San Francisco goes after trans fats too

[PLOlover]

btw, I'm not asking you to "prove" anything, just name a single benefit to the consumer of transfat.

saying you can buy tater chips and store them for 5 years though doesn't count. I mean they stil would taste stale I think, even though they wouldn't go rancid I don't think.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
so you can't give one example of one person getting a benefit from transfat

[/ QUOTE ]

All I'd have to do is tell you "I prefer to eat trans fats." It isn't up to you to determine how I am supposed to derive value.

[ QUOTE ]
my point about bags costing same is that there is no price benefit to the consumer. so nobody can claim a single benefit to the consumer, yet I'm absurd for claiming no benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's just plain shortsighted to think that a price benefit to the producer does not carry over in some way to the consumer, and (as I already explained) you are apparently ignoring that even if two bags are priced exactly the same (which I am just taking your word on) that this means the bag with the more expensive type of fat does not necessarily have a lighter weight or lower quality of other ingredients.

Even if it's a very small difference, the difference is still there and eventually funnels to the consumer in some way, and yes I do think it is absurd to claim that you know how other people are supposed to value this price difference.

It's really not a complicated situation. I'm done rehashing the same argument over and over for now though. You can think what you want if controlling other peoples' habits is that important to you. I don't even disagree that the cost benefits of trans fats are probably minimal. As time passes, I fully expect the preference to not produce products with trans fat to win out voluntarily. What we disagree on is that the use of government is the right solution.

Ultimately the trans fat thing matters very little to me, but your arguments bother me because they are really the exact mindset, just to a different degree, that contributes to every other sort of government regulation. "I know what's best for you."

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
btw, I'm not asking you to "prove" anything, just name a single benefit to the consumer of transfat.

[/ QUOTE ]

For Christ's sake.

1.) Lower cost (which does indeed exist even if you can't wrap your mind around why)
2.) I like the name of it
3.) I get pleasure out of telling people I ate trans fat
4.) I'm emo and like the idea of rotting my arteries
5.) I can buy tater tots and store them for five years

I don't need anything that you consider to be a "good" reason. That's the [censored] point. How on earth does anyone declare this for anyone else?

[ QUOTE ]
saying you can buy tater chips and store them for 5 years though doesn't count.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh OK. I forgot you were the eternal decider of what I am and am not allowed to value.

[censored] off.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you read minds? If not, how do you determine what benefits someone other than yourself?

BTW, have you seen the price of milk lately?

That's actually a cheap shot, since the price increases are not attributable 100% to antibiotics, seeing as organic milk has increased a lot too (though not as much percentage wise in my own tiny sample size survey).

[/ QUOTE ]

no, I meant they used to shoot antibiotics directly into the bulk milk tank. they don't do that anymore. (distributors started testing for antibiotics and if the levels were too high they wouldn't buy it.)

ok, name the benefit of transfats. I could be wrong, I mean if people were ragging on leaded gas I could point out a benefit to the consumer. I can't point out a benefit to the consumer of trnas fats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you can't think of one doesn't mean there isn't one, nor does it mean that you should be able to ban me from buying them. Also, what if you don't like my reason? My reason is that I think foods cooked in transfats taste better. My other reason is that I'm afraid of real butter. My other reason is that my priest told me jesus wants me to eat transfats. My other reason is that the foods are cheaper and last longer in the box so I can store them in my winter cabin. My other reason is that I like to make nannies get their panties in a bunch knowing that I'm enjoying my french fries.

Good enough?

natedogg

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
4.) I'm emo and like the idea of rotting my arteries

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mind if you eat poison. actually I encourage you to. but I oppose the widespread poisoning of the food supply.

I also oppose fluoridation of water on the same grounds.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4.) I'm emo and like the idea of rotting my arteries

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mind if you eat poison. actually I encourage you to. but I oppose the widespread poisoning of the food supply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well unfortunately for your analogy, when I choose to eat food that has trans fat in it, you can still eat food that doesn't. If I engaged in "widespread poisoning of the food supply" (whatever that's supposed to mean), then presumably you would not be able to eat food without poison in it. I can't really make much sense of what you're getting at.

Is the implication here that you're entitled to tell me I must learn to prefer certain types of foods, or else I am responsible for the lowered demand (and the metaphorical "poisoning") of the types of foods you wish were more readily for you? What if I'm a hunter who lives off my own game? What if I have throat cancer and am fed through a tube to my stomach? Is it my obligation to you to contribute to the demand for the types of foods that you want available?

You're digging pretty hard if you stand by this analogy.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
If I engaged in "widespread poisoning of the food supply" (whatever that's supposed to mean), then presumably you would not be able to eat food without poison in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you'd be hard pressed to not eat trans fat unless you cook from scratch. and not eat out.

what about fluoride in water. same thing really.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I engaged in "widespread poisoning of the food supply" (whatever that's supposed to mean), then presumably you would not be able to eat food without poison in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you'd be hard pressed to not eat trans fat unless you cook from scratch. and not eat out.

what about fluoride in water. same thing really.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the implication here that you're entitled to tell me I must learn to prefer certain types of foods, or else I am responsible for the lowered demand (and the metaphorical "poisoning") of the types of foods you wish were more readily for you? What if I'm a hunter who lives off my own game? What if I have throat cancer and am fed through a tube to my stomach? Is it my obligation to you to contribute to the demand for the types of foods that you want available?

[/ QUOTE ]

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it my obligation to you to contribute to the demand for the types of foods that you want available?

[/ QUOTE ]

despite your rhetoric, there's no demand for trans fats. no consumer demand.

there is some consumer demand for fluoride in the water at least, from people who misunderstand the issue or who have been propagandized.

but people eat trans fats totally out of ignorance. with the exceptikon of the jews and butter/meat, which btw is totally false look it up abraham ate them all at the same time. which even if true btw doesn't mean u eat p;osion instead.

[ALawPoker]

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.