New York City bans trans fats from restaurants.
- 12-13-2006, 09:51 PM
Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
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.
I dont think it is anymore ridiculous than comparing a rapist to a resturanteer, who uses unhealthy products to increase his profit margin.
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!"
- 12-13-2006, 09:52 PM
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.
- 12-14-2006, 06:13 AM
Originally Posted by DR.D
12-14-2006, 06:39 AM
Originally Posted by CDB
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.
12-14-2006, 10:19 AM
12-14-2006, 10:24 AM
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.Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
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 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.
Which despite being law is nonsense.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.
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.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.
12-14-2006, 01:40 PM
12-14-2006, 02:46 PM
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:Originally Posted by Moyer
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.
12-14-2006, 05:10 PM
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.Originally Posted by CDB
12-14-2006, 08:03 PM
The "real key" to freedom of choice is knowing that the choice actually exists!!!!Originally Posted by CDB
12-15-2006, 09:02 AM
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.Originally Posted by Moyer
12-15-2006, 09:14 AM
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.Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
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 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!
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 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.
The choice no longer exists. It is illegal to sell.The "real key" to freedom of choice is knowing that the choice actually exists!!!!
12-15-2006, 03:05 PM
You will have to excuse my prejiduce I find myself more aligned with the rights of the burger "eater" and not the burger "seller".Originally Posted by CDB
Well, atleast we have the freedom to choose with whom which we agree!
12-15-2006, 03:28 PM
You should see my posts elsewhere in more politcally oriented forums.Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
They were complying with the law, remember? The law didn't even require transfats be listed until recently as an ingredient.Most laws are passed with a "general expectation" of complience, its the law!... remember?
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.So, when you change a law because it serves only profiteers and jepordizes the public health, it's called "positivist nonsense"?
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.You will have to excuse my prejiduce I find myself more aligned with the rights of the burger "eater" and not the burger "seller".
12-15-2006, 08:00 PM
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.Originally Posted by CDB
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!!!
12-17-2006, 02:40 PM
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.Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
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.A society can no longer be deemed as just, when its members are allowed to decieve eachother with no restraint other than greed management.
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."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.
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 freedom of the conscious citizen can not be made greater by limiting his choices.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!!!
12-17-2006, 07:56 PM
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!Originally Posted by CDB
12-18-2006, 09:29 AM
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.Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
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.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)
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.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!
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.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.
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 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!
12-19-2006, 09:14 AM
I will break from the pattern of responding to each paragraph as each seems to state the same opinion.Originally Posted by CDB
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!!!
12-19-2006, 04:49 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By dschrute01 in forum Male Anti-Aging MedicineReplies: 2Last Post: 01-25-2007, 02:20 PM
- By wrkn4bigrmusles in forum General ChatReplies: 8Last Post: 12-07-2006, 12:18 AM
- By DeerDeer in forum SupplementsReplies: 4Last Post: 12-06-2006, 12:00 PM
- By RenegadeRows in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 17Last Post: 09-30-2006, 04:28 PM
- By jefflong3323 in forum General ChatReplies: 4Last Post: 06-03-2004, 08:09 AM