Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
He will say "but people LIKE refined sugar" and so thats why its unacceptable to ban it. For some reason, if a bunch of people like the product, it is unacceptable to ban it whether it is dangerous or not. Also, apparently "I like being able to choose whether I want trans-fats or not" isn't the same thing as "I like trans-fats." I'm not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]

well one major difference is that sugar is a food.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
but of course it's a great benefit to the producer to be able to sell bad meat.

[/ QUOTE ] Really? You think that would be a successfull business strategy?

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Really? You think that would be a successfull business strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe you should read some history sometime.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really? You think that would be a successfull business strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe you should read some history sometime.

[/ QUOTE ] It sounds strange. Did people get sick from the meat? Did it taste foul? If so, why did they keep buying it? If not, what was the problem?

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds strange. Did people get sick from the meat? Did it taste foul? If so, why did they keep buying it? If not, what was the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

a guy wrote a book about how it was so totally gross and unhealthy that laws were passed to clean up the industry.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

I see, so they didn't get sick it was just unhealthy. And they didn't know about it.

Outlawing it is goung further than necessary. A law requiring the butcher to inform his customers that the meat cointains x% spoilt meat would be sufficient.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He will say "but people LIKE refined sugar" and so thats why its unacceptable to ban it. For some reason, if a bunch of people like the product, it is unacceptable to ban it whether it is dangerous or not. Also, apparently "I like being able to choose whether I want trans-fats or not" isn't the same thing as "I like trans-fats." I'm not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]

well one major difference is that sugar is a food.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both sugars and fats are food.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So your point is no one cares about trans fats, no one likes trans fats, PLO says there is no benefit to using trans fats....but we must ban them.

[/ QUOTE ] No. I think it's wrong to ban trans fats.

[/ QUOTE ] I think a reasonable response on your part now is:

So really, you posted in this thread just to be a giant nit?

I'm going to answer: Yes, upon reflection I think I did exactly that. I have already, during my short stay in the politics forum, developed a knee jerk negative response to anything some of the ACist posters, namely Nielso and pvn, say. Because I don't like the way they argue. I'll be more aware of that so I hopefully don't get myself into more pointless arguments.

so pvn and Nielso: I'm sorry if I've been "out to get you" in my posts the last few days.

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It sounds strange. Did people get sick from the meat? Did it taste foul? If so, why did they keep buying it? If not, what was the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

a guy wrote a book about how it was so totally gross and unhealthy that laws were passed to clean up the industry.

[/ QUOTE ]
You realize that Upton Sinclair was a socialist with a specific agenda when he wrote The Jungle, right? And that many parts are simply not accurate?

Re: New York City bans trans fats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Both sugars and fats are food.

[/ QUOTE ]

trans fats are not found in nature. bubbling hydrogen through oil to create a manufactured substance is not the same thing as food.