|
|
#31
09-24-2007, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
Luckily I've been informed that only things which are "really bad" and have "practically no benefits" like smoking and trans-fats are at risk of being banned. [/ QUOTE ] Or poker? 
|
|
#32
09-24-2007, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You don't have to eat processed food. You don't have to eat at restaurants. You could eat only 100% all natural whatever if you want but many people don't want to do this because it is more costly and less convenient. So you have a choice and are demonstrating your preferences with your actions of buying or not buying such food. [/ QUOTE ] exact same argument for arsenic. hey it's in 95% of food and all restaruants, but hey, you made the choice. suffer the consequences. [/ QUOTE ] Lol @ the arsenic comparison. No one is dying from eating trans fats. They may die sooner because they live an unhealthy lifestyle, but if that's your rationale for outlawing things, why not have a government-mandated menu and government-mandated exercise programs? [/ QUOTE ] Where do you draw the line? Arsenic will obviously kill you quickly, and trans fats over many years. What about a product that will kill you when ingested continually for 10 years? 5 years? 2 years? 6 months? 3 weeks? Where do you the draw the line between a dangerous product and just one that's 'unhealthy'.
|
|
#34
09-24-2007, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
Stop right there. Why on earth would someone do this? Is the law against putting arsenic in food the only thing stopping all restranteurs from doing this? [/ QUOTE ] putting arsenic in food would increase shelf life, retard spoilage, etc. I mean, you realize apple orchards are sprayed with arsenic, right? also, as to consumer ignorance, the laws are pretty clearly in favor of manufacturers in teh sense that they do not need to disclose all the ingredients, and in some cases are prohibited by law from stating what is in their products (gmo, bgh).
|
|
#35
09-24-2007, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] things which are potentially injurious and yield "practically nothing good." [/ QUOTE ] Skydiving. Baseball (see earlier thread about kids getting killed by scary aluminum bats) Church. Ice Cream (tofutti tastes "almost" the same). Motorcycles. Poker. [/ QUOTE ] There is a difference between outlawing trans fats and outlawing these things. [/ QUOTE ] No there isn't. [ QUOTE ] Laws that force companies to tell people what it is they are selling, seem to be one of the least harmfull and most usefull kind of laws. I'm not opposed to anarchy, but I think laws that make information mandatory are ok. [/ QUOTE ] And few, even among anarchist, would have a huge problem with such a law. Such a law only very slightly restricts the freedom of restaurant owners while the law that was actually passed greatly restricts the freedom of everyone.
|
|
#36
09-24-2007, 03:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
So if it were legal for someone to run a filthy unsanitry restaurant, then wouldn't you be afraid that every restaurant you visit would fit that mold? [/ QUOTE ] No because I wouldn't go to any restaurants that didn't have a respectable third party organization that inspected them and ensured they were clean.
|
|
#37
09-24-2007, 03:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ 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. why do they even need a business license then?
|
|
#38
09-24-2007, 03:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You've seen the smoking bans, right? I don't see how you could be shocked when this is the obvious next step. [/ QUOTE ] From what I've read smoking bans are to prevent second hand smoke inhalation and not necessarily to protect the smoker. I'm not sure how I feel about this, however if someone doesn't want to inhale second hand smoke then all they have to do is not go to restaurants that allow it. [/ QUOTE ] If smokers want to go to a restaurant where only smokers go so they can smoke with their meal, they have the right too. Too bad that's not allowed anymore.
|
|
#39
09-24-2007, 03:08 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. why do they even need a business license then? [/ QUOTE ] The actual pro-freedom argument: a) Business licenses are dumb and definitely shouldn't be required. b) If you're not informing me of what's in you food, I don't like it and won't eat there. 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. Well, I guess you got it about half right and half completely opposite.
|
|
#40
09-24-2007, 03:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ 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 ] a) you can't sue for a chemical food additive approved by fda, at least you can't win and today's courts it will be immediately thrown out as frivilous b) they don't inform you btw.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
