Would you think that, when tested in court, and for the same outcome (customer's death), the liability for a crumbling ladder would be lesser than for listeria infested food?
Sleazy propaganda re diacetyl in e-cigs
- Thread starter CarolT
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Would you think that, when tested in court, and for the same outcome (customer's death), the liability for a crumbling ladder would be lesser than for listeria infested food?
The fallacy here is to assume them to be completely neutral. In reality they aren't.
At best they're as neutral as men discussing women's voting rights.
Or men discussing who make safer drivers, men or women...
Andria
Well there's an even better example about men deciding for women but the moderator already asked to not go there again.
the problem with diacetyl and diketones is that potential harm is extremely low even
in the at risk groups. microwave popcorn makers in some,not all plants and most
recently in a plant where coffee is roasted. only one non industry worker has ever
diagnosed with popcorn lung. even among industry workers its a occurrence is small.
what about all the popcorn plants where none was discovered? how long has coffee
been roasted? where are all those people? where are all of the pastry chefs,bakers and,
candy makers? candle makers too.
anyone on the net can find out which flavors have these substances in them.
the manufacturers of these products make available the chemical breakdown
of every ingredient in any given flavor or when asked for such information.
all one has to do is take the time to sit down one afternoon and actually read
the the product data sheets and separate the flavors that have from those that
don't and proceed from there.
then label the product accordingly. the manufacturers already make PG/VG,
flavors and colors to FDA standards. there is no need for regulation and further
testing at the vendor level. just get off their behinds and find some one with
eighth grade reading skills to do a little home work.
regards
mike
in the at risk groups. microwave popcorn makers in some,not all plants and most
recently in a plant where coffee is roasted. only one non industry worker has ever
diagnosed with popcorn lung. even among industry workers its a occurrence is small.
what about all the popcorn plants where none was discovered? how long has coffee
been roasted? where are all those people? where are all of the pastry chefs,bakers and,
candy makers? candle makers too.
anyone on the net can find out which flavors have these substances in them.
the manufacturers of these products make available the chemical breakdown
of every ingredient in any given flavor or when asked for such information.
all one has to do is take the time to sit down one afternoon and actually read
the the product data sheets and separate the flavors that have from those that
don't and proceed from there.
then label the product accordingly. the manufacturers already make PG/VG,
flavors and colors to FDA standards. there is no need for regulation and further
testing at the vendor level. just get off their behinds and find some one with
eighth grade reading skills to do a little home work.
regards
mike
Next, you guys will have us doing our own testing on automobile brake systems and hydraulics, etc. before we buy.
One should notice that this is all about responsibility.
It is perfectly legal to buy brake parts from the junk yard or e-bay and install them on your car. However in case of an accident where their failure was involved, the responsibility would be all yours.
Alternatively you can have your brakes serviced by your dealer, using genuine, brand new, certified parts. Now you're relieved of responsibility would something go wrong. And you can even sue for damages.
Same with e-liquid. There are vendors that are testing their stuff, include fliers about ingredients and their known risks with every shipment. There are some others who don't. It's up to you where you do your shopping. But don't expect to get premium products at junk yard prices and don't expect the junk yard to take any responsibility over the quality and fitness for purpose of what they're selling.
I have never said it was just your opinion, I have said it was opinion, period.
I know that Locke had a profound influence on the founding fathers, but even how they defined rights was and is opinion.
Locke's ideas were the basis for a certain political ideology. Political ideolgy is opinion.
The founding fathers have defined rights as was appropiate back then in the society that existed back then.
Yet that was still opinion and a changed (much more complicated) society might at times ask for different ideas or a slight adjustment of those ideas..
I believe today's society and the lessons from history asks for a different way of looking at rights.
Example in the case of the banking crisis I just cited. You don't solve or avoid crisis like that if you keep defining rights as just negative rights (in my opinion that is). And I use the banking crisis as example because part of that was/ is also about the right of disclosure.
Another example in the case of consumer rights.
Anyway, I think were going a bit off topic now.
Because I think the way I defined consumer rights is in fact not even in contradiction to what the founding fathers meant.
I think the problem is you keep suggesting people only develop popcorn lungs from diacetyl etc. And yes, popcorn lungs are very rare.
However, people in such factories also develop other respiratory problems like airway obstruction, chronic cough, shortness of breath, asthma and chronic bronchitis, to name just a few health problems linked to diacetyl and other diketones.
You cant really isolate only the most severe consequence and then claim the occurence of health problems is very low.
If you cant really follow the debate then why do you feel the need to comment?
I see you like to ridicule instead of argue, but youre not so different from people who dont understand what a smoking shelter is, are you?
Racehorse: A lawsuit doesn't put hair back on your head. In the case of people who have experienced worse, such as death or chronic illness.........
I am not in favor of regulation. It is certainly avoidable.
These two lines are contradictory. Regulation would have to be in place to stop the hair loss and without it, you imply that the hair loss, death! and chronic illness could not be avoided. Yet then "it is certainly avoidable".
In the our case - worse case scenario where the deeming goes through as stated and without any predicate product except perhaps what would be considered a horse and buggy in transportation - ie the earliest form of ecigs, the result will be vapers returning to smoking causing chronic illess and death and hair falling out from chemo.
If to protect our freedoms in war, some lives are going to be lost. To protect our domestic freedoms, there will be some downsides/losses of not catching criminal manufacturers and vendors of ill-informed consumers where a regulatory state may or may not protect them anyway or in some cases make thing worse. For me both losses are sad but necessary to maintain liberties.
However, historically, I"ve seen how regulation comes about: when industries, who have been given ample opportunity to police themselves, fail in achieving that.
We disagree on this history. While I don't discount the idea of snake oil sales, the greater movement of 'community organizers' of a socialist leaning to move the country in that direction through more gov't control by faking incidents or science in order to make their case outside of political reasons that would be more apparent and opposed by people protecting their freedoms. Choosing safety over freedom - as Franklin so wisely pointed out.
Saying your ejuice doesn't contain diketones, when it does, is fraudulent. It's a false statement of material fact, which influenced someone's buying decision.
And when that can be proven, those cases should go to court with full penalties hopefully resulting in those vendors 'exiting the marketplace' just as Zeller/FDA would have honest vendors 'exit the market' with their regulation. I'd prefer to not inspect before the fact, but when fraud (a violation of rights) is demonstrable and clear - use the full force of law to handle it.
If a businessman is put in jail and/or pays fines equal and Above the fraud committed, other businessmen/women would take notice and have a more serious incentive than simply paying some lobbyist to find a way around the regulations and taxes or set up a Master Settlement Agreement - which is what more gov't actions require. Then the results of who wins in the marketplace is determined by pull or who you know or who you pay off, rather than producing the best product for the best price.
I am not in favor of regulation. It is certainly avoidable.
These two lines are contradictory. Regulation would have to be in place to stop the hair loss and without it, you imply that the hair loss, death! and chronic illness could not be avoided. Yet then "it is certainly avoidable".
In the our case - worse case scenario where the deeming goes through as stated and without any predicate product except perhaps what would be considered a horse and buggy in transportation - ie the earliest form of ecigs, the result will be vapers returning to smoking causing chronic illess and death and hair falling out from chemo.
If to protect our freedoms in war, some lives are going to be lost. To protect our domestic freedoms, there will be some downsides/losses of not catching criminal manufacturers and vendors of ill-informed consumers where a regulatory state may or may not protect them anyway or in some cases make thing worse. For me both losses are sad but necessary to maintain liberties.
However, historically, I"ve seen how regulation comes about: when industries, who have been given ample opportunity to police themselves, fail in achieving that.
We disagree on this history. While I don't discount the idea of snake oil sales, the greater movement of 'community organizers' of a socialist leaning to move the country in that direction through more gov't control by faking incidents or science in order to make their case outside of political reasons that would be more apparent and opposed by people protecting their freedoms. Choosing safety over freedom - as Franklin so wisely pointed out.
Saying your ejuice doesn't contain diketones, when it does, is fraudulent. It's a false statement of material fact, which influenced someone's buying decision.
And when that can be proven, those cases should go to court with full penalties hopefully resulting in those vendors 'exiting the marketplace' just as Zeller/FDA would have honest vendors 'exit the market' with their regulation. I'd prefer to not inspect before the fact, but when fraud (a violation of rights) is demonstrable and clear - use the full force of law to handle it.
If a businessman is put in jail and/or pays fines equal and Above the fraud committed, other businessmen/women would take notice and have a more serious incentive than simply paying some lobbyist to find a way around the regulations and taxes or set up a Master Settlement Agreement - which is what more gov't actions require. Then the results of who wins in the marketplace is determined by pull or who you know or who you pay off, rather than producing the best product for the best price.
Last edited:
Natural rights are grounded in reality (not time dependent), but that's an argument for another forum.....
Cause I like catching everything from inconsistencies to lies. Highlighting them in what's supposed to be a logical debate is what keeps the debate logical.
I thought it self-explanatory that the: “all this is JUST your opinion” was a comment on the quote I quoted in that particular post.
But I guess that for you I should probably explain basic messageboard discussions.
Even I can see that the opinions of the founding fathers aren’t just his opinion, unless he's a reincarnation of one of them.
Anyway: did you have any opinion or are you just trolling in a debate which is way over your head?
Good luck
I think I have so far replied to you in a respectful way, so please save the sarcasm or ridiculing unless you really dont want a debate in which case youre seriously wasting my time.
That comment was to lighten things up and was non-specific - if you took that personally, perhaps you should put me on 'ignore'. We had reached an 'end point' with my last post to you - respectfully, I thought.
I thought it self-explanatory that the: “all this is JUST your opinion” was a comment on the quote I quoted in that particular post.
But I guess that for you I should probably explain basic messageboard discussions.
Even I can see that the opinions of the founding fathers aren’t just his opinion, unless he's a reincarnation of one of them.
Anyway: did you have any opinion or are you just trolling in a debate which is way over your head?
Yes I have an opinion. I agree with the Founding Fathers' work. Not necessarily because they were right, but because in the absence of a common, universally accepted, inviolable foundation framework such as a Constitution, it is impossible to build any meaningful legal system.
The activists aren't capable of rational debate. They usually resort to insults or posting pictures or memes...
- Status
Similar threads
