Political Ocean's 11

[Hurlshort]

Baseball is huge in Asia. You are definitely projecting.

[Guard Dog]

 

Welcome to the United States. Giving advice is a crime here so STFU: http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/09/florida-threatens-woman-with-fines-jail

 

Everyone is so uptight about Democrats vs Republicans. That is just a distraction. It's really the government vs you.

 

I'm not sure what's wrong about shutting down someone who isn't qualified to hand out dietary advice from doing so for-profit. Would you feel similarly outraged if she was offering tips on prescription drug usage?

 

I didn't know, but looks to me like the requirements for obtaining a dietitian's license in Florida are quite stringent. That's a good thing. She doesn't get to do the same thing without undergoing proper training. What happens if someone's health is damaged from following her advice?

 

 

As long as she is not presenting herself as something she's not what is the problem? Suppose you need new brakes on your car. The repair shop quotes you one price and I offer to do it in my backyard for half. Should the government be harassing me? The choice is always with the consumer.  

[ShadySands]

ugh double post

Edited October 9, 2017 by ShadySands

[ShadySands]

Baseball is huge in Asia. You are definitely projecting.

 

and the Caribbean too

[Malcador]

 

Baseball is huge in Asia. You are definitely projecting.

 

and the Caribbean too

 

Well, in some parts. Cricket has a large hold on others.

[213374U]

 

 

Welcome to the United States. Giving advice is a crime here so STFU: http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/09/florida-threatens-woman-with-fines-jail

 

Everyone is so uptight about Democrats vs Republicans. That is just a distraction. It's really the government vs you.

 

I'm not sure what's wrong about shutting down someone who isn't qualified to hand out dietary advice from doing so for-profit. Would you feel similarly outraged if she was offering tips on prescription drug usage?

 

I didn't know, but looks to me like the requirements for obtaining a dietitian's license in Florida are quite stringent. That's a good thing. She doesn't get to do the same thing without undergoing proper training. What happens if someone's health is damaged from following her advice?

 

 

As long as she is not presenting herself as something she's not what is the problem? Suppose you need new brakes on your car. The repair shop quotes you one price and I offer to do it in my backyard for half. Should the government be harassing me? The choice is always with the consumer.  

 

The problem is twofold, the way I see it.

 

First: she's engaged in unfair competition v. actual dietitians. She's not presenting herself as a dietitian, but she's billed as a "health coach", whatever the **** that means. If her videos bore a "not an actual dietitian" watermark and she wasn't making money off of it, it wouldn't be a problem. If such an activity is allowed, it disincentivizes getting an actual education and offering quality advice. It's just much more insidious because the consequences of a bad diet are harder to connect to the root cause, unlike say, a botched surgery.

 

Second: as there is no official licensing involved, there can be no official liabilities derived from her malpractice either, which leaves potential victims defenseless. If someone with kidney damage is given improper diet advice and their health suffers as a consequence, they are unprotected as she could never offer dietary advice in a professional capacity to begin with. It's all well and good to say it's a consumer's choice, but not everyone is aware of the severity of the consequences of a bad diet and the rigorous requirements to obtain a license.

 

There's also a degree of expectations regarding professional competence: do you personally ask to see the pilots' licenses every time you board a flight?

Edited October 10, 2017 by 213374U

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Welcome to the United States. Giving advice is a crime here so STFU: http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/09/florida-threatens-woman-with-fines-jail

 

Everyone is so uptight about Democrats vs Republicans. That is just a distraction. It's really the government vs you.

 

I'm not sure what's wrong about shutting down someone who isn't qualified to hand out dietary advice from doing so for-profit. Would you feel similarly outraged if she was offering tips on prescription drug usage?

 

I didn't know, but looks to me like the requirements for obtaining a dietitian's license in Florida are quite stringent. That's a good thing. She doesn't get to do the same thing without undergoing proper training. What happens if someone's health is damaged from following her advice?

 

 

As long as she is not presenting herself as something she's not what is the problem? Suppose you need new brakes on your car. The repair shop quotes you one price and I offer to do it in my backyard for half. Should the government be harassing me? The choice is always with the consumer.

 

If you do a **** job on my brakes then I or someone else could die in addition to extensive damages to vehicles. Now we could blame the car owner for being a cheap bastard but if this keeps happening and damage keeps happening then perhaps the guy fiddling with brakes should be told to stop because he is doing so in a way that is creating a public health crisis. Now a bad diet isn't going to be as spectacularly lethal as a car wreck, but as the numbers man pointed out there are potentially severe health issues that can arise in a bad diet.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

Welcome to the United States. Giving advice is a crime here so STFU: http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/09/florida-threatens-woman-with-fines-jail

 

Everyone is so uptight about Democrats vs Republicans. That is just a distraction. It's really the government vs you.

I'm not sure what's wrong about shutting down someone who isn't qualified to hand out dietary advice from doing so for-profit. Would you feel similarly outraged if she was offering tips on prescription drug usage?

 

I didn't know, but looks to me like the requirements for obtaining a dietitian's license in Florida are quite stringent. That's a good thing. She doesn't get to do the same thing without undergoing proper training. What happens if someone's health is damaged from following her advice?

As long as she is not presenting herself as something she's not what is the problem? Suppose you need new brakes on your car. The repair shop quotes you one price and I offer to do it in my backyard for half. Should the government be harassing me? The choice is always with the consumer.

If you do a **** job on my brakes then I or someone else could die in addition to extensive damages to vehicles. Now we could blame the car owner for being a cheap bastard but if this keeps happening and damage keeps happening then perhaps the guy fiddling with brakes should be told to stop because he is doing so in a way that is creating a public health crisis. Now a bad diet isn't going to be as spectacularly lethal as a car wreck, but as the numbers man pointed out there are potentially severe health issues that can arise in a bad diet.

Why do you guys assume she gives bad advices? If she would be bad then she wouldn’t have customers.

Also having a license doesn't actually prevents bad diet advices. It only ensures that the wealthy will be the only ones entitled for certain jobs.

It baffles me that most leftists support licenses.

 

 

Licenses means that government guarantees certain level of expertise, if license holder fails to hold that level of expertise then government can be hold to be accountable for issuing license for person that didn't have enough expertise in their field to do their job.

 

People should be allowed to buy services from people that don't have license with knowledge that quality of service that they are getting isn't guarantee by government. Although there are field where need of expertise is so high that it is understandable that they are regulated by government. I can't say if dietary advises fall under such need of high expertise that it demands government regulation. But food industry is one of most heavily regulated industries around the world, because bad food can cause epidemics among the people, which we have seen several times in past, which has lead to regulations that food industry has these days.

 

I would point out that most people regardless of their political background support licenses, although they may have different opinion what things need licenses. 

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Welcome to the United States. Giving advice is a crime here so STFU: http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/09/florida-threatens-woman-with-fines-jail

 

Everyone is so uptight about Democrats vs Republicans. That is just a distraction. It's really the government vs you.

 

I'm not sure what's wrong about shutting down someone who isn't qualified to hand out dietary advice from doing so for-profit. Would you feel similarly outraged if she was offering tips on prescription drug usage?

 

I didn't know, but looks to me like the requirements for obtaining a dietitian's license in Florida are quite stringent. That's a good thing. She doesn't get to do the same thing without undergoing proper training. What happens if someone's health is damaged from following her advice?

 

 

As long as she is not presenting herself as something she's not what is the problem? Suppose you need new brakes on your car. The repair shop quotes you one price and I offer to do it in my backyard for half. Should the government be harassing me? The choice is always with the consumer.  

 

The problem is twofold, the way I see it.

 

First: she's engaged in unfair competition v. actual dietitians. She's not presenting herself as a dietitian, but she's billed as a "health coach", whatever the **** that means. If her videos bore a "not an actual dietitian" watermark and she wasn't making money off of it, it wouldn't be a problem. If such an activity is allowed, it disincentivizes getting an actual education and offering quality advice. It's just much more insidious because the consequences of a bad diet are harder to connect to the root cause, unlike say, a botched surgery.

 

Second: as there is no official licensing involved, there can be no official liabilities derived from her malpractice either, which leaves potential victims defenseless. If someone with kidney damage is given improper diet advice and their health suffers as a consequence, they are unprotected as she could never offer dietary advice in a professional capacity to begin with. It's all well and good to say it's a consumer's choice, but not everyone is aware of the severity of the consequences of a bad diet and the rigorous requirements to obtain a license.

 

There's also a degree of expectations regarding professional competence: do you personally ask to see the pilots' licenses every time you board a flight?

 

So the presumption is her advice is bad because she has not "knelt before the throne" of the government and begged their permission to give it? As the article pointed out if she had written a book full of her advice (good or bad) and sold it for money that would be OK. If she ran  a website and charged a subscription fee that would be OK. Why then does she need the governments permission to meet face to face. It's not logical. She is not performing surgery, of flying a plane, or even practicing law (do NOT get me started on THAT one). She is not presenting herself as a dietician just like I wasn't presenting myself as a mechanic in my scenario. The option to take of leave the offered service is entirely on the consumer of the service. I sure as heck would not hire me to fix your brakes (because of the absence of a guarantee rather than workmanship fears) but that's my choice.

 

You nailed the heart of the issue. ACTUAL dieticians are angry about having to compete with her. So rather than competing, touting their own qualifications over hers they petition the government to shut her down. And the government itself sees an opportunity to make the one thing it loves above all other things: money. Licensing fees. The government, any government, is as greedy and venal as any villain in a Dickens novel. So they are only too happy to sell their "'permission" to do business in the form of a license fee. And the fact that people (dieticians in this case) are begging them to so it makes it only that much sweeter I'd say.

[Malcador]

Always good to find out the dude who fixed your brakes wasn't qualified just before you die

[Hurlshort]

I'd probably be more supportive of the licensed dietitians if so many of them weren't involved in those terrible fad diets. It's a huge industry, no pun intended, and it's a total crock. 

[Blarghagh]

Indeed, knowing a dietician is licensed is about as useful as knowing a palm-reader has been certified by Uri Geller.

[213374U]

Inspiring to know that people equate dietetics (which is a science-based discipline) with the likes of scatomancy. Good show folks.

 

And btw, there are also actual doctors who support homeopathy. So by the same logic I expect peeps to go forth and rise in defense of the sacred right of wholly unsanctioned "health experts" to perform surgery and prescribe meds... provided that "the consumer" agrees.

 

In the end it comes down to prejudice, sadly. GD and others just don't think the subject in question is serious enough to be a matter of government regulation, unlike aircraft operation or surgical procedures. If CDC statistics don't convince you otherwise, it's pointless for me to try. Ta-ta!

 

edited because i cant into english

Edited October 10, 2017 by 213374U

[injurai]

I don't think that was a dismissal of licensed doctors. You still always go for the license, but you realize there are wolves in the flock. Not every licensed clinician is well founded, and they'll continue to let more loose screws through the system.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't think that was a dismissal of licensed doctors.

Dietitians are practically licensed doctors, it requires a bachelor's degree, internship, and passing a certification exam to legally do it. There's a conflation with nutritionists, which while a common thing, shows an ignorance of what dietitians actually do.

[injurai]

In common parlance people substitute the two, but yeah nutritionists are certainly to be guarded against.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Which is what the numbersman has been talking about.

[Blarghagh]

Inspiring to know that people equate dietetics (which is a science-based discipline) with the likes of scatomancy. Good show folks.

 

Not what was said, my good numbers man. I respect dietetics, but most dieticians I've had any interaction or articles about didn't. If the license meant something, I'd respect dieticians but in my experience they are a google search away from knowing less about dietetics than me.

 

EDIT: My bad, nutritionists is the word I should have been using. Here, there's not really have such a distinction currently.

Edited October 10, 2017 by TrueNeutral

[Guard Dog]

You folks are missing the forest for the trees here. Don't get bogged down in the minutia of dieticians vs non-dieticians. The point was a heavy handed government agency putting one businesswoman out of business at the behest of others.  Surely that does not sit well with at least some of you? It certainly bothers me.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

You folks are missing the forest for the trees here. Don't get bogged down in the minutia of dieticians vs non-dieticians. The point was a heavy handed government agency putting one businesswoman out of business at the behest of others.  Surely that does not sit well with at least some of you? It certainly bothers me.

And that's been responded to. If she was offering an alternative to physical therapy as a "health coach" that was unfit and even harmful, would it be the consumer's choice to get injured from advice they didn't know was bad?

[Guard Dog]

 

You folks are missing the forest for the trees here. Don't get bogged down in the minutia of dieticians vs non-dieticians. The point was a heavy handed government agency putting one businesswoman out of business at the behest of others.  Surely that does not sit well with at least some of you? It certainly bothers me.

And that's been responded to. If she was offering an alternative to physical therapy as a "health coach" that was unfit and even harmful, would it be the consumer's choice to get injured from advice they didn't know was bad?

 

So the assumption is the consumer is too stupid to make an informed choice?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

You folks are missing the forest for the trees here. Don't get bogged down in the minutia of dieticians vs non-dieticians. The point was a heavy handed government agency putting one businesswoman out of business at the behest of others.  Surely that does not sit well with at least some of you? It certainly bothers me.

 

And that's been responded to. If she was offering an alternative to physical therapy as a "health coach" that was unfit and even harmful, would it be the consumer's choice to get injured from advice they didn't know was bad?

So the assumption is the consumer is too stupid to make an informed choice?

Yes? Why should we allow snake oil salesmen to inflict harm on uniformed customers who lack the knowledge on the difference between a dietitian and a nutritionist? Are you so blinded by ideology you would let wolves devour the sheep if their sheepskin suit was convincing enough?

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

You folks are missing the forest for the trees here. Don't get bogged down in the minutia of dieticians vs non-dieticians. The point was a heavy handed government agency putting one businesswoman out of business at the behest of others.  Surely that does not sit well with at least some of you? It certainly bothers me.

And that's been responded to. If she was offering an alternative to physical therapy as a "health coach" that was unfit and even harmful, would it be the consumer's choice to get injured from advice they didn't know was bad?

So the assumption is the consumer is too stupid to make an informed choice?

Yes? Why should we allow snake oil salesmen to inflict harm on uniformed customers who lack the knowledge on the difference between a dietitian and a nutritionist? Are you so blinded by ideology you would let wolves devour the sheep if their sheepskin suit was convincing enough?

 

 

I am with KaineParker, its similar to food checks, you don't want someone to sell poisoned food right? I mean people will probably learn sooner or later that its bad for people but why put those first few which will get sick in the risk in first place? Some quality controls done by state are fine with me

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

You folks are missing the forest for the trees here. Don't get bogged down in the minutia of dieticians vs non-dieticians. The point was a heavy handed government agency putting one businesswoman out of business at the behest of others.  Surely that does not sit well with at least some of you? It certainly bothers me.

And that's been responded to. If she was offering an alternative to physical therapy as a "health coach" that was unfit and even harmful, would it be the consumer's choice to get injured from advice they didn't know was bad?

So the assumption is the consumer is too stupid to make an informed choice?

Yes? Why should we allow snake oil salesmen to inflict harm on uniformed customers who lack the knowledge on the difference between a dietitian and a nutritionist? Are you so blinded by ideology you would let wolves devour the sheep if their sheepskin suit was convincing enough?

 

God have mercy on us poor stupid peasants. Wherever would we be without the government to tell us what to buy and protect us from our poor stupid selves.

 

I don't believe we are letting the wolves devour the sheep. I believe in empowering the sheep to take care of themselves.

 

You know it occurs to me some of the worst kinds of oppression begin in benevolence. The desire to "help" people by making decisions for them ends in the drive to have complete control over them. To quote on of my favorites H.L Menken "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule"

Edited October 10, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Malcador]

 

 

You folks are missing the forest for the trees here. Don't get bogged down in the minutia of dieticians vs non-dieticians. The point was a heavy handed government agency putting one businesswoman out of business at the behest of others. Surely that does not sit well with at least some of you? It certainly bothers me.

And that's been responded to. If she was offering an alternative to physical therapy as a "health coach" that was unfit and even harmful, would it be the consumer's choice to get injured from advice they didn't know was bad?

So the assumption is the consumer is too stupid to make an informed choice?

In some cases they'll be dying before they are informed. Using other people as guinea pigs is cool unless it's you.