Quote :

"Because his point was stupid and hooksaw's point was pretty reasonable? "

So it's a dumb point that people shouldn't be able to put anything they want in food, even cyanide, just because they want it?

But it's not a dumb point that the gov. banning blow jobs is the same as the gov. banning restaurants from using transfat in food?

Quote :

"Government regulations have long covered all the bases of society. For analogous situations see: the War On Drugs. "

And the war on drugs, at least the way it's carried out is obviously, deeply, and demonstrably flawed (something most people here at least agree with).

OTOH, the gov. does a great job of making sure we have good, clean drinking water. Do you think the gov. shouldn't regulate drinking water too?

Quote :

"Comparing eating trans fat to sleeping with a whore? Beyond crazy"

I didn't say "sleeping with a whore" i said being a whore, but comparing HPV to transfat Is pretty crazy.

Quote :

" HPV is passed around amongst very normal people. And trans fat consumption does NOT, and I repeat, DOES NOT MAKE ANYONE SICK DEFINITIVELY. The report itself says that eating it increases the RISK of CHD."

You can suck as many dicks as you want and probably won't get HPV if you use a condom (or get the person tested first). You can't eat as much transfat food as you want and not get sick from it eventually.

It would even be difficult now to avoid transfat unless you cooked all your own food from scratch, which is a more difficult task for most people than wrapping your junk up.

7/26/2008 7:09:47 PM

Quote :

" So it's a dumb point that people shouldn't be able to put anything they want in food, even cyanide, just because they want it?"

Well yes? Getting back to "risk" vs "certainty" -- cyanide is a definite and certain killer; there are specific chemical reasons you will die from eating it (usually quickly). Trans fat can be consumed in moderation, as all fats can, and there is nobody on God's green earth who can state definitively that it will kill you.

Eva Braun used cyanide to commit suicide. Know anyone who used trans fat?

(I honestly can't believe I'm even having this discussion)

Quote :

"But it's not a dumb point that the gov. banning blow jobs is the same as the gov. banning restaurants from using transfat in food?"

No because for obvious reasons, blow jobs within reason are perfectly safe. You blow someone clean and limit your sexual partnerships. As the analogy goes, you eat very little trans fat (as you should anyway). Neither is guaranteed (or even likely) to cause real sickness. Like I said -- it's fat, not arsenic.

Quote :

" OTOH, the gov. does a great job of making sure we have good, clean drinking water. Do you think the gov. shouldn't regulate drinking water too?"

See, it's exactly this kind of silliness that is dragging you down. Drinking water is largely non-potable because it contains fecal matter (and other "additives" from the environment). No matter what it has to be regulated in some form or another. This is another example of "risk" vs "certainty."

Quote :

"You can't eat as much transfat food as you want and not get sick from it eventually."

That is absolutely, 100%, not true. You cannot make that statement, it is false on its face. Trans fat increases the RISK of coronary heart disease which means there is NO CERTAINTY that someone who consumes it will, in fact, be "sick."

I really don't even know why I have to explain this. My God. It's awful. What is the world coming to when I have to explain this to people here?

Ugh.

7/26/2008 7:31:21 PM

Quote :

"No because for obvious reasons, blow jobs within reason are perfectly safe. You blow someone clean and limit your sexual partnerships. As the analogy goes, you eat very little trans fat (as you should anyway). Neither is guaranteed (or even likely) to cause real sickness. Like I said -- it's fat, not arsenic. "

This is true, but has no bearing on the issue of banning restaurants from using transfat. It's idiotic for many reasons to say that because the gov. is banning transfat, then they must also ban blowjobs.

Quote :

"(I honestly can't believe I'm even having this discussion) "

How do you think I feel trying to explain that blow jobs and eating transfat are too different to compare?

Quote :

"Drinking water is largely non-potable because it contains fecal matter (and other "additives" from the environment). No matter what it has to be regulated in some form or another. This is another example of "risk" vs "certainty." "

It doesn't HAVE to be regulated (note: by "regulation" i mean checked up on by the gov.), we CHOSE for it to be regulated, and it's BETTER for it to be regulated. Likewise, food doesn't HAVE to be regulated, but people are CHOOSING this now, because they feel it's a BETTER practice.

7/26/2008 7:42:53 PM

And when people CHOOSE to regulate blow jobs they will.

7/26/2008 11:18:09 PM

^ People will never choose that, because regulating blow jobs will likely do practically nothing to stop HPV.

However, stopping restaurants from using transfat will SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the amount of transfat you eat, because when you go out and by your own cooking grease you wouldn't look for the hydrogenated oils, you look for regular canola oil or something similar.

It makes sense to regulate transfat as a means of reducing unsaturated fat intake, but it doesn't make sense to regulate blow jobs as a means to stop HPV from spreading.

7/26/2008 11:29:01 PM

I'm pretty sure that in NC blowjobs are considered "crimes against nature" so yeah they're already illegal

I wonder if the religious right might have had something to do with that

7/26/2008 11:57:47 PM

^ Yeah, no. Sodomy laws were/are very old, greatly predating the "religious right." Sodomy laws in NC are probably not valid since the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional in '03, though this was about homosexuals acts it probably carries over, and no one has tested it.

7/27/2008 4:41:04 AM

Quote :

"I never said it was a conspiracy, just a bad policy decision. It's not fair or honest to reduce the question of banning trans fat to a simplistic discussion of whether the fats are bad or not."

You used exaggerated, bombastic rhetoric. Only those evil white elitists will benefit! That's not fair or honest either. That's what prompted me to reply. I'm not particularly for or against the rule. I don't like the government, I don't like capitalism, and I don't like trans fats.

While I'm sure the costs could exceed the benefits, I suspect this change will reduce trans fat consumption. If so, it should make people healthier. Now, if it fails to reduce consumption, I guess you'll be right.

Also, I have a hard time believing prices will go up as much as claimed. I've never noticed a significant difference between packages foods because of trans fat. A 150% increase? Come on. That's nuts. Are these foods solid trans fats? (Maybe so.) And even if French fries do increase that much, it's quite possible to eat cheaply without trans fat.

7/27/2008 4:42:08 AM

^

You've obviously never been to San Francisco. Everything is very expensive. Let me give you a few hints why: government, government, and ... guess what #3 is? Government!

Government regulation of rent to "protect" low income home-owners? Rental prices go up. Government regulation to ban plastic bags? Grocery prices go up. Government regulation that institutes universal health care? Price of eating out goes up 4%.

You have a hard time believing because you don't live it. California produces incredible entrepreneurs and then the government does everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again. The rest of us are the wiser. And who are you to argue with an earnest, hard-working owner of a burger joint in the place that invented burger joints? Those guys don't raise prices for fun. They're businesspeople, too.

It's obvious -- starting with McDonald's which made it their explicit goal, and they're a multi-billion dollar enterprise -- that exorcising the trans fat presence while maintaining consistency is a hard thing to do. Most companies source from Sysco and they have a price list to choose from. If that burger joint raises prices it's because they are ordering from a 'set menu' where the non trans fat options cost more. McDonald's took years and they are totally vertical.

You say I'm using bombastic rhetoric but I'm the only one quoting from the cited article and actual facts, here. Want to differ? Bring it.

[Edited on July 27, 2008 at 4:54 AM. Reason : foo]

7/27/2008 4:54:35 AM

Oh God, another thing that pisses me off about the crap government passes is that it will never help the smaller business over the larger one. I totally agree with ^ But the reality is that McDonalds does have strong capacity to cope with such decisions, but the crazy good hole-in-the-wall Chinese places (one of the few things I remember from when I was in San Fran) will not be able to cope.

When only large corporations with special connections are allowed to exist, then that's not capitalism, and that's not a free world. Closest thing we've seen so far is communism. Not the idealist form, the fuck you up in Siberia form.

7/27/2008 8:13:17 AM

Quote :

"(I honestly can't believe I'm even having this discussion)"

Smoker4

I completely understand your frustration. They wear you down with sheer stupidity.

In any event, my analogy was perfectly valid: Eating trans fat in an unhealthy manner and having sex in an unhealthy manner are both lifestyle choices that affect others through increased health-related costs, which some of you have argued is undesirable. Why should one be banned and not the other?

Quote :

"John Spartan: You, get me a Marlboro. Lt. Lenina Huxley: Yes, of course. What's a Marlboro? Spartan: It's a cigarette. Any cigarette. Huxley: Smoking is not good for you. Anything not good for you is bad. Hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat-- Spartan: Are you shitting me?"

Quote :

"Spartan: Do you have the salt? Huxley: Salt is not good for you, hence, it is illegal."

Quote :

"Taco Bell patron: What would you say if I called you a brutish fossil symbolic of the decayed era gratefully forgotten? Spartan: I don't know. 'Thanks?'"

Dialogue from Demolition Man

7/28/2008 4:28:29 AM

Once again: unlike conventional fats, there is no realistic way that people can eat trans fats in a "healthy manner". It is akin to inhaling asbestos in a "healthy manner". The FDA's daily recommended allowance for fat is 65 grams (on a 2000 calorie diet), 20 grams of which being saturated fat.

Quote :

"Because of these facts and concerns, the NAS has concluded there is no safe level of trans fat consumption. There is no adequate level, recommended daily amount or tolerable upper limit for trans fats. This is because any incremental increase in trans fat intake increases the risk of coronary heart disease."

Yet, based on the stupid labeling conventions we use, it is quite possible to eat an entirely normal amount of food in a day, eating solely, I might add, food that is labeled as containing "0g trans fat", and consume an unhealthy amount of trans fat. I have heard numerous doctors and nutritionists say that there is effectively no safe amount of trans fat to eat. There are very small amounts occurring in some natural fat-containing foods, but nothing on the level of what is found in the processed foods of today.

At the very least, trans fats should be listed in milligrams instead of grams. And, if we can put a warning label on tobacco, we might as well stick one on anything with partially hydrogenated oils. They're just about as dangerous.

7/28/2008 11:34:42 AM

^

Quote :

"They're just about as dangerous."

They are not! What the fuck are you smoking? Goddamn!

First of all, smoking is primarily dangerous because it is addictive as Hell. You cannot in any way equate a chemically addictive substance with a friggin fat molecule in french fries. That is absurd beyond belief.

Furthermore it is plain as day that eating trans fat increases the risk of CHD and NOT the certainty of it. Clearly the conclusion that the NAS made is that there is no way to eat the trans fat without incurring the additional risk of CHD. Point taken. But that does not mean that people should be expected to live zero-risk lives where food or any other substance are concerned.

I know people who sky-dive for a hobby and clearly in such a dangerous sport, each successive jump contributes to a lifetime probability of dying in a fatal crash or other accident. And yet it'd be eminently foolish to ban skydiving altogether -- people have a choice to partake in it, knowing that it is inherently risky.

I am opposed to this ban wholly and new warning labels generally. Trans fat is not so deadly that consumers won't find the time to learn about it before their (presumed) eminent demise. We have an education system for a reason, let's start using it. Otherwise we'll be plastering every product with a new warning label for every possible harmful ingredient.

In my view if people choose to eat foods full of trans fat and corn syrup if only because they cost less or because they have a trans fat fetish, then that's their choice and who is the state to stop them? If anyone on this thread, at all, can come up with a coherent public policy oriented argument against that, I'd love to hear it. It's rather the crux of the matter. No more of this nonsense trying to equate trans fat to tobacco or what not.

7/29/2008 12:30:21 AM

This thread is full of mental masturbation.

A huge portion of the population doesn't even know what trans fat is, much less what its effects are on them. Displaying trans fat on menus is not going to help that. Nor will it rid trans fat of it harmful effects, which are not a "risk." It does cumulative harm to your body over a lifetime.

Trans fat bans and restrictions are popping up several places in the US, as well as Canada and Europe. Healthier oil preservation processes are being developed, so it's only a matter of time before it will be phased out.

Are you for freedom of choice for the sake of it, or are you for the improvement in quality of living of everyone?



[Edited on July 29, 2008 at 1:21 AM. Reason : .]

7/29/2008 1:09:25 AM

Quote :

"Are you for freedom of choice for the sake of it, or are you for the improvement in quality of living of everyone? "

I think that's what this boils down though. On a purely ideological level people's freedom of choice and the freemarket would fix all the problems, but for that to happen in this situation, we'd have to wait for more people to get coronary heart disease and have it linked to transfat issues. A better solution is to use the intelligence unique to our species, and head off a potentially serious situation before it becomes too bad.

The whole point of the system of checks and balances is to make sure this process doesn't go too far (in general it's far more important to minimize corrupt in gov), and I don't think this would be a case of that. The US wouldn't have become as great a country as it is today if the gov. didn't actively look out for the welfare of the citizens. It has crossed the line in many places, and hopefully those problems can be fixed, but I can't see anything that leads me to believe this issue crosses that line too.

7/29/2008 1:55:47 AM

^

OK I am not electing you to any position in government.

Anyone give me a good reason why I should not be allowed to open the International House of Trans Fat and serve willing, knowing customers in the state of California? Anyone? Really?

Funny how we can have two pages of discussion and no real conversation on the actual topic beyond "trans fats are bad, ban them kkthx." Absolutely pitiful.

[Edited on July 29, 2008 at 4:13 AM. Reason : foo]

7/29/2008 4:13:22 AM

Quote :

"Anyone give me a good reason why I should not be allowed to open the International House of Trans Fat and serve willing, knowing customers in the state of California?"

So California taxpayers aren't forced to pay for their healthcare costs down the road.

Improved quality of life for everyone. Get it?

[Edited on July 29, 2008 at 11:26 AM. Reason : .]

7/29/2008 11:25:20 AM

Quote :

"So California taxpayers aren't forced to pay for their healthcare costs down the road. "

There are other ways to accomplish besides a law that bans trans fats.

7/29/2008 11:27:24 AM

Quote :

"Are you for freedom of choice for the sake of it"

yes, a lot of people are, and there's nothing wrong with that.

matter of fact, to a lot of people that freedom is a very essential part of what it means to be American





[Edited on July 29, 2008 at 12:11 PM. Reason : [Edited on July 29, 2008 at 12:11 PM. Reason : ]]

7/29/2008 12:09:54 PM

Quote :

"Anyone give me a good reason why I should not be allowed to open the International House of Trans Fat and serve willing, knowing customers in the state of California? Anyone? Really?"

THe same reason you wouldn't be allowed to open the "international house of cyanide" or the "international house of DDT" or the "international house of rat-encrusted sausages" etc.

7/29/2008 12:11:39 PM

are you saying I can't sell rats for human consumption?

7/29/2008 12:15:15 PM

That was in reference to the Upton Sinclair novel.

7/29/2008 12:18:06 PM

Quote :

" So California taxpayers aren't forced to pay for their healthcare costs down the road."

!!!!

Well FUCK, let's just regulate EVERY goddamned thing people eat, then.

Also -- what health care costs? Heart attacks are pretty friggin deadly hence why they're the leading cause of death.

Quote :

" THe same reason you wouldn't be allowed to open the "international house of cyanide" or the "international house of DDT" or the "international house of rat-encrusted sausages" etc."

OK ... we've been down this road already. Stop trolling.

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 4:58 AM. Reason : foo]

7/30/2008 4:56:36 AM

Quote :

"Well FUCK, let's just regulate EVERY goddamned thing people eat, then."

This is a dumb strawman argument. Just because someone wants one thing regulated, doesn't mean they want everything regulated.

Why don't we regulated nothing and see where that gets us? We'd end up like Africa within 10 years.

7/30/2008 1:25:56 PM

It's not like they're banning salt or fat or chocolate.

Trans fat is very easily replaced and I've yet to see a solid argument for its existence.

7/30/2008 1:46:38 PM

^^

Still trolling.

Look -- here's how this works. If you think something I said was a "straw man argument" you must put some effort into explaining WHY you think that. Otherwise you're just trolling and I'm not going to respond to you.

As to whether I actually did make a straw man argument -- clearly not. I was using rhetoric to state that his underlying mentality leads naturally to over-regulation. In fact my statement has nothing to do with what he "wants" because I wasn't asking him what he wants to begin with, nor do I care.

I know you think you're smart and have built up a lexicon of logical fallacies, but if I'm explicitly using a rhetorical device to make a point, you can't treat it like it's a formal argument. Learn something about actual rhetoric and argumentation before you start trotting out terms you learned on Wikipedia (or in your textbook, or whatever).

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 1:54 PM. Reason : foo]

7/30/2008 1:54:14 PM

If you are arguing online and you use the phrases "Strawman" or "Ad hominem attack" then you automatically win

7/30/2008 2:24:10 PM

Quote :

"Trans fat is very easily replaced and I've yet to see a solid argument for its existence."

Here's one - why did we start using trans-saturated fats in the first place? Because everyone was bitching about saturated fats, and we need a fat which stays solid at room temperature for the consistency of many baked goods - particularly cake-like goods.

So, fish or cut bait. Food preparers need something which can cook to a solid state at room temperature and have a good shelf life. When we eliminated animal lard, the solution was to use saturated fats. When we eliminated saturated fats, the solution was to use partially hydrogenated oils - "trans-fats." When we eliminate trans-fats... well, you figure this one out.

7/30/2008 3:23:51 PM

Quote :

"I know you think you're smart and have built up a lexicon of logical fallacies, but if I'm explicitly using a rhetorical device to make a point, you can't treat it like it's a formal argument."

Hear, hear!

7/30/2008 3:32:26 PM

Quote :

"As to whether I actually did make a straw man argument -- clearly not. I was using rhetoric to state that his underlying mentality leads naturally to over-regulation."

That was obviously not clear, but in general, it doesn't make sense to make such a particular argument using mockery of an extremist position.

And secondly, why does that mentality lead to over regulation naturally? Why doesn't your mentality lead to under-regulation?

It seems you don't realize your own bias here, because you seem to be of the position that people who think less regulation is better are not prone to moving to the extreme, while people who think more regulation is better ARE prone to moving to the extreme. And then you assert, when I try to point this out, that I am "trolling," while I am trying to present the exact mirror to your position.

So, to be very clear, why is it that you feel that your side of this issue will not tend to the extreme, while the other side of this issue WILL tend to the extreme?

7/30/2008 6:08:29 PM

^

You're trolling because you're repeating the same arguments over and over and dragging out Wikipedia terminology without elaborating. In fact, one might argue, you are presently using a straw man to attack my position -- i.e. that I didn't have a legitimate reason for attack you as a troll; that I was just biased.

No reasonable person would read this thread and come to that conclusion.

As to over-regulation versus under-regulation: completely ridiculous and moot question. Obviously the burden of proof that a law should exist rests on the shoulders of the people proposing it. Also your question rests on the presumption that my alternative is to "do nothing," when I clearly said over and over again that the appropriate alternative is public education and full disclosure. If you want to call that "under-regulation," please feel free to come up with reasons why. I think any reasonable person would consider my alternative quite moderate and a total ban quite extreme.

Again, you're trolling and ignoring most of what's already been said. This is your last shot to post something reasonable.

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 11:45 PM. Reason : foo]

7/30/2008 11:42:49 PM