[zdragnar]

> It's about as relevant as reminding your friends that some restaurants are not very good when you're picking a place to eat

Interestingly, restaurant food is typically less healthy, more expensive and less tasty than what you can make at home. Eating out should be the exception, not the rule, which plays directly plays into the anti regulation argument.

[wsve]

That is very far from the point, not only because what I meant was that some restaurants are not as good compared to others, but also because the connection between eating out vs eating at home and regulations is basically non-existent? I don't really understand what you're saying.

The point is saying "some regulations have downsides" is meaningless in conversation about a particular regulation, just like saying "some restaurants don't serve very tasty food" is meaningless in a conversation about "should we try that new Thai place on 3rd street?"

[zdragnar]

I suspect that's because you wrongly assume the other side is saying "some regulations have downsides". It's more likely they're saying "all regulations have unintended consequences" and thus deserve extra scrutiny when considering them.

If that is the case, then the analogy is fitting again; even "good" restaurants are often a poor substitute for eating at home, and so shouldn't be a first line of consideration.

[wsve]

Agreed that's what they were likely trying to do with that comment, and I'd argue the problem with it is that it fear-mongers about regulations while failing to actually scrutinize what the negative effects are.

Also, we should really drop this restaurant analogy, it's ill-fitting and clearly distracting from the main point.