|
|
#61
09-24-2007, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm sure we can find people who would think banning ice cream would be helping society. Clearly, lots of people think getting rid of poker would help society. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, that's fine. But can you find people that think outlawing trans fat will hurt society? Except for people like me and you, who think so because of slippery slope ideas and philosophical ideas about individual rights. [ QUOTE ] So the "difference" is that lots of people like one, but lots of people don't like the other? How many people is it OK to oppress before oppression becomes bad? As long as it's just a few people, and as long as we can portray them as some sort of wackos, it's no problem, right? [/ QUOTE ] I did not say it was OK, I said there is a significant difference between outlawing something that nobody really wants (but they might not care one way or the other, so they might buy it if it's allowed and convenient), like trans fats, and something that a few people want a lot, but other people think is bad, like poker or sky diving. I'm not saying any of these two are OK, but one is a lot worse than the other. edit: The third difference is the one vhawk pointed out. The welfare state has to pay for you if you get sick from all the unhealthy stuff you eat, so as long as you want to have a welfare state you might not get away with allowing people to do whatever they want. I know that you don't want to have a welfare state, but most people want it and think it's important. [/ QUOTE ] Outlawing poker won't hurt society either, except for those pesky people like you and me who want to be able to do what we enjoy. Sure, some poker dealers/trans-fat producers will be out of work but they can find other jobs. I'm really interested in why poker isnt a perfect analogy for this situation. Poker is marginally fun, but has the potential to harm people. Eliminating it will not destroy society. 
|
|
#62
09-24-2007, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
Sure, some poker dealers/trans-fat producers will be out of work but they can find other jobs. I'm really interested in why poker isnt a perfect analogy for this situation. Poker is marginally fun, but has the potential to harm people. Eliminating it will not destroy society. [/ QUOTE ] a much better analogy would be bots  oker as transfats:food, DUCY?
|
|
#63
09-24-2007, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Yes, you don't believe in freedom. We understand. [/ QUOTE ] here's the "pro freedom" argument. a) wee're not telling you what's in our food. b) if it harms you you can't sue. c) if you don't like it don't eat here. d) business goes bankrupt in about 15 minutes e) new business opens up that isn't retarded f) profit why do they even need a business license then? [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#64
09-24-2007, 04:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Sure, some poker dealers/trans-fat producers will be out of work but they can find other jobs. I'm really interested in why poker isnt a perfect analogy for this situation. Poker is marginally fun, but has the potential to harm people. Eliminating it will not destroy society. [/ QUOTE ] a much better analogy would be bots oker as transfats:food, DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] Not at all.
|
|
#65
09-24-2007, 04:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] c) If for some reason I do eat there and you've put something dangerous in your food without informing me, I will most definitely sue you. [/ QUOTE ] You won't get very far with that if putting dangerous stuff in your food without informing you is not illegal. [/ QUOTE ] You are wrong. Do you seriously think LAWS are what drive most business decisions? Why does Apple sell iPods in white, black and red, because there is a law saying they must? Because it is illegal to only sell white ones?
|
|
#66
09-24-2007, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
a) wee're not telling you what's in our food. b) if it harms you you can't sue. c) if you don't like it don't eat here. d) business goes bankrupt in about 15 minutes e) new business opens up that isn't retarded f) profit [/ QUOTE ] so you're saying all the current restaurants that are not bankrupt tell you everything that is in their food? lol
|
|
#67
09-24-2007, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
from the consumer point of view, is there any legitimate use of transfats? don't say lower costs though, as I'm sure it would add about .01% to the consumers' bill. [/ QUOTE ] Don't you realize this is a self-defeating argument? If there were NO benefits, then they would not exist. There are obviously benefits. If they don't impact costs, and they kill everyone, why in the world are businesses using them? The use them to cut costs, and guess who that benefits? Everyone. The ruthless desire for greedy profits is probably the single greatest reassurance we have. I know its what lets me sleep well at night.
|
|
#68
09-24-2007, 04:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] a) wee're not telling you what's in our food. b) if it harms you you can't sue. c) if you don't like it don't eat here. d) business goes bankrupt in about 15 minutes e) new business opens up that isn't retarded f) profit [/ QUOTE ] so you're saying all the current restaurants that are not bankrupt tell you everything that is in their food? lol [/ QUOTE ] So you start out talking about an AC hypothetical, and then burn me by switching it to the current, far-from-AC reality? That seems fair.
|
|
#69
09-24-2007, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
So you start out talking about an AC hypothetical, and then burn me by switching it to the current, far-from-AC reality? That seems fair. [/ QUOTE ] sorry, hard to keep track of.
|
|
#70
09-24-2007, 04:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So you start out talking about an AC hypothetical, and then burn me by switching it to the current, far-from-AC reality? That seems fair. [/ QUOTE ] sorry, hard to keep track of. [/ QUOTE ] My point was that sure, in our society, customers tend to be lazy, because they are incentivised to be lazy. Don't even bother asking what they are putting in your food, you know you have Mommy looking out for you. So its really unfair to say "Hahaha customers aren't exerting their preferences now, this goes to show relying on them to exert their preferences in the free market would never work!" If we were left to "fend for ourselves" I would imagine it would be entirely commonplace for menus to be about twice as thick. EDIT: This is the cue for the fraud sidetrack, btw. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
