Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 161 to 175 of 175

Thread: Out of control

  1. #161
    Oh my!
    Red_in_Blue_Land's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    12,426
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPhoenix View Post
    Some good ones from the great state of Kansas:

    Rabbits may not be shot from motorboats.
    Pedestrians crossing the highways at night must wear tail lights.
    No one may catch fish with his bare hands.
    The state game rule prohibits the use of mules to hunt ducks.
    If two trains meet on the same track, neither shall proceed until the other has passed.

    No one may sing the alphabet on the streets at night.

    Spitting on sidewalks is expressly forbidden.

    All cars entering the city limits must first sound their horn to warn the horses of their arrival.
    No one may wear a bee in their hat.

    http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/kansas
    I find that one extraodinarily hard to resolve.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand

    "Hillary has been cheated on more than a blind woman playing Scrabble. With gypsies." Dennis Miller

  2. #162
    Guest

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    19,545
    I haven't read through the whole thread so I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned, but this is certainly interesting data on NYC:

    http://news.yahoo.com/want-live-long...204217030.html

    I have very mixed feelings on all of this. I agree with most that, hey, this is America we're talking about. People should be free to do as they please, smoke, drink, eat bad foods, what have you, as long as it's not affecting others (i.e. public smoking bans and drunk driving laws and whatnot are certainly understandable). On the other side of the coin, we are an overweight, unhealthy nation and the healthcare costs are a growing public burden. Again, not saying that these restrictions are palatable in a free country, but it appears they are having a positive effect on public health.

  3. #163
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,841
    Fat people are ruining food for us hard workin skinny folk. Maybe if they had more self control or weren't just so damn lazy we wouldn't even have to talk about banning food or mandating potions.

  4. #164
    Guest

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    19,545
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPhoenix View Post
    Fat people are ruining food for us hard workin skinny folk. Maybe if they had more self control or weren't just so damn lazy we wouldn't even have to talk about banning food or mandating potions.
    I already have to take out a second mortgage to take my entire family to the movies and get snacks at this point (Avengers=$75 afternoon, good thing the movie rocked), so I guess if my popcorn bucket and supersized soda are split into two portions it probably won't mean much from a dollar standpoint. I may have to sprout an extra arm to carry it all into the theater, so there's that.

  5. #165
    All Legend
    huskernut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Louisville, CO
    Posts
    17,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Showman View Post
    I haven't read through the whole thread so I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned, but this is certainly interesting data on NYC:

    http://news.yahoo.com/want-live-long...204217030.html

    I have very mixed feelings on all of this. I agree with most that, hey, this is America we're talking about. People should be free to do as they please, smoke, drink, eat bad foods, what have you, as long as it's not affecting others (i.e. public smoking bans and drunk driving laws and whatnot are certainly understandable). On the other side of the coin, we are an overweight, unhealthy nation and the healthcare costs are a growing public burden. Again, not saying that these restrictions are palatable in a free country, but it appears they are having a positive effect on public health.
    In that article, certainly there is an effort to claim that by the New York City Health Dept, but after trying but failing to drill down to the actual study it's hard to know how much, if any, of the effect is actually "largely thanks to aggressive efforts by city health officials to simply take away unhealthy choices from residents". The chain of attribution gets suspiciously squishy in the article.

    If you boil it down, the only hard claim is that 60% of the 2000 to 2009 increase in life expectancy, or about 1.8 years out of 3.0 years is due to "reductions in heart disease, cancer, diabetes and stroke." I searched the web with no success to find this in an IMHE or Ali Mokdad study. It may be there, or it may be he is happy to cite "taking away choice" as the primary cause simply because he believes it will have some effect and as a public health professional he has already decided for himself that any improvement is worth the restriction of choice. It's hard to know.

    It might be that the very real "reductions in heart disease, cancer, diabetes and stroke" were less due to "taking away choice" and more due to improved access to health care and sticking to drug treatments, especially blood pressure medicines but also cholesterol drugs, among blacks especially. I am not sure, but I think there is a good chance if Dr. Mokdad was addressing his peers he might be more precise in parceling out credit, than he is in responding to a general interest web site like livescience.com.

    But if anybody had a link to an actual breakdown on the 60% figure, I would certainly look at it.

  6. #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.

  7. #167
    All Legend

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    17,542
    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?
    "We need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure."

    "If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”

  8. #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

  9. #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!

  10. #170
    All Legend

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    17,542
    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.
    "We need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure."

    "If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”

  11. #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.

  12. #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.

  13. #173
    All Legend

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    17,542
    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.
    "We need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure."

    "If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”

  14. #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.

  15. #175
    All Legend

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    17,542
    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.
    "We need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure."

    "If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”




Posting Permissions

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