Most absurd VMS messages

[kphoger]

Bacon and salami are OK because the US isn't a theocracy (for now).

Bacon and salami are OK because the government doesn't outlaw food items just because they have too much saturated fat (for now).

Fun fact:  The British monarch's coronation takes place in a church, is conducted by an archbishop, requires an oath to "maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel", includes the celebration of Holy Communion and recitation of the Nicene Creed, and involves the consecration of the monarch with anointing oil.

[abefroman329]

Bacon and salami are OK because the government doesn't outlaw food items just because they have too much saturated fat (for now).

And probably never will.

And that wasn't a dig at Christianity or anything; the (for now) was probably unnecessary, and I'm not aware of the US banning the consumption of any animals because it's forbidden by one religion or another.

Fun fact:  The British monarch's coronation takes place in a church, is conducted by an archbishop, requires an oath to "maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel", includes the celebration of Holy Communion and recitation of the Nicene Creed, and involves the consecration of the monarch with anointing oil.

I acknowledge the existence of civil religion and don't think it should be outlawed. 

Besides, the monarch holds far less actual power than the official head of state of most (if not all) countries.

[abefroman329]

One of my worst fears is healthy living standards being expanded towards caffeine with full-strength tea and coffee being banned...

Why do you think there's a realistic chance of that happening?  Even back when Mormons were forbidden from consuming caffeine, you could buy all kinds of caffeinated drinks in Utah.

[kalvado]

One of my worst fears is healthy living standards being expanded towards caffeine with full-strength tea and coffee being banned...

Why do you think there's a realistic chance of that happening?  Even back when Mormons were forbidden from consuming caffeine, you could buy all kinds of caffeinated drinks in Utah.

Think about it in such a way:

Drinking alcohol was totally acceptable 120 years ago - and then Prohibition happened. Less than 100 years ago smoking tobacco was not only social acceptable, it was almost expected thing for adults. Today it is barely tolerated.

So... never say never.

[kphoger]

What do you guys think of public health messages on VMSes?  We had talked earlier about COVID-related messages such as encouragements to wear a mask or whatever.  Is that kind of thing appropriate for highway signs?

Heart disease still manages to outdo COVID-19 when it comes to killing Americans.  So does cancer.  How would people feel about, say, anti-smoking messages on VMSes?

One of my worst fears is healthy living standards being expanded towards caffeine with full-strength tea and coffee being banned...

Why do you think there's a realistic chance of that happening?  Even back when Mormons were forbidden from consuming caffeine, you could buy all kinds of caffeinated drinks in Utah.

Think about it in such a way:

Drinking alcohol was totally acceptable 120 years ago - and then Prohibition happened. Less than 100 years ago smoking tobacco was not only social acceptable, it was almost expected thing for adults. Today it is barely tolerated.

So... never say never.

Alcohol and tobacco are demonstrably bad for you.  People wanting to abolish alcohol has just as much to do with the danger drunk people pose to those around them as it does with the harm they're inflicting on their own health.  The push to keep smoking out of the public sphere was greatly accelerated by reports about secondhand smoke–that is to say, the harm that could be inflicted upon people other than the smoker.  Caffeine is not only quite safe for people's personal health, but it also poses a near-zero risk to others, so I can't really imagine what leg an anti-caffeine lobby would have to stand on.

[abefroman329]

What do you guys think of public health messages on VMSes?  We had talked earlier about COVID-related messages such as encouragements to wear a mask or whatever.  Is that kind of thing appropriate for highway signs?

Heart disease still manages to outdo COVID-19 when it comes to killing Americans.  So does cancer.  How would people feel about, say, anti-smoking messages on VMSes?

Since we've established that no one reads the messages anyway, sure, why not.  I've seen bus stop ads that advocate quitting smoking with the assistance of the local board of health in several cities.

[abefroman329]

Think about it in such a way:

Drinking alcohol was totally acceptable 120 years ago - and then Prohibition happened.

And then Prohibition was repealed, and now drinking alcohol is totally acceptable.

Less than 100 years ago smoking tobacco was not only social acceptable, it was almost expected thing for adults. Today it is barely tolerated.

It's "barely tolerated" today because we know that tobacco consumption in any form is not only dangerous to the individual consuming it, but, in the case of smoking it, it's dangerous to anyone who inhales the smoke.

So... never say never.

These are terrible analogies.

[kalvado]

Alcohol and tobacco are demonstrably bad for you.  People wanting to abolish alcohol has just as much to do with the danger drunk people pose to those around them as it does with the harm they're inflicting on their own health.  The push to keep smoking out of the public sphere was greatly accelerated by reports about secondhand smoke–that is to say, the harm that could be inflicted upon people other than the smoker.  Caffeine is not only quite safe for people's personal health, but it also poses a near-zero risk to others, so I can't really imagine what leg an anti-caffeine lobby would have to stand on.

Welcome to Planet Earth, my friend. You must be new here!

-There is a representative in NYS legislature who justifies his existence on planet Earth by introducing a restaurant salt ban legislation every year.  He wants unsalted food only to be served, and salt dispensers available on request only. So far, effect is limited, but our cafeteria does serve unsalted soups. Good thing you can still grab salt packets without a problem...
-NYC had actual limits on the size of soda cup one can order for a while. Eventually it was overturned, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_portion_cap_rule

So there is an appetite for such regulation.

[kphoger]

These are terrible analogies.

Poor analogies, yes, but not quite terrible.  Prohibition in both the US and the UK was fueled in large part by Methodist crusades against alcohol.  Considering that Methodism, ever since its founding by Wesley in the 1700s, has viewed anything other than teetotalism as morally sinful, I think it's fair to say that alcohol was ultimately prohibited on largely religious grounds rather than anything to do with health or behavior.

[kphoger]

Alcohol and tobacco are demonstrably bad for you.  People wanting to abolish alcohol has just as much to do with the danger drunk people pose to those around them as it does with the harm they're inflicting on their own health.  The push to keep smoking out of the public sphere was greatly accelerated by reports about secondhand smoke–that is to say, the harm that could be inflicted upon people other than the smoker.  Caffeine is not only quite safe for people's personal health, but it also poses a near-zero risk to others, so I can't really imagine what leg an anti-caffeine lobby would have to stand on.

Welcome to Planet Earth, my friend. You must be new here!

-There is a representative in NYS legislature who justifies his existence on planet Earth by introducing a restaurant salt ban legislation every year.  He wants unsalted food only to be served, and salt dispensers available on request only. So far, effect is limited, but our cafeteria does serve unsalted soups. Good thing you can still grab salt packets without a problem...
-NYC had actual limits on the size of soda cup one can order for a while. Eventually it was overturned, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_portion_cap_rule

So there is an appetite for such regulation.

But excess consumption of both salt and sugar is demonstrably unhealthy.

Again, this is not the case with caffeine.  A typical adult would have to consume a LOT more coffee than they actually do before any adverse effects would present.

[abefroman329]

-There is a representative in NYS legislature who justifies his existence on planet Earth by introducing a restaurant salt ban legislation every year.  He wants unsalted food only to be served, and salt dispensers available on request only. So far, effect is limited, but our cafeteria does serve unsalted soups. Good thing you can still grab salt packets without a problem...

(a) He introduced one bill, in 2010
(b) He lost his seat when he lost a primary challenge in 2020, so no, there isn't appetite for such regulation

-NYC had actual limits on the size of soda cup one can order for a while. Eventually it was overturned, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_portion_cap_rule

(a) The link between consumption of sugary drinks and various health risks are even more firmly established than the link between tobacco and various health risks
(b) "Eventually it was overturned" indicates that there was not, in fact, appetite for such regulation

[Rothman]

This thread's entering dumpster fire territory.

[abefroman329]

These are terrible analogies.

Poor analogies, yes, but not quite terrible.  Prohibition in both the US and the UK was fueled in large part by Methodist crusades against alcohol.  Considering that Methodism, ever since its founding by Wesley in the 1700s, has viewed anything other than teetotalism as morally sinful, I think it's fair to say that alcohol was ultimately prohibited on largely religious grounds rather than anything to do with health or behavior.

I mean, there was probably a healthy dose of "we have to do something before these papists ruin our country," but I'm not sure if you're including that in "largely religious grounds."

[hotdogPi]

This thread's entering dumpster fire territory.

This is a bit more of an unusual case than most in that side discussion doesn't derail this type of thread. Assuming the previous discussion has past, on-topic posts can only resume when someone sees another absurd VMS, which will happen whether we talk about food/smoking/alcohol or not.

[kphoger]

This thread's entering dumpster fire territory.

[kalvado]

This thread's entering dumpster fire territory.

I already reported the thread suggesting a split into offtopic (although deletion may be a wiser thing) 

(a) The link between consumption of sugary drinks and various health risks are even more firmly established than the link between tobacco and various health risks

But excess consumption of both salt and sugar is demonstrably unhealthy.

So basically both of you will support bacon ban as saturated fats are unhealthy.  Well, that only reinforces my fears for  caffeine ban

[abefroman329]

So basically both of you will support bacon ban as saturated fats are unhealthy.

This slippery slope/strawman combination fallacy is bad enough on its own, but you appear to have overlooked the posts where both of us have said that we do not, in fact, support [a] bacon ban.

[GaryV]

but if the health care costs for people who consume mass amounts of saturated fat are significantly higher than those who don't, then I wouldn't object to insurance companies charging more in premiums for people who consume mass amounts of saturated fat.

There are some insurance plans that do just that. Not by charging more, but by giving less for those that don't meet certain health goals. Like regular well-care visits, participating in smoking cessation programs, targeting your weight. Don't do that, and you might not get a full contribution to your HSA.

Back to roads, I could see insurance settlements being modified if you were found to be partially at fault for the severity of your injuries, because you didn't wear a seatbelt or didn't wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle or bicycle. But since the onus would then fall on government programs like Medicare instead, it probably is a non-starter.

[kalvado]

So basically both of you will support bacon ban as saturated fats are unhealthy.

This slippery slope/strawman combination fallacy is bad enough on its own, but you appear to have overlooked the posts where both of us have said that we do not, in fact, support [a] bacon ban.

You say that you do not, but you're clearly well prepared to do so after some media pressure quoting "sajentifik ree-surch"
It is a question of a fine line between reasonable precautions benefiting most and a nanny state. That line seem to be moving quite a bit. DO you know where would that line be in 20 years? I don't. 

[abefroman329]

So basically both of you will support bacon ban as saturated fats are unhealthy.

This slippery slope/strawman combination fallacy is bad enough on its own, but you appear to have overlooked the posts where both of us have said that we do not, in fact, support [a] bacon ban.

You say that you do not, but you're clearly well prepared to do so after some media pressure quoting "sajentifik ree-surch"

...yes, I do trust scientific research.  Not sure how (((the media))) fits into this.

It is a question of a fine line between reasonable precautions benefiting most and a nanny state.

Not really, no - most of what I think of as "nanny state laws" are overcorrecting an issue that doesn't benefit a majority of the population.

That line seem to be moving quite a bit. DO you know where would that line be in 20 years? I don't.

What are some laws passed in the last 20 years that you believe are nanny-state laws and would have been unpalatable prior to then?

[kphoger]

So basically both of you will support bacon ban as saturated fats are unhealthy.  Well, that only reinforces my fears for  caffeine ban

No, we're pointing out a critical difference between alcohol/tobacco/saturated/fat/salt/sugar legislation and caffeine legislation.  It doesn't mean we necessarily agree with the former–merely that we don't consider them to be analogous to the latter.

[kalvado]

So basically both of you will support bacon ban as saturated fats are unhealthy.

This slippery slope/strawman combination fallacy is bad enough on its own, but you appear to have overlooked the posts where both of us have said that we do not, in fact, support [a] bacon ban.

You say that you do not, but you're clearly well prepared to do so after some media pressure quoting "sajentifik ree-surch"

...yes, I do trust scientific research.  Not sure how (((the media))) fits into this.

And I don't. Signed:

Kalvado, PhD; 25+ years of work in research (geez, time flies!).

There is so much crap coming into the media under "zis iz sajens" logo....  And most people don't go to pubmed or arXiv  when they read about yet another "scientific breakthrough" even if they trust science cnn interpretation

[abefroman329]

So basically both of you will support bacon ban as saturated fats are unhealthy.

This slippery slope/strawman combination fallacy is bad enough on its own, but you appear to have overlooked the posts where both of us have said that we do not, in fact, support [a] bacon ban.

You say that you do not, but you're clearly well prepared to do so after some media pressure quoting "sajentifik ree-surch"

...yes, I do trust scientific research.  Not sure how (((the media))) fits into this.

And I don't. Signed:

Kalvado, PhD; 25+ years of work in research (geez, time flies!).

There is so much crap coming into the media under "zis iz sajens" logo....  And most people don't go to pubmed or arXiv  when they read about yet another "scientific breakthrough" even if they trust science cnn interpretation

25+ years of work in research and not one class on logical fallacies.  Sad!

[jeffandnicole]

I've said it before:

If bicycles were invented today, people wouldn't be allowed to ride them.

I've used this example I'm the past: Checks. A check usually has your name, address, and account number, bank routing number on it. The stranger that you hand that check to now has all your bank information.

I can fill out a withdraw slip at that bank to take out money, and the only thing between me and that money may be the teller asking for ID.

[abefroman329]

I've said it before:

If bicycles were invented today, people wouldn't be allowed to ride them.

I've used this example I'm the past: Checks. A check usually has your name, address, and account number, bank routing number on it. The stranger that you hand that check to now has all your bank information.

I can fill out a withdraw slip at that bank to take out money, and the only thing between me and that money may be the teller asking for ID.

Are you talking about present day, or 30 years ago?