NYC Bans Trans Fats At Restaurants

[Swift]

Are we going back to trans fat? Because I've already stated my argument to you guys. And if we are not, then as I've stated in my post above, I'm not the one who is hoping that government ban bacon, McDonalds and pizza.

Yes we're going back to trans fats and yes you stated your argument but I'm giving you a counter point. Care to answer?

 

[a6m5]

Yes we're going back to trans fats and yes you stated your argument but I'm giving you a counter point. Care to answer?

You are giving me a counter point on my which argument?

Your "counter point" mentions people "that can eat bacon, McDonalds's and pizza everyday and never skip a beat(literally)." I'd say that's probably true, and I would never support a ban of bacon, McDonalds, pizza, or how much and how frequently you can eat those things.

 

[Swift]

You are giving me a counter point on my which argument?

Your "counter point" mentions people "that can eat bacon, McDonalds's and pizza everyday and never skip a beat(literally)." I'd say that's probably true, and I would never support a ban of bacon, McDonalds, pizza, or how much and how frequently you can eat those things.

You support the ban of trans fats for health reasons. My point is against that. So, how do you comment?

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't remember exactly what I blabbered in this thread before (), but I think that I did make clear that I was not supporting, and I would not support banning "fried chicken" or other specific types of food.

I would suspect that only supporters for such ban would be the same people who blame McDonalds for obesity.

But you have to admit my points about setting a precedence and putting us on a slippery slope were correct. First we had smoking bans in teh name oif public health, then we had trans fat bans in the name of public health, and now it has been suggsted that we have a McDonald's ban in the name of public health. Step, step, slip and we are out of control.

When I talk about slippery slopes I was making the point that a smoking ban and a trans fat ban were not just a small thing that we won't notice. My food might taste the same and I now have a 1% less chance of having a heart attack. None of that matters now because the direction it put us in has led to this.

You don't support a ban of McDonald's. Good for you, but by supporting a trans fat ban you helped lead us down the path that led to the idea of banning McDonald's. You are like a guide that leads a group down a dark side path and says everything is fine because you go on for an hour without incident, but then when you see some horrific monster in the way you try to back track. The thing is you are on a hill and the path is muddy. Your feet slip and you go forward even though you don't want to. You don't want to be eaten by the monster but it was your bad decision that led you to the monster. No matter how well intentioned your initial decision was the blame lands on you and those that supported going down this path. Those of us in the back that were forced to tag along even though we pointed out the footprints, bones, and stench have been brought along with you.

I hope that made sense. If not let me try another one.

President Bush didn't want to have to battle insurgents in Iraq, but his initial decision to go to war led it there.

You don't want to ban McDonald's but your decision to ban other things in the name of health has led you there.


And then to clarify Swift's point: The decision to ban trans-fats limits the choices of people who might not need to worry about what they eat. How is it fair to them?

 

[ledhed]

I don't remember exactly what I blabbered in this thread before (), but I think that I did make clear that I was not supporting, and I would not support banning "fried chicken" or other specific types of food.

I would suspect that only supporters for such ban would be the same people who blame McDonalds for obesity.

I blame fat people for obesity .

 

[a6m5]

You support the ban of trans fats for health reasons. My point is against that. So, how do you comment?

As I've said, we already had our discussion on that("we" as in you, too). Can you go back a page or two, or do you want me to copy and paste my arguments?

But you have to admit my points about setting a precedence and putting us on a slippery slope were correct. First we had smoking bans in teh name oif public health, then we had trans fat bans in the name of public health, and now it has been suggsted that we have a McDonald's ban in the name of public health. Step, step, slip and we are out of control.

When I talk about slippery slopes I was making the point that a smoking ban and a trans fat ban were not just a small thing that we won't notice. My food might taste the same and I now have a 1% less chance of having a heart attack. None of that matters now because the direction it put us in has led to this.

You don't support a ban of McDonald's. Good for you, but by supporting a trans fat ban you helped lead us down the path that led to the idea of banning McDonald's. You are like a guide that leads a group down a dark side path and says everything is fine because you go on for an hour without incident, but then when you see some horrific monster in the way you try to back track. The thing is you are on a hill and the path is muddy. Your feet slip and you go forward even though you don't want to. You don't want to be eaten by the monster but it was your bad decision that led you to the monster. No matter how well intentioned your initial decision was the blame lands on you and those that supported going down this path. Those of us in the back that were forced to tag along even though we pointed out the footprints, bones, and stench have been brought along with you.

I hope that made sense. If not let me try another one.

President Bush didn't want to have to battle insurgents in Iraq, but his initial decision to go to war led it there.

You don't want to ban McDonald's but your decision to ban other things in the name of health has led you there.


And then to clarify Swift's point: The decision to ban trans-fats limits the choices of people who might not need to worry about what they eat. How is it fair to them?

You and I think danoff made that point very well last time we discussed this. And no, I don't see it that way. Perhaps you are right, maybe the people will first support the ban of trans fat, then the McDonalds, but I sure don't see it leading that way. Fast food industry I think is too powerful to start with. I don't think they'll ever succeed banning Big Mac or Whopper. Banning/replacing ingredient is one thing, but I doubt that kind of ban you are talking about will gain much support.

 

[FoolKiller]

You and I think danoff made that point very well last time we discussed this. And no, I don't see it that way. Perhaps you are right, maybe the people will first support the ban of trans fat, then the McDonalds, but I sure don't see it leading that way.

They already do support the ban on trans-fats. "It'll make me healthier" and "It will save lives" are things I have commonly heard. McDonald's and fast food in general is slowly being demonized more and more, or did you miss Super Size Me.

Fast food industry I think is too powerful to start with. I don't think they'll ever succeed banning Big Mac or Whopper. Banning/replacing ingredient is one thing, but I doubt that kind of ban you are talking about will gain much support.

Come on. You are old enough to remember when "Big Tobacco" was too big to be stopped and tobacco made the government so much money they wouldn't touch them. Of course I grew up in the tobacco capital of the world, so I may have just seen it a lot more often. I have actually been in a cigarette factory and walked through a tobacco field. My entire childhood was paid for with tobacco money.

My point is that just because something is big doesn't mean that it can't be stopped. Rememeber Oprah making mad cow comments about the biggest beef producer in the country, getting her in trouble? How often do we hear people on TV talking about not eating fast food so that you won't die of a heart attack. It gets drummed into us almost daily and eventually enough people will think that if they just stop eating the food they would live to be 100, but they can't stop themselves, so they need a law. That was the same mentality in the trans-fat ban support. People were saying they knew they shouldn't eat it but did anyway so these bans will make them healthier.

In the past few years I have seen three things that have thrown me because I thought it would never happen: 1) Smoking bans 2) Trans fat bans 3) Mandatory HPV vaccines.

What do all three of those have in common? The public is told it is for the public good, because it will save lives. How far can that reasoning go?

 

[Tornado]

Maybe they will ban certain foods and maybe I won't be able to enjoy the same foods as before.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/27/prince.charles.mcdonalds.ap/
Prince Charles makes the suggestion of banning McDonald's.

I completely and totally fail to see any relavence to the thread topic and what Prince Charles said.
Replacing trans fat with other kinds of fat: No difference in price, taste or food choice.
Banning McDonalds: Difference in all three.
Plus, anyone who has watched or read any political satire would know that even if it got serious ground behind it it would fail at the vote.

You don't support a ban of McDonald's. Good for you, but by supporting a trans fat ban you helped lead us down the path that led to the idea of banning McDonald's.

And by opposing the McDonald's ban, you are stopping said slippery slopes.

The decision to ban trans-fats limits the choices of people who might not need to worry about what they eat. How is it fair to them?

And again, who cares? If the bill was passed secretly, no-one would have ever noticed. If you need your trans fat so much, make your own food.

How far can that reasoning go?

Until it gets unreasonable to the voting public.

 

[Swift]

As I've said, we already had our discussion on that("we" as in you, too). Can you go back a page or two, or do you want me to copy and paste my arguments?

As FK stated:

And then to clarify Swift's point: The decision to ban trans-fats limits the choices of people who might not need to worry about what they eat. How is it fair to them?

You're argument is FLAWED. I can say about 50 legal actions/products, right now, that if we banned it would save lives and make people healthier. Is that alone a reason to ban them? I'm thinking no. I remember your statements from before, but I don't remember you answering that exact question. If you did and I missed it, I apologize.

 

[a6m5]

You're argument is FLAWED.

.........

I can say about 50 legal actions/products, right now, that if we banned it would save lives and make people healthier. Is that alone a reason to ban them? I'm thinking no. I remember your statements from before, but I don't remember you answering that exact question. If you did and I missed it, I apologize.

You didn't miss it. This is the point we kept on "looping" and I asked you to stop asking it. You keep on comparing the ban on trans fat to a ban on Big Mac(actually, "types of food"). There is a big difference in replacing the type of fat found in your Big Mac, and obsoleting the actual Big Mac.

Swift, we are just going around & around. Wasting time and thread spaces. You are still asking me same questions, and I'm giving you same answers. I ask you again, could we just agree to disagree? In your mind, "my argument is flawed". I sure aren't changing your mind, and I don't agree with you either. Sorry!

They already do support the ban on trans-fats. "It'll make me healthier" and "It will save lives" are things I have commonly heard. McDonald's and fast food in general is slowly being demonized more and more, or did you miss Super Size Me.

From my observation, half the people who's seen "Super Size Me" do not take that as a credible documentary. Stuffing your face with Micky D's, 24/7 causing health problems? Whoopie do! We didn't see that one coming. And the demonizing of fast food? That one's been around as long as I can remember.

Come on. You are old enough to remember when "Big Tobacco" was too big to be stopped and tobacco made the government so much money they wouldn't touch them. Of course I grew up in the tobacco capital of the world, so I may have just seen it a lot more often. I have actually been in a cigarette factory and walked through a tobacco field. My entire childhood was paid for with tobacco money.

My point is that just because something is big doesn't mean that it can't be stopped. Rememeber Oprah making mad cow comments about the biggest beef producer in the country, getting her in trouble? How often do we hear people on TV talking about not eating fast food so that you won't die of a heart attack. It gets drummed into us almost daily and eventually enough people will think that if they just stop eating the food they would live to be 100, but they can't stop themselves, so they need a law. That was the same mentality in the trans-fat ban support. People were saying they knew they shouldn't eat it but did anyway so these bans will make them healthier.

In the past few years I have seen three things that have thrown me because I thought it would never happen: 1) Smoking bans 2) Trans fat bans 3) Mandatory HPV vaccines.

What do all three of those have in common? The public is told it is for the public good, because it will save lives. How far can that reasoning go?

I agree with you on the "Big" Tobacco point you made there. You are right.

Unlike smokes, everybody has to eat though. People go for fast food, because they are fast, cheap, and convenient. I know that you made your point about how at one time, Tobacco companies were considered too big to be stopped, but I seriously can't see governments regulating Wendy's Menus.

 

[Swift]

.........


You didn't miss it. This is the point we kept on "looping" and I asked you to stop asking it. You keep on comparing the ban on trans fat to a ban on Big Mac(actually, "types of food"). There is a big difference in replacing the type of fat found in your Big Mac, and obsoleting the actual Big Mac.

Swift, we are just going around & around. Wasting time and thread spaces. You are still asking me same questions, and I'm giving you same answers. I ask you again, could we just agree to disagree? In your mind, "my argument is flawed". I sure aren't changing your mind, and I don't agree with you either. Sorry!

Here's the problem. you haven't given me any logical reason to accept your argument.

Look at smoking. They said it was only going to be banned in government buildings(which makes sense since everyone pays for it.). But now you can't smoke in many other places and there are laws being proposed to stop you from smoking in your car or home RIGHT NOW. I'm saying that the trans fats banning is along the same lines as the continual smoking bans. So, where does it end? And no, you haven't answered that one before.

 

[Tornado]

But now you can't smoke in many other places and

So? Exit the building. Its still an apples and oranges comparison anyways, so the relevance is lacking.

there are laws being proposed to stop you from smoking in your car or home RIGHT NOW.

I'd love to see those go up to the vote.

And no, you haven't answered that one before.

I did.

 

[a6m5]

Here's the problem. you haven't given me any logical reason to accept your argument.

Did you read what I said? I'm not asking you to accept my argument. I stated my opinion, you called it a b.s., end of story. Agree to disagree?

Look at smoking. They said it was only going to be banned in government buildings(which makes sense since everyone pays for it.). But now you can't smoke in many other places and there are laws being proposed to stop you from smoking in your car or home RIGHT NOW. I'm saying that the trans fats banning is along the same lines as the continual smoking bans. So, where does it end? And no, you haven't answered that one before.

Are you worried that secondhand trans fat might scare people into banning burgers? If there actually were such risk, I would support a ban on trans fat, but only in the government buildings at first.

 

[FoolKiller]

I completely and totally fail to see any relavence to the thread topic and what Prince Charles said.

Because people were saying that it wasn't as if they were banning actual foods, so as a continuation of that debate direction I show Prince Charles' suggestion that some people think it should be banned.

Plus, anyone who has watched or read any political satire would know that even if it got serious ground behind it it would fail at the vote.

Neither would most smoking bans or the mandatory HPV vaccine, but it doesn't get a public vote. It is either voted on by councils, assemblies, Congress, or given executive order. The people never even get a say.

And by opposing the McDonald's ban, you are stopping said slippery slopes.

I also opposed smoking bans, trans-fat bans, and mandatory HPV vaccines, but the politicians, none of whom I will be voting for from this point on, didn't listen. It's like they have a rope connecting me to them and whatever slippery slope they fall down I have no choice but to get pulled along, protesting all the way.

And again, who cares? If the bill was passed secretly, no-one would have ever noticed. If you need your trans fat so much, make your own food.

Two points:
1) If a law was secretly passed to allow the police to search your home while you were at work would it matter, even though you didn't notice? Just because you don't notice doesn't mean your rights aren't violated.
2) And every restaraunt would notice. Heck, if it weren't for their complaints we wouldn't have noticed. The trans-fats issue isn't that I must have trans-fats, it is that restaraunts are privately owned and shouldn't be regulated away from using a common, safe, LEGAL product.

Until it gets unreasonable to the voting public.

Yet, somehow saying it will save lives suddenly makes everything reasonable lately.

From my observation, half the people who's seen "Super Size Me" do not take that as a credible documentary. Stuffing your face with Micky D's, 24/7 causing health problems? Whoopie do! We didn't see that one coming. And the demonizing of fast food? That one's been around as long as I can remember.

Why demonize it? What happens to everything the media eventually demonizes? People try to stop them. Heck, I have even heard comments that fast food restaraunts are prevalent in poor black communities because the white man wants to kill the black man. And then I have seen regulations attempted to try and limit the number of fast food restaraunts in those communities. It took decades to stop tobacco companies. I never said it was a fast process.

Unlike smokes, everybody has to eat though. People go for fast food, because they are fast, cheap, and convenient.

But like smokes, people don't have to eat fast food.

I know that you made your point about how at one time, Tobacco companies were considered too big to be stopped, but I seriously can't see governments regulating Wendy's Menus.

What do you think I have been ranting about trans-fat bans for? They ARE regulating menus to not include trans-fats. Trans-fats were introduced to replace butter and lard. Oh, look, the trans-fats didn't work, ban those too. Oh wait, you can't make healthy fast food no matter what. Ban fast food.

Are you worried that secondhand trans fat might scare people into banning burgers? If there actually were such risk, I would support a ban on trans fat, but only in the government buildings at first.

The support behind a trans-fat ban already shows that you don't need a second-hand threat to make a ban. You just need to show the numbers of people that won't die because they were too stupid to make a smart decision on their own.

 

[Swift]

So? Exit the building. Its still an apples and oranges comparison anyways, so the relevance is lacking.

It's lacking because the same argument is used to ban smoking as it was to ban transfats. It will make people healthier and save lives.

I'd love to see those go up to the vote.

Check Maryland's legislative docket. It's coming....

Did you read what I said? I'm not asking you to accept my argument. I stated my opinion, you called it a b.s., end of story. Agree to disagree?

Then can I ask why you would even bother to post in this forum if you're not willing to defend your opinion? Anyone can come in and say, "This is what I think." But to be able to support and defend that position is a totally different story.

 

[a6m5]

Why demonize it? What happens to everything the media eventually demonizes? People try to stop them.

There are always people trying to stop EVERYTHING. Media have attacked people and things forever. They certainly can advertise whatever issues, and bring it to public's attention, but they do attack just about everything.

. Heck, I have even heard comments that fast food restaraunts are prevalent in poor black communities because the white man wants to kill the black man. And then I have seen regulations attempted to try and limit the number of fast food restaraunts in those communities. It took decades to stop tobacco companies. I never said it was a fast process.

This example is so out there, I don't know what to say. I've head that in some states, there is a law against flirting. I don't support that law either.

But like smokes, people don't have to eat fast food.

I disagree here. First of all, no one is banning tobacco. Just where you can light it. Secondly, society's dependency on fast food is not even comparable to the society's dependency on cigarettes.

What do you think I have been ranting about trans-fat bans for? They ARE regulating menus to not include trans-fats. Trans-fats were introduced to replace butter and lard. Oh, look, the trans-fats didn't work, ban those too. Oh wait, you can't make healthy fast food no matter what. Ban fast food.

Here we go back again. Switching of the oil used to cook something is not the same as taking something off of the menu. This is the same thing I was repeating to Swift. When the government start allowing Double Whopper on the menu, but not the Triple Whopper, or 1/4 lb. Double Stack Burger, but not the 1/2 lbs Double Stack Burger(I know you are Wendy's guy ), now, that's regulating "the menu".

The support behind a trans-fat ban already shows that you don't need a second-hand threat to make a ban. You just need to show the numbers of people that won't die because they were too stupid to make a smart decision on their own.

That secondhand thing didn't make any sense at all in the first place. Smokers being limited where they can smoke, and enforcing restaurants to use different oil does not make a comparison at all.

As for your "numbers of people that won't die" comment, I don't think that can happen, or the number we come up will be accurate. People die early of disease, accidents, go on missing, etc. You could generate an estimated figure of the people who died to certain cause, but the other way around would be much tougher, I think.

Then can I ask why you would even bother to post in this forum if you're not willing to defend your opinion? Anyone can come in and say, "This is what I think." But to be able to support and defend that position is a totally different story.

I'm sorry. I don't mean any offense, but I think you are just being difficult and stubborn. Hear me out. Please.

I have stated my case, made my arguments to you. You keep asking me same questions. Did you notice for one second that I have no problem replying FoolKillers post toward me? I answer him, because he isn't repeating(not that I can remember anyway) same question in different forms, over and over.

I did come in and say, "this is what I think". But I also did make case and defended my point in my own mind, and so did you. We are not changing each other's mind here, we are not going anywhere. We are wasting everybody's time and thread spaces here with lazy arguments.

Again, I ask you if we could just agree to disagree, and drop this. If you think I'm admitting defeat for asking you this, fine. I'm just dissapointed that after lord knows how many posts I've made in this thread, that you would accuse me of not willing to stand up for my view.

 

[Swift]

There are always people trying to stop EVERYTHING. Media have attacked people and things forever. They certainly can advertise whatever issues, and bring it to public's attention, but they do attack just about everything.


This example is so out there, I don't know what to say. I've head that in some states, there is a law against flirting. I don't support that law either.


I disagree here. First of all, no one is banning tobacco. Just where you can light it. Secondly, society's dependency on fast food is not even comparable to the society's dependency on cigarettes.

Are you kidding? Between the production, marketing, distribution, and retailing jobs for tobacco? Not to mention the amount of addicts out there. Yeah, banning tobacco would have a big effect on this countries economy.

I'm sorry. I don't mean any offense, but I think you are just being difficult and stubborn. Hear me out. Please.

I have stated my case, made my arguments to you. You keep asking me same questions. Did you notice for one second that I have no problem replying FoolKillers post toward me? I answer him, because he isn't repeating(not that I can remember anyway) same question in different forms, over and over.

I did come in and say, "this is what I think". But I also did make case and defended my point in my own mind, and so did you. We are not changing each other's mind here, we are not going anywhere. We are wasting everybody's time and thread spaces here with lazy arguments.

Again, I ask you if we could just agree to disagree, and drop this. If you think I'm admitting defeat for asking you this, fine. I'm just disappointed that after lord knows how many posts I've made in this thread, that you would accuse me of not willing to stand up for my view.

My problem is that your response to FK's questions are the same as your responses to mine. You consistently say, "I can't see it happening..." Even though we've both shown government regulations growing from on small thing to a much larger more encompassing ban. This means you have to look at the principles for said laws...

But whatever. Did you think for a second that I was asking you again because you haven't given a remotely satisfactory answer from a logical or even historical perspective?

 

[a6m5]

Are you kidding? Between the production, marketing, distribution, and retailing jobs for tobacco? Not to mention the amount of addicts out there. Yeah, banning tobacco would have a big effect on this countries economy.

When did I doubt the size of tobacco industry? In one of my replies to FK earlier, I actually admitted that tobacco companies are big.

Could we come up with a different example than tobacco? This is not an accurate comparison. Not even close. Government regulating where you can smoke, and where you can't, and banning the use of trans fat in restaurant kitchens? We gotta be able to find a better comparison than that!

On your "addicts" comment: Are you suggesting that where you are, numbers of consumers of cigarettes, to numbers of consumers of fast food are even remotely close? Small percentage of people I know smokes, but almost all of them eat fast food. How about the kids? I had my first fast food, probably when I was 3 or so. I didn't have my first cigarette until I was 13 or something like that. You might have a better chance of comparing the popularity of Xbox versus the Playstation 2.

My problem is that your response to FK's questions are the same as your responses to mine. You consistently say, "I can't see it happening..." Even though we've both shown government regulations growing from on small thing to a much larger more encompassing ban. This means you have to look at the principles for said laws...

So, because some regulations grow, all regulations automatically do? And because you think this is the case, me not believing that the trans fat ban will lead to ban on Big Mac, I'm wrong?

You are just guessing. And if it does lead to a ban on burgers or fried chickens, how does that matter? I've already stated that I would totally oppose that. And no, "I can't see it happening". I think people will just laugh at the government trying to regulate what should be on the menu at restaurants.

 

[Swift]

When did I doubt the size of tobacco industry? In one of my replies to FK earlier, I actually admitted that tobacco companies are big.

right here:

I disagree here. First of all, no one is banning tobacco. Just where you can light it. Secondly, society's dependency on fast food is not even comparable to the society's dependency on cigarettes.

You said that the dependency on fast food isn not comparable on a sociatal level. I gave you reasons why it is.

Could we come up with a different example than tobacco? This is not an accurate comparison. Not even close. Government regulating where you can smoke, and where you can't, and banning the use of trans fat in restaurant kitchens? We gotta be able to find a better comparison than that!

Fine. Cell Phones. There are many places that tell you where and when you can talk on your cell phone. To the point that in New York it was proposed that you can't use your cell phone while crossing the street because you might not see a car coming. That all started with the "don't use it while driving" legislation.

Let's not forget the FCC. Making networks and cable companies move/change programming because they feel it will hurt the public. Who said that was their job anyway?

On your "addicts" comment: Are you suggesting that where you are, numbers of consumers of cigarettes, to numbers of consumers of fast food are even remotely close? Small percentage of people I know smokes, but almost all of them eat fast food. How about the kids? I had my first fast food, probably when I was 3 or so. I didn't have my first cigarette until I was 13 or something like that. You might have a better chance of comparing the popularity of Xbox versus the Playstation 2.

I was talking about the addicts being part of the industry. They fuel the industry. Just like addicts of fast food. The size of the industries isn't the important part. But that it's a similar situation when the government is concerned.

So, because some regulations grow, all regulations automatically do? And because you think this is the case, me not believing that the trans fat ban will lead to ban on Big Mac, I'm wrong?

I'm not saying it's going to lead specifically to the big mac being banned. I'm saying that they will use this to set precedent for another law where government can have more control of our lives. It's happened over and over.

You are just guessing. And if it does lead to a ban on burgers or fried chickens, how does that matter? I've already stated that I would totally oppose that. And no, "I can't see it happening". I think people will just laugh at the government trying to regulate what should be on the menu at restaurants.

I'm NOT guessing. It's happened before and it will happen again. Can I say exactly when and what law? No. Can I say that this will lead to more government control unless something is done, 100%.

 

[a6m5]

right here:

You said that the dependency on fast food isn not comparable on a sociatal level. I gave you reasons why it is.

Yes, I did say that, but those are two different things. Yes, I do believe that society's dependency on fast food is greater than on cigarettes. I think this one is a no-brainer.

Fine. Cell Phones. There are many places that tell you where and when you can talk on your cell phone. To the point that in New York it was proposed that you can't use your cell phone while crossing the street because you might not see a car coming. That all started with the "don't use it while driving" legislation.

Let's not forget the FCC. Making networks and cable companies move/change programming because they feel it will hurt the public. Who said that was their job anyway?

Great examples. I think the comparisons are actually getting worse. Now, you are just trying to make case that government regulations gets tighter and tighter as time passes. I'm sure that's true with many regulations. But bringing up examples that are advantageous just to your argument doesn't begin to prove that after the trans fat ban, they are going to start banning certain items on the menu, does it?

I'm not saying it's going to lead specifically to the big mac being banned. I'm saying that they will use this to set precedent for another law where government can have more control of our lives. It's happened over and over.

OK. So now, at least they won't ban the Big Mac. And I think this is the best part of your post, Swift. 👍 Government butting in, banning trans fat from restaurant kitchen will eventually lead to additional restrictions on our lives.

Unfortunately, my answer is still that "flawed" argument that you will not accept. To me, these "government control" over us is a give and take. It's not black & white, no right or wrong. Countless things are banned in our society. If trans fat is killing, hurting too many people, and if all it takes is a switch to different oil, I think that is a reasonable price to pay.

And please don't loop back into the cigarette argument. Trans fat ban is not the same as cigarette ban, or Big Mac ban.

I'm NOT guessing. It's happened before and it will happen again. Can I say exactly when and what law? No. Can I say that this will lead to more government control unless something is done, 100%.

Isn't this like saying "it'll rain soon"? I don't know how much or when, exactly, but it will eventually. I think your argument has outgrown this thread. We are not even arguing about trans fat anymore.

 

[Swift]

You're right. My argument has outgrown this thread. Whatever that means.

I still can't believe you think your argument is sound just because it's not a big deal. Oh well.

Have fun battling with FK.

 

[Danoff]

...doesn't begin to prove that after the trans fat ban, they are going to start banning certain items on the menu, does it?

If those items can't be made without using the same oil, yes, it does remove items from the menu.

Unfortunately, my answer is still that "flawed" argument that you will not accept. To me, these "government control" over us is a give and take. It's not black & white, no right or wrong. Countless things are banned in our society. If trans fat is killing, hurting too many people, and if all it takes is a switch to different oil, I think that is a reasonable price to pay.

Sure sure, except you don't get to make that call for other people. It's up to each of us to balance our diet with health considerations. Each of us will make different choices. Some of us really like smoking. Others really like french fries. Still more really like coffee. It's our choice what we consume and what we don't. It's quite simply an improper role for government to step in and regulate it - even if it saves lives.

Neither would most smoking bans or the mandatory HPV vaccine, but it doesn't get a public vote. It is either voted on by councils, assemblies, Congress, or given executive order. The people never even get a say.

It gets worse, because much of the regulation of food is done by the FDA. You don't even vote on the members of the FDA. So it's not just that your representatives are passing laws without your input, the FDA is passing laws and you have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY AT ALL. You can't vote them out of office, you can't do anything about it. Is that a representative government? The consitution doesn't think so. It's widely accepted that the FDA is unconstiutional. But we keep it because congressmen can't be bothered with these sorts of mundane issues. They have to argue about gay marriage, flag burning, and terri schaivo - you know, important stuff.

 

[a6m5]

If those items can't be made without using the same oil, yes, it does remove items from the menu.

I agree, 100%.

Sure sure, except you don't get to make that call for other people. It's up to each of us to balance our diet with health considerations. Each of us will make different choices. Some of us really like smoking. Others really like french fries. Still more really like coffee. It's our choice what we consume and what we don't. It's quite simply an improper role for government to step in and regulate it - even if it saves lives.

And again, this is the same point Swift and FoolKiller have brought up. They are not banning fries, smokes, or in case of coffee, vital ingredient like caffeine.

 

[Swift]

And again, this is the same point Swift and FoolKiller have brought up. They are not banning fries, smokes, or in case of coffee, vital ingredient like caffeine.

So, basically your saying as long as it's not a menu item or an ingredient of significance, it's fine to ban whatever? Does that hold true to all of your views of policy?

 

[Omnis]

At least trans-fats didn't get IP-banned.

 

[a6m5]

So, basically your saying as long as it's not a menu item or an ingredient of significance, it's fine to ban whatever?

Whatever? Why would you want to ban just whatever? I hope there are some significant reason for banning anything.

Does that hold true to all of your views of policy?

I'm thinking that you probably meant to say "your(a6m5) views on (all other)policies?". You mean like with the cigarettes, cell phones, apples and oranges? As I just stated, no.

Edit:
Danoff: I just read your take on FDA, very nice. 👍 I was in a hurry before, so I had to skip it earlier(sorry).

 

[ledhed]

Originally Posted by Swift
I'm not saying it's going to lead specifically to the big mac being banned. I'm saying that they will use this to set precedent for another law where government can have more control of our lives. It's happened over and over.

Pay close attention to this . Because truth has never been spoken so plainly.

Little by little as you let others .."government" ..take over your lives and make your choices and you say .." no big deal its bad for you , what harm can this do " ..you lose sight of the big picture called " personal freedom " and " personal choice"..each " little right " or choice you let be " regulated" or taken away adds up to one day . waking up and looking for the rule book on how to take a government approved crap .

Its not the fast taking of power and change that you need fear its the steady erosion of personal choice and freedom that is eating away at us like termites in a woodshop on crack .

Political Corectness and government regulations for food .......hey why not what can it hurt ?

Look up the history of the term Political Corectness and you tell me when we started thinking reducating people in proper thought was a GOOD thing ?

Whats next a camp ?

 

[a6m5]

Pay close attention to this . Because truth has never been spoken so plainly.

I've been getting this message since the beginning of this thread, over and over and over!

If we are going to argue over the government chipping away our rights and freedom, why not on something that actually matter?. Schools, seat belts, land use/zoning laws, etc.?

Like I said, this discussion has outgrown this thread, which is about the trans fats ban. Perhaps we need a thread where we would discuss the pros and cons of gorvernmental regulations, and how they should be decided? Something like that?

 

[Danoff]

If we are going to argue over the government chipping away our rights and freedom, why not on something that actually matter?. Schools, seat belts, land use/zoning laws, etc.?

I'll be happy to discuss those subjects with you and how the government chips away at our rights slowly in many areas. But with regard to trans fat, that's the area we're focused on in this thread - how the trans fat ban is another way that the government is slowly robbing people of choice.

 

[Swift]

Whatever? Why would you want to ban just whatever? I hope there are some significant reason for banning anything.

I'm thinking that you probably meant to say "your(a6m5) views on (all other)policies?". You mean like with the cigarettes, cell phones, apples and oranges? As I just stated, no.

You're killing me smalls! - From the Sandlot.

This discussion has not outgrown the thread. If you acknowledge the fact that the ideology behind the law is what the problem is.

Ok, here's a simple question. Does the NYC banning trans fats in restaurants limit personal choice?