This is very true. This is one of the few complaints about universal health care that I can relate to.usmarine2 wrote:
I look at it one way. if the govt had universal health care, then they can do stuff like this. Since I pay for my health care, stfu and I can eat what I want assholes.
I totally disagree. Topal hit the nail on the head, unless you believe restaurant owners are trans fat junkies or that their income is primarily dependent on using them.Kmarion wrote:
I'd rather work on it than go with the flow.. I think we can guess where that will lead us (even more so). You can't force this kind pf personal responsibility on people. It's akin to "the war on drugs".Turquoise wrote:
The government does a lot of things that aren't exactly in the typical description for government. I really don't see banning trans fats as crossing a major line though. I mean, fuck, we nation build entire countries on what appears to be a whim.
I am wondering what the taste comparison is: foods with vs foods without. Can't they fry chicken in another fat? Or is trans fat that tasty? I am just wondering.usmarine2 wrote:
I look at it one way. if the govt had universal health care, then they can do stuff like this. Since I pay for my health care, stfu and I can eat what I want assholes.
I find natural foods to be tastier tbh.topal63 wrote:
I am wondering what the taste comparison is: foods with vs foods without. Can't they fry chicken in another fat? Or is trans fat that tasty? I am just wondering.usmarine2 wrote:
I look at it one way. if the govt had universal health care, then they can do stuff like this. Since I pay for my health care, stfu and I can eat what I want assholes.
I use that smart balance stuff at home, and most food I have around here has no trans fat in it. tastes fine to me.topal63 wrote:
I am wondering what the taste comparison is: foods with vs foods without. Can't they fry chicken in another fat? Or is trans fat that tasty? I am just wondering.usmarine2 wrote:
I look at it one way. if the govt had universal health care, then they can do stuff like this. Since I pay for my health care, stfu and I can eat what I want assholes.
The regulation has infringed on rights.. some people are damn happy when they are eating a cheeseburger. There used to be a government sanctioned regulation called segregation. It was popular in some states. Shall we bring that back as well?topal63 wrote:
The ownership is private.
People (the public, people who do not own the privately owned restaurant) congregate at these establishments. You're talking about regulation; not rights. A privately owned and operated establishment must have some sort of license to be able to serve the public. They (Calif.) have the local-state right to regulate business licenses as they see fit - based upon public opinion, whether it be: insurance requirements, cleanliness, healthiness, etc.
Oh lord... you didn't just do the racial equivalent of Godwinning this thread, did you?Kmarion wrote:
The regulation has infringed on rights.. some people are damn happy when they are eating a cheeseburger. There used to be a government sanctioned regulation called segregation. It was popular in some states. Shall we bring that back as well?topal63 wrote:
The ownership is private.
People (the public, people who do not own the privately owned restaurant) congregate at these establishments. You're talking about regulation; not rights. A privately owned and operated establishment must have some sort of license to be able to serve the public. They (Calif.) have the local-state right to regulate business licenses as they see fit - based upon public opinion, whether it be: insurance requirements, cleanliness, healthiness, etc.
Again.. you can force this healthy lifestyle on people.
I bet there are plenty of restaurant that have trans fats in most of their dishes. It's a stupid law that takes away a basic fundamental right to choose your lifestyle. If we are to start banning all things that might harm you in the long term the list will grow out of control.Turquoise wrote:
I totally disagree. Topal hit the nail on the head, unless you believe restaurant owners are trans fat junkies or that their income is primarily dependent on using them.Kmarion wrote:
I'd rather work on it than go with the flow.. I think we can guess where that will lead us (even more so). You can't force this kind pf personal responsibility on people. It's akin to "the war on drugs".Turquoise wrote:
The government does a lot of things that aren't exactly in the typical description for government. I really don't see banning trans fats as crossing a major line though. I mean, fuck, we nation build entire countries on what appears to be a whim.
As I said earlier, I'm against this sort of thing most of the time, but New York did the same thing a year or two ago. They seem to be doing ok.Kmarion wrote:
I bet there are plenty of restaurant that have trans fats in most of their dishes. It's a stupid law that takes away a basic fundamental right to choose your lifestyle. If we are to start banning all things that might harm you in the long term the list will grow out of control.Turquoise wrote:
I totally disagree. Topal hit the nail on the head, unless you believe restaurant owners are trans fat junkies or that their income is primarily dependent on using them.Kmarion wrote:
I'd rather work on it than go with the flow.. I think we can guess where that will lead us (even more so). You can't force this kind pf personal responsibility on people. It's akin to "the war on drugs".
You guys are short sighted.
It's about the right to choose. I could use prostitution, gun control, gambling. Whatever makes you comfortable.. let me know.topal63 wrote:
LOL, that was a stretch K-man, and yet you're not making comparisons!
I can't speak for topal, but I think we should legalize prostitution. Granted, you did make a strong counterargument involving human trafficking.Kmarion wrote:
It's about the right to choose. I could use prostitution, gun control, gambling. Whatever makes you comfortable.. let me know.topal63 wrote:
LOL, that was a stretch K-man, and yet you're not making comparisons!
That's just the shortlist. I could go on and on.. abortion comes to mind. You can't force this stuff on people. I don't think you guys are seeing the big picture. One thing history has taught is is that once a population gives up their (seemingly insignificant) rights it starts a chain reaction. The fight to get them back is twice as hard. We are already to the point of wiretapping citizens.Turquoise wrote:
I can't speak for topal, but I think we should legalize prostitution. Granted, you did make a strong counterargument involving human trafficking.Kmarion wrote:
It's about the right to choose. I could use prostitution, gun control, gambling. Whatever makes you comfortable.. let me know.topal63 wrote:
LOL, that was a stretch K-man, and yet you're not making comparisons!
Last edited by topal63 (2008-07-26 12:27:15)
but the hospital visits come out of my (and your) tax dollars, especially in California, where a large percentage of the population is on government health plansKmarion wrote:
The regulation has infringed on rights.. some people are damn happy when they are eating a cheeseburger. There used to be a government sanctioned regulation called segregation. It was popular in some states. Shall we bring that back as well?topal63 wrote:
The ownership is private.
People (the public, people who do not own the privately owned restaurant) congregate at these establishments. You're talking about regulation; not rights. A privately owned and operated establishment must have some sort of license to be able to serve the public. They (Calif.) have the local-state right to regulate business licenses as they see fit - based upon public opinion, whether it be: insurance requirements, cleanliness, healthiness, etc.
Again.. you can force this healthy lifestyle on people.
I'm glad I'm amusing you. It seems rather easy to do. You suggest my comparisons are being outrageous and yet you just compared arsenic with trans fats? There are people who have lived a hundred of years on a diet of nothing but trans fats..lol. Why don't you try that with arsenic. If someone wants to intentionally ingest arsenic go for it comrade.. seriously. That should cut down on the tax payers burden.topal63 wrote:
Double LOL, now eating trans fat constitutes a lifestyle? I mean if they put arsenic in food because it was sort of tasty and someone came up with a substitute - you'ld be against banning arsenic in food served to the public. Just because the effects are accumulated over time doesn't mean it can't be a poison to your body (in this case to heart health among other things).
You should ban skate boarding, water skiing, skydiving, polka dancing, bubble baths.. all things that can cause serious injury and send you to the community hospital.S.Lythberg wrote:
but the hospital visits come out of my (and your) tax dollars, especially in California, where a large percentage of the population is on government health plansKmarion wrote:
The regulation has infringed on rights.. some people are damn happy when they are eating a cheeseburger. There used to be a government sanctioned regulation called segregation. It was popular in some states. Shall we bring that back as well?topal63 wrote:
The ownership is private.
People (the public, people who do not own the privately owned restaurant) congregate at these establishments. You're talking about regulation; not rights. A privately owned and operated establishment must have some sort of license to be able to serve the public. They (Calif.) have the local-state right to regulate business licenses as they see fit - based upon public opinion, whether it be: insurance requirements, cleanliness, healthiness, etc.
Again.. you can force this healthy lifestyle on people.
Source?Kmarion wrote:
There are people who have lived a hundred of years on a diet of nothing but trans fats..
stfu. do your own damn workHurricaИe wrote:
Source?Kmarion wrote:
There are people who have lived a hundred of years on a diet of nothing but trans fats..
I was referring to the part where it says the individual should be free to live as they wish. I always believed that the concept of social contract involves relinquishing some of our rights in order to enjoy the benefits of a society or structure. Why should the government prevent its citizens from taking narcotics like heroine or PCP; would you consider that a breach of rights? Perhaps it is, but would you rather have the government be apathetic or unwilling to legislate against these kinds of things that can potentially bring down any sense of social order?paul386 wrote:
I never said that drunk driving doesn't affect people (same with second hand smoking), it clearly does. Drinking and driving is and should be a crime. That doesn't drinking should be. However banning smoking in all public restaurants is wrong. The restaurant should be free to make the decision to appeal to their customers. Wether that be to ban it or allow it.Smithereener wrote:
Isn't it the government's job to aid its citizens a la social contract? No effect on you? So second hand smoke doesn't affect other people other than the person putting the cigarette in his/her mouth? So idiots drinking and driving don't affect other people on the road? In your own damn home is one thing and while I do agree that banning fatty foods and other unhealthy foods/drinks is a bit over the top, there is a point where someone/something has to step in and determine what's the best for ALL citizens, not just one individual.
The governments job is to not "aid" citizens. Their only job is to protect your rights. The individual and the free market can decide what is best for them. Do you honestly want the same people that handled Hurricane Katrina relief to decide what is best for you? Do you want to be a child again and have everything you do dictated by your parents?
Let me clarify. Trans fats are not a necessary component for most foods. They were created to improve the shelf life of various products before other preservatives with less adverse effects came into existence.Kmarion wrote:
You should ban skate boarding, water skiing, skydiving, polka dancing, bubble baths.. all things that can cause serious injury and send you to the community hospital.S.Lythberg wrote:
but the hospital visits come out of my (and your) tax dollars, especially in California, where a large percentage of the population is on government health plansKmarion wrote:
The regulation has infringed on rights.. some people are damn happy when they are eating a cheeseburger. There used to be a government sanctioned regulation called segregation. It was popular in some states. Shall we bring that back as well?
Again.. you can force this healthy lifestyle on people.
k, well in that case I'm gonna claim that even a microgram of trans fat will cause colon cancer and not back it up... "do your own damn work" @_@usmarine2 wrote:
stfu. do your own damn workHurricaИe wrote:
Source?Kmarion wrote:
There are people who have lived a hundred of years on a diet of nothing but trans fats..
I have a source that says you're an idiot. You'll have to look it up though.usmarine2 wrote:
stfu. do your own damn workHurricaИe wrote:
Source?Kmarion wrote:
There are people who have lived a hundred of years on a diet of nothing but trans fats..
I've personally had relatives and have heard countless stories.HurricaИe wrote:
Source?Kmarion wrote:
There are people who have lived a hundred of years on a diet of nothing but trans fats..