ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags court decisions

Reply
Old 2nd February 2019, 08:42 AM   #41
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,855
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I think that drinking a lot of soda is unhealthy for you is pretty common knowledge.
Yes, but can you sue the manufacturer if you get ill as I (am guessing) you would be able to do with a poorly labelled firework that caused injury?
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2019, 08:43 AM   #42
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,855
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
You dare to doubt the wisdom of the Nanny state.
Yeah, bloody nanny state (said all the thalidomide children..)
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2019, 08:44 AM   #43
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,855
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I understand warnings for some products.
But, frankly, I think that drinking a lot of Soda is not good for you is common enough knowledge that a warning is pretty redundant.
What makes you believe this?
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2019, 08:51 AM   #44
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,431
Thing is, nothing is good for you in excess (by definition). Cigarettes are, to my mind, unique in that there is no safe level for smoking. Three fags (I'm from England, BTW) are worse than two are worse than one. The same is not true of anything else, as far as I know. There is a safe limit for alcohol, and apparently even an optimal one, a safe limit for sugary drinks, a safe limit for fatty foods, a safe limit for painkillers, etc. I don't really care what warnings appear on what products, but I think if the money was spent on education, especially in the arena of parenting, the results would be a lot better.
__________________
"I don't think I'm getting the most out of my computer. I turn it on... and use it as a light." - Harry Hill
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2019, 12:08 PM   #45
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,268
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
So, I guess this is just temporary ?

Did the law require the warning to be greater than 50% of the ad space?

Any rate, it was a unanimous decision by the most overturned federal appeals court* which is generally regarded as "liberal". Which all makes me think there is something about this decision that I don't quite understand.


*probably because they hear the most cases rather than them being particularly out of sync with the SCOTUS, which is actually a good argument for adding another appeals courts and splitting up the jurisdiction of the 9th.
I suspect the suit was about the lower court leaving the ban in place until the decision on whether the labeling requirement is legal, NOT of whether the requirement it self is legal?

But if I am wrong on that, the upper court often does not actually say "he is innocent", they say "Hey, lower court, tell the guy you made a mistake, and he is innocent".

* hmmm, is your comment based on a raw count, or the percentage of overturns? You made the claim, you google it up.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2019, 12:23 PM   #46
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,290
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Didn't they do that on cig packs?

Was it effective?
Well, in my jurisdiction, they started with a mandated warning.

Next, the warning had to occupy X% of the packaging.

Next, gruesome graphics were mandated.

Next, all black packaging was introduced.

Does this affect the intended audience? No. I know I don't read my pack or even look at it much.

This is simply an attempt to be SEEN to do something by government.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2019, 12:35 PM   #47
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,631
What I think is weird is that apparently it's OK to feed caffeine to little kids.

I knew someone once who thought she couldn't get fat from food that had no fat in it, so I'm not sure that everyone understands that a 32-ounce soda has something like 27 teaspoons of sugar in it. Cokes started out as 6 ounces but now some people lug a half-gallon of the stuff along with them.

Cigarette warning in the U.S. and the UK (both paraphrases):

U.S: The surgeon general has determined that smoking causes lung cancer.

UK: Cigarettes will kill you.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2019, 12:40 PM   #48
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,431
The problem is, people are lazy and stupid. All the labelling in the world won't fix that.
__________________
"I don't think I'm getting the most out of my computer. I turn it on... and use it as a light." - Harry Hill
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2019, 01:16 PM   #49
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,605
We have the whole stupid sugar thing happening here, but heaps of people want to actually tax it.

And the latest one is some experts have decided we should tax red meat, to save the planet.

Idiots

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/hea...ave-the-planet
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2019, 03:27 PM   #50
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 71,589
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Well, in my jurisdiction, they started with a mandated warning.

Next, the warning had to occupy X% of the packaging.

Next, gruesome graphics were mandated.

Next, all black packaging was introduced.

Does this affect the intended audience? No. I know I don't read my pack or even look at it much.

This is simply an attempt to be SEEN to do something by government.
And yet rates of smoking in the US have dropped precipitously since the campaign to warn people. (Not saying which methods were effective and which weren't.)

Now if cigarette manufacturers don't hook you as a teen, you are not likely to start smoking at an older age.

When I traveled out of the country in the late 70s early 80s it was striking that the 'cigarettes are bad for you' had not yet taken hold outside of the US.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2019, 11:09 PM   #51
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,070
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...circuit-court/


A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked a San Francisco law requiring health warnings on advertisements for soda and other sugary drinks in a victory for beverage and retail groups that sued to block the ordinance.

The law violates constitutionally protected commercial speech, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a unanimous ruling.
I had to read this twice. The 9th circuit, I figured, would vote for the law. They are the most overturned circuit court in the nation, IIRC.

So I guess that means they probably made the wrong choice here too. I don't care enough about it to think about it much.

Then again, if I buy a fishing lure in California it has a cancer warning label on it. It's for the plastic bag the lure comes in. Totally idiotic. EVERYthing has a gawdamn warning on it here. Even coffee causes cancer in Cali now!

Maybe the 9th got one right.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2019, 11:17 PM   #52
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,070
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I understand warnings for some products.
But, frankly, I think that drinking a lot of Soda is not good for you is common enough knowledge that a warning is pretty redundant.
Are you going to put the same warning on Candy?
It's the kind of thing that people know it's unhealthy but they do it anyway because of the pleasure involved.
My problem with the SF law is that it treats the public like a bunch of morons. I know at times I think that,but still, it seems a warning on Soda is pretty redudent and a waste of money.
Totally agree. This state is out of control with the stupid. Lotta lawyers here lining their pockets with this crap. Regulations cost money and Cali loves all the money they get from us.

If you wanna learn about real corruption here look up the battles over water over the years, and more recently, the Delta Tunnels project.

I gotta get outta this thread before I go on a rant. Beer time. Good night.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2019, 05:34 AM   #53
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,909
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Yeah, bloody nanny state (said all the thalidomide children..)
Wow had to reach back to the last century actually last Millenia for that one. An oldie but a goodie to be sure
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2019, 10:50 AM   #54
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,739
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Yeah, bloody nanny state (said all the thalidomide children..)
Let me know when you think we have a thalidomide-type situation, and I'll tell you if I think the government needs to step in with a thalidomide-type solution.

In the meantime, I'll tell you that I think the government should piss right off about sugar in soda pop. Do you actually think any different?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2019, 12:16 PM   #55
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,605
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Yeah, bloody nanny state (said all the thalidomide children..)
"One small step for man, one giant leap for the irrationally inclined"
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2019, 02:28 PM   #56
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,115
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
No, it wouldn't.

The way rights work in the US is essentially that the are upheld, except in specific cases where an exception is made. A case for making an exception must be made in court, and must convince a jury/judge that the exception is warranted in a specific case.

The ruling that cigarette warnings are an exception does not create a blanket exception for all such warnings on any other products. Similarly, the ruling that no exception is justified in the specific case of soda warnings, in no way invalidates the court-recognized exception in the specific case of cigarette warnings.

It helps if you recognize that
a) individual rights are important to uphold as a basic principle of healthy society;
b) making exceptions to that principle are necessary from time to time
c) having a defined process and threshold for making such exceptions is also very important

Once you recognize those basic points, you can start thinking about what rights you wish to uphold, under what circumstances you'd want to make exceptions, and what kind of process you'd want for making those exceptions.

Then you can compare the product of your thinking on the subject to how your society actually applies these ideas in practice. You can look at the specific exceptions contemplated for cigarettes and soda, and reason for yourself about whether they make sense, and whether they're consistent with your own ideals about how such exceptions should be made.
Problem is here: we're not talking about individual rights, we're talking about a corporation selling a product. Despite the tragedy of the ridiculous rulings made regarding the 14th amendment (and many others), a corporation does not have rights. It does not have "freedom of speech" especially considering all of the exceptions that are made for market regulation.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2019, 02:50 PM   #57
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 47,422
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Problem is here: we're not talking about individual rights, we're talking about a corporation selling a product. Despite the tragedy of the ridiculous rulings made regarding the 14th amendment (and many others), a corporation does not have rights. It does not have "freedom of speech" especially considering all of the exceptions that are made for market regulation.
How about a compromise: soda makers can label their products or not, as they please, free of the tyranny of government! And in exchange said government will no longer recognize or enforce their trademarks.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2019, 03:23 PM   #58
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 78,650
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Wrong. I prefer to cover one topic at a time, and get closure on one point before moving on to another. If we're discussing whether infringement occurs, we should resolve that question before moving on to whether infringement is justified.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss whether such a thing is possible, but only in a context where we've resolved the dependent question to our mutual satisfaction. Otherwise it's just changing horses and increasing confusion instead of reducing it.
I was just teasing you. No need to explain yourself.

Quote:
You don't agree that being coerced by the state to engage in speech not of my own choosing is an infringement on my freedom of speech?
I kinda agree, and kinda disagree. Essentially, freedom of speech isn't infinite. There are things you can and cannot say, and things you must do. So yes, broadly speaking it is an infringement, but as I said before it doesn't stop you from doing whatever else you want to do.

If you don't want to put warning labels or nutritional information on your products, then what are you trying to hide? I guess you could say that, were it not mandatory, the market could decide that those who voluntarily display those would get the upper hand, but we both know that wouldn't happen. No one would display them except in niche markets, and the consumer would have no choice but to go with a product with no such label.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2019, 03:24 PM   #59
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 78,650
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I understand warnings for some products.
But, frankly, I think that drinking a lot of Soda is not good for you is common enough knowledge that a warning is pretty redundant.
Oh, I agree. I'm arguing more the general case than this specific one, to be honest.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2019, 03:26 PM   #60
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 78,650
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Wow had to reach back to the last century actually last Millenia for that one. An oldie but a goodie to be sure
And if you look at it from a certain point of view, last aeon! That sounds a lot farther in the past that way.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2019, 03:59 PM   #61
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,739
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Oh, I agree. I'm arguing more the general case than this specific one, to be honest.
The general case is easy: No infringement, full stop. Then you can argue for specific exceptions on a case by case basis. Freedom of speech? No infringement.

But what about fire in a crowded theater? Make your case for an exception.

What about nutrition labels? Make your case.

What about sugar warnings? Make your case.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2019, 06:23 PM   #62
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,771
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The general case is easy: No infringement, full stop. Then you can argue for specific exceptions on a case by case basis. Freedom of speech? No infringement.

But what about fire in a crowded theater? Make your case for an exception.

What about nutrition labels? Make your case.

What about sugar warnings? Make your case.
I have to agree with this.

On the other hand I think that if such warnings were effective, I'd support their enforcement. The reason being that the overconsumption of high sugar foods is a large contributing factor to chronic illness in the US. If the warnings were effective, they could mitigate a huge amount of suffering and death.

Baron suggested upthread that they aren't effective though, and if he's right about that I don't think that a false solution to a real problem is worth making an exception to what I agree are important principles.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2019, 07:06 PM   #63
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 71,589
And on and on the thread goes based on a misleading premise. It's not the warning per se that is a Constitutional violation. IT'S THE SIZE OF THE WARNING.

This from the LA Times with it's article also misleading if the following is the issue.
Quote:
The judges agreed that beverage companies were likely to suffer irreparable harm if the law went into effect because the warnings would drown out the ads' other visual elements.
Then there's this from USNews which make sense if it weren't the heavily lobbied/controlled by industry FDA

Quote:
The court also found San Francisco's warning that drinking sweet drinks can lead to obesity and other diseases wasn't based on established fact. The ruling cited Food and Drug Administration statements that sugar is "generally recognized as safe" when not consumed to excess.
I agree warnings should be based on scientific evidence. I'm just not sure you can trust the FDA at the moment to be the arbitrator of good science. That is a valid concern.

Quote:
The judges wrote that the city "may be commended for aiming to address serious and growing public health problems." But they agreed that beverage companies were likely to suffer irreparable harm if the law went into effect because the warnings would drown out the ads' main messages.

The court found a defect in the ordinance was that it requires that the health warning cover 20 percent of the ad space, and suggested that 10 percent might be legal.
Think we can bring a little honesty into this discussion.

Discussing the flaws in the science: honesty in the discussion not yet compromised.
Claiming the court found the warning unconstitutional when it was the size of the warning: dishonest.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2019, 07:18 PM   #64
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 78,650
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The general case is easy: No infringement, full stop. Then you can argue for specific exceptions on a case by case basis.
Which really is like saying that it's not no infringement full stop. It's actually like saying that there are limits to free speech.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2019, 11:33 PM   #65
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 23,431
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
No, it wouldn't.

The way rights work in the US is essentially that the are upheld, except in specific cases where an exception is made. A case for making an exception must be made in court, and must convince a jury/judge that the exception is warranted in a specific case.

The ruling that cigarette warnings are an exception does not create a blanket exception for all such warnings on any other products. Similarly, the ruling that no exception is justified in the specific case of soda warnings, in no way invalidates the court-recognized exception in the specific case of cigarette warnings.

It helps if you recognize that
a) individual rights are important to uphold as a basic principle of healthy society;
b) making exceptions to that principle are necessary from time to time
c) having a defined process and threshold for making such exceptions is also very important

Once you recognize those basic points, you can start thinking about what rights you wish to uphold, under what circumstances you'd want to make exceptions, and what kind of process you'd want for making those exceptions.

Then you can compare the product of your thinking on the subject to how your society actually applies these ideas in practice. You can look at the specific exceptions contemplated for cigarettes and soda, and reason for yourself about whether they make sense, and whether they're consistent with your own ideals about how such exceptions should be made.
Indeed. As usual taking my example from small town politics, where I have for many years been involved with zoning in a couple of states, one of the basic principles here is that, though rules are general, there are individual cases that cannot reasonably comply, to which exceptions must be made in order to fulfill the balance between rights and obligations. The town and state have a certain degree of police power, and can limit landowners' actions for the public good, but cannot confiscate land by preventing all uses except in the direst of circumstances. And one of the cardinal rules, without which the process would nearly instantly become unworkable, is that exceptions set no precedent.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 12:03 AM   #66
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,888
Originally Posted by Whip View Post
not sure I understand. wouldn't this apply to things like cigarettes also?
Of course not!

The SC changed the constitution so that the first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting <yadda> <yadda> UNLESS WE SAY OTHERWISE".
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 01:06 AM   #67
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 71,589
Originally Posted by Whip View Post
not sure I understand. wouldn't this apply to things like cigarettes also?
Because applecorped misrepresented the actual ruling which was about the size of the warning, not the warning per se.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 05:45 AM   #68
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,049
As I've said before law is the one place where the slippery slope fallacy does not apply.

Laws are based on precedent. The "Law" is a a wall of bricks built upon foundation of previous bricks. To argue that this law is okay because "Oh it's only going to be used this one time in this one case against this one thing in this one set of circumstances" is a fundamental error on a level that is hard to get across. It's literally arguing against what the law is.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 12:16 PM   #69
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,909
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Because applecorped misrepresented the actual ruling which was about the size of the warning, not the warning per se.
I provided a link.

Your lie is noted.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 09:19 PM   #70
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 71,589
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
I provided a link.

Your lie is noted.
Your lack of a quote from that link is noted. Your refusal to address the issue with the safety announcement being 20% of the packaging that was specific the issue is noted. Your refusal to explain why many other product warnings on labels have not been a free speech issue is noted.

Do you have your head in the sand or something that you are denying the facts here?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 06:17 AM   #71
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,049
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Yes, but can you sue the manufacturer if you get ill as I (am guessing) you would be able to do with a poorly labelled firework that caused injury?
Can one? Probably. Hell most certainly.

Should "I need an explicit warning to tell me, a legal concept of a 'reasonable person' that a device intentionally sold for the express purpose of exploding has the potential to be dangerous even if used within its intended purpose and especially when misused." be a thing? Absolutely not.

"High caloric foods may cause weight gain" is putting a "Don't place in eye it will hurt" label on a hot needle.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 07:08 AM   #72
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,909
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Your lack of a quote from that link is noted. Your refusal to address the issue with the safety announcement being 20% of the packaging that was specific the issue is noted. Your refusal to explain why many other product warnings on labels have not been a free speech issue is noted.

Do you have your head in the sand or something that you are denying the facts here?

Lol, oh my, your lies are noted

__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2019, 07:52 AM   #73
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,021
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
* hmmm, is your comment based on a raw count, or the percentage of overturns? You made the claim, you google it up.
Nah, I'm not that interested.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.