Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can keep repeating yourself about your not accepting that TF has any real "benefit" all you'd like (it was bizarre the first time as well as the tenth time). But your aversion to actually answering my specific questions is telling. You backed yourself into a wall with that analogy and now you're avoiding my question (even after quoting it) and just repeating step 1.

I don't have much more to say (and apparently neither do you). Take care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
also btw, you guys are the ones claiming a benefit of transfats. how can I prove a neg? I mean showing trans and non trans chips cost the same is best I can do really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I correct in inferring that you believe the SF solution doesn't go far enough, and that you support an outright ban, not only in restaurants but in all food of any kind?

natedogg

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

[ QUOTE ]
who won arg

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. While this promises to be exciting, I'm not sure this exchange really qualifies as an "argument." You made a claim that you support state restriction of TF on the grounds that they have "no benefit" to consumers. I've merely questioned the merit of this claim and asked you to elaborate on some extensions of it (which you still haven't done).

So I don't see what I was really "arguing" per se, since I claimed no position, other than not accepting your premise at face value. I guess that counts as an argument. But this poll should be exciting regardless. It's currently 1-1. I wonder whose votes those could possibly be. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>Am I correct in inferring that you believe the SF solution doesn't go far enough, and that you support an outright ban, not only in restaurants but in all food of any kind?

natedogg </pre><hr />

well basically I was just responding to this subpoint below.

[ QUOTE ]
MisterJed
newbie


Reged: 01/06/05
Posts: 33

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too [Re: natedogg]
#13194503 - 11/30/07 10:35 PM
Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply Reply to this post Quote Quick Reply Quick Reply

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?

Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator
vhawk01
Carpal \'Tunnel


Reged: 02/08/06
Posts: 9098
Loc: GHoFFANMWYD
Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too [Re: MisterJed]
#13194528 - 11/30/07 10:38 PM
Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply Reply to this post Quote Quick Reply Quick Reply

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?



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.

Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator
TomCollins
Political Prisoner


Reged: 07/28/03
Posts: 7517
Loc: Approving of Iron's Moderation
Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too [Re: MisterJed]
#13194602 - 11/30/07 10:44 PM
Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply Reply to this post Quote Quick Reply Quick Reply

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?



If they have no benefit, then why would anyone voluntarily choose them over the alternative? Seems to be there is a benefit, you just couldn't wrap your mind around it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
 

also mr. dogg, I'll address your joke post.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, what if you don't like my reason? My reason is that I think foods cooked in transfats taste better. not true, or rather a subjective placebo type effect if you really believe it which you probably don't My other reason is that I'm afraid of real butter. irrational My other reason is that my priest told me jesus wants me to eat transfats. not true My other reason is that the foods are cheaper and last longer in the box so I can store them in my winter cabin.while shelf life is extended, it doesn't make them long term storable My other reason is that I like to make nannies get their panties in a bunch knowing that I'm enjoying my french fries.irrational

[/ QUOTE ]