|
|
#451
11-02-2007, 01:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] In another thread a poster, I think it was Borodog, related a story about how the govt hires people to scan forums and slavishly defend all things done by the govt, and he suggested Iron81 could be one of those people. Copernicus seems much more likely if you ask me. natedogg 
|
|
#452
11-02-2007, 02:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
then you shouldnt be asked, because Ive blasted many things done by government, including the Bush administration.
Why anyone one ask you about anything is a more obvious question, since you so stubbornly repeat your nonsense about social security with a gd clue what youre talking about.
|
|
#453
11-02-2007, 02:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
In another thread a poster, I think it was Borodog, related a story about how the govt hires people to scan forums and slavishly defend all things done by the govt, and he suggested Iron81 could be one of those people. Copernicus seems much more likely if you ask me. natedogg [/ QUOTE ] For such a staunch defender of the status quo, I always wonder if the screenname irony is intentional or not.
|
|
#454
11-02-2007, 02:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In another thread a poster, I think it was Borodog, related a story about how the govt hires people to scan forums and slavishly defend all things done by the govt, and he suggested Iron81 could be one of those people. Copernicus seems much more likely if you ask me. natedogg [/ QUOTE ] For such a staunch defender of the status quo, I always wonder if the screenname irony is intentional or not. [/ QUOTE ] Independent thinking doesnt always lead to condemnation of the status quo. The adherence to principles that would change the status quo without the least bit of evidence that the alternative is superior, and in fact flies in the face of human history, is the worst kind of mental masturbation.
|
|
#455
11-02-2007, 02:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Yes you can. You definitely can. By limiting the scope of what you can regulate. [/ QUOTE ] it's been stated over and over that the scope is nonnatural or manufactured additives. trans fats fall under that scope. ice cream, steak, alcohol don't fall in that scope. see the difference? [/ QUOTE ] I didn't realize that ice cream appeared in nature.
|
|
#457
11-02-2007, 02:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] As if artificial is some magical thing. [/ QUOTE ] natural foods contain some life. artificial things come from mixing chedmicals. see the difference? miilk(life) eggs(life) chocolate(life) etc. red dye #6, (nonlife) see how that goes? am I wrong here? what do you eat that is not alive? [/ QUOTE ] Salt.
|
|
#458
11-02-2007, 02:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
Salt. [/ QUOTE ] natural additive. actually given the importance in the water-electrolyte balance (animals will travel just as far for salt as they will for water) you could maybe term it food but really it's not, any more than water is. I mean water isn't alive, but it's essential. still not food, really.
|
|
#460
11-02-2007, 03:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New York City bans trans fats
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Salt. [/ QUOTE ] natural additive. actually given the importance in the water-electrolyte balance (animals will travel just as far for salt as they will for water) you could maybe term it food but really it's not, any more than water is. I mean water isn't alive, but it's essential. still not food, really. [/ QUOTE ] So you're saying salt isn't food? LOL
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
