Crazy left-wing extremists to ban goldfish, circumcison

[FreakyLocz14]

Politicians in San Francisco, California are considering banning goldfish within the city because they claim that the mass breeding of goldfish causes them "inhumane suffering". I'm sure the liberal loons will remember that the next time they hit up a sushi bar.

Also, SF voters will decide on the unconstitutional criminalizing of circumcision. The measure will provide no religious exemptions if it does pass.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...goldfish-San-Francisco-ban-sale-pet-fish.html

 

[Sydian]

...Okay? Way to take away a child's first pet I guess. Um. I don't really think this is that big of a deal, lol. Didn't even know people gave a flip flop about fish.

PS: lmao how do you even circumsize a fish

 

[Katja]

This is so stupid. What about all the cows we slaughter and other animals? They might as well be PETA. You can't randomly ban one thing... o_O

 

[Netto Azure]

"Liberal loons" way to paint a huge brush there. Even I don't condone the actions of PETA. >.>

But yeah, another local story.

 

[Palkia]

I'm against banning circumcision, as people have it for their religion. I feel that everyone should believe in their religion.

That goldfish thing is just plain stupid though.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

"Liberal loons" way to paint a huge brush there. Even I don't condone the actions of PETA. >.>

But yeah, another local story.

Obviously not all liberal are this far out there. SF hosts some true nutjobs. I could never bear living there because I value my freedom. It's ban this and ban that out there

We are talking about the same place that banned Happy Meals, after all.
https://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103

 

[PokéSwimmer]

I honestly don't see the problem with banning the goldfish sales. Do people really care that much about wether or not we have goldfish in our houses.

Oh, and not to go too off topic here: SF banned "giving away toys with meals that have high levels of calories, sugar and fat." Because they entice children want to eat them. It's a perfectly legitimate ban. Again do we really care that much about stuff like fast food?

And FreakyLocz: using exaggerated phrases such as "Crazy left-wing extremists" or "liberal loons" seriously detracts from the point you are trying to make (It's also rude).

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I honestly don't see the problem with banning the goldfish sales. Do people really care that much about wether or not we have goldfish in our houses.

Oh, and not to go too off topic here: SF banned "giving away toys with meals that have high levels of calories, sugar and fat." Because they entice children want to eat them. It's a perfectly legitimate ban. Again do we really care that much about stuff like fast food?

And FreakyLocz: using exaggerated phrases such as "Crazy left-wing extremists" or "liberal loons" seriously detracts from the point you are trying to make (It's also rude).

Liberty: a concept in political philosophy that identifies the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions.

If I want to buy a goldfish, have my kid circumcised, or stuff my face with high calorie foods, that's my choice. The government has no business having this much say in how were live our private lives.

I know that some on the other side of the aisle are well meaning, but it's extreme antics like this that set a dangerous precedent that destroys our liberty and diminishes our personal freedom.

 

[Meganium]

This is even crazier than banning Happy Meals in SF. Banning Goldfish in SF is just stupid. What were they thinking? :/

I have goldfish myself, I'm glad I don't live there.

 

[Esper]

Anyway, it's easy to point out the silly things that happen in SF, but they're one of the most forward thinking places around. I mean happy meals are part of an an obesity epidemic (or whatever word isn't as loaded as 'epidemic') so that's a perfectly excusable thing to ban. They're just doing what people should do if they really thought about what they thought was right and wrong and really applied it. Like with goldfish. If you go to a carnival where you can win one they're usually not very healthy and die pretty quickly. It's just a goldfish, but there's really no need or good excuse to continue practices like that. Even from the 'consumer' side it's not that great because you're giving your kid a pet which they'll love and then it'll die inside a week and that will crush them.

tl;dr it's small peanuts and it doesn't really matter. No one's getting hurt if these things get banned and maybe a small amount of good is done.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Anyway, it's easy to point out the silly things that happen in SF, but they're one of the most forward thinking places around. I mean happy meals are part of an an obesity epidemic (or whatever word isn't as loaded as 'epidemic') so that's a perfectly excusable thing to ban. They're just doing what people should do if they really thought about what they thought was right and wrong and really applied it. Like with goldfish. If you go to a carnival where you can win one they're usually not very healthy and die pretty quickly. It's just a goldfish, but there's really no need or good excuse to continue practices like that. Even from the 'consumer' side it's not that great because you're giving your kid a pet which they'll love and then it'll die inside a week and that will crush them.

tl;dr it's small peanuts and it doesn't really matter. No one's getting hurt if these things get banned and maybe a small amount of good is done.

If forward thinking is code for totally nuts, than I'd agree with you.

The problem is not it's not the government's job to think for people. We are the masters of our own destiny. We think for ourselves, and suffer the consequences if we make bad decisions. Banning Happy Meals is not excusable at all because it sets a dangerous precedent that the government can decide what's best for our private lives and by issuing ban after ban until we have no free will left. Not to mention that part of their legislative agenda is shockingly antisemitic.

 

[Esper]

If forward thinking is code for totally nuts, than I'd agree with you.

The problem is not it's not the government's job to think for people. We are the masters of our own destiny. We think for ourselves, and suffer the consequences if we make bad decisions. Banning Happy Meals is not excusable at all because it sets a dangerous precedent that the government can decide what's best for our private lives and by issuing ban after ban until we have no free will left. Not to mention that part of their legislative agenda is shockingly antisemitic.

I can't speak for the circumcision thing since I'm not a doctor or anything, but I've heard that it's healthier not to have it done and if that is true then I think there's some reason for wanting to stop it.

And yeah, the government shouldn't be telling us what's good for us, but they should keep an eye out for things that are getting out of hand, like childhood obesity. The slope isn't as slippery as you make it sound. We're not going to turn into a 1984 world because one city bans goldfish or happy meals. Give people a little credit. These things are happening in SF because the people there want them to happen and they know that it's no more a restriction on people's rights than traffic laws or something.

 

[PokéSwimmer]

If I want to buy a goldfish, have my kid circumcised, or stuff my face with high calorie foods, that's my choice. The government has no business having this much say in how were live our private lives.

According to the article you posted, the circumcision issue will be voted on by the residents. They will be deciding their own fate (It's probably not going to pass anyway).
It appears (from the articles) that the pets and fast food regulations are on the businesses and not the individuals. You are still free to adopt pets as long as you do not have to pay for them. The government is not preventing you (or children) from eating fast food. It's just preventing the businesses from including a toy with "meals that have high levels of calories, sugar and fat." You still have your fast food and if you really want your toy, just go to Toys R US (or something) and buy one.

The comments for the following quote will be in bold

If forward thinking is code for totally nuts, than I'd agree with you.
Calling this "totally nuts" is a gross exaggeration.

The problem is not it's not the government's job to think for people.
At times, it is, that is why we have laws and we elect officials to make decisions for us.
We are the masters of our own destiny. We think for ourselves, and suffer the consequences if we make bad decisions. Banning Happy Meals is not excusable at all because it sets a dangerous precedent that the government can decide what's best for our private lives and by issuing ban after ban until we have no free will left.
It is merely inconveniencing you in the fact that a kid doesn't get a toy with his meal. This isn't really that big of a deal. You're making a "Slippery slope" argument here.
Not to mention that part of their legislative agenda is shockingly antisemitic.
Uh, could you please elaborate on this last sentence?

 

[Livewire]

If forward thinking is code for totally nuts, than I'd agree with you.

The problem is not it's not the government's job to think for people. We are the masters of our own destiny. We think for ourselves, and suffer the consequences if we make bad decisions. Banning Happy Meals is not excusable at all because it sets a dangerous precedent that the government can decide what's best for our private lives and by issuing ban after ban until we have no free will left. Not to mention that part of their legislative agenda is shockingly antisemitic.

Here we go with the "liberals are the devil" argument again. Why do you even live in one of the most blue states there is, then? Head up to Alaska or Wisconsin, Sarah Palin and Reich fuhrer Walker would love to have you I'm sure.

Banning a happy meal, or a similar stark measure needs to happen, if not now, then soon. The obesity epidemic (and it's an epidemic) in this country is crippling us, literally. You can't honestly mean that leaving things as they are will make things better, or that the banning of a happy meal will lead us to Totalitarianism. We need solutions, and fast. And none of these solutions come from any politician you back.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Here we go with the "liberals are the devil" argument again. Why do you even live in one of the most blue states there is, then? Head up to Alaska or Wisconsin, Sarah Palin and Reich fuhrer Walker would love to have you I'm sure.

Banning a happy meal, or a similar stark measure needs to happen, if not now, then soon. The obesity epidemic (and it's an epidemic) in this country is crippling us, literally. You can't honestly mean that leaving things as they are will make things better, or that the banning of a happy meal will lead us to Totalitarianism. We need solutions, and fast. And none of these solutions come from any politician you back.

Isn't it the left that claims to be "pro-choice"? That crowd chants about how they don't want the government controlling what people do with their bodies. Does that only apply to abortion, or does it also apply to the food we eat? Or the pets we buy?

The left's anti-Israel stances are evidenced by this attempt to ban a central tenent if the Jewish faith withthe circumcision measure.

 

[Esper]

Not to mention that part of their legislative agenda is shockingly antisemitic.
Uh, could you please elaborate on this last sentence?

Circumcision is a part of Jewish religion... or something. I'm not Jewish so I don't really understand how integral it it, but I believe it's something along the lines of the covenant Jews have with god and circumcision is how you show you're following it. I think it's also part of Islam, but I'm even shakier on that. So I believe her argument is that by banning it you're infringing on their religious rights.

Edit: Although I wouldn't call it an anti-Israel stance since Israel has nothing to do with San Francisco. Even Jews who live in SF might not have anything to do with Israel. A Jewish family I know in Oakland (city right across the bay from SF) certainly don't.

 

[Livewire]

Isn't it the left that claims to be "pro-choice"? That crowd chants about how they don't want the government controlling what people do with their bodies. Does that only apply to abortion, or does it also apply to the food we eat? Or the pets we buy?

The left's anti-Israel stances are evidenced by this attempt to ban a central tenent if the Jewish faith withthe circumcision measure.

Notice how those things are totally unrealated, for starters. Abortion has nothing to do happy meals and goldfish, shockingly. Pro-Choice applies to the abortion arguement. Certain things need government regulation, it's just how things work in this country, and Libertarians need to realize that. Would you have any random joe off the street serve as a Circuit Judge? Appoint somebody to be the CEO of a major corporation? Or would you entrust any random citizen to determine US foreign policy? You need the federal government, and governement regulation, whether you like that fact or not.

 

[Freedom Fighter N]

First, what the hell is this, someone slipped and falcon headbutted the floor pretty darn bad.. (goldfish part)

Anyway, before we're going to another ordeal of we started at A and ended at Z (don't ask me how the hell you discussing people got there) I'm here to clarify that Israel is home to the Jewish people - not to the Jewish faith. If they started saying the IDF is doing crazy things like a siege or anything like that, that's anti-Israel. If they said something about Judaism, it doesn't concern IL at all.

Not to mention that I do agree that it should be banned, I'd even go as far as to say it's a barbarian ceremony. Not to mention it's forcing religion on the baby.
I do think that no respect should be shown toward religion, so there might be some bias here.

Anyway, back on topic, why is sale of pets bad (hell, pets make a darn good companions, from experience) and why not all goldfish-size fish?

And if we're there, I dunno what's this pro-choice or whatever thing is (I actually think I know the basics, but what basics can help?), but it's up to the woman to decide. Sure it's not black and white, but in 90% of the cases it's a simple yes or no from the one who carries the darn thing 9 months.

 

[donavannj]

Not to mention that I do agree that it should be banned, I'd even go as far as to say it's a barbarian ceremony. Not to mention it's forcing religion on the baby.
I do think that no respect should be shown toward religion, so there might be some bias here.

Many parents have their babies circumcised for hygienic reasons, not religious reasons.

 

[Silver]

While you have valid points somewhere in that post. The fact that you need to refer to liberals in a deliberately negative fashion that shows your obvious bias weakens any argument you seek to make. jsyk.