Certainly one way to refer to the guy who's been on the wrong side of a lot of oily debates [1]. I'll admit to disliking him extra because of what happened to his son, whose music I love.
Yeah, he does cast his net wider than I implied :)
> Rick Berman, a Washington lobbyist and arch-enemy of other lobbyists and do-gooders who would have government control—and even ban-a myriad of products they claim are killing us, products like caffeine, salt, fast food and the oil they fry it in. He's against Mothers Against Drunk Driving, animal rights activists, food watchdog groups and unions of every kind.
Claiming Personal responsibility for 100% of the issues is a cop-out.
We have a complex society. There are many complex issues at hand, and I cannot personally afford to fully research every single one of them all the time. Don't kid yourself -- no one can.
Therefore I pay a service to hire experts, make recommendations, take any necessary actions, and hold others accountable. Additionally, I have some say in who gets to appoint these experts.
My personal responsibility extends to paying my taxes, and participating as much as I can in government, so I can be sure myself + my children can continue to enjoy a life + future where they are safe, and can pursue whatever useful skill they can, can be respected, and are protected against those who would waste no time downplaying or hiding truths for short term gain.
Someone needs to stand up for the right to self-determination. If I want to eat a Big Mac and smoke a cigar you shouldn't be able to mobilize the government to stop me.
Big false equivalence there. You are looking at millions of preventable deaths because of this lobbyist's action. Possibly also your own: watch out for the next flood, don't get caught outside with broken car AC in black-flag heat, watch out for tornadoes, dengue mosquitoes...
I don't agree with the stuff he put out on big oil but I strongly agree with the stuff on fast food and a lot of the other points. It's a mixed bag like almost everything in life.
In every case, he is pushing the argument on behalf of industry profiteers. You make it sound like he is just arguing what he thinks is right.
I'll lend an ear to good faith arguments about why we shouldn't be regulating sugar in foods. But it is disingenuous for the sugar industry to secretly fund and amplify those arguments.
Moreover, it explicitly violates several of the guidelines[1]:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Certainly one way to refer to the guy who's been on the wrong side of a lot of oily debates [1]. I'll admit to disliking him extra because of what happened to his son, whose music I love.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Berman_(lawyer)