New York City bans trans fats from restaurants.

Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2676
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.35%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    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.

  2. Elite Member
    DR.D's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  228 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,779
    Rep Power
    307854
    Level
    56
    Lv. Percent
    45.31%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    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.
  3. Senior Member
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,581
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    39
    Lv. Percent
    21.18%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    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!!!!
    •   
       

  4. Senior Member
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,581
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    39
    Lv. Percent
    21.18%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    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.
  5. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2676
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.35%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    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.
  6. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2676
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.35%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    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.
  7. board observer
    Moyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Age
    31
    Posts
    879
    Rep Power
    574
    Level
    23
    Lv. Percent
    69.43%

    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.
  8. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2676
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.35%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    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.
  9. board observer
    Moyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Age
    31
    Posts
    879
    Rep Power
    574
    Level
    23
    Lv. Percent
    69.43%

    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.
  10. Senior Member
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,581
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    39
    Lv. Percent
    21.18%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    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!!!!
  11. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2676
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.35%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Moyer
    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.
    Same thing as AR, ignoring marginal nature of choices. I'd prefer a free Ferrari with free insurance and a blonde with great tits in the passenger seat. No one is violating my freedom by not providing that, at least not at a price I can afford or in a place I can buy it, nor does my preference for that negate the fact that in the actual world when I had to choose my Honda is what I preferred. Yes, you'd like to not have trans fat, but such foods are available and you choose to forego them and get a Big Mac with trans fat. Choice demonstrates preference, nothing else. If trans fats really were such an issue for you, you did have alternatives available even at McDonald's.
  12. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2676
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.35%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    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
    Iraq was not the issue, nor is it in this thread. Are you saying so long as government is screwing up majorly we have to let it get away with minor screw ups? Yes, getting your legs blown off is a lot harder to deal with than a change in the ingredients at McDonald's. It's irrelevant to the point.

    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!
    That's the government allowing a fraud that it shouldn't. The answer is not to ban the trans fat but to legally require honest disclosure of ingredients. A law along those lines which was passed concurrent with the ban is justifiable on some practical level and does not reduce the freedom of anyone involved. It may make it a bit more expensive for some restaurant owners, however only for ones who list ingredients to begin with. Such a law is much more in line with a free society than saying, "Thou shall not sell X."

    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.
    Which is positivist nonsense because it ignores the fact that the government passed laws are what let them get away with lying. The answer to government enabled fraud isn't to ban a substance. That's like saying mislabeled creatine products justify a ban of creatine. They don't. They justify a better approach to labelling so the law doesn't facilitate fraud. You don't solve a previous government screw up by giving it more power to screw up or just outright banning of a choice.

    The "real key" to freedom of choice is knowing that the choice actually exists!!!!
    The choice no longer exists. It is illegal to sell.
  13. Senior Member
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,581
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    39
    Lv. Percent
    21.18%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Iraq was not the issue, nor is it in this thread. Are you saying so long as government is screwing up majorly we have to let it get away with minor screw ups? Yes, getting your legs blown off is a lot harder to deal with than a change in the ingredients at McDonald's. It's irrelevant to the point.

    Thank you for understanding "the point" which is that, yes this is a minor screw up(transfat laws banning sellers from selling the most profitible product at "all risks" to public health) in the world of personal freedom oppression during a war of conquest. oh and congradulations, I believe you have reached a new high mark in the use of the word "irrelevent" in a single thread.


    That's the government allowing a fraud that it shouldn't. The answer is not to ban the trans fat but to legally require honest disclosure of ingredients. A law along those lines which was passed concurrent with the ban is justifiable on some practical level and does not reduce the freedom of anyone involved. It may make it a bit more expensive for some restaurant owners, however only for ones who list ingredients to begin with. Such a law is much more in line with a free society than saying, "Thou shall not sell X."

    Most laws are passed with a "general expectation" of complience, its the law!... remember?


    Which is positivist nonsense because it ignores the fact that the government passed laws are what let them get away with lying. The answer to government enabled fraud isn't to ban a substance. That's like saying mislabeled creatine products justify a ban of creatine. They don't. They justify a better approach to labelling so the law doesn't facilitate fraud. You don't solve a previous government screw up by giving it more power to screw up or just outright banning of a choice.

    So, when you change a law because it serves only profiteers and jepordizes the public health, it's called "positivist nonsense"?...I though that was called "reform." It may not be perfect, but that is again "the point", laws must be constantly revised because the legal system is not perfect and neither are we


    The choice no longer exists. It is illegal to sell.
    You will have to excuse my prejiduce I find myself more aligned with the rights of the burger "eater" and not the burger "seller".

    Well, atleast we have the freedom to choose with whom which we agree!
  14. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2676
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.35%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    Thank you for understanding "the point" which is that, yes this is a minor screw up(transfat laws banning sellers from selling the most profitible product at "all risks" to public health) in the world of personal freedom oppression during a war of conquest. oh and congradulations, I believe you have reached a new high mark in the use of the word "irrelevent" in a single thread.
    You should see my posts elsewhere in more politcally oriented forums.

    Most laws are passed with a "general expectation" of complience, its the law!... remember?
    They were complying with the law, remember? The law didn't even require transfats be listed until recently as an ingredient.

    So, when you change a law because it serves only profiteers and jepordizes the public health, it's called "positivist nonsense"?
    It is positivist nonsense when you don't acknowledge the fact that the previous set of laws led to the current state of affairs before you propose a whole new law. In light of the past screw up a new law is obviously not the answer. Similar to other problems, the government intervenes, screws things up, then people ignore the fact that the government caused the problem and call for the government to fix it with more laws which it will just as likely screw up.

    You will have to excuse my prejiduce I find myself more aligned with the rights of the burger "eater" and not the burger "seller".
    The burger eater's rights were not violated in any way. They are perfectly free to eat or not eat whatever they want. They are perfectly free to research what they eat or not. You don't have any right to force someone to give you something in particular, whether it's their money or a burger with no transfat.
  15. Senior Member
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,581
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    39
    Lv. Percent
    21.18%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    They were complying with the law, remember? The law didn't even require transfats be listed until recently as an ingredient.



    It is positivist nonsense when you don't acknowledge the fact that the previous set of laws led to the current state of affairs before you propose a whole new law. In light of the past screw up a new law is obviously not the answer. Similar to other problems, the government intervenes, screws things up, then people ignore the fact that the government caused the problem and call for the government to fix it with more laws which it will just as likely screw up.



    The burger eater's rights were not violated in any way. They are perfectly free to eat or not eat whatever they want. They are perfectly free to research what they eat or not. You don't have any right to force someone to give you something in particular, whether it's their money or a burger with no transfat.
    The Ban was a revision of a law(prohibiting the use of known harmful products in the food supply) that was ineffective at protecting the rights of burger eaters from consuming an unhealthy product(trans fats) with and otherwise healthy product. Once it was firmly established that trans fats are indeed a harmful substance, there was now enough evidence to suggest that the sellers were not in complience with the "spirit" of the(previous) law, so the obligation of that complience was made mandantory and enforceble by the new law.

    A society can no longer be deemed as just, when its members are allowed to decieve eachother with no restraint other than greed management. I do not remember a big anouncment back in the 70's to the effect of.." Hey consumers!.. guess what, your animal meat products are now availible with or without trans fats !" The safety of the food supply must be maintained by someone other than those who stand to profit from its distribution. The system is corrupted by the corruption of its implementors, but that in and of itself does not make the system useless for the freedom conscious citizen!!!
  16. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2676
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.35%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    The Ban was a revision of a law(prohibiting the use of known harmful products in the food supply) that was ineffective at protecting the rights of burger eaters from consuming an unhealthy product(trans fats) with and otherwise healthy product.
    No such right exists. They had every right to choose healthy food before, they chose to eat the burgers knowing or without caring to know what was in them. You have no right to force anyone to provide you with anything in particular, healthy or otherwise.

    A society can no longer be deemed as just, when its members are allowed to decieve eachother with no restraint other than greed management.
    This is patently BS. How the hell does greed work into this, or are you just trying to paint this as some fault of capitalism out of habit? Both parties in an exchange are being 'greedy' and both profit because want what the other has more than what they currently possess. Blaming the sale of trans fats on greed is nonsense.

    I do not remember a big anouncment back in the 70's to the effect of.." Hey consumers!.. guess what, your animal meat products are now availible with or without trans fats !" The safety of the food supply must be maintained by someone other than those who stand to profit from its distribution.
    No, it musn't as killing their customers usually doesn't bode well for the future of those 'evil' profits. But a perfect example is available in another industry: tire manufacture. It was an insurance company who caught on to Firestone's tire problems a few years ago and told the NHTSA, who were otherwise busy ensuring they had jobs... I mean busy ensuring everyone was safe while they were dying. That greedy evil insurance company is padding its evil profits by making sure people stay alive by watch dogging another industry. Were not our health care system so nationalized and screwed up by the government it's likely health insurance companies would play a similar role in watch dogging food manufacture and distribution. No food distributor or manufacturer would want their products showing up on insurance companies' "List of Stuff that Will Kill You."

    That aside if indeed trans fats have been used so long and the government has been charged with protecting us then why is it exonerated for all the deaths that probably occurred due to trans fat usage while its bureaucrats were sitting around waxing their pickles when they were supposed to be protecting citizens from this crap? Was that the result of greed too, or just the mass incompetence typical of government workers over time?

    The system is corrupted by the corruption of its implementors, but that in and of itself does not make the system useless for the freedom conscious citizen!!!
    The freedom of the conscious citizen can not be made greater by limiting his choices.
  17. Senior Member
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,581
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    39
    Lv. Percent
    21.18%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    No such right exists.

    There is a cure for ignorance of the facts its called learning, but there is no excuse. Please read any of the wonderful laws on the subject of public safety that are available at your local library.(or the internet)
    It may help you understand why what your stating is completely Irrelevent(your word, but it just fit so well I had to use it,thanks)




    This is patently BS. How the hell does greed work into this, or are you just trying to paint this as some fault of capitalism out of habit? Both parties in an exchange are being 'greedy' and both profit because want what the other has more than what they currently possess. Blaming the sale of trans fats on greed is nonsense.

    It is not the "fault" of capitalism it is the symptom of it. Capitalism is not a "sentient being", so assigning fault is well,... Irrelevent(pattern emerging) Capitalism does the best job of managing greed, but it is not perfect, due to the imperfection of its human clients. That is why we have laws of commerce,..again this stuff is all availible for you at your local library!

    No, it musn't as killing their customers usually doesn't bode well for the future of those 'evil' profits. But a perfect example is available in another industry: tire manufacture. It was an insurance company who caught on to Firestone's tire problems a few years ago and told the NHTSA, who were otherwise busy ensuring they had jobs... I mean busy ensuring everyone was safe while they were dying. That greedy evil insurance company is padding its evil profits by making sure people stay alive by watch dogging another industry. Were not our health care system so nationalized and screwed up by the government it's likely health insurance companies would play a similar role in watch dogging food manufacture and distribution. No food distributor or manufacturer would want their products showing up on insurance companies' "List of Stuff that Will Kill You."

    Well, I hate to bring it up, cause it seems like I am picking apart the specious logic that has replaced known facts in this thread but, the USA does not have a "nationalized" health care system
    You may have it confused with Canada, but NYC is in the USA so again irrelevent.(ouch) Although, It is refreshing to read someone defending the insurance lobby.


    That aside if indeed trans fats have been used so long and the government has been charged with protecting us then why is it exonerated for all the deaths that probably occurred due to trans fat usage while its bureaucrats were sitting around waxing their pickles when they were supposed to be protecting citizens from this crap? Was that the result of greed too, or just the mass incompetence typical of government workers over time?
    YES AND YES



    The freedom of the conscious citizen can not be made greater by limiting his choices.
    I agree with you, that choice is the key to freedom, but once you define yourself as a citizen you have by definition agreed to comply with certain laws(and the associated loss of certain freedoms) within that society of citizenship!
  18. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2676
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.35%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    There is a cure for ignorance of the facts its called learning, but there is no excuse.
    There is an economic concept called imperfect information, and there is a market which is essentially the sum of the collective judgements of millions of people, not all of whom can be that far back on the learning curve.

    Please read any of the wonderful laws on the subject of public safety that are available at your local library.(or the internet) It may help you understand why what your stating is completely Irrelevent(your word, but it just fit so well I had to use it,thanks)
    I have read those laws. Please read any of the wonderful books that explain the difference between negative and positive rights or liberty. A 'right' can not make a claim on someone else's property or person. That is why freedom of speech is a right but having your own newspaper isn't. The right you suggest you have does just that.

    Once more that is positive liberty which is empowerment, not rights. You have no right to have a healthy burger delivered to you no matter what laws are passed. Rights are not granted by the government, they are inherent in being human and derrivative of self ownership. You have a right to refuse to eat what you deem an unhealthy burger and to eat one you think is healthy, but not to force anyone in particular to give you what you want. Not only is what you are claiming not in line with the legal system this country was founded on, it is positivist nonsense to claim current laws make your view 'right' in any way, and belies the lack of an underlying coherent justification for your views.

    It is not the "fault" of capitalism it is the symptom of it. Capitalism is not a "sentient being", so assigning fault is well,... Irrelevent(pattern emerging) Capitalism does the best job of managing greed, but it is not perfect, due to the imperfection of its human clients. That is why we have laws of commerce,..again this stuff is all availible for you at your local library!
    Capitalism has nothing to do with managing greed. To be blunt it is you who needs a trip to the library and a quick course on basic economics and politics, not me.

    Well, I hate to bring it up, cause it seems like I am picking apart the specious logic that has replaced known facts in this thread but, the USA does not have a "nationalized" health care system
    You may have it confused with Canada, but NYC is in the USA so again irrelevent.(ouch) Although, It is refreshing to read someone defending the insurance lobby.
    Well I hate to bring it up but to dismiss the massive amount of legislative and regulatory control over our health care system simply because it is not outright nationalization once more belies a severe ignorance of economics and politics. And I notice you completely ignored the fact that the horrible greed of capitalism worked in favor of consumers.

    I agree with you, that choice is the key to freedom, but once you define yourself as a citizen you have by definition agreed to comply with certain laws(and the associated loss of certain freedoms) within that society of citizenship!
    The state loves people who think like this. Nice docile sheep. Choice is key to freedom, denying choice cannot increase freedom as you claimed. Citizenship claims are mere claims to being part of a certain nation. Abiding by the law of those nations is a requirement, however this is once more positivist nonsense used to justify a view with no coherent rational to support it. "That's the law," is ever the cry of people who don't want to be bothered justifying the basis for the law, as if some collective shout of "Thou shall not," serves as justification for anything and everything the state might do.
  19. Senior Member
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,581
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    39
    Lv. Percent
    21.18%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Smile


    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    There is an economic concept called imperfect information, and there is a market which is essentially the sum of the collective judgements of millions of people, not all of whom can be that far back on the learning curve.

    I have read those laws. Please read any of the wonderful books that explain the difference between negative and positive rights or liberty. A 'right' can not make a claim on someone else's property or person. That is why freedom of speech is a right but having your own newspaper isn't. The right you suggest you have does just that.

    Once more that is positive liberty which is empowerment, not rights. You have no right to have a healthy burger delivered to you no matter what laws are passed. Rights are not granted by the government, they are inherent in being human and derrivative of self ownership. You have a right to refuse to eat what you deem an unhealthy burger and to eat one you think is healthy, but not to force anyone in particular to give you what you want. Not only is what you are claiming not in line with the legal system this country was founded on, it is positivist nonsense to claim current laws make your view 'right' in any way, and belies the lack of an underlying coherent justification for your views.



    Capitalism has nothing to do with managing greed. To be blunt it is you who needs a trip to the library and a quick course on basic economics and politics, not me.



    Well I hate to bring it up but to dismiss the massive amount of legislative and regulatory control over our health care system simply because it is not outright nationalization once more belies a severe ignorance of economics and politics. And I notice you completely ignored the fact that the horrible greed of capitalism worked in favor of consumers.



    The state loves people who think like this. Nice docile sheep. Choice is key to freedom, denying choice cannot increase freedom as you claimed. Citizenship claims are mere claims to being part of a certain nation. Abiding by the law of those nations is a requirement, however this is once more positivist nonsense used to justify a view with no coherent rational to support it. "That's the law," is ever the cry of people who don't want to be bothered justifying the basis for the law, as if some collective shout of "Thou shall not," serves as justification for anything and everything the state might do.
    I will break from the pattern of responding to each paragraph as each seems to state the same opinion.

    I am strict student of metaphysics. I live to challenge the 'fixed realities' of this universe, so ultimately I am free to live by the intent of my will. There is no higher truth then that sense of infinite possibility for me!!!!!

    However, when I wake up in the morning and put my feet on the floor, that floor is real. It was created by the collective consciousness of all the Earths inhabitants. That reality has been passed on through the generations to the perception of the present. That reality is conditioned by the governments and their eduction and media sytems and mostly by society accepting this reality as the only one. It is by this acceptance of a "concensus reality" that the norms are "implanted" in our brains. If you accept the bedroom floor as real then, you accept the social norms as real.....

    The point of this acceptance is where your most important right the "right of possibility" in an infinte and abundant universe is severely impinged. This impingment is designed to create sarcity, which limits choice and enables "control" acceptance

    The reality of the bedroom floor its the reality of governing bodies and it is from this reality that they derive their powers!

    The more you accept their "projected reality consensus", the more power the laws of this reality have to govern you and the other members of this consensus world.

    It is from this reality that all laws are based. The need for a law is created before the law is accepted. The "theory of the law" is accepted before it is passed to the legal system of "reality enforcement".

    The Declaration of Independence ( projected reality hand book for USA and by proxy the world) states that all men are born "free" and have "inherent rights" just by their existance( as a person in this reality)"..among them are Life, Liberty and the persuit of Happiness..."( wow that sound like freedom to me!)

    Life is the state of being in this reality and is clearly defined for all in this reality. People can be fooled into believing they are happy, which is still being happy!(even if it is an illusion)...

    So we are left with Liberty, this is how "they" get you to comply with the control norms which we call laws. Liberty and Freedom are two different things.

    Freedom is the state of being "free" most correctly defined by you (and me) as the ability to make choices in an abundant world.--whoo hoo!.. lets just stop here and bang our 14 year old coke connection...who's father's own a Ferrari dealership(george carlin), but alas we cannot even if we are both consenting our intent with the intent of our 14yearold, because.....

    Liberty, just like the naval term from which is was created, means a "time and space limited" freedom(liberty call, liberty call)

    Freedom that is granted in a structured reality of time/space is governed by the laws of that space/time. Unfortunately for the 14 year olds, that means that their space/time reality does not include a "notion of free will" that can be expressed in "sexual intent" until the age of 16 or 18 dependeing on the age of their partner and the governing body in which the act occurs

    So, while the illusion of total freedom is professed in the school sytems and media controls of the USA(world). The very document that supposedly grants us these freedoms, in fact and in this reality, limits them to the "acceptance of certain norms" that are enforcebale by Law!!!. It's not pretty but its true.

    Now, we can move forward into the legal sytem which is presented as "that which protects our rights", but in fact is the most deliberate at "limiting" our freedom.(I know you are well aware of this fact!)

    It starts with the US Constitution,(just read the Federalist Papers, if you still think we are free to make our own choices)
    then the "legal control entanglements" twist tighter and tighter as they roll down the line to your local goverment.

    So, it may seem simplistic, but the reason you cannot buy a transfat laced burger in NYC, is because you accept the bedroom floor as real! This acceptance starts the chain of events...

    You believe that, you live in "counrty or state" as opposed to a world or galaxy or universe or dimention.

    Once you accept that "fixed reality", you have accepted the laws that govern that reality. These laws exist in this reality whether you agree with them or not. If you do not accept the law then you do not accept the reality in which they exist...You cannot legally oppose that which does not legally exist. The entire "legal system" of the world governments hinges on this concept of consensus realtiy!!!(yikes)

    So, do you still want that burger?? I'm not even hungry anymore ,..I'm going back to bed!!see ya,

    remember to fight the good fight and confront this freedom crushing reality every muther f- ing day!!!!!

    I like CDB ,you seem "real" to me!!!
  20. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2676
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.35%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Well that just about covers it then, doesn't it?

    I'm going to play with my crayons now.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. New York City Doctor
    By dschrute01 in forum Male Anti-Aging Medicine
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-25-2007, 03:20 PM
  2. NY bans most trans fats from restaurants
    By wrkn4bigrmusles in forum General Chat
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-07-2006, 01:18 AM
  3. New York City bans trans fats from restaurants.
    By DeerDeer in forum Supplements
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-06-2006, 01:00 PM
  4. New York to ban Trans-Fats in resturants
    By RenegadeRows in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-30-2006, 05:28 PM
  5. New York City Gyms
    By jefflong3323 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-03-2004, 09:09 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in