Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

View Poll Results: Idiotic or Genius?
Idiotic 14 93.33%
Genius 1 6.67%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12-01-2007, 06:45 PM
PLOlover PLOlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,465
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

[ QUOTE ]
So I'm not even trying to make a point here as much as I'm asking you to defend and elaborate on your argument that there is "no benefit."

[/ QUOTE ]

if I have a roadside taco stand and put sawdust in the tacos as a filler, it benefits me but it doesn't benefit the eaters.

theres no benefit to the consumer, of having sawdust filler in my tacos.

not a direct analogy.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-01-2007, 07:04 PM
ALawPoker ALawPoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,646
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Care to explain why in the instance of trans fat this benefit to the producer does not result in a benefit to the consumer? Unless you somehow know what exactly other people value, I'm at a loss for how you can declare there is no benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

well , why don't you tell me the benefit? it isn't lower cost to the consumer, since trans free chips cost the same as "regular chips".

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, rather than answer my question, ask one of your own.

I don't know anything about the science of trans fat or the price of potato chips at your local gas station. But I'm not the one running my mouth about why it's a good idea to force people not to use them. So I don't feel like this is a problem on my part. You're the one claiming the position, so I'm asking you to elaborate.

I'll address your question anyways though.

Just because two bags of chips are priced equally when they sit on store shelves, that doesn't mean that there wasn't still some cost associated with the use of non-trans fats. If you concede that trans fats are cheaper for producers, I don't see how this could possibly not be the case.

The reason those bags of Lays at your gas station are the same price (if that is indeed the case) could be a result of lower quality ingredients going into the rest of the chip, or simply less weight per bag. Or it could just be a temporary decision made with the benefit of not confusing consumers or whatever marketing strategy they have in mind.

How do *you* think it works? Do Lays owners say "Hey, let's take that money we save from using trans fats, and rather than use it in ways that will improve our product and help generate *more* money in the future like we choose to do with all our other equitable decisions, we just pretend those savings don't exist, and take them right out of the business model"?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-01-2007, 07:05 PM
ALawPoker ALawPoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,646
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I'm not even trying to make a point here as much as I'm asking you to defend and elaborate on your argument that there is "no benefit."

[/ QUOTE ]

if I have a roadside taco stand and put sawdust in the tacos as a filler, it benefits me but it doesn't benefit the eaters.

theres no benefit to the consumer, of having sawdust filler in my tacos.

not a direct analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

And people choose to eat sawdust tacos?

They're just munchin' away on those suckers, and it's only good people like you voting for laws against sawdust tacos that is gonna stop them, huh?

You're right that it's not a direct analogy. The critical flaw is that people DO (for whatever reasons) choose to eat trans fat.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-01-2007, 07:17 PM
PLOlover PLOlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,465
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

[ QUOTE ]
You're right that it's not a direct analogy. The critical flaw is that people DO (for whatever reasons) choose to eat trans fat.

[/ QUOTE ]

do a poll in an area with foot traffic and quiz people on trans fats.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-01-2007, 07:22 PM
PLOlover PLOlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,465
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

[ QUOTE ]
How do *you* think it works? Do Lays owners say "Hey, let's take that money we save from using trans fats, and rather than use it in ways that will improve our product and help generate *more* money in the future like we choose to do with all our other equitable decisions, we just pretend those savings don't exist, and take them right out of the business model"?

[/ QUOTE ]

probably has to do with retooling factories or just changing assemby lines.

cost per bag less than .01$ I would guess.

with just in time delivery today, it probably is just do it the way we always did it that keeps them using transfats, since stocking over time is not such an issue anymore.

anyway, the issue is cost/benefit to consumers. if it's not a big deal, then how can you justify transfats? I mean, if t.f. free chips cost twice as much then ok I see your point, but they're the same price. it can't be such a big deal, although a penny * billion is money.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-01-2007, 07:25 PM
PLOlover PLOlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,465
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

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.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-01-2007, 07:55 PM
Kerth Kerth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 175
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

But I like fat transsexuals.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-01-2007, 08:03 PM
ALawPoker ALawPoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,646
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

[ QUOTE ]
also btw, you guys are the ones claiming a benefit of transfats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very false. I'm claiming nothing, and even said specifically that I don't know anything about the science of trans fats. If I had to offer a personal opinion, I'd agree that they're a bad choice. But *I* don't need to see a benefit to something in order to think other people have a right to use it.

You're the one claiming the position of forcing people not to sell or buy this type of fat. But I'm not even talking about that. I'm still talking very specifically about your claim that "there is no benefit." Again, how do you know what other people value?

You can argue all day long about why trans fat is a bad decision. But it's all moot. Personally, I can't fathom why anyone would conclude the mild effect of a cigarette is worth the substantial health risks associated with them. Just because I am in favor of their right to make this decision for themselves doesn't mean that I necessarily think there's a "benefit" to this decision.

[ QUOTE ]
how can I prove a neg? I mean showing trans and non trans chips cost the same is best I can do really.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really think BagA and BagB could possibly "cost the same" when the only difference in the bags is that one of the ingredients in one of the bags is more expensive to produce, then you really have a very shortsighted view of economic activity.

The reason why you can't prove your claim that there is no benefit is because your claim was patently bogus. There is no way to determine what other people value.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-01-2007, 08:11 PM
PLOlover PLOlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,465
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

[ QUOTE ]
If you really think BagA and BagB could possibly "cost the same" when the only difference in the bags is that one of the ingredients in one of the bags is more expensive to produce, then you really have a very shortsighted view of economic activity.

The reason why you can't prove your claim that there is no benefit is because your claim was patently bogus. There is no way to determine what other people value.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you can't give one example of one person getting a benefit from transfat, yet you claim it's ludicrous to claim no benefit to consumers from transfat, other than perhaps a fraction of a penny saved per bag or whatever.

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.

ok. but I think most people would agree with me.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-01-2007, 08:14 PM
PLOlover PLOlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,465
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

[ QUOTE ]
The reason why you can't prove your claim that there is no benefit is because your claim was patently bogus. There is no way to determine what other people value.

[/ QUOTE ]

btw, this is a variant of the old greek sophist counterargument: well , I can't counter your argument today or disprove it today, but that doesn't mean that at some time in the future I wont be able to rebut you, so therefore, you are wrong.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.