New York City bans trans fats from restaurants.

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
  1. Smile


    I live in NYC an let me tell you, ever since the ban people have been smiling and waving to ecahother, everyone seems in a good mood and it not just the holidays,...its the trans fat ban! I think all that negative stuff you heard about NewYorkers being mean and unfriendly was just the effect of the trans fats. Its whole new world now..well gotta go there ia big group hug down at Times Square!!!!!

    ...Okay, I was kidding,..and if you really want to eat trans fats you can !!! The ban is on food establishments selling foods that contain trans fats. ,...Just like they can't sell you hamburgers with broken glass in them, but in the privacy of your own home you can eat all the glass burgers you want!!!!.Trans fats are industrial byproducs that retard food spoilage, mainly because they are not food, at least not in the sense that your body understands it!!!!This is a good thing. This was a local goverment regulation, which tend to work alot better than federal FDA/DEA type restrictios!


  2. Quote Originally Posted by Moyer
    I understand it's a very slippery slope, but what about other ways our government has protected the public?
    They are equally wrong.

    You think they shouldn't have banned Asbestos? I mean, shouldn't it be my business what kind of insulation I use in my own house? Even if it's unhealthy?
    It was your business. Now it is not because you can not choose asbestos. To ask "Shouldn't it be my business what kind of..." for anything has nothing to do with government bans. A government ban makes it not your business and not anyone else's business because it removes the choice from your hands.

    The main argument, as I see it, is that trans fats add nothing to the food that makes it more enjoyable than other fats would. You can't make that argument for alcohol or marijuana.
    You don't have to because it is a subjective decision.

    If trans fat was the magic ingredient that made my Big Mac taste like heaven (I assume it's not), I would be completely against this.
    So you're for choice so long as it makes sense to you?
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    ...Okay, I was kidding,..and if you really want to eat trans fats you can !!! The ban is on food establishments selling foods that contain trans fats. ,...Just like they can't sell you hamburgers with broken glass in them, but in the privacy of your own home you can eat all the glass burgers you want!!!!.Trans fats are industrial byproducs that retard food spoilage, mainly because they are not food, at least not in the sense that your body understands it!!!!This is a good thing. This was a local goverment regulation, which tend to work alot better than federal FDA/DEA type restrictios!
    Irrelevant. You are either free to choose or not. The restriction of choice on any level is not a good thing, and you will think so too when laws are passed that restrict your choices. Every argument here made against transfats and for the ban can be made for every single supplement we on these boards take. My guess is somehow those arguments won't matter so much to you guys when the government steps in to take your creatine, your NOS products, your herbs, your higher than recommended dose multivitamins, your food supplements, MRPs, etc. The idea that you are still free to take creatine but that people can't sell it to you is ludicrous. If you should be free to ingest it then others should be free to sell it to you for that purpose.

    You're perfectly free to take creatine in your own home, they just can't sell it on the internet or in GNC, Vitamin Shoppe, etc.

    You're perfectly free to read those books, they just can't sell them at Borders, Barnes and Noble, Amazon.com, etc.

    You're perfectly free to practice that religion in your own home, they just can't preach it in a church, temple, mosque, etc.

    You're perfectly free to speak your mind in the privacy of your own home, you just can't say certain things on the street or hand out booklets or pamplets, or hold a sign, demonstrate or assemble, etc.

    At one time we were perfectly free to use certain drugs in out own homes, it was just illegal or highly cost prohibitive to grow or sell them...

    You give away freedoms that don't matter to you at your own peril, because eventually the government comes to take away a freedom that does matter to you. And at that point who stands with you when you did nothing but cheer the government on as it stripped everyone else of their choices? You are either for or against the freedom to buy and sell and determine in the end what goes into your body. And that goes for everyone. If you give away the right to eat something you yourself never did or would eat, you are still giving that freedom away.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Irrelevant. You are either free to choose or not. The restriction of choice on any level is not a good thing, and you will think so too when laws are passed that restrict your choices. Every argument here made against transfats and for the ban can be made for every single supplement we on these boards take. My guess is somehow those arguments won't matter so much to you guys when the government steps in to take your creatine, your NOS products, your herbs, your higher than recommended dose multivitamins, your food supplements, MRPs, etc. The idea that you are still free to take creatine but that people can't sell it to you is ludicrous. If you should be free to ingest it then others should be free to sell it to you for that purpose.

    You're perfectly free to take creatine in your own home, they just can't sell it on the internet or in GNC, Vitamin Shoppe, etc.

    You're perfectly free to read those books, they just can't sell them at Borders, Barnes and Noble, Amazon.com, etc.

    You're perfectly free to practice that religion in your own home, they just can't preach it in a church, temple, mosque, etc.

    You're perfectly free to speak your mind in the privacy of your own home, you just can't say certain things on the street or hand out booklets or pamplets, or hold a sign, demonstrate or assemble, etc.

    At one time we were perfectly free to use certain drugs in out own homes, it was just illegal or highly cost prohibitive to grow or sell them...

    You give away freedoms that don't matter to you at your own peril, because eventually the government comes to take away a freedom that does matter to you. And at that point who stands with you when you did nothing but cheer the government on as it stripped everyone else of their choices? You are either for or against the freedom to buy and sell and determine in the end what goes into your body. And that goes for everyone. If you give away the right to eat something you yourself never did or would eat, you are still giving that freedom away.
    + Motherfcukin 1!!!

  5. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    So you're for choice so long as it makes sense to you?
    If consumers gave me a decent reason why they wanted to keep eating trans fats, I could change my mind. I haven't heard one yet.

    You're fine with cancer causing building materials? Are you against all restrictions or what?

    What about current restricted use of pesticides and herbicides by farmers? You think I should be able to buy C4 at Walmart? The seat belt law? Where are you drawing your line?
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by Moyer
    If consumers gave me a decent reason why they wanted to keep eating trans fats, I could change my mind. I haven't heard one yet.
    So their freedom is contigent on your approval of their actions? What justification for this position can you offer?

    And people wonder why we might not be able to buy creatine some day...

    You're fine with cancer causing building materials? Are you against all restrictions or what?
    I'm against any and all restrictions that limit people's freedom unless their actions are aggressive and invasive on someone else's person or property. There is no justification for limitting their actions otherwise.

    What about current restricted use of pesticides and herbicides by farmers? You think I should be able to buy C4 at Walmart? The seat belt law? Where are you drawing your line?
    See above. If the action of using certain pesticides impinges on your rights or harms others in some way I have no problem with the ban. Some person sucking down trans fat hurts no one. Appeals to public health costs are irrelevant, were we not forced to foot the bill of their bad decisions how much trans fat they ate would be irrelevant and have no effect on anyone else.

    I am for freedom, plain and simple. And freedom is not nor should it ever be contigent on whether or not you or anyone else approves of another's actions or if they can offer a "decent reason" as to why they should be able engage in certain activities because they don't need to justify their claim to freedom: it's their right. You do need to justify your claim to restricting their freedom because it is not your right to tell others what they can and can't do based on your assessment of the decency of their reasons. If it were, any and all voluntary behavior from who you do or do not **** to what God or gods you do or do not worship would be the rightful purview of government regulation, and the only measure of right and wrong and what rights anyone has would be a majority vote.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Irrelevant. You are either free to choose or not. The restriction of choice on any level is not a good thing, and you will think so too when laws are passed that restrict your choices. Every argument here made against transfats and for the ban can be made for every single supplement we on these boards take. My guess is somehow those arguments won't matter so much to you guys when the government steps in to take your creatine, your NOS products, your herbs, your higher than recommended dose multivitamins, your food supplements, MRPs, etc. The idea that you are still free to take creatine but that people can't sell it to you is ludicrous. If you should be free to ingest it then others should be free to sell it to you for that purpose.

    You're perfectly free to take creatine in your own home, they just can't sell it on the internet or in GNC, Vitamin Shoppe, etc.

    You're perfectly free to read those books, they just can't sell them at Borders, Barnes and Noble, Amazon.com, etc.

    You're perfectly free to practice that religion in your own home, they just can't preach it in a church, temple, mosque, etc.

    You're perfectly free to speak your mind in the privacy of your own home, you just can't say certain things on the street or hand out booklets or pamplets, or hold a sign, demonstrate or assemble, etc.

    At one time we were perfectly free to use certain drugs in out own homes, it was just illegal or highly cost prohibitive to grow or sell them...

    You give away freedoms that don't matter to you at your own peril, because eventually the government comes to take away a freedom that does matter to you. And at that point who stands with you when you did nothing but cheer the government on as it stripped everyone else of their choices? You are either for or against the freedom to buy and sell and determine in the end what goes into your body. And that goes for everyone. If you give away the right to eat something you yourself never did or would eat, you are still giving that freedom away.
    Dude, I am all about personal freedoms, not just mine but everybody's everywhere NYC Iraq Iran even Washington DC.
    You can check my posting history for more specifics.
    Just because there is a law that says I can't load up a big hypo of Smack or Test and jam it into my body does'nt stop people from using those illegal substances and if you are real careful you can do it without state sponcered punishment.
    ....I mean think about it trans fats are glue they are chemically closer to plastic than fat, there is no lobby of trans fat lovers who are fighting against this law. The only opposition was from resturants who felt it would unfairly drive up their production costs. Smokers have a better argument!!! I think the freedom fighters have to let this one go, now back to more pressing issues(Iraq,consitutional abuse,torture,economic depression, crumbling public infrastructures and christmas!)

    Ps. I don't like creatine so Its okay if they schedule it!!(haha)

  8. Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    Dude, I am all about personal freedoms, not just mine but everybody's everywhere NYC Iraq Iran even Washington DC.
    You are obviously not for the freedom of certain people to sell trans fats, which is contradictory because if it is and should be legal to eat them why should it not be legal to sell them? This is, as I said in the earlier post, analogous to outlawing selling certain books but letting possession remain legal. It is an obvious violation of freedom, freedom for adults to exchange. Whether it's what adults choose to put in their own body or what two consenting adults agree to exchange between one another, the argument is the same.

    You can check my posting history for more specifics.
    Just because there is a law that says I can't load up a big hypo of Smack or Test and jam it into my body does'nt stop people from using those illegal substances and if you are real careful you can do it without state sponcered punishment.
    That's a pretty ridiculous way of putting it, AR. To say that because it's likely you won't be caught does not negate what will happen if you are caught. By that reasoning we can outlaw anything and so long as some people get away with the outlawed action people are still free to engage in that action. A rape victim is equally 'free' to say "no" to their rapist. He might not be willing to use enough force that day and walk away without raping her. Then again he might not. Either way to argue the victim's freedom hasn't been violated is missing the point and the obvious by quite a bit.

    ....I mean think about it trans fats are glue they are chemically closer to plastic than fat, there is no lobby of trans fat lovers who are fighting against this law. The only opposition was from resturants who felt it would unfairly drive up their production costs. Smokers have a better argument!!! I think the freedom fighters have to let this one go, now back to more pressing issues(Iraq,consitutional abuse,torture,economic depression, crumbling public infrastructures and christmas!)
    The argument is the same for smokers, fat eaters, creatine users or anyone else. You are either free to determine whether or not to put these substances in your body or you are not. The issue is as pressing as any other, more so I would say. Iraq was not nor is a threat to my freedom. The US government demonstrably is. And even if you don't use creatine, eventually you will run into an equally unjustified barrier to your freedom and to be blunt that's what you get for so readily giving it away.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    So their freedom is contigent on your approval of their actions?
    No.

    Some person sucking down trans fat hurts no one.
    Well it hurts them, but I'm not real worried about that. I'd rather have a tastey Big Mac w/out trans fat. And I think they would say the same thing if they knew anything about it.

    I am for freedom, plain and simple. And freedom is not nor should it ever be contigent on whether or not you or anyone else approves of another's actions or if they can offer a "decent reason" as to why they should be able engage in certain activities because they don't need to justify their claim to freedom: it's their right. You do need to justify your claim to restricting their freedom because it is not your right to tell others what they can and can't do based on your assessment of the decency of their reasons. If it were, any and all voluntary behavior from who you do or do not **** to what God or gods you do or do not worship would be the rightful purview of government regulation, and the only measure of right and wrong and what rights anyone has would be a majority vote.
    Who actually wants to eat trans fat? I feel like you're assuming they're taking away something that people enjoy, but they're not. When I say "decent reason", I don't mean smart & healthy. I mean enjoyable at all. I don't see any pro trans fat people complaining.

    Right now everyone that eats fast food is eating trans fat. Many of these people would like that removed. The rest of the people eating it don't even know what it is.

    I'm not saying that banning it was the best way to go here. I just don't see a problem with this one. The whole slippery slope isn't that big of a deal to me when it comes to fast food. Maybe everyone should boycott trans fat foods instead? This ban just seems easier imo.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Moyer
    No.
    That is in fact exactly what you said: "If consumers gave me a decent reason why they wanted to keep eating trans fats, I could change my mind. I haven't heard one yet."

    Freedom does not need to be justified, restriction of freedom does.

    Well it hurts them, but I'm not real worried about that. I'd rather have a tastey Big Mac w/out trans fat. And I think they would say the same thing if they knew anything about it.
    That may be. It's not the place of the law or you or I or anyone else to make their decisions for them.

    Who actually wants to eat trans fat? I feel like you're assuming they're taking away something that people enjoy, but they're not. When I say "decent reason", I don't mean smart & healthy. I mean enjoyable at all. I don't see any pro trans fat people complaining.
    The government is limiting what people can sell and thus what people can and can not put in their own bodies. That is not only unnecessary and wrong, but the exact type of law damn near everyone on these boards is *****ing about everytime a supplement control bill comes up. You can't constantly give freedoms away and then complain when the ones that matter to you specifically come under fire. You either defend everyone's freedom or you're picking and choosing and eventually will lose the right to do even that.

    Right now everyone that eats fast food is eating trans fat. Many of these people would like that removed. The rest of the people eating it don't even know what it is.
    The restaurants were largely phasing them out. If people wanted them to move faster they could have said so. If people didn't inform themselves on the matter that is their responsibility and their problem.

    I'm not saying that banning it was the best way to go here. I just don't see a problem with this one. The whole slippery slope isn't that big of a deal to me when it comes to fast food. Maybe everyone should boycott trans fat foods instead? This ban just seems easier imo.
    The slippery slope doesn't matter to most people. Until they slip. You either support freedom of choice or you don't. You can't pick and choose the freedoms you will 'allow' others to have and expect your freedom to be respected. These trans fatties and the restaurant owners will be jiggling their fat asses with glee when they take away our supplements and run NutraPlanet and others into the ground. Perhaps if you and others who accept this so easily would stand up for other people's right to choose they'd stand up for yours as well when the time came. The real test of whether or not you believe in freedom is when you are willing to stand up for someone else's right to choose, even if you disagree with their choice. Especially if you disagree with their choice.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    That is in fact exactly what you said: "If consumers gave me a decent reason why they wanted to keep eating trans fats, I could change my mind. I haven't heard one yet."
    What I really meant was that I'm not the one that made the new law. I don't even live in New York. But no, it's not just about my approval of their actions. It's about their approval. They don't care either way. Find me a person that wants to eat trans fat instead of a healthier, equally tastey fat.

    The government is limiting what people can sell and thus what people can and can not put in their own bodies. That is not only unnecessary and wrong, but the exact type of law damn near everyone on these boards is *****ing about everytime a supplement control bill comes up. You can't constantly give freedoms away and then complain when the ones that matter to you specifically come under fire.
    Only if the people actually want this right (even the vast minority). I can easily find thousands of people that want to take steroids or smoke pot, so they are different issues imo.

    The restaurants were largely phasing them out.
    I didn't see that happening.

    These trans fatties and the restaurant owners will be jiggling their fat asses with glee when they take away our supplements and run NutraPlanet and others into the ground. Perhaps if you and others who accept this so easily would stand up for other people's right to choose they'd stand up for yours as well when the time came. The real test of whether or not you believe in freedom is when you are willing to stand up for someone else's right to choose, even if you disagree with their choice. Especially if you disagree with their choice.
    Are you serious? You think people will be so grateful about being able to eat trans fats on a daily basis?

    For me to disagree with trans fatties, they would have to want to eat more trans fat, which does not seem to be the case.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by Moyer
    What I really meant was that I'm not the one that made the new law. I don't even live in New York. But no, it's not just about my approval of their actions. It's about their approval. They don't care either way. Find me a person that wants to eat trans fat instead of a healthier, equally tastey fat.
    Not the point. By choice they demonstrate what they want. If you're not in NY then you're not responsible for it being passed, but not opposing means you are approving of it.

    Only if the people actually want this right (even the vast minority). I can easily find thousands of people that want to take steroids or smoke pot, so they are different issues imo.
    If one person wants the right or ten thousand it doesn't matter. It's their right, period.

    I didn't see that happening.
    It was none the less.

    Are you serious? You think people will be so grateful about being able to eat trans fats on a daily basis?
    Grateful or not is irrelevant. Ceding to the government the power to eliminate the choice is relevant. If the argument isn't made at every such encroachment of government power that it is the wrong thing to do we end up with a compromised system which keeps ratcheting up controls on choice. If the contrary argument isn't made at every encroachment the choices will basically whither over time.

    For me to disagree with trans fatties, they would have to want to eat more trans fat, which does not seem to be the case.
    Their actions demonstrate otherwise. Besides the point anyway, you keep seeming to want to put qualifications on something which needs none. They should be free to eat trans fats whether or not they want to. There may be those who want them, those who want none, those who don't know or don't care. Doesn't matter. What matters is they have the right to make the choice and the responsibility to inform themselves on it, and the state doing that for them and taking away that freedom is wrong regardless of how many of them actually want to eat trans fats.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    If one person wants the right or ten thousand it doesn't matter. It's their right, period.
    What if zero people want it?

    It was none the less.
    Can you give me some examples?

    Grateful or not is irrelevant. Ceding to the government the power to eliminate the choice is relevant. If the argument isn't made at every such encroachment of government power that it is the wrong thing to do we end up with a compromised system which keeps ratcheting up controls on choice. If the contrary argument isn't made at every encroachment the choices will basically whither over time.
    This could all be summed up by "slippery slope".

    Their actions demonstrate otherwise.
    No they don't.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by Moyer
    What if zero people want it?
    Irrelevant.

    Can you give me some examples?
    Some were mentioned earlier in the thread. Many companies you'll notice make a note of having zero trans fat in their products, such as Crowler's new line of stuff. There is a market for foods with no trans fat and there is a market for people who don't care or perhaps in fact want it.

    This could all be summed up by "slippery slope".
    Indeed it can, and the sheer amount of things the government regulates supposedly to protect us from ourselves, and regulates to the point of throwing us in prison if we're caught with some of them, shows just how slippery that slope is. It is implicit in the ideology behind the law because there is no logical way to assign a limit on how far such laws will be taken, not even the tolerance of the people who are subject to them. Presumably such laws are deemed necessary because those people are too stupid to make the 'right' decision in the first place. And so that stupid population can just as easily have their leaders selected for them, for their own good, their bodies weighed and their food prepared and rationed, for their own good, etc.

    No they don't.
    Yes, they do... If someone buys a food with trans fat in it he either knows it's there and doesn't care enough to make another choice, or doesn't know it's there and doesn't care enough to find out. Either way he demonstrates by his action his preference.

    There is something worth more than the possible health benefits of avoiding trans fats, and that is a person's right to pursue their own well being as they see fit, not as some committee a thousand miles away or even right next door deems appropriate. The appropriate scope of the law is to punish the aggressive actions of others against peaceful people, not to protect people from themselves. The first way describes a free society, the second a paternalistic authoritarian state.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    You are obviously not for the freedom of certain people to sell trans fats, which is contradictory because if it is and should be legal to eat them why should it not be legal to sell them?

    I should further clarify my point about freedom, I am all for personal freedom, unless that freedom represses or oppresses me or anyone else on the planet. Such as, but not limited to; defensless Iraqii children, rape victims and those who would prefer not to inhale second hand smoke or eat food that is held together by artificial fats.

    This is, as I said in the earlier post, analogous to outlawing selling certain books but letting possession remain legal. It is an obvious violation of freedom, freedom for adults to exchange. Whether it's what adults choose to put in their own body or what two consenting adults agree to exchange between one another, the argument is the same.

    Would you prefer a society free from the burdens of any law?
    That would require a lot of trust and understanding, without taking into consideration people who are not capable of rational thought because of birth defects or accidents.


    That's a pretty ridiculous way of putting it, AR. To say that because it's likely you won't be caught does not negate what will happen if you are caught. By that reasoning we can outlaw anything and so long as some people get away with the outlawed action people are still free to engage in that action. A rape victim is equally 'free' to say "no" to their rapist. He might not be willing to use enough force that day and walk away without raping her. Then again he might not. Either way to argue the victim's freedom hasn't been violated is missing the point and the obvious by quite a bit.

    I dont think it is anymore ridiculous than comparing a rapist to a resturanteer, who uses unhealthy products to increase his profit margin.

    The argument is the same for smokers, fat eaters, creatine users or anyone else. You are either free to determine whether or not to put these substances in your body or you are not. The issue is as pressing as any other, more so I would say. Iraq was not nor is a threat to my freedom. The US government demonstrably is. And even if you don't use creatine, eventually you will run into an equally unjustified barrier to your freedom and to be blunt that's what you get for so readily giving it away.
    If you think the US goverment is a threat to your personal freedom, imagine how much of a threat they are to the personal freedoms of Iraqii citizens. ..if I may take the liberty of paraphrasing "...even if you don't live in Iraq, eventually you will run into an equally unjustified barrier to your freedom and to be blunt that's what you get for not realising the US presence in Iraq is a threat to all freedoms!"

  16. Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    I should further clarify my point about freedom, I am all for personal freedom, unless that freedom represses or oppresses me or anyone else on the planet. Such as, but not limited to; defensless Iraqii children, rape victims and those who would prefer not to inhale second hand smoke or eat food that is held together by artificial fats.
    All irrelevant points. I am against the Iraq war and war in general except in cases of very clear and present dangers. You have a freedom to be free of second hand smoke on your own property, not on someone elses. That's positive liberty which is logically contradictory since exercising a positive 'freedom' or 'right' necessarily comes at the expense of someone else's rights. You have no right to be free of second hand smoke in a restaurant because you have no right to be there in the first place unless the owner lets you in and you agree to his terms. If he wants to let other people smoke that's his right on his property. Your freedom hasn't been violated in any way by allowing others to smoke; you can still go into the restaurant. Whether you would choose to is another issue. No one is forcing you in and the choice is still yours.

    Would you prefer a society free from the burdens of any law?
    That would require a lot of trust and understanding, without taking into consideration people who are not capable of rational thought because of birth defects or accidents.
    No and I never said I wanted such. You present a false dilema: this and all law or no law. Which allows for no distinction in different types of law, scope of law, proper perview of law, etc.

    I dont think it is anymore ridiculous than comparing a rapist to a resturanteer, who uses unhealthy products to increase his profit margin.
    One, you messed up the analogy. Two, the rape victim would take issue with you more than me. No one is being forced to eat trans fats to pad anyone's profit margin at knife or gun point, although the implication that someone profitting by selling someone else something they want to buy is somehow wrong or evil does indicate the mindset from which you're approaching this issue. Wrong again since both parties profit in a mutual exchange: that's the point of the exchange. The choice to knowingly eat them is voluntary. The choice to not research what you're eating and eat them anyway is equally voluntary. If they are illegal and the government catches you eating or selling them the choice to go to jail will not be voluntary.

    If you think the US goverment is a threat to your personal freedom, imagine how much of a threat they are to the personal freedoms of Iraqii citizens.
    Relevance?

    ..if I may take the liberty of paraphrasing "...even if you don't live in Iraq, eventually you will run into an equally unjustified barrier to your freedom and to be blunt that's what you get for not realising the US presence in Iraq is a threat to all freedoms!"
    Quite so, which is why we never should have gone in and why we should now get our forces out as quickly as possible.

  17. Don't sweat it guys. We live in a decaying society and it's just too late to stop the trend. This is an attempt to fix America due to growing costs of medical care from likely dietary contributors (like trans fats) but it won't solve the real problems. It's like violent video games, sure they help to destroy the moral conscience of our youth and desensitize them to bloodshed, but removing them won't help. It is not worth giving away your freedom to ban it! It won't put fathers back in homes or cure the divorce rate or improve the school system or really change people's morals at all. I won't get into my NWO theory right now, it's not PC (lol) but the gov can take your freedom anytime they want and don't doubt it for a second. The world is changing right now and it can't be stopped. Just give love and kindness to those you can, do your best to live right and say your prayers. That's all you can do.

    BTW, the Bible says eat want you want, but if it offends your neighbor, don't do it in front of them.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D
    Don't sweat it guys. We live in a decaying society and it's just too late to stop the trend. This is an attempt to fix America due to growing costs of medical care from likely dietary contributors (like trans fats) but it won't solve the real problems. It's like violent video games, sure they help to destroy the moral conscience of our youth and desensitize them to bloodshed, but removing them won't help. It is not worth giving away your freedom to ban it! It won't put fathers back in homes or cure the divorce rate or improve the school system or really change people's morals at all. I won't get into my NWO theory right now, it's not PC (lol) but the gov can take your freedom anytime they want and don't doubt it for a second. The world is changing right now and it can't be stopped. Just give love and kindness to those you can, do your best to live right and say your prayers. That's all you can do.

    BTW, the Bible says eat want you want, but if it offends your neighbor, don't do it in front of them.
    ohooh a rare appearence in an otherwise poitical thread, very refreshing DrD! I' m of the opinion that PC(political correctness) is a NWO(global conspiracy) concept, used to prevent the oppressed members of society from engaging in intelligent discourse about the the mechanisms and source of their oppression. I strongy agree with your advice about love and kindness and living impeccably being the only truth!!!!

  19. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    All irrelevant points. I am against the Iraq war and war in general except in cases of very clear and present dangers.

    Who decides for you what defines clear or present or even danger?...because if that who is not you, you have just given up your freedom!

    You have a freedom to be free of second hand smoke on your own property, not on someone elses. That's positive liberty which is logically contradictory since exercising a positive 'freedom' or 'right' necessarily comes at the expense of someone else's rights. You have no right to be free of second hand smoke in a restaurant because you have no right to be there in the first place unless the owner lets you in and you agree to his terms. If he wants to let other people smoke that's his right on his property. Your freedom hasn't been violated in any way by allowing others to smoke; you can still go into the restaurant. Whether you would choose to is another issue. No one is forcing you in and the choice is still yours.

    The legal term of choice is what I am challengeing in your posted scenario. If the customer is not aware that a substance has been added to his food either by neglect or by willful deception(not mentioned on a menu or lable of ingredients) then the choice to put what ever he wants in his body has been removed from the customer and dictated by the seller. Hello there goes your freedom( of choice) again!
    Most municipalities NYC included, have ordinances that protect anyone, who through their own "willful misadventure" sustain an injury on the property of another. An example would be a ladder
    left unattended infront of a fence. A persons curiosity leads them to climb the ladder and they fall and injure themselves. It is the property owner who is liable becase he created a "dangerous curiousity", which resulted in a personal injury. It would be a similar legal situation , if the resturant owner advertised the "tastiest burger in town." Which would lead to the purchase of such burger by a curious( or hungry) customer. The customer then consumes an unhealthy product(trans fat) without his consent or knowlege. There goes his freedom again, and it is this principle that the NYC trans fat law is based upon. So the reality is the trans fat law actually "protects" the freemdom(of choice) of the consumer.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D
    BTW, the Bible says eat want you want, but if it offends your neighbor, don't do it in front of them.
    I think my neighbors would fry up real nice actually.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    Who decides for you what defines clear or present or even danger?...because if that who is not you, you have just given up your freedom!
    Which is the whole point of having a volunteer army, not necessarily on our current model though as it's more a standing army at this point.

    The legal term of choice is what I am challengeing in your posted scenario. If the customer is not aware that a substance has been added to his food either by neglect or by willful deception(not mentioned on a menu or lable of ingredients) then the choice to put what ever he wants in his body has been removed from the customer and dictated by the seller.
    What massive force of nature stops him from asking what's in it? Nothing. He can ask what's in it or not. If the manufacturer lies to him that is fraud and another matter. If he doesn't bother to ask he demonstrates by his actions that he doesn't care about the ingredients.

    Most municipalities NYC included, have ordinances that protect anyone, who through their own "willful misadventure" sustain an injury on the property of another. An example would be a ladder
    left unattended infront of a fence. A persons curiosity leads them to climb the ladder and they fall and injure themselves. It is the property owner who is liable becase he created a "dangerous curiousity", which resulted in a personal injury.
    Which despite being law is nonsense.

    It would be a similar legal situation , if the resturant owner advertised the "tastiest burger in town." Which would lead to the purchase of such burger by a curious( or hungry) customer. The customer then consumes an unhealthy product(trans fat) without his consent or knowlege. There goes his freedom again, and it is this principle that the NYC trans fat law is based upon. So the reality is the trans fat law actually "protects" the freemdom(of choice) of the consumer.
    If no one is forcing him to eat the burger his freedom hasn't be violated in any way. People are not blobs of helpless protoplasm. We have the ability to choose. The idea that you can protect freedom of choice by limiting choice is nonsensical doublespeak.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Yes, they do... If someone buys a food with trans fat in it he either knows it's there and doesn't care enough to make another choice, or doesn't know it's there and doesn't care enough to find out. Either way he demonstrates by his action his preference.
    I eat it. I know it's there. I would prefer otherwise.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by Moyer
    I eat it. I know it's there. I would prefer otherwise.
    Obviously not, or you would not eat them. Alternatives are available. Even if you do prefer not to eat transfats in general or in an ideal world you're ignoring two issues:

    One, in those instances finding an alternative is not worth it for you and you quite obviously choose to eat them. Unless someone is dragging you there and shoving them down your throat that's the truth: you chose to eat them.

    Two, derrivative of one, you're ignoring the marginal nature of choices not only for yourself but others, and the inability to know or quantify subjective preferences on some mass aggregate scale. You can only know what people prefer by what they choose. What they say they like and prefer is so much windbaggery removed from reality, what they demonstrate through their choices are their true preferences.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Obviously not, or you would not eat them. Alternatives are available. Even if you do prefer not to eat transfats in general or in an ideal world you're ignoring two issues:

    One, in those instances finding an alternative is not worth it for you and you quite obviously choose to eat them. Unless someone is dragging you there and shoving them down your throat that's the truth: you chose to eat them.

    Two, derrivative of one, you're ignoring the marginal nature of choices not only for yourself but others, and the inability to know or quantify subjective preferences on some mass aggregate scale. You can only know what people prefer by what they choose. What they say they like and prefer is so much windbaggery removed from reality, what they demonstrate through their choices are their true preferences.
    Ummm, no. My preference is a Big Mac without trans fat. That's not available to me yet, but it will be after a ban. By losing the right to eat Big Macs with trans fat, we are gaining the right to eat Big Macs without trans fat.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Which is the whole point of having a volunteer army, not necessarily on our current model though as it's more a standing army at this point.

    The point is that there are children in Iraq that did not volunteer for the army and they can't stand, because their legs have been blown off by cluster bombs! It is difficult for me to accept that your deepest concerns are with a food retailer's right to include a non-food product in a product sold as food, When you have a government that forces its volunteer army to slaughter children



    What massive force of nature stops him from asking what's in it? Nothing. He can ask what's in it or not. If the manufacturer lies to him that is fraud and another matter. If he doesn't bother to ask he demonstrates by his actions that he doesn't care about the ingredients.

    The NYC trans fat ban is not refering to foods sold in bags that fully disclose their contents. It is about selling 100% all beef burgers that contain trans fats. Why would the customer ask what's in the burger? When, it was legally permissable to sell and all beef burger that was all beef plus trans fats- thats the point! The law was adjusted becuase the food retailers were taking advantage of its previous wording to include trans fats. If a customer had asked "What's in this burger?" before the ban, the retailer could have legally said "It's all beef baby!!!!" That is called deception by ommission and is the most common form of deception, because it predicates on the customers trust in the seller to provide full disclosure which is assumed to be mandated by the law. NYC correctly observed that the nature of this practice was more fitted to such deception as compared to any freedom from disadvantage to the seller


    If no one is forcing him to eat the burger his freedom hasn't be violated in any way. People are not blobs of helpless protoplasm. We have the ability to choose. The idea that you can protect freedom of choice by limiting choice is nonsensical doublespeak.
    The "real key" to freedom of choice is knowing that the choice actually exists!!!!
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. New York City Doctor
    By dschrute01 in forum Male Anti-Aging Medicine
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-25-2007, 02:20 PM
  2. NY bans most trans fats from restaurants
    By wrkn4bigrmusles in forum General Chat
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-07-2006, 12:18 AM
  3. New York City bans trans fats from restaurants.
    By DeerDeer in forum Supplements
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-06-2006, 12:00 PM
  4. New York to ban Trans-Fats in resturants
    By RenegadeRows in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-30-2006, 04:28 PM
  5. New York City Gyms
    By jefflong3323 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-03-2004, 08:09 AM
Log in
Log in