,620
    Quote Originally Posted by McKinneyTXHusker View Post
    I feel it is due the same amount of serious consideration as your suggestion that we place DUI warnings in bars & restaurants. That was my point - which I know you know.
    Considering states have adopted such posters/warning in bars, I don't think it's a ridiculous comment.

    Here's an example from a republican sponsored bill: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...ull-House.html

    And an example where the restaurants and bars objected. They claim it is a compliance issue, but considering the actual cost of compliance (nominal), it's tough to believe that explanation. More than likely, it has to do with their understanding that it could cut down on consumption. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...8/ai_n6355801/ This is exactly the reason that restaurant object to the caloric disclosure. They know it will hurt their bottom line.

    Beyond the specific examples, though, let's talk about the relative risk of DUI versus people falling into fireplaces at bars. In comparison, which happens more often? Which is a more significant drain on our economy?

    Final note, my comment on info posters at bars was motivated by my desire to to bring the comparison back to something analogous (i.e. a warning/information versus a ban).


    You better go back and read the thread again. I did NOT bring up the possible ban on alcohol. I only weighed in when you presented the ridiculous notion of DUI warning signs in bars and restaurants.

    I'll accept that apology whenever you want to admit that you're totally wrong on that.
    You're right... that was FLA who brought up banning alcohol... you seemed to have picked up the mantle for him, so I confused the two of you.

    And if you are out here policing up "outrageous suggestions," I have to wonder why you didn't comment on the outrageousness of FLA's comparison.

  6. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    And if you are out here policing up "outrageous suggestions," I have to wonder why you didn't comment on the outrageousness of FLA's comparison.
    One possible answer could be the fact that one "outrageous suggestion" came from a poster that leans further to the left than the poster who made the other "outrageous suggestion" you pointed to.

  7. #172
    Heisman

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    McKinney, Texas, United States
    Posts
    11,787
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    Considering states have adopted such posters/warning in bars, I don't think it's a ridiculous comment.

    Here's an example from a republican sponsored bill: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...ull-House.html

    And an example where the restaurants and bars objected. They claim it is a compliance issue, but considering the actual cost of compliance (nominal), it's tough to believe that explanation. More than likely, it has to do with their understanding that it could cut down on consumption. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...8/ai_n6355801/ This is exactly the reason that restaurant object to the caloric disclosure. They know it will hurt their bottom line.

    Beyond the specific examples, though, let's talk about the relative risk of DUI versus people falling into fireplaces at bars. In comparison, which happens more often? Which is a more significant drain on our economy?

    Final note, my comment on info posters at bars was motivated by my desire to to bring the comparison back to something analogous (i.e. a warning/information versus a ban).
    I'm sorry, I still think its ridiculous, regardless of whether someone somewhere is REALLY trying to legislate it. I'm not afraid to label such proposals ridiculous even if its a Republican proposing them.

    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    You're right... that was FLA who brought up banning alcohol... you seemed to have picked up the mantle for him, so I confused the two of you.

    And if you are out here policing up "outrageous suggestions," I have to wonder why you didn't comment on the outrageousness of FLA's comparison.
    Because it seemed to me that FLA's suggestion was obviously tongue-in-cheek - i.e. "gee, if that is good, how about this then, its the same rationale." Had I thought it was a SERIOUS suggestion, as I thought yours was, I'd have made similar comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Huskerwirejay View Post
    One possible answer could be the fact that one "outrageous suggestion" came from a poster that leans further to the left than the poster who made the other "outrageous suggestion" you pointed to.
    Haha! Says the commenter from the peanut gallery, after whining that I was putting words in HIS mouth! No, dear Jay, that's not a possible answer, as explained above.

  8. #173
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,620
    Quote Originally Posted by McKinneyTXHusker View Post
    Because it seemed to me that FLA's suggestion was obviously tongue-in-cheek - i.e. "gee, if that is good, how about this then, its the same rationale." Had I thought it was a SERIOUS suggestion, as I thought yours was, I'd have made similar comments.
    And this brings us back to the original issue I accused you of in post #167... the tactic, which you adopt here, of throwing out ridiculous "tongue-in-cheek" comparisons as in an effort to undercut a totally separate and distinct comparison.

    Let's try to focus on the issue at hand: requiring companies to disclose the caloric contents of the food they sell.

    No need to go down the path of comparisons. We can deal with this proposal on its own terms.

    And, so far, I haven't seen a compelling argument from you or anyone else for why companies shouldn't be required to provide information about their products, especially when the cost of disclosure is (a) nominal, and (b) any costs could possibly subject to reimbursement.

  9. #174
    Heisman

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    McKinney, Texas, United States
    Posts
    11,787
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    And this brings us back to the original issue I accused you of in post #167... the tactic, which you adopt here, of throwing out ridiculous "tongue-in-cheek" comparisons as in an effort to undercut a totally separate and distinct comparison.

    Let's try to focus on the issue at hand: requiring companies to disclose the caloric contents of the food they sell.

    No need to go down the path of comparisons. We can deal with this proposal on its own terms.

    And, so far, I haven't seen a compelling argument from you or anyone else for why companies shouldn't be required to provide information about their products, especially when the cost of disclosure is (a) nominal, and (b) any costs could possibly subject to reimbursement.
    I have no problem with requiring them to provide/disclose the caloric/fat/carb contents of the food they sell. The only issue I'd have would be if the requirements got so detailed as to be onerous - you know, "they must be posted between 3 and 5.5 feet from the floor, with a font point size no smaller than XX, and within X inches of the product name on the menu." That kind of thing. Requiring disclosure on its face, no issue from me at all.

    Remember though, even that wasn't the "issue at hand" which was actually NYC's proposed ban of soft drinks larger than 16 ounces.

  10. #175
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,620
    Quote Originally Posted by McKinneyTXHusker View Post
    I have no problem with requiring them to provide/disclose the caloric/fat/carb contents of the food they sell. The only issue I'd have would be if the requirements got so detailed as to be onerous - you know, "they must be posted between 3 and 5.5 feet from the floor, with a font point size no smaller than XX, and within X inches of the product name on the menu." That kind of thing. Requiring disclosure on its face, no issue from me at all.

    Remember though, even that wasn't the "issue at hand" which was actually NYC's proposed ban of soft drinks larger than 16 ounces.
    To your second point, I don't think anyone thought it was much of an issue... it was pretty much universally agreed that the policy was a bizarre one that would have little real impact.

    To your first point, I think we're in agreement. I'm always weary when regulations become overly specific... unfortunately, there are a lot of people who try to game them, so it's an inevitable consequence. Nonetheless, I think a generally requirement to post the calorie content on menus in the same size and font as the item would be more than specific enough without placing an undue burden on the restaurant.








Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •