What information is being omitted?
I’m sorry I didn’t memorize all the nutritional information of every fast food joint. Most people don’t look up fast food information before eating at a fast food place, since the point of fast food is you’re in a hurry and all.
And this:
doesn’t involve guessing?
Nice strawman. The actual discussion is:
“You can just go online to look at the stats”
“But what if I don’t have the internet on my phone?”
“Then you can do it at home”
“I shouldn’t have to.”
At which point people for some reason apparently feel that we have a moral obligation to make getting information harder for people. Which again is a good idea if you’re the person who is trying to sell unhealthy food. Do you by chance run a fast food joint?
Good thing that’s not what we’re doing, isn’t it?
I’m sorry, but in my universe most products print their specifications right on the package. If you want to know the resolution of your new flatscreen, you don’t have to go find it on the internet. And of course when you start talking food, the idea of food having nutritional information printed right on its packaging is not exactly new. At least not in my universe.
I’m trying to guess what your dog is in this fight. Do you really think people ought to have to hunt down product information? That we should sell everything in blank unmarked boxes, because the challenge of the research itself is a moral good?
My dog in this fight is that I HATE IT when stupid laws get passed. There is no need for a law mandating that the information be on the menu.
Again, you seem to be skipping the point that IT’S ON THE FUCKING WALL. And if that’s not obvious enough for you, the cashier has plenty of copies for you to take home or peruse while you’re in line. If that’s what you call “hunting down information”, then yes, I think people should have to do that.
ETA: Tell you what…it just stopped raining. I’ll run across the street and cash in this sweet Monopoly sticker that I have for a free McFlurry. I’ll time how long it takes me to figure out how many calories are in it, mkay? BRB.
Typical liberal notion of rights, defined as “free stuff which should be given to me by someone else.”
Yes, you have the right to try to find out what you’re putting into your body. No, I don’t need to tell you. Look it up yourself, if I choose to make the information available, or eat elsewhere.
Well whaddaya know…all I had to do was ask for one. BAM! I had one. Hell, they even let me keep it.
Why should they have to do that? Are you opposed to the idea of restraunts voluntarily putting this information on the menu? 'Cause that’s what you are literally saying.
There are two issues here: should it be a law, and should it be happening? Which do you think you’re arguing?
While I sort of agree with you, I’ve also got two words for you: drive-through.
And no, people should not have to hunt down information when they don’t have to. Otherwise you’re basically saying “an informed consumer is essential to a free market, except when a fool comes along. Then don’t tell him shit so we can part him with his money.”
Just as a matter of common courtesy: if you’re trying to analyse your health options, you shouldn’t be in the drive through. Step inside, where you won’t be holding up the line.
On the rare times I’ve used drive-through, the line is slow enough there’s plenty of time.
And this is no argument for not making the information available to them. “Convenience or complete infomation: pick one!”
The information is available. to them They chose the convenience of not getting out of the car over the ability to see all the nutrition information before ordering.
To everyone in favor of the law: please explain how your argument differs from the following (or acknowledge it if it doesn’t differ):
I have a goal (determine the nutritional information of some food) which can be accomplished by method A (look at said information on the menu), method B (look at said information on a poster on the wall / get a pamphlet from a store employee) or method C (look it up online). Method A is marginally more convenient than either of B or C. Therefore, method A should be mandated by law.
My dog in this fight is that the above argument is a very poor justification for passing a law.
I have a goal (reduce speed-related traffic accidents) which can be accomplished by method A (make everyone else drive at a given speed), method B (watch out for maniacs and dodge them) or method C (take little-used back roads). Method A is marginally more convenient than either of B or C. Therefore, method A should be mandated by law.
You must be bothered by a lot of laws.
Information on nutrition is being omitted from immediate access at point of purchase.
Your analogy is wrong. Your goal should be to reduce the number of traffic accidents you are involved in, without regard to the number that anyone else is involved in.
Unless, of course, the secret intention of this restaurant law really is to make sure everyone else eats healthy too…
Wrong. And you would’ve noticed it was wrong if you put as much time into understanding the argument as you did into figuring out the best way to dishonestly quote my post. The very next four words of my post (#97) were “request a nutritional pamphlet.” It has been pointed out multiple times that the information is easily accessible at the point of purchase.
Youre reading comprehension is wrong. I specifically wrote it from the perspective of the specific driver: you can make everyone else slow down, or you can make yourself dodge better or take the back roads. In this example, the “everyone else” analogizes to the restraunts: the people’s whose behavior we intend to legislate for the benefit of the individual.
So you would be happy if the total number of accidents decreased, but you crashed an additional 5 times per year?
Will you similarly have benefited from nutritional information being posted in Spanish (or whatever language you don’t speak)?
Or, to put it another way, you claim that your goal is purely selfish (e.g., “I don’t care about poor people at all.”), but in coming up with your analogy, you state your goal in a way that would make almost everyone better off. If you are one of the ones made worse off, the statement of your goal suggests that you would be happy, but your claim to selfishness suggests that you wouldn’t. Which is it?
I would not be happy if I got in more wrecks.
However, your analogy here is crap. I’m not hurt at all if the nutrition info is also posted in spanish, so I’d be fine with that happening. (If it’s only in Spanish, I’ll be torqued off.)
You’re confusing caring about people enough to force them to eat healthy food, to caring about them enough to want them to have equal access to information. Being selfish I get nervous when minorities are excluded because I may some day be a minority. So, a hardline policy of equality is in my self-interest.
So, yes, I’m not going to make a law that says “Only begbert2 gets access to nutrional information printed on the menu.” Besides being impossible, making a policy that is that narrowly tailored to help me alone sets a precedent that is likely to backfire if due to some unfortunate circumstance I am ever toppled from my post as supreme dictator of the world.
It’s hard coming up with a good analogy, since the law is of so little consequence. It doesn’t make the nutrition information available, it forces the restaurant owner to move said information from one location (that is trivially easy to access) to another location (marginally more trivial than the last) under threat of imprisonment or loss of livelihood. If the government is going to shut down your restaurant, shouldn’t they have a better reason than “the nutrition information was displayed on a large, clearly visible poster in the main dining area, rather than on the menu”*?
*Sure, it’ll probably start with a fine, but how do you think they’ll make you pay that fine? Ultimately, you’re being threatened with something serious.