Azrael wrote:However, no one's said that.
I'm glad to see you backing away from your slippery slope fallacy. Pretending you never made the argument, however is silly.
Go ahead. Show me where I made an actual
slippery slope fallacy. Quote it. Not one where you've decided
that I have. A slippery slope "If we do A, then we will
Which isn't what I've been saying.
You stated that in a democracy we can stop at any time along which ever regulatory path we want -- which is true, and no one has stated otherwise. You've invented that opposing stance yourself.
Actually, the fact that we already regulate some ingredients indicates that this isn't a slippery slope argument.
Again you seem to be struggling with basic concepts here. The presence of those regulations illustrates the absurdity of your slippery slope argument.
Saying "again" doesn't make you correct, nor is doubting my understanding making my argument actually fit the little pigeon hole you've decided to build for it.
But let's look up what a slippery slope argument actually is. Allow me to quote it:
wikipedia wrote:In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also known as thin edge of the wedge, or the camel's nose) is a classic form of argument, arguably an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.
See that whole bit about middle ground, and the strength of the argument depending on demonstrating a process with leads to the next effect? The presence of regulations of specific ingredients indicates that the middle ground exists -- and it's perfectly clear that after regulating the first (and a whole bunch more) we haven't slipped off the slope into regulating absolutely everything. However, it is also clear that there is a process in place to support additional regulations (i.e. trans-fat). A regulation of sugar would use that process. But, to be crystal clear, my point is and always has been:
It would be in the interests of a large industrial food company that would be hurt by regulations to sugar, fat, salt or calorie content to prevent a ban on sugar. Initially (obviously) because their interests in sugar would be harmed. But also because a ban on sugar could strengthen the public will and regulatory environment against other unhealthy ingredients.
(See that 'could' and the fact that I'm not saying a ban on sugar would inevitably
lead to a ban on fat, salt and calorie content? And the identification of an existent mechanism that could feasibly be used to regulate fat, salt or calorie content? All of that is what makes this not a slippery slope argument.)
Furthermore, the businesses at hand don't care that this has been proclaimed by some guy on the internet to be an arguable and informal
fallacy, because managing business risk and following debate rhetoric are not the same. Nor are the driving players (the general public and regulators) perfectly rational actors driven by a formal logic computational engine. The wise company would recognize a risk and manage it -- not (as was the relevant context of the original discussion) collude to further regulate themselves.
Sugar has a far greater impact on heart disease than fat or salt.
Care to cite that? Because The CDC disagrees
in putting diabetes last on the list. And this paper
outright states that (in 2002) there were no trials linking sugar directly to CVD. AHA's
caution against sugar is that it is one (of many) of the causes of obesity.
Nope, wrong again. Nowhere does CDC say that fat and salt are more important than sugar to cardiovascular risk. Care to cite?
You know what's great about context? It make your latest quip here look particularly trite.
No, I will not provide further citations at this time than the three I already gave you. You started this line of discussion by making the positive claim that sugar was a far larger contributor to CVD than fat or salt, and you have already been asked to cite it. Your attempt to play the "No, you
cite it" game is transparent.
Cite your original assertion.