|
|
#441
11-02-2007, 01:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, I CAN control this, since nobody is forcing me to eat in a restaurant in the first place. [/ QUOTE ] come on, like your babysitter or mom or gf never forces you to go out to eat. mine does all the time. 
|
|
#442
11-02-2007, 01:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Do peanuts have no healthy qualities simply because I will die if I eat "too many"? If I go to a restaurant and I have no control over "trace poison" in the form of transfats then you have to also admit that I also have "no control" over the quantity of "good, but only if you don't eat too much" stuff like sugar. [/ QUOTE ] in my example, you die if you eat one peanut. [/ QUOTE ] But most people who have peanut allergies don't die from one peanut. [ QUOTE ] well I mean you can control whether to eat one piece of cake, or 4 pieces like me. [/ QUOTE ] But you don't know how much sugar is in the cake! The baker might have used four times as much as "regular" cake has in it! ITS OUT OF YOUR CONTROL!!
|
|
#443
11-02-2007, 01:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Of course, I CAN control this, since nobody is forcing me to eat in a restaurant in the first place. [/ QUOTE ] come on, like your babysitter or mom or gf never forces you to go out to eat. mine does all the time. [/ QUOTE ] In these cases, your mom could also force you to eat "too much" sugar. If transfat is out of your control, so is sugar.
|
|
#445
11-02-2007, 01:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
But you don't know how much sugar is in the cake! The baker might have used four times as much as "regular" cake has in it! ITS OUT OF YOUR CONTROL!! [/ QUOTE ] no i can taste the sweet and in that case I only have one piece instead of 4.
|
|
#446
11-02-2007, 01:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: Quote: Since you admit "a little" arsenic won't make you sick, what's the difference? I only get sick if I eat "too much". Quote: If I have one gram of transfat per month, my diet is automaticaly unhealthy, regardless of whatever else I'm eating? oops i meant arsenic is unhealthy at any level but doens't necessarily mean your whole diet is unhealthy. So you retract the statement that "trans fats cannot be part of a healthy diet, it's out of your control" ? Quote: heated milk I just meant some people claim that heating makes the milk unhealthy because it wrecks the natural enzymes or something, so mayhbe that isn't the best example iof a natural food. I have no idea what you're talking about now. Milk is basically water with a bunch of stuff in it. Assume milk is "healthy." If you take some of that stuff out, is the remainder suddenly "not healthy"? If it is, what changed? Wouldn't that stuff be not healthy even if you didn't remove the stuff? I cook some corn and peas. This is a natural food. I remove the peas. Is the remaining corn suddenly no longer natural? When I trim fat off of a "natural" steak, am I making it artificial? Why would removing some enzymes or whatever from Milk make it artificial? [/ QUOTE ] as for the diet thing, i was evading fallacy of composition or somehting. trrans fats are bad in any amount. even with an otherwise good diet. yeah thats it. thats the ticket. as for milk I'm not sure I think some people think it chemically changes the milk or denatures the enzymes or somthing. kinda like burnt toast is chemically diff from bread? not really sure to be honest.
|
|
#447
11-02-2007, 01:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
In these cases, your mom could also force you to eat "too much" sugar. If transfat is out of your control, so is sugar. [/ QUOTE ] besides , my babysitter is pretty high most of the time so she couldn't force all that sugar on me.
|
|
#448
11-02-2007, 01:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Once a few whackjobs get worked about it enough, the same is going to be said for refined sugars. HFC. Large helpings of cheese. [/ QUOTE ] no because people have been eating these for thousands of years. HFC ? maybe. large helpings of cheese? do you understand the difference between quantity (not regulated on any basis we're discussing here) and quality (like if some genius figured out a way to mix half plastic and half cheese to reduce costs. I mean plastic is not cheese). [/ QUOTE ] But I really enjoy eating plasticheese. It's delicious and cheap, too! Who are you to tell me I can't? natedogg
|
|
#449
11-02-2007, 01:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
But I really enjoy eating plasticheese. It's delicious and cheap, too! Who are you to tell me I can't? natedogg [/ QUOTE ] why fda type agency is different issue imo. see post #386 (just an approximation)
|
|
#450
11-02-2007, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Vague answers to important questions. "the right balance" eh? I'll ask again. Can you articulate a principle or philosphy about govt authority over individuals that results in banning transfats but not regular fats? Or do you believe the govt should have the authority to ban steak and ice cream? If not, how do you make the distinction that keeps them from doing so while allowing them to ban transfats? natedogg [/ QUOTE ] You can't legislate away human judgment when trying to find balance in regulation, if that's where you're heading. [/ QUOTE ] Yes you can. You definitely can. By limiting the scope of what you can regulate. Do you see how by *not* limiting the scope of what you regulate, you let yourself become subject to the whim of whoever has power at the moment? I've noticed that most of the pro-ban-transfat crowd also happen to believe that marijuana prohibition is misguided. If you are one of those, how do you reconcile those two positions? And how do you articulate a principle that govt must follow which allows transfats to fall under the jurisdiction but not marijuana? Yes, alcohol too. By advocating banning transfats you are basically advocating all prohibitions on all substances because there is no description of the problem with transfats that can't be applied to a host of other things. Edit: for instance, some crazy guy in this thread has already stated he would ban lowfat milk if he had the power, and his reasons were the same for supporting a ban on transfats. The only reason you can enjoy lowfat milk today is because this clown is not in power. natedogg [/ QUOTE ] and by "legislating away" human judgement by restricting the power of government to not be able to ban something like transfats is a net loss to the public. Slippery slope arguments are meaningless. Every situation needs to be examined on its own merits. No legislative body would try to prohibit steak or eggs , either their lobbies would prevail or the public itself would laugh them out of office. i cant believe this thread has 100 new posts. the ban is a no-brainer public good.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
