Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
The do-gooders don't wish to gain power, they wish to impose VALUES onto others in a deranged effort to help them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad someone brought this up, as I had a thought in Target earlier that reminded me of the New York trans fat ban thread.

I was walking past the freezer section of the food area (I know, the one in automotive is better), and looking at all the filth they had for sale that I would never buy. I stopped for a second and thought what it must look like to a casual passer-by, some foolish 20 year old oogling the unhealthy food. If only his parents had taught him better! (For the record, my parents did teach me better, and I taught myself even better than that. Also, I look way younger than I really am.)

It was at this point that I thought about how, when we're young, our parents control what we eat, because we don't know any better, we're too immature to be able to make decisions regarding our own health. (I know you can tell where this is going at this point)

I guess everyone here thinks that, the minute you turn 18, you are suddenly imbued with an innate sense of who you are, who you should be, and what the best way to live life for you is? (As long as we're putting words in the opposing side's mouth, as the quote above so eloquently, but not at all subtly, does)

Of course not. I bet everyone here knows people who are overly mature for their age, and others still who can barely take care of themselves late into their 20s.

I'm not siding with the do-gooders, but, as with the 'war on terror', every now and then, it's good to think about why the opposing side opposes what you stand for, instead of just heaping about rubbish like the quote above, and everyone nodding in agreement over the fact that they're all superior human specimens.

So while I may not agree with the methods of those who wish to help others, I can at least understand why they feel there's a legitimate need to help others.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/5...atedoggqw2.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know who that is or what the pic is supposed to imply. Could you clarify?

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

You are probably leveling (but im too stupid to know anyways), the guy in the pic is Nate Dogg. And you are natedogg. Good stuff and so on.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
I guess everyone here thinks that, the minute you turn 18, you are suddenly imbued with an innate sense of who you are, who you should be, and what the best way to live life for you is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no. But as you already pointed out, it's more fun to just stuff words into people's mouths.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are probably leveling (but im too stupid to know anyways), the guy in the pic is Nate Dogg. And you are natedogg. Good stuff and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, thanks. I had no idea, shows what I know. And actually, I dont even know what "levelling" means either ... I'm getting too old I think.

natedogg

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, in this case they take the right approach.

article

Restaurants which are certified by the city to be "trans fat free" will get a nice pretty certificate to post in their window.

So, my question for the nannies is, how hard was that?

[/ QUOTE ]


Second, that idea never occurred to us. Our bad. Please forward this thread to the City of New York. Thanks in advance.

[/ QUOTE ]

The sad thing is I can't tell if this is sincere or not. Since this alternative approach was actually discussed *at length* in the original transfat ban thread, I think it may be a joke. In which case, I'd still love to hear why banning is preferable to informing. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if people are that unwilling to entertain a solution unless government approves of it first. Suddenly it's a viable government solution, because govt chose that solution.

natedogg

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

In my experince, its not just the low level places that use transfats.

I believe there should be a symbol next to each menu item that contains transfat. That way people will understand more about how their food is being cooked.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The do-gooders don't wish to gain power, they wish to impose VALUES onto others in a deranged effort to help them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad someone brought this up, as I had a thought in Target earlier that reminded me of the New York trans fat ban thread.

I was walking past the freezer section of the food area (I know, the one in automotive is better), and looking at all the filth they had for sale that I would never buy. I stopped for a second and thought what it must look like to a casual passer-by, some foolish 20 year old oogling the unhealthy food. If only his parents had taught him better! (For the record, my parents did teach me better, and I taught myself even better than that. Also, I look way younger than I really am.)

It was at this point that I thought about how, when we're young, our parents control what we eat, because we don't know any better, we're too immature to be able to make decisions regarding our own health. (I know you can tell where this is going at this point)

I guess everyone here thinks that, the minute you turn 18, you are suddenly imbued with an innate sense of who you are, who you should be, and what the best way to live life for you is? (As long as we're putting words in the opposing side's mouth, as the quote above so eloquently, but not at all subtly, does)

Of course not. I bet everyone here knows people who are overly mature for their age, and others still who can barely take care of themselves late into their 20s.

I'm not siding with the do-gooders, but, as with the 'war on terror', every now and then, it's good to think about why the opposing side opposes what you stand for, instead of just heaping about rubbish like the quote above, and everyone nodding in agreement over the fact that they're all superior human specimens.

So while I may not agree with the methods of those who wish to help others, I can at least understand why they feel there's a legitimate need to help others.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are trying to justify why people feel a need to help others. Thats fine, but we all get that, we all understand it, and hey, some of us are even human beings and actually FEEL that as well. Now try and justify why none of these nannies (or nancies, if you prefer although I think you might be missing the point?) can think for 5 more seconds, past their initial feelings, and realize that even though they might have an urge to help some immature, stupid people, forcing their OWN choices and preferences on those people is not the best way to go about it? Can you justify THAT to me? These people you are talking about are compassionate but apparently lazy morons, since they either cant take the time or havent got the brainpower to think past Step 1 in the "Helping Others" handbook.

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

The Trans-fat argument bugs me because there is no value out of trans-fats. Banning them is perfectly reasonable to me.

Something like marijuana is different to me because it is valuable to some people.

What good comes from trans-fats?

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Trans-fat argument bugs me because there is no value out of trans-fats. Banning them is perfectly reasonable to me.

Something like marijuana is different to me because it is valuable to some people.

What good comes from trans-fats?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhh...what? Marijuana doesnt have any value for me. I mean, it makes me feel good, I guess. So do trans-fats, or at least, I claim they do so go [censored] yourself.