NYC chain restaurants must post calorie counts on menu

Are there righty libs or RIGHTY LIBS? How about left cons or LEFTY CONS?

"Um Karen hon, when responding to my post DIRECTLY, your inclusion of the term "INGREDIENTS" as a rebut to my post assumes on YOUR part that you believe I included it (I realize at this point I am accepting a certain amount of logical capacity on your part and understanding of the nature of debate and dialog, no doubt the odds are quite low but for the moment I'll give you the benefit of the doubt)."

I was listing the sorts of information that would assist in ameliorating business liability. I'm not doing a point by point exact and sole rebuttal of your post, but making a particular point. It is only based on one of yours.

If you think that would indicate a lack of logical capacity, that is your choice. But feel free to dwell on a rather unimportant point if you wish.

"As for your whining about honest information, no one says there is anything WRONG with a company providing information. Who said that? Your response imagines a charge no one has made. Quit making things up so you can pretend to have a rebuttal. The point is objecting to PASSING A LAW to force them to do what is a PERSON'S own responsibility, to be responsible for what they put in their mouth and body. DUH."

A whine is a complaint. Given that I'm being given what I want, why would it be considered a complaint? They are providing that information.

As for responsibility, it was pointed out.. It is unlikely that the person at the counter ringing up your order has the ingredient list for what you just ordered. And goodness knows, nobody can make the company train them to have that information. That might involve a law or something. And there is nothing that says that what the cashier tells you is true.

It is being responsible for what you put in your body to want that information, and do what you need to in order to ensure the information is complete, accurate, and understandable.

If the companies are already willing to provide it, the law doesn't harm them because they are already compliant.

"If a company doesn't want to inform a customer then the customer should act in a responsible manner and not take a risk if they consider restaurants a risk of some sort. Yes, and get this clearly, GOVERNMENT does intervene and should when THE GENERAL SAFETY of the PUBLIC is at stake. This is not only not the case but as far as one can get from it. ONCE again, you LEFTY LIBS want to, instead of promoting personal responsibility, make someone ELSE responsible for the choices of others."

Again, providing the information reduces business liability. Unless the business thinks that the consumer will not buy something once they know what it is they are actually buying, there is no reason not to comply.

Or, as I've heard it said (and usually not by LEFTY LIBS), if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about in following this law.

"But what is least clear to you is the PRINCIPLE of the matter. But you LEFTY LIBS never get that because you rarely have the capacity for prescriptive application of ideas and principles that lead people to good reason and restraint. You are impulsive, demanding and live in the immediate. The PRINCIPLE at risk here, hon, is one of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY vs government interference with free enterprise where there is no legitimate CAUSE."

And you claim that I engage in mind reading?

"The general population is NOT at risk and in fact no one is, regarding calories on a menu. And if a very rare person might be it is STILL incumbent upon them with respect to their RARITY, to adjust to the realities of the world around them and negotiate life in that manner."

Apparently that state disagrees.

"The cause for this government intrusion is CONVENIENCE which is NO cause whatsoever. You have little understanding, it appears, of the ultimate consequence of such actions. They appear minimal to you but they are breaches in LIBERTY and FREE ENTERPRISE, not actual safeguards that the government should ensure. BUT you LEFTY LIBS never get that.

Next Please"

What is it about providing honest information about the product you are selling that breeches liberty and free enterprise? (Wow, the words mean the same thing even when not in ALL CAPS. Amazing how language works, isn't it?)

Odd, since other forms of governmental information gathering doesn't seem to be viewed as a breech of liberty. Of course, maybe it isn't the liberty that is the primary concern, but the free enterprise.

"Once again, OH CLUELESS LEFTY LIB, no one, including myself, has charged that providing honest information about a product breeches liberty and free enterprise. Once again, you make up an alternate reality that doesn't exist and pretend someone made such an argument so you can have some basis for rebuttal. Get a clue Karen."

You stated that making a law that requires providing nutritional information about their product is, and I quote,

"breaches in LIBERTY and FREE ENTERPRISE, not actual safeguards that the government should ensure."

"The argument is that GOVERNMENT is FORCING, without CAUSE (the general safety of the public is not at stake nor is the safety of any specific body) such actions on the part of PRIVATE enterprise. You don't get it. WITHOUT JUST CAUSE! That means it is a matter of convenience, i.e. LIBERTY. That means if the government can, without just cause, force this end of a business, it can base its next encroachment on this same violation of free enterprise and liberty. DUH."

They apparently think there is a just cause. You don't. The cause is to provide consumers with honest information about the product they are about to buy. There's many safety issues that are actually involved, even beyond simply making healthy choices. Many 'healthy' foods are often only healthy in one area. Such as being low fat, or low sugar, or low in carbs. While still being high in the other areas, or sodium, etc. These are not the obvious choices. Like fries having high sodium.

Sweet dressings often hide a large amount of salt, which people with high blood pressure have to avoid. A diet dressing, with low fat, may contain large amounts of high fructose corn syrup to make up for the lack. Which is still non-fat, but much higher in sugar. Handy for a diabetic to know. And not obvious.

A diabetic eats a cookie or ice cream cone, it makes sense they know it isn't a good choice. A diabetic orders the 'Healthy Choice Salad' with the "Lite Dressing', it isn't unreasonable to think that would be. And yet many a healthy choice salad with the lite dressing might have more sugar in it than a frozen yogurt.

"And if a business wants to reduce its liability, that is THEIR DECISION to make, not the NANNY STATE government. The allegedly LIABILITY is non-existent in this case, which makes this violation by the government even worse because it lessens their justification to nothing and this tiny point of yours meaningless."

Again, that is your opinion. Disagreeing with it doesn't necessarily make a person stupid, illogical, immoral, or a 'nanny'.

I don't consider you to be, well, insert appropriate insults here. Not that I expect that you will agree, or the random insults of the poster will stop.

"As for your claim that OTHER forms of government information gathering aren't at odds with with liberty or free enterprise, apparently you have had your head buried in the sand longer than I imagined with goofy claims like that. You actually need a list of the objections by citizens over the past 20 years for such cases? Are you kidding me? Are you really this uninformed or naive?"

No, my question is if YOU object to them. Not 'citizens'. Citizens have also raised objections that led to this legislation. Apparently those citizens are 'Lefty Libs' who want a Nanny state.

What are the citizens who object to the information gathering done in the name of 'Homeland Security'?

"But after all this, it does seem quite clear you have a way to go before understanding the principles of free enterprise and understanding the consequences of the loss of liberty by an encroaching government. So, I'll leave you in your mud pit of illusion on this one."

In other words, I disagree with you, and remain unpersuaded by your... well insults, since there's little in the way of actual arguments. Only presenting your view, and denigrating those who disagree.

I know, shocking that I don't find that convincing.