What if the majority of the population wants to control certain things as a result of collective costs and responsibilities? Is that the government controlling you or the will of the people?KILLSWITCH wrote:
Gee ... thanks for pointing out the blatantly obvious.
They should have the choice to eat trans fats in a restaraunt if they fucking want.
More and more countries are turning into nanny states (I'm living in one) and it pisses me off something rotten. The government is supposed to be here to serve us not control us.
I suppose in the US where people don't pay for other peoples healthcare, it is going far. But over here, if I'm doing my bit towards healthcare, I'd like to see shit like this.
It's the whole big vs small government thing. In the US I think the states should have more power than the fed, cos it's such a big country. So shit like this should be down to state gov instead of fed. Which is.....just what happened with this trans fat thing
It's the whole big vs small government thing. In the US I think the states should have more power than the fed, cos it's such a big country. So shit like this should be down to state gov instead of fed. Which is.....just what happened with this trans fat thing
I agree with what you say about our system. But in a country that does not have socialised medicine I think it suits you guys down to the ground.Turquoise wrote:
I see what you're saying, but with your socialized system, what others eat directly affects how much you pay for socialized care.KILLSWITCH wrote:
Bollocks, like others have said, where do you draw the line? Everything carries some element of risk and It's a personal choice for that individual to make.
Let people eat themselves into an early grave. On an increasingly overcrowded planet we could do with it to be honest.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
QFMFTusmarine2 wrote:
want and force are two different thingssergeriver wrote:
How can they want people to be healthier? Fuckers! Arnold you selfish asshole!
It's a fucking private establishment, if we have any faith at all in the capitalist system the market will dictate when trans fats are out of style. Until then go cook your own goddamn food in your home.
I can't see this lasting. Big fast food companies won't be able to operate period, and will put so much economic and political pressure on them to revoke it I don't see California legislature lasting very long.
I don't even know why all you liberals are so happy about this either. It means any mom and pop restaurants will have a harder time competing, since now they have to buy healthier (and generally more expensive food) and as the cost of eating out rises even further it will force more and more people to eat in.
Bullshit every way you look at it. I'd like to take it a step further and go eat McDonalds in front of all the idiots in Cali who wanted this bill passed.
I think the only reason why the majority of Americans aren't more vocal in demanding food without trans fats is because we're not exactly the most educated populace on nutrition. Look at our obesity rates.KILLSWITCH wrote:
I agree with what you say about our system. But in a country that does not have socialised medicine I think it suits you guys down to the ground.Turquoise wrote:
I see what you're saying, but with your socialized system, what others eat directly affects how much you pay for socialized care.KILLSWITCH wrote:
Bollocks, like others have said, where do you draw the line? Everything carries some element of risk and It's a personal choice for that individual to make.
Let people eat themselves into an early grave. On an increasingly overcrowded planet we could do with it to be honest.
In most countries (like your own) where a socialized medical system is in place, people generally put a little more effort into educating themselves about nutrition as a matter of necessity. In other words, when everyone's health directly affects each other's wallets, that's when they actually give more of a shit.
As I mentioned in my other post, most Americans aren't that educated about nutrition, thus, the market hasn't shown trans fats to be as unwanted as they otherwise would be. Ignorance can often keep the market from accomplishing what it should.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
QFMFT
It's a fucking private establishment, if we have any faith at all in the capitalist system the market will dictate when trans fats are out of style. Until then go cook your own goddamn food in your home.
Big fast food companies seem to be doing ok in NYC after a trans fat ban.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I can't see this lasting. Big fast food companies won't be able to operate period, and will put so much economic and political pressure on them to revoke it I don't see California legislature lasting very long.
It's not just liberals who support it. I might have my liberal views, but I'm far from being solely liberal. This policy should make sense to anyone that realizes trans fats are an additive and not a necessary component of food production. There are plenty of alternatives that are affordable.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't even know why all you liberals are so happy about this either. It means any mom and pop restaurants will have a harder time competing, since now they have to buy healthier (and generally more expensive food) and as the cost of eating out rises even further it will force more and more people to eat in.
There is no what the market should do, there is only what you think the market should do. If the case against trans fats was so obvious then the market would be educated about it, and it wouldn't be a problem. If you think the market would leave trans fats out in the rain if people were educated, then you should spend money to educate those people. Using legislation to force the market's hand is not the answer because a few think it's a good idea.Turquoise wrote:
As I mentioned in my other post, most Americans aren't that educated about nutrition, thus, the market hasn't shown trans fats to be as unwanted as they otherwise would be. Ignorance can often keep the market from accomplishing what it should.
Turquoise wrote:
Big fast food companies seem to be doing ok in NYC after a trans fat ban.
It went into full effect less than a month ago.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/ wrote:
Restaurants will be barred from using most frying oils containing artificial trans fats by July and will have to eliminate the artificial trans fats from all of their foods by July 2008.
Quite the loophole. It makes the law practically useless to any proponents worried about health concerns, and is still an extreme case of government interference for opponents.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/ wrote:
The ban contains some exceptions; for instance, it would allow restaurants to serve foods that come in the manufacturer’s original packaging.
Care to name a few direct replacements? Something that doesn't change the taste of my McD's french fries? Would you call the loss of business from all the people who don't like the new McD's fries affordable to the company?Turquoise wrote:
It's not just liberals who support it. I might have my liberal views, but I'm far from being solely liberal. This policy should make sense to anyone that realizes trans fats are an additive and not a necessary component of food production. There are plenty of alternatives that are affordable.
Are you aware of how long it took the public to realize that smoking was bad for you? Tobacco companies literally had commercials with "doctors" talking about how good they were for you. From our perspective, it would seem obvious that inhaling smoke was bad for you, but unfortunately, people still managed to justify the use of tobacco through various rationalizations. It took government pressure to finally get the word out to the people that it caused lung cancer.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There is no what the market should do, there is only what you think the market should do. If the case against trans fats was so obvious then the market would be educated about it, and it wouldn't be a problem. If you think the market would leave trans fats out in the rain if people were educated, then you should spend money to educate those people. Using legislation to force the market's hand is not the answer because a few think it's a good idea.
So no... Letting the market clear itself on health issues has a very bad record. Bad enough to be chalked up to millions of cancer victims.
How long did it take lead paint to be banned? How long did it take for asbestos to stop being used?
Then surely you can see how big business has managed to water down the regulation. This actually serves better as an argument that they haven't gone far enough.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It went into full effect less than a month ago.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/ wrote:
Restaurants will be barred from using most frying oils containing artificial trans fats by July and will have to eliminate the artificial trans fats from all of their foods by July 2008.Quite the loophole. It makes the law practically useless to any proponents worried about health concerns, and is still an extreme case of government interference for opponents.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/ wrote:
The ban contains some exceptions; for instance, it would allow restaurants to serve foods that come in the manufacturer’s original packaging.
If you've been to a McDonald's recently, you'll notice that they have replaced the trans fats in their fries with more saturated fats. This isn't exactly a healthy thing to do, but it's certainly more healthy than keeping the trans fats in them. And if you must know, I can't tell the difference in taste.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
[Care to name a few direct replacements? Something that doesn't change the taste of my McD's french fries? Would you call the loss of business from all the people who don't like the new McD's fries affordable to the company?
How do you measure how long it took for the public to realize something? You claim the public isn't educated about trans fats right now. I know trans fats are bad for me, I know every single person around me knows trans fats are bad. I don't give a shit. I'm not going to be shoveling down hamburgers and fries, but I'm not going to stop eating them.Turquoise wrote:
Are you aware of how long it took the public to realize that smoking was bad for you? Tobacco companies literally had commercials with "doctors" talking about how good they were for you. From our perspective, it would seem obvious that inhaling smoke was bad for you, but unfortunately, people still managed to justify the use of tobacco through various rationalizations. It took government pressure to finally get the word out to the people that it caused lung cancer.
So no... Letting the market clear itself on health issues has a very bad record. Bad enough to be chalked up to millions of cancer victims.
How long did it take lead paint to be banned? How long did it take for asbestos to stop being used?
Same deal with smoking. As you said, people kept smoking through rationalizations, a wonderful insight if I do say so myself.
Let's pause to define that word for a second.
Someone knows what they are doing is bad, but because they illogically do not want to stop, they make a convoluted but logical deduction as a psychological defense mechanism. It has nothing to do with what the companies say. They may point to what the companies say in their rationalizations, as these fat kids suing the fast food companies are, but the problem is in will power and personally responsibility.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationalization wrote:
to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable
If people are dying when there is research out there that says something is deadly, but it isn't getting out AT ALL, that's one thing, but that's just not the case. Throwing these arguments out here about as many people dying as cancer and such just aren't going to get me, because I realize that, and it is a favorable outcome. If you do something stupid, you know it's stupid, and you keep doing it...no pity.
No, it only does so because that is your opinion. All this points out is the uselessness of legislation because republican leaders have no balls. From a conservative point of view this means they are still influenced to take action that is completely out of their bounds, and to liberals it means they are influenced by big business to not completely tie them up by their balls. It only means that the legislation is so unwilling to take a side that they take a moderate approach that doesn't satisfy anyone.Turquoise wrote:
Then surely you can see how big business has managed to water down the regulation. This actually serves better as an argument that they haven't gone far enough.
First of all, I highly doubt trans fats have or can be eliminated completely from most fast food chain menus without change in taste and sales.Turquoise wrote:
If you've been to a McDonald's recently, you'll notice that they have replaced the trans fats in their fries with more saturated fats. This isn't exactly a healthy thing to do, but it's certainly more healthy than keeping the trans fats in them. And if you must know, I can't tell the difference in taste.
Secondly, this legislature is about a hair's breadth away from taking unhealthy foods away, period. This sort of interference is something that should be left to socialized nations, not something for a free market.
People want a capitalist free market with governmental protection of the people from that same free market. "I want to get people to give me money in any way possible, but I want Big Brother here to watch my back while I'm doing it to make sure someone else doesn't screw me over.
It's absurd.
You say social contract like it is some sort of universally accepted theory. From from it! The idea of the government having power over you for your own good is a fundamental argument that many do not agree with, including myself. I firmly believe in the teachings of Thomas Jefferson, Milton Friedman, George Washingon, John Stuart Mill, and Adam Smith that "The power to do good is also the power to do harm." Thomas Jefferson said, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." This is an important point. You cannot have freedom without responsibility, they go hand in hand. Do you believe that the role of government is to control the people and decide what is best for them. Or do you believe that it is the role of government to protect the inherent rights of people as they choose for themselves how to live and what is best for them?Smithereener wrote:
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?
Would you rather the government not give a shit about its citizens when they need help? An apathetic government isn't something I'd want to live under. Sure, they did butcher the relief effort with Katrina, but really, would you rather that the government just sit back because it doesn't really involve our rights? I don't believe regulation is entirely a bad thing. The negative externalities of certain behaviours, whether it be pollution from a factory, second hand smoke from smokers, or drunk driving from some drinkers are far more harmful to others than a simple overweight person - at this point, something should have to step in to reduce the negative effects of those behaviours. What about my right to be able to breathe the air outside without having to hold my breath when walking by someone who's got a cigarette in his mouth? If the action affects someone else in a harmful way, the government has every right to step in and protect the rights of the other people who don't want to be harmfully affected.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not too stoked about the idea of having the government tell me what to do or what to eat. I too think that whether or not to allow certain types of fat should be left to the restaurant itself. I mean, I want to eat some fattening stuff once in a while too. But with obesity as it is right now in the US, I can see why people might want to see some kind of change in the way that we eat. Still, I'd rather have this issue be left to the individual restaurant. A lot of them are going the healthier route in the first place, and getting fat doesn't quite adversely affect other people like smoking and drinking might.
Adam Smith said in his famous book, The Wealth of Nations, that an individual who "intends only his own gain" is " led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good". Milton Friedman takes this anaylsis and applies it to those seeking to aid the public through government, "In the government sphere, as in the market, these seems to be an invisible hand, but it operate in precisely the opposite direction from Adam Smith's: an individual who intends only to serve the public interest by fostering government intervention is "led by an invisible hand to promote" private interests, "which was no part of his intention."
I believe this wholeheartedly. I believe that the only role which the government has is to protect the rights of the individual through a court system, a military, and a local (non federal) police force. The government is not effective as, nor should have the right to, determining and enforcing what it believes to be the best for you. As John Stuart Mill put it, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. . . ." and "The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
Please consider these ideas.
The government cannot strip away someone's rights. It does not have that right. The government is not all powerful, its only rightful power it to protect the rights of the individual, not to serve their interests. As I said above, "The power to do good is also the power to do harm".HurricaИe wrote:
But what if 'the consumers' demanded that the government impose a regulation (included in the health code for the restaurants) that restricted the use of trans fats?
(bump)
I don't doubt it at all. The main source of trans fats in fast food are from the hydrogenated oil they are cooked in. You use non-hydrogenated oils for your deep frying and that will vastly reduce the levels of trans fats in the food. Non-hydrogenated oils are better than hydrogenated oils when it comes to both taste and healthiness.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
First of all, I highly doubt trans fats have or can be eliminated completely from most fast food chain menus without change in taste and sales.Turquoise wrote:
If you've been to a McDonald's recently, you'll notice that they have replaced the trans fats in their fries with more saturated fats. This isn't exactly a healthy thing to do, but it's certainly more healthy than keeping the trans fats in them. And if you must know, I can't tell the difference in taste.
But to really find out, just ask someone from Denmark, where they've done exactly this.
I very much doubt anyone would notice.
And this is clearly just utter bollocks. They work fine and are perfectly profitable in Denmark.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I can't see this lasting. Big fast food companies won't be able to operate period, and will put so much economic and political pressure on them to revoke it I don't see California legislature lasting very long.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-07-27 13:54:13)
so why were trans fats used in the first place? There is always a reason.Bertster7 wrote:
I don't doubt it at all. The main source of trans fats in fast food are from the hydrogenated oil they are cooked in. You use non-hydrogenated oils for your deep frying and that will vastly reduce the levels of trans fats in the food. Non-hydrogenated oils are better than hydrogenated oils when it comes to both taste and healthiness.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
First of all, I highly doubt trans fats have or can be eliminated completely from most fast food chain menus without change in taste and sales.Turquoise wrote:
If you've been to a McDonald's recently, you'll notice that they have replaced the trans fats in their fries with more saturated fats. This isn't exactly a healthy thing to do, but it's certainly more healthy than keeping the trans fats in them. And if you must know, I can't tell the difference in taste.
But to really find out, just ask someone from Denmark, where they've done exactly this.
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/i/msnbc/Comp … ansFat.gif
I very much doubt anyone would notice.And this is clearly just utter bollocks. They work fine and are perfectly profitable in Denmark.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I can't see this lasting. Big fast food companies won't be able to operate period, and will put so much economic and political pressure on them to revoke it I don't see California legislature lasting very long.
Because in the past there were no non-hydrogenated oils that could be reused as much as they are in fast food places and it meant you needed to change the oil more regularly. Now newer, better oils are available that can be reused much more. The difference in cost is minute. McDonalds themselves did actually pledge that they would remove trans fats from their food back in 2002 - they issued press releases about it gave a speech about it and then quietly decided not to.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
so why were trans fats used in the first place? There is always a reason.Bertster7 wrote:
I don't doubt it at all. The main source of trans fats in fast food are from the hydrogenated oil they are cooked in. You use non-hydrogenated oils for your deep frying and that will vastly reduce the levels of trans fats in the food. Non-hydrogenated oils are better than hydrogenated oils when it comes to both taste and healthiness.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
First of all, I highly doubt trans fats have or can be eliminated completely from most fast food chain menus without change in taste and sales.
But to really find out, just ask someone from Denmark, where they've done exactly this.
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/i/msnbc/Comp … ansFat.gif
I very much doubt anyone would notice.And this is clearly just utter bollocks. They work fine and are perfectly profitable in Denmark.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I can't see this lasting. Big fast food companies won't be able to operate period, and will put so much economic and political pressure on them to revoke it I don't see California legislature lasting very long.
In any case, it's not like banning trans fats is something new. I hear they've already done it in NY.
So why didn't they?Bertster7 wrote:
Because in the past there were no non-hydrogenated oils that could be reused as much as they are in fast food places and it meant you needed to change the oil more regularly. Now newer, better oils are available that can be reused much more. The difference in cost is minute. McDonalds themselves did actually pledge that they would remove trans fats from their food back in 2002 - they issued press releases about it gave a speech about it and then quietly decided not to.
Bertster7 wrote:
In any case, it's not like banning trans fats is something new. I hear they've already done it in NY.
Flaming_Maniac earlier in this thread wrote:
It went into full effect less than a month ago.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/ wrote:
Restaurants will be barred from using most frying oils containing artificial trans fats by July and will have to eliminate the artificial trans fats from all of their foods by July 2008.Quite the loophole. It makes the law practically useless to any proponents worried about health concerns, and is still an extreme case of government interference for opponents.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/ wrote:
The ban contains some exceptions; for instance, it would allow restaurants to serve foods that come in the manufacturer’s original packaging.
Looks like we all have to just learn how to adjust.
A great number of their franchises did. Just not all of them. That shows it can be done easily enough.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So why didn't they?Bertster7 wrote:
Because in the past there were no non-hydrogenated oils that could be reused as much as they are in fast food places and it meant you needed to change the oil more regularly. Now newer, better oils are available that can be reused much more. The difference in cost is minute. McDonalds themselves did actually pledge that they would remove trans fats from their food back in 2002 - they issued press releases about it gave a speech about it and then quietly decided not to.
As for the reason behind them not following through with their original timetable, you'd have to ask McDonalds - but there's enough evidence that they widely do it, it doesn't affect the taste and it is still perfectly profitable enough for it still to be a lucrative business venture.McDonald's already is using its trans-fat-free oil in about 3,500 U.S. restaurants.
I hadn't seen that. In any case, the loophole isn't a big deal for the reasons I've just outlined (that the vast majority of trans fats come from PHOs that stuff is fried in, which would not be effected by the loophole).Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
In any case, it's not like banning trans fats is something new. I hear they've already done it in NY.Flaming_Maniac earlier in this thread wrote:
It went into full effect less than a month ago.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/ wrote:
Restaurants will be barred from using most frying oils containing artificial trans fats by July and will have to eliminate the artificial trans fats from all of their foods by July 2008.Quite the loophole. It makes the law practically useless to any proponents worried about health concerns, and is still an extreme case of government interference for opponents.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/ wrote:
The ban contains some exceptions; for instance, it would allow restaurants to serve foods that come in the manufacturer’s original packaging.
In NY they've been phasing hydrogenated oils out for some time since they've had plenty of time to prepare for the ban, so most restaurants there have been serving low trans fat content foods for a while - if anyone from NY would care to comment on the standard of fast food there, I'd be interested to hear what they have to say.
The fact that they didn't do it everywhere proves that there is enough incentive to keep them from switching over everywhere, even in the face of detractors that can point at their unhealthful practices. If there truly is no taste or cost difference, it is vastly advantageous from a business perspective to be as healthful as possible.Bertster7 wrote:
A great number of their franchises did. Just not all of them. That shows it can be done easily enough.As for the reason behind them not following through with their original timetable, you'd have to ask McDonalds - but there's enough evidence that they widely do it, it doesn't affect the taste and it is still perfectly profitable enough for it still to be a lucrative business venture.McDonald's already is using its trans-fat-free oil in about 3,500 U.S. restaurants.
Do you want to get rid of trans fats or not? If it's such a big deal mom has to step in and ban them then why are they okay in some instances?Bertster7 wrote:
I hadn't seen that. In any case, the loophole isn't a big deal for the reasons I've just outlined (that the vast majority of trans fats come from PHOs that stuff is fried in, which would not be effected by the loophole).
There is cost difference. I thought you'd have got that from when I mentioned that the extra costs were negligible. As for the taste difference, in surveys at most places that have changed to using trans fat free oils the customers noticed no change - though with pastries and biscuits some customers did notice a difference. That's only a small market segment though and so probably haven't had quite the same level of resources in developing oil blends that perform as well as larger companies - but that's just speculation.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The fact that they didn't do it everywhere proves that there is enough incentive to keep them from switching over everywhere, even in the face of detractors that can point at their unhealthful practices. If there truly is no taste or cost difference, it is vastly advantageous from a business perspective to be as healthful as possible.Bertster7 wrote:
A great number of their franchises did. Just not all of them. That shows it can be done easily enough.As for the reason behind them not following through with their original timetable, you'd have to ask McDonalds - but there's enough evidence that they widely do it, it doesn't affect the taste and it is still perfectly profitable enough for it still to be a lucrative business venture.McDonald's already is using its trans-fat-free oil in about 3,500 U.S. restaurants.
You can't ban trans fats. It's impossible and not to mention stupid. You'd have to ban milk, beef and lots of other stuff. The fact is that the vast majority of trans fats in peoples diets come from PHOs that stuff is fried in. That's all the ban actually covers and that's all that really matters.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Do you want to get rid of trans fats or not? If it's such a big deal mom has to step in and ban them then why are they okay in some instances?Bertster7 wrote:
I hadn't seen that. In any case, the loophole isn't a big deal for the reasons I've just outlined (that the vast majority of trans fats come from PHOs that stuff is fried in, which would not be effected by the loophole).
McDonald's didn't find the extra costs so negligible then.Bertster7 wrote:
There is cost difference. I thought you'd have got that from when I mentioned that the extra costs were negligible. As for the taste difference, in surveys at most places that have changed to using trans fat free oils the customers noticed no change - though with pastries and biscuits some customers did notice a difference. That's only a small market segment though and so probably haven't had quite the same level of resources in developing oil blends that perform as well as larger companies - but that's just speculation.
Couldn't have said it better myself.Bertster7 wrote:
You can't ban trans fats. It's impossible and not to mention stupid.
businesses have one goal, make money. are you telling me they use trans fat for the hell of it? there has to be a good reason no? and why do they give them till 2010 to comply if it is no big deal or no impact to them?
Well, hey, why don't we just end all rehabs and let addicts go crazy and kill people for drugs? Why not legalize all drugs?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How do you measure how long it took for the public to realize something? You claim the public isn't educated about trans fats right now. I know trans fats are bad for me, I know every single person around me knows trans fats are bad. I don't give a shit. I'm not going to be shoveling down hamburgers and fries, but I'm not going to stop eating them.
Same deal with smoking. As you said, people kept smoking through rationalizations, a wonderful insight if I do say so myself.
Let's pause to define that word for a second.Someone knows what they are doing is bad, but because they illogically do not want to stop, they make a convoluted but logical deduction as a psychological defense mechanism. It has nothing to do with what the companies say. They may point to what the companies say in their rationalizations, as these fat kids suing the fast food companies are, but the problem is in will power and personally responsibility.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationalization wrote:
to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable
If people are dying when there is research out there that says something is deadly, but it isn't getting out AT ALL, that's one thing, but that's just not the case. Throwing these arguments out here about as many people dying as cancer and such just aren't going to get me, because I realize that, and it is a favorable outcome. If you do something stupid, you know it's stupid, and you keep doing it...no pity.
Or on a more subtle note, consider all the people in this country that have jobs constantly in motion. People who have to travel a lot for their work (like trucking) get their meals on the run. They're not really planning out their meals so much as they are looking for what's convenient. When the area you're in mostly has fast food restaurants to pick from, you're not really going to take the time out to consult a nutrition book or petition/protest a company for having trans fats on its menu items.
Just to let you know, the anti-regulation crowd is the same one responsible for removing/blocking regulations that would test employees in the food service industry for highly contagious diseases like hepatitis. Ebola + dedication = hired at McDonald's.
We have more health regulations in manufacturing than in food preparation. What does that tell you? You're not gonna eat your sofa, but it might be cleaner...
So this really shouldn't be about pity for the ignorant or stupid. It's more like supporting what covers your own ass, unless you enjoy the possibility of eating more toxins in your food. And yes, trans fats are a toxin since they provide no nutritional value and contribute heavily to heart disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat
If you really think this is only a liberal issue, then that's very sad. You're essentially saying that only liberals care about public health and that conservatives don't give a shit. Granted, as you're pointing out here, I suppose that argument could be made, but I try to give conservatives more credit than that.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No, it only does so because that is your opinion. All this points out is the uselessness of legislation because republican leaders have no balls. From a conservative point of view this means they are still influenced to take action that is completely out of their bounds, and to liberals it means they are influenced by big business to not completely tie them up by their balls. It only means that the legislation is so unwilling to take a side that they take a moderate approach that doesn't satisfy anyone.
This point of view you're citing is merely callous, short-sighted, and corporatist, but it is true that people often confuse that with conservatism.
That's an interesting opinion.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
First of all, I highly doubt trans fats have or can be eliminated completely from most fast food chain menus without change in taste and sales.
I find it a lot more absurd that you'd put so much faith in this market when it clearly hasn't shown itself to be in the best interests of the people, unless again, you think it's just a matter of the stupid dying from stupid decisions. I'm sure it's only a matter of stupidity when children are brought up in an environment that encourages eating heavily marketed fast foods. It couldn't possibly be any fault of companies directly marketing unhealthy foods to these children. It's all just a matter of stupidity, right?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Secondly, this legislature is about a hair's breadth away from taking unhealthy foods away, period. This sort of interference is something that should be left to socialized nations, not something for a free market.
People want a capitalist free market with governmental protection of the people from that same free market. "I want to get people to give me money in any way possible, but I want Big Brother here to watch my back while I'm doing it to make sure someone else doesn't screw me over.
It's absurd.
Try using a little more than a surface-level understanding of this issue. Also, try to realize that the market is far from being a flawless mechanism for following the interests of consumers. Very few markets in any country are completely "free." There are always external factors that can sway the market, regulation is only one of them....
I agree. Lets also ban free thinking, and limit what you can say to others. Remember, me flipping you off and calling you a faggot, can damage you mentally, which will lead to depression and make you kill yourself.usmarine2 wrote:
ban everything. motorcycles, paintball guns, video games, etc. all can either injure or are not healthy for you.
Seriously... how can anyone actually want this ban?
Do you just not care how much power you give to the government?
Good ideaTurquoise wrote:
Why not legalize all drugs?
Irrelevant. No one forced them to take that job, and certainly no one is dictating where and how they eat.Turquoise wrote:
Or on a more subtle note, consider all the people in this country that have jobs constantly in motion. People who have to travel a lot for their work (like trucking) get their meals on the run. They're not really planning out their meals so much as they are looking for what's convenient. When the area you're in mostly has fast food restaurants to pick from, you're not really going to take the time out to consult a nutrition book or petition/protest a company for having trans fats on its menu items.
Way to go to the extreme. Controlling epidemics is a governmental responsibility like national defense. It is not the government's place to force people out of personal choice, noncontagious health hazards like smoking, eating unhealthily, or washing your hands after going to the potty.Turquoise wrote:
Just to let you know, the anti-regulation crowd is the same one responsible for removing/blocking regulations that would test employees in the food service industry for highly contagious diseases like hepatitis. Ebola + dedication = hired at McDonald's.
If a company is committing such a gross health hazard, then most likely they will be exposed by somebody, either in the industry or a journalist out looking to make a name for themselves. Why do we have harsher health regulations on manufacturing? Upton Sinclair.Turquoise wrote:
We have more health regulations in manufacturing than in food preparation. What does that tell you? You're not gonna eat your sofa, but it might be cleaner...
So this really shouldn't be about pity for the ignorant or stupid. It's more like supporting what covers your own ass, unless you enjoy the possibility of eating more toxins in your food. And yes, trans fats are a toxin since they provide no nutritional value and contribute heavily to heart disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat
I have a black cherry soda right now in front of me. Essential nutrients? Nada. Do I give a shit? Negative. Would I be pissed if the government took away my right to drink black cherry soda? Yes, yes I would.
It's not a public health issue for conservatives is my point. Governmental interference is the problem. Public health is not unimportant, but corporations have zero social responsibility and the government has no right to keep people from doing something that doesn't harm anyone else. A more libertarian view in this case.Turquoise wrote:
If you really think this is only a liberal issue, then that's very sad. You're essentially saying that only liberals care about public health and that conservatives don't give a shit. Granted, as you're pointing out here, I suppose that argument could be made, but I try to give conservatives more credit than that.
This point of view you're citing is merely callous, short-sighted, and corporatist, but it is true that people often confuse that with conservatism.
Callous and corporatist I'll go along with. Let's see who's short-sighted in twenty years when the government is banning soda pop and candy bars.
As usmarine has stated, they don't use trans fats for kicks. There is a reason.Turquoise wrote:
That's an interesting opinion.
See there you go again, making your point of view superior to the majority. You can't say the market isn't in the best interest of its constituents, because not all people share your values. I fully consider how I live my life far more important than how long I live my life. The market inherently, flawlessly projects the interests of the people as demand. Taking a roll in altering that market artificially only benefits those doing the altering. Not that there is anything particularly wrong with trying to alter it for personal gain, but why the hell isn't everyone else trying to resist that change as much as possible...Turquoise wrote:
I find it a lot more absurd that you'd put so much faith in this market when it clearly hasn't shown itself to be in the best interests of the people, unless again, you think it's just a matter of the stupid dying from stupid decisions. I'm sure it's only a matter of stupidity when children are brought up in an environment that encourages eating heavily marketed fast foods. It couldn't possibly be any fault of companies directly marketing unhealthy foods to these children. It's all just a matter of stupidity, right?
Try using a little more than a surface-level understanding of this issue. Also, try to realize that the market is far from being a flawless mechanism for following the interests of consumers. Very few markets in any country are completely "free." There are always external factors that can sway the market, regulation is only one of them....
Parents are responsible for their kids, no one else. There is always personal responsibility present, but when one isn't mature enough to take responsibility for their own actions their parents fill that roll. Being a sheep is no excuse to point at the fast food companies for blame.
You agree with those kids suing the fast food companies for making them fat don't you?
If you think we should legalize all drugs, no regulations for hand washing should be in place, and that the market always follows the best interests of the people.... Well, I have nothing more to discuss with you here. There's nothing I can say that will change your mind, and the same goes for me I guess.
This is one of those agree to disagree moments.
This is one of those agree to disagree moments.
I have but one quote for you:Turquoise wrote:
If you think we should legalize all drugs, no regulations for hand washing should be in place, and that the market always follows the best interests of the people.... Well, I have nothing more to discuss with you here. There's nothing I can say that will change your mind, and the same goes for me I guess.
This is one of those agree to disagree moments.
An individual who "intends only his own gain" is " led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good".
- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776.