You knew it was coming.
Now all the people jonesin' for a donut can huddle out in the alleys with the smokers to get you chompin on....
NYC Bans Trans Fat (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061206/D8LRAK6G0.html)
So just so you can update your score card...it could potentially be legal to have a cigarette, but not eat certian foods, you can not gamble on the internet, but you can buy a state funded lottery ticket.
Where do i sign up for the labotomy?
3....2....1.....
till the OMFG ITS THE END OF THE WORLD!! people come running
Those people are up on a mountain already...
People don't even know what trans fats are, that they are eating them, why they shouldn't.
This is different from the smoking ban. It's like saying, you can't use poison in food.
Unlike smoking, there are options. You can still make donuts, and they taste just as good. You just can't use an oil that your body is unable to process and which is sent directly to your arteries to be thereforever attached...
Well, that's my knee-jerk reaction.
Ban everything. Thank god there is someone out there protecting me from having to make decisions for myself.
This is so farging ridiculous I don't even know where to begin. So i won't.
theres my boy
Quote from: rjs246 on December 06, 2006, 02:37:26 PM
Ban everything. Thank god there is someone out there protecting me from having to make decisions for myself.
This is so farging ridiculous I don't even know where to begin. So i won't.
They'll get around to telling you where you're allowed to begin very soon.
Just goose-step in line and like it, hippies.
PA will probably ban trans fats from everywhere except casinos that give a cut of their profits to the state.
Good luck enforcing this law. I'm sure those in Little Italy are real worried about trans fat.
When they took away my lead-based paint,
I remained silent;
I used oil-based paint.
When they took away my asbestos insulation,
I remained silent;
I used blown-in rock wool
When they came for my transfat cooking oil,
there was no one left to speak.
Well played.
What Dio said. Trans-fats were *created* because they could put them in food and say the food was "low cholesterol" or "cholesterol free" - like margarine. The reality is that trans-fats are worse for you than saturated fats. Yes, it is more healthy to eat something soaked in bacon fat or butter than eating something with margarine.
Can anyone here actually say they would rather eat this nasty artificial shtein over the real stuff that it was designed to replace?
I can say that I'd like to be allowed to eat what ever the farg I want without the government slapping my wrists about it.
Quote from: rjs246 on December 07, 2006, 03:57:36 PM
I can say that I'd like to be allowed to eat what ever the farg I want without the government slapping my wrists about it.
You still can eat whatever the farg you want. But, like always has been the case, you won't have any say in what goes into what you're eating at a public place. Or, in this case, what they're cooking it in.
has anyone heard about the govt controls on ecoli?
ridiculous
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 07, 2006, 04:15:57 PM
has anyone heard about the govt controls on ecoli?
ridiculous
Did you know they made a vaccine for small pox like 30 years ago?
I should be able to contract whatever farging epidemic I want.
"Demolition Man" might prove to be a fairly accurate portrayal of the future.
Quote from: FFatPatt on December 07, 2006, 05:07:47 PM
"Demolition Man" might prove to be a fairly accurate portrayal of the future.
We're going to freeze Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes?
Quote from: FFatPatt on December 07, 2006, 05:07:47 PM
"Demolition Man" might prove to be a fairly accurate portrayal of the future.
so since Taco Bell is the only resturaunt, everyone in the future has E coli?
Quote from: SunMo on December 07, 2006, 05:19:41 PM
Quote from: FFatPatt on December 07, 2006, 05:07:47 PM
"Demolition Man" might prove to be a fairly accurate portrayal of the future.
so since Taco Bell is the only resturaunt, everyone in the future has E coli?
God, I hope so.
Ah I get it now. Everyone will have E Coli, and we'll unfreeze Sly and Snipes so they can fight the E Coli epidemic.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with the Totalitarian government that takes away virtually every civil liberty.
Drama queen.
To hell with civil liberties. I want the government to care about my cholesterol.
Quote from: rjs246 on December 07, 2006, 05:41:15 PM
To hell with civil liberties. I want the government to care about my cholesterol.
If they had secretly removed it from foods but not told the public would anyone have noticed?
Quote from: SD_Eagle on December 07, 2006, 05:44:35 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on December 07, 2006, 05:41:15 PM
To hell with civil liberties. I want the government to care about my cholesterol.
If they had secretly removed it from foods but not told the public would anyone have noticed?
But then they wouldn't be flaunting their powers!
I actually don't care about this. I'm still going to eat margerine or butter or whatever, but my point is that there are more important things to worry about than banning random substances. There are shteinLOADS of things that are bad for you. Carbon monoxide is a great example. Why pick one at random and ban it?
Less fat people is good. So I don't care much about this, but once again, we see the goverment taking baby steps towards making all decisions for people at all times.
Mandatory execricse is next
Quote from: SD_Eagle on December 07, 2006, 05:58:39 PM
Mandatory execricse is next
For women? Fine.
As long as I can sit my skinny ass on the couch and drink beer while they're jogging I'm IN.
Quote from: Munson on December 07, 2006, 05:09:28 PM
Quote from: FFatPatt on December 07, 2006, 05:07:47 PM
"Demolition Man" might prove to be a fairly accurate portrayal of the future.
We're going to freeze Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes?
That would never happen. With inflation at work, Snipes would be mortified of waking up and owing the IRS $34.7 trillion.
Quote from: Munson on December 07, 2006, 04:02:42 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on December 07, 2006, 03:57:36 PM
I can say that I'd like to be allowed to eat what ever the farg I want without the government slapping my wrists about it.
You still can eat whatever the farg you want. But, like always has been the case, you won't have any say in what goes into what you're eating at a public place. Or, in this case, what they're cooking it in.
A restaurant is not a public place -- it is a private entity. No one is forcing you to go eat there, and the government cannot use its coercive powers to make you eat there.
It's a matter of freedom and letting the markets make the decision. Put the information out there. Let people inquiry and ask whether restaurants use trans-fats to prepare their food. Then, if you have reservations about ingesting it, don't eat at that restaurant. The restaurants will then have an option -- if there is a fall in revenue, the restaurant will probably want to stop using trans fats. But, in that circumstance, the change is dictated by consumers, not by a governmental entity which, in my opinion, is abusing its powers.
Trans fats are probably used because they are cost-effective. Government imposing a regulation effectively raises costs for those private entities. I can't agree with that as a matter of principle. If a private entity wants to raise their costs of production and pass it off to the consumer, they should do it acting upon their own volition. If anything, put out the information regard trans fats, and if someone still wants to ingest the substance knowing or having reason to know about its effects, then who gives a darn.
There is a difference between informing the citizenry about the dangers of trans fats and actually making a decision for them. Obviously, this crosses into the decision making category.
The stuff is poison. Plain and simple. Banning it doesn't mean the end of anything except less poison. You can still make donuts. And they'll still be cheap. Civil liberties are not being limited by this any more than they are by banning arsenic in food.
All this talk about doughnuts is making me hungry.
Quote from: FFatPatt on December 07, 2006, 05:07:47 PM
"Demolition Man" might prove to be a fairly accurate portrayal of the future.
I sure hope so, I want to know how to use the clam shells.
You mean.... you don't know how to use the 3 shells?
Quote from: Eaglez on December 07, 2006, 07:05:36 PM
Quote from: Munson on December 07, 2006, 04:02:42 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on December 07, 2006, 03:57:36 PM
I can say that I'd like to be allowed to eat what ever the farg I want without the government slapping my wrists about it.
You still can eat whatever the farg you want. But, like always has been the case, you won't have any say in what goes into what you're eating at a public place. Or, in this case, what they're cooking it in.
A restaurant is not a public place -- it is a private entity. No one is forcing you to go eat there, and the government cannot use its coercive powers to make you eat there.
It's a matter of freedom and letting the markets make the decision. Put the information out there. Let people inquiry and ask whether restaurants use trans-fats to prepare their food. Then, if you have reservations about ingesting it, don't eat at that restaurant. The restaurants will then have an option -- if there is a fall in revenue, the restaurant will probably want to stop using trans fats. But, in that circumstance, the change is dictated by consumers, not by a governmental entity which, in my opinion, is abusing its powers.
Trans fats are probably used because they are cost-effective. Government imposing a regulation effectively raises costs for those private entities. I can't agree with that as a matter of principle. If a private entity wants to raise their costs of production and pass it off to the consumer, they should do it acting upon their own volition. If anything, put out the information regard trans fats, and if someone still wants to ingest the substance knowing or having reason to know about its effects, then who gives a darn.
There is a difference between informing the citizenry about the dangers of trans fats and actually making a decision for them. Obviously, this crosses into the decision making category.
What the hell is giving out information on it going to do? The government gives out info on HIV all the time and it's still spreading like wildfire.
Trans-fat is terrible for a person, and I don't think many people are going to want to be bothered with inquiring a restaurant about thier use of it.
Munson, your analogy is horrible on so many levels. No offense, bro, but it's pretty bad.
I don't know how you can even compare trans fatty acids to HIV. Where do you even start? One is a disease that is not very prone to visible symptoms and therefore is difficult to detect while the other is a visible substance that one can either choose to ingest or not to ingest. HIV awareness is predicated on the fact that HIV is difficult to detect, but all one has to do to figure out if trans fats are in their food is to ask. The burdens are completely different. One is hidden, one is readily apparent.
And like I said, having close to complete information is the key. If people are informed about the risks of HIV, then they might be less prone to subject themselves to promiscuous or dangerous activity (i.e. sleeping with complete strangers, sharing needles, etc.). Therefore, more awareness will lead to less cases since people will alter their behavior to the known risk.
The same thing with trans fats. If the trans fats are so horrible for you, people will take that into consideration and ingest less of it; ultimately leading to its non-use in virtually all restaurants or in cooking in general. And all of this can be done without government abusing its ability to coerce behavior.
If people are too lazy to actually care about what they put into their bodies, then they do so at their own peril. It's not the job of any governmental entity to regulate activities that only affect that individual's health.
Are there a need for governmental regulations? Sure. But it is in the form of regulating negative externalities (which are effects on 3rd parties; or things that happen outside the primary transaction) So pollution, for example. Or addressing free rider issues (everyone benefits from police, fire departments, roads etc. so not any one person should foot the bill; that's why we pay taxes).
But when you are talking about trans fats, there are only two people to the transaction -- the provider and the ingester. If the ingester knows, and still ingests, why should the government step in and act paternalistic? To me, it steps outside the bounds of proper government intervention.
Quote from: Eaglez on December 07, 2006, 11:38:59 PM
Munson, your analogy is horrible on so many levels. No offense, bro, but it's pretty bad.
I don't know how you can even compare trans fatty acids to HIV. Where do you even start? One is a disease that is not very prone to visible symptoms and therefore is difficult to detect while the other is a visible substance that one can either choose to ingest or not to ingest. HIV awareness is predicated on the fact that HIV is difficult to detect, but all one has to do to figure out if trans fats are in their food is to ask. The burdens are completely different. One is hidden, one is readily apparent.
And like I said, having close to complete information is the key. If people are informed about the risks of HIV, then they might be less prone to subject themselves to promiscuous or dangerous activity (i.e. sleeping with complete strangers, sharing needles, etc.). Therefore, more awareness will lead to less cases since people will alter their behavior to the known risk.
The same thing with trans fats. If the trans fats are so horrible for you, people will take that into consideration and ingest less of it; ultimately leading to its non-use in virtually all restaurants or in cooking in general. And all of this can be done without government abusing its ability to coerce behavior.
If people are too lazy to actually care about what they put into their bodies, then they do so at their own peril. It's not the job of any governmental entity to regulate activities that only affect that individual's health.
Are there a need for governmental regulations? Sure. But it is in the form of regulating negative externalities (which are effects on 3rd parties; or things that happen outside the primary transaction) So pollution, for example. Or addressing free rider issues (everyone benefits from police, fire departments, roads etc. so not any one person should foot the bill; that's why we pay taxes).
But when you are talking about trans fats, there are only two people to the transaction -- the provider and the ingester. If the ingester knows, and still ingests, why should the government step in and act paternalistic? To me, it steps outside the bounds of proper government intervention.
The point was that people are too lazy to really care about shtein that's unhealthy for them, which is why this country has an obeisity problem. My point was giving out information about something that's bad for people is about as efective as handing out pamphlets about AIDS to a bunch of teenagers. They're still going to go out and have unprotected sex with people they've never met.
People can be told about trans-fats, but they're still gonna go out to a restaurant and eat without going "hey, I don't want trans-fats in my food." People have this "it can't happen to me" view on everything, and sometimes something has to be done.
And I agree with your view on things that would have some sort of effect on a 3rd party...*cough* like smoking indoors *cough*....but just becausue the ingestion of trans-fat only effects you, doesn't mean it still is, as someone pointed out, practically poison, and you shouldn't be ingesting it.
Quote from: Munson on December 07, 2006, 05:09:28 PM
Quote from: FFatPatt on December 07, 2006, 05:07:47 PM
"Demolition Man" might prove to be a fairly accurate portrayal of the future.
We're going to freeze Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes?
Snipes is already frozen. When was the last time he did a movie?
Blade Trinity.
Yeah, I didn't see it either.
That's just the fundamental difference we have then. You want to make decisions for those people, I don't.
Well see, that's the thing. It's not black or white, make all the decisions or make none of them....sometimes the government has to step in (trans-fats), sometimes it shouldn't (seat-belt laws)....Some things need to be banned/have laws against them, others don't. This particular law I agree with, trans-fats should just go away period.
I was just saying that simply telling/warning people about them wasn't gonna do much, and this is something that just flat out needs to be outlawed, not have a warning label.
http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-45/1169819370194520.xml&storylist=penn
Philly may be next to ban transfats. Ha.
QuotePHILADELPHIA (AP) — Restaurants, food trucks and takeouts would be barred from using products that contain trans fats under legislation introduced in a City Council panel.
The Committee on Public Health and Human Services approved the measure Thursday, and it will go the full Council for the first of two votes on Feb. 1.
Restaurants would have to rid their kitchens of trans fats by Sept. 1 under the bill by Councilman Juan Ramos.
Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest, told the council panel up to 1,000 heart attacks and 250 deaths a year could be eliminated by a trans fat ban in Philadelphia.
New York City's Health Department approved a ban on trans fats effective this July, and a similar measure is pending in New Jersey.
O/T here, but along the same lines...
Speaking of fascist bullshtein... (http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2007/Jan07/010807/010807-06.htm)
Federal highway funding will end if Florida doesn't enact "tougher" seat belt enforcement laws.
All this means is the pigs will be able to pull you over if they see you driving without a seatbelt. Isn't that MY CHOICE? Oh, wait, I forgot... driving is a "privalege" not a right.
It amazes me that we let our civil liberties be stripped from us one by one without so much as a fight anymore. Call me paranoid but doesn't it seem like "the state" (state, federal, whatever) is testing the waters to see just how much bullshtein we'll swallow before we say "enough's enough?"
Sure feels that way to me.
seat belt laws are ridiculous beyong belief....no matter where you stand on the whole civil liberty thing theres no one who can defend them
You aren't paranoid, Rome. It's happening right before our eyes and no one seems to give one shtein about it.
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 27, 2007, 01:16:53 PM
seat belt laws are ridiculous beyong belief....no matter where you stand on the whole civil liberty thing theres no one who can defend them
Repeal the seatbelt laws and everyone's car insurance rates go up. Your desire to die takes money out of my pockets. Put your god damned seatbelt on.
Money should definitely be the driving factor behind people's personal choices. Definitely.
how about reign in insurance companies...they are crooks...wearing or not wearing a seatbelt should have nothing to do whatsover with car insurance rates...you not caring at all about the insurance companies but worrying aboiut whether people you dont even know wear a seatbelt is backwards
you also show your ingnorance by assuming that because im against seatbelt laws i dont wear a seatbelt...you need to think before you speak
Quote from: Cerevant on January 27, 2007, 01:51:40 PMRepeal the seatbelt laws and everyone's car insurance rates go up.
Sure, but only because they can do it, not because they need to. Insurance companies aren't having trouble making money, never have and never will. This argument amounts to an endorsement of the violation of personal choice in the interest of insurance company profits. It's like saying it's more important to limit risk to insurance companies than to limit intrusion in private life. The insurance companies need to take care of their own risk, not pass it down to me.
Also, it's dumb not to wear a seatbelt. Doesn't mean it should be criminalized. We don't need more excuses for cops to arrest people--and pulling someone over IS an arrest, even if you aren't being booked. We don't need more reasons for cops to search and poke around and find reasons to put us in cuffs.
It's a load of crap.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 27, 2007, 01:55:58 PM
Money should definitely be the driving factor behind people's personal choices. Definitely.
I worded this badly, I think. But the point is still the same. Insurance rates going up is not justification for idiotic "it's for your own good" laws. We are adults. We should be treated as such.
Governments shouldn't tell their people how to act. People should tell their governments how to act.
Quote from: Cerevant on January 27, 2007, 01:51:40 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 27, 2007, 01:16:53 PM
seat belt laws are ridiculous beyong belief....no matter where you stand on the whole civil liberty thing theres no one who can defend them
Repeal the seatbelt laws and everyone's car insurance rates go up. Your desire to die takes money out of my pockets. Put your god damned seatbelt on.
Way to miss the point.
I wear my seatbelt. But even if I didn't, it's my goddamn choice. And the state shouldn't have a right to pull me over because I choose to ignore certain safety protocols within my personal conveyance.
It's another way for the cops to circumvent the fourth amendment and I'm piss pot tired of it.
I agree with Cerevant on this one - only because people are idiots. There are already plenty of under-insured and uninsured drivers on the road, and there are still plenty of people that don't always/usually buckle.
Since car insurance is a necessary evil, why not keep damage to a minimum and thus keep rates low, if all it means is a simple act of putting on the seatbelt that is already included with your vehicle?
I suppose my stance is not that of a typical Libertarian, but it's more indicative of my general feeling that the average person is lazy and stupid and cannot be trusted to do the most simple and sensical things like buckling up.
It fits nicely with the "I want to keep more of my damn money" stance, though. So, I'm still solid there.
thats not the point...a personal choice to wear a seatbelt should not dictate other peoples insurance rates...its the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard..one has nothing to do with the other...the problem here is the insurance companies not the people
the govt should be regulating insurance companies...not making assinine laws like this...for insurance compaines to raise someones car insurance because a driver doesnt wear a seatbelt is idiotic and is purely a means to make money...nothing else
when youre old enough to drive yourself and you wanna raise your chances of dying in a car accident go seatbeltless...youre not hurting anyone but yourself
i can see there being a law for children up to a certain age...but thats where it should stop...perhaps until they are old enough to drive themselves because they dont have a say in how the driver performs...
just like there should be a law against rectal thermometers for babies...because im pretty sure if they could talk they would say they didnt want them
I don't wear a seatbelt. The only time I do is when it is snowing or icy out.
Car insurance companies use that as a BS excuse to rape people. The rates in PA are already crazy compared to what I paid in Texas.
And if I get hit by an uninsured person I'm going to beat the shtein out of them. If I ask who they have for insurance and they say they don't, or try and bullshtein they're getting their teeth pushed in.
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 27, 2007, 05:12:17 PM
when youre old enough to drive yourself and you wanna raise your chances of dying in a car accident go seatbeltless...youre not hurting anyone but yourself
That's false. If someone gets in a joint-fault accident and they're not wearing a seatbelt, the other person and their insurance company pays a much larger tab.
I can't say I'm surprised that your *winning* solution is more government providing more regulation on insurance companies. Wind you up and you go.
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 27, 2007, 05:12:17 PM
the govt should be regulating insurance companies...not making assinine laws like this...for insurance compaines to raise someones car insurance because a driver doesnt wear a seatbelt is idiotic and is purely a means to make money...nothing else
Actually, it is because if you don't wear a seat belt you are more likely to suffer severe injuries when involved in an accident, and since they are obliged to pay per what your coverage entails it costs more to insure you. It's about risks; you are a greater risk to file a larger claim, or have a claim filed against you, hence you pay a larger premium because you expose yourself to that risk.
I don't think people should be legally required to wear seat belts, but if they choose not to they shouldn't bitch about their own insurance premiums going up. The problem is that the government regulates insurance companies TOO much and puts heat on insurance companies when they raise premiums on high-risk drivers, encouraging them instead to raise premiums in general for all drivers -- excellent or bad. In general this is a very bad policy to undertake, because it doesn't provide an incentive for good driving habits and doesn't punish people for partaking in high-risk driving habits, like not wearing a seat belt.
Enough with the government coddling; it makes me puke in my mouth alittle.
If someone gets in a joint-fault accident and they're not wearing a seatbelt, the other person and their insurance company pays a much larger tab.
in other words you will get raped by the insurance company and come out your pocket for what they grab.....because thats the rule youll follow....
so weak
be proud and be happy bend over and pay what the man tells you to......you should be proud...
last time im gonna say this...its not about the everyday car driver its about the insurance company....
I don't have a problem with trans fat bans. I don't even know what food I eat contains trans fat, so if it is banned then it saves me a lot of trouble finding out if what I'm going to eat contains it or not.
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 27, 2007, 11:49:57 PM
in other words you will get raped by the insurance company and come out your pocket for what they grab.....because thats the rule youll follow....
so weak
be proud and be happy bend over and pay what the man tells you to......you should be proud...
last time im gonna say this...its not about the everyday car driver its about the insurance company....
You are simply wrong. More injuries = more cost to get healthy. Death = civil suit. This is $$$ no matter how *nice* and *regulated* the insurance companies are.
It's also downright hilarious that you talk about "the man" as if it's a bad thing, but you want a massive government butting into nearly every other facet of American life. Get your shtein straight.
I wear my seatbelt. That's my choice, not the state's, the federal government's, or the oinker's whose sole purpose for pulling me over isn't to ticket me for not wearing a safety harness, but to have probable cause to invade my privacy.
If you're not seeing that, FF, you're the one who isn't seeing clearly.
What do you have to hide, Rome? You should willlingly submit to being pulled over for any reason if you're doing nothing wrong. You should be happy to take drug tests, submit to physical examinations, give DNA samples.
Only druggies and criminals could object...
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on January 28, 2007, 10:33:04 AM
I wear my seatbelt. That's my choice, not the state's, the federal government's, or the oinker's whose sole purpose for pulling me over isn't to ticket me for not wearing a safety harness, but to have probable cause to invade my privacy.
If you're not seeing that, FF, you're the one who isn't seeing clearly.
I didn't say the method of enforcement of seatbelt laws is not questionable. I truly hope that anyone outside of "The Waco Kid" on this board wouldn't sit here and defend the methods and motivations of traffic cops.
I don't even care if the law is enforced or not, but having it on the books automatically puts the fault for certain injuries on a driver/passenger not choosing to wear his seatbelt and not another "innocent" party in a collision.
And FWIW, anyone I've heard of personally that gets a ticket for not wearing their seatbelt got pulled over for something else in the first place. Yes, I've heard stories second- and third-hand about people getting snagged JUST for the seatbelt, but it's rare. And like I said, I'm not going to defend cops that waste our money and time just for that. The law being around in and of itself is all that matters.
You won't believe me, but I have been pulled over for seatbelt violation and only that. Happened in Annapolis, MD in '98 or '99. Can't remember which. I had just pulled out of the Goodwill store on West St., turning right toward downtown, and all of a sudden lights and a fleshpophead cop's voice on loudspeaker saying pull over. Got a ticket for the seatbelt, but not before they had run my plates and license, delayed me by 30 minutes.
Pigs.
Quote from: Diomedes on January 28, 2007, 10:54:13 AM
You won't believe me, but I have been pulled over for seatbelt violation and only that. Happened in Annapolis, MD in '98 or '99. Can't remember which. I had just pulled out of the Goodwill store on West St., turning right toward downtown, and all of a sudden lights and a fleshpophead cop's voice on loudspeaker saying pull over. Got a ticket for the seatbelt, but not before they had run my plates and license, delayed me by 30 minutes.
Pigs.
The legal system and this country's methods of enforcing it are a direct result of the flaws in our political system.
Did I ever tell you guys about the time a cop excused himself into some nearby trees to take a piss while he was processing my ticket? Hey, at least he profusely apologized, promised to help me out in court, and got it knocked it down to a no-points violation. I only had to show up for court 3 times, too: one to request a court date in which the officer would be in attendance, one that the officer missed his court date due to being in Afghanistan with the Reserves, and finally the one where he showed up. What a deal!
I got a ticket once for avoiding slamming into the back of another car.
The idiot in front of me slammed on her brakes because she was about to miss her left turn and although she didn't use her turn signal or allow reasonable time for me to avoid her, I still got the ticket.
The cop saw the whole thing and ticketed me for not retaining proper control of my car and using the shoulder of the road to make an illegal pass.
I asked him why I was getting a ticket and not the stupid bitch in front of me and he actually said that he didn't see her actions, only mine. I said, well, if you didn't see why I swerved to avoid hitting her, why are you still giving me a ticket? No answer - just handed me the thing to sign and said "have a nice day."
I should have slammed into the back of the funhole. At least I would have gotten a little satisfaction out of that.
Arguing that something should be illegal so that insurance companies won't charge us more is unfathomable to me.
not wearing seatbelts = more serious injuries = higher medical costs = higher costs paid by insurance companies = higher insurance premiums for everyone
i don't think that's very difficult to understand...like ff said, people are stupid and lazy...otherwise seatbelts wouldn't need to be mandated.
as for trans fat...i don't know anything about it but as long as i can get the same foods at the same prices, i really don't mind if they ban it. i can always smoke trans fat in the privacy of my own home if i really want it.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 28, 2007, 11:31:36 AM
Arguing that something should be illegal so that insurance companies won't charge us more is unfathomable to me.
maybe you're cool with paying more because of the stupidity of others.
i'm not.
Well, you can all keep "sticking it to the man" by not wearing your seatbelts, then. I care not.
The law isn't going anywhere, and frankly, I'm arguing it as much to argue as anything.
The idea of McDonald's making fries in "Enova" oil frightens me, though.
Quote from: hunt on January 28, 2007, 11:35:06 AMmaybe you're cool with paying more because of the stupidity of others.
Freedom isn't free.
Quote from: Diomedes on January 28, 2007, 11:38:14 AM
Quote from: hunt on January 28, 2007, 11:35:06 AMmaybe you're cool with paying more because of the stupidity of others.
Freedom isn't free.
true...and i don't feel that strongly about the seatbelt issue to argue about it. so the moronic, non seatbelt wearers will have a greater chance of getting killed in a car accident.
good...maybe that is worth paying a little extra for.
I heart natural selection.
Quote from: hunt on January 28, 2007, 11:41:17 AM
Quote from: Diomedes on January 28, 2007, 11:38:14 AM
Freedom isn't free.
true...and i don't feel that strongly about the seatbelt issue to argue about it. so the moronic, non seatbelt wearers will have a greater chance of getting killed in a car accident.
good...maybe that is worth paying a little extra for.
This gets right to the heart of my point. If people want to kill themselves, farging let them. Don't tell me what I have to do, or how I have to act in the name of protecting retards from themselves.
Tell you what - I don't have a problem taking the seatbelt laws off the books, under one condition: if you are injured in a car accident while not wearing a seatbelt, regardless of fault, you forfeit all rights to insurance coverage related to injuries caused by the accident. This includes:
- Liability (paid to you by the other driver's insurance)
- Life Insurance
- Accidental Death / Disability
- Worker's Comp (if injured on the job)
You made your choice. I shouldn't have to pay the consequences for your decision.
That's precisely the point, though. If the law isn't on the books, then you can't enforce that level of liability.
Quote from: Cerevant on January 28, 2007, 02:07:15 PM
Tell you what - I don't have a problem taking the seatbelt laws off the books, under one condition: if you are injured in a car accident while not wearing a seatbelt, regardless of fault, you forfeit all rights to insurance coverage related to injuries caused by the accident. This includes:
- Liability (paid to you by the other driver's insurance)
- Life Insurance
- Accidental Death / Disability
- Worker's Comp (if injured on the job)
You made your choice. I shouldn't have to pay the consequences for your decision.
Deal.
Quote from: Cerevant on January 28, 2007, 02:07:15 PM
Tell you what - I don't have a problem taking the seatbelt laws off the books, under one condition: if you are injured in a car accident while not wearing a seatbelt, regardless of fault, you forfeit all rights to insurance coverage related to injuries caused by the accident. This includes:
- Liability (paid to you by the other driver's insurance)
- Life Insurance
- Accidental Death / Disability
- Worker's Comp (if injured on the job)
You made your choice. I shouldn't have to pay the consequences for your decision.
That makes too much sense, C. The government and the "protect me from me" mentality of too many Americans won't allow that to happen.
Quote from: Diomedes on January 28, 2007, 05:15:08 PM
Quote from: Cerevant on January 28, 2007, 02:07:15 PM
Tell you what - I don't have a problem taking the seatbelt laws off the books, under one condition: if you are injured in a car accident while not wearing a seatbelt, regardless of fault, you forfeit all rights to insurance coverage related to injuries caused by the accident. This includes:
- Liability (paid to you by the other driver's insurance)
- Life Insurance
- Accidental Death / Disability
- Worker's Comp (if injured on the job)
You made your choice. I shouldn't have to pay the consequences for your decision.
Deal.
I think that's pretty much what everyone has been arguing about. The consequences of not wearing a seat belt should not be diffused over the entire driver base, but instead should be footed by the individual who made the decision to partake in that risky behavior; no one would care if someone else not wearing their seat belt didn't adversly affect them, but unfortunately it usually does.
Most states, however, put a cap on the 'avoidable consequences' defenses. So, if you do end up going to litigation, the defense that someone 'wasn't wearing their seat belt' will, at most, add about 5-10% of the fault apportioned to the party who did not wear their seatbelt. So, for example, if the driver who wore their seatbelt was found to be 40% at fault and the driver who did not wear their seatbelt was found to be 60% at fault, the application of the law would reapportion fault to the driver who did not wear their seatbelt at either a 5-10% clip. So, after reapportionment it would be either 35% to 65% or 30% to 70%, depending on the cap put on by states.
Reasoning being is that in not all cases is the driver not wearing a seat belt being negligent, so they shouldn't automatically recover nothing just because they weren't wearing a seat belt; a person not wearing a seat belt could be traveling along prudently and then get hit by a fleshpophead flying by. However, the law also wants to provide an incentive for people to wear seatbelts in order to mitigate foreseeable damages and lower costs throughout society, so that is why such laws are implemented.
But, when the person not wearing a seat belt has higher medical bills and more severe injuries, they shouldn't be surprised to see their premiums shoot up as a consequence of their risky behavior; And, in order to protect themselves from increased risk, I don't see a problem for insurance companies to raise their premiums on those drivers because they are more likely to file those larger claims when/if they do get into an accident.
Eaglez, I would argue that by not wearing a seat belt, the driver is already being negligent.
i wonder what ben worthlessburger thinks about this issue.
True, they are being negligent (they breached a duty to protect themselves, essentially). But the problem arises like in my hypothetical, when a person not wearing a seatbelt is driving along cautiously and then gets rear-ended or hit by someone who is wearing a seat belt and is driving around negligently or borderline reckless. It doesn't seem to be fair to then shift all of the fault on the driver who, while not wearing his seat belt, was at least driving along with cautious, which is more to be said than the person who has his seatbelt on and is driving like a maniac.
That's why states institute caps on 'avoidable consequences', like not wearing a seat belt. We want to encourage people to wear seat belts to help avoid serious injury by providing an incentive to wear them (i.e. if you don't, you will be penalized when it comes to the allocation of fault in a comparative negligence state), but we don't, at least society made a collective choice, to not penalize that individual completely when they are completely absolved from fault. If a jury would say that the driver who wore the seatbelt is 100% at fault and the person who didn't is faultless, it wouldn't seem too fair to reduce the non-negligent seatbelt-less driver because by definition they are not negligent and hence not at fault.
So I don't think that not wearing a seatbelt should automatically shift all the fault on the person who doesn't wear a seatbelt, because you can have situations when they are not at fault for actually causing the harm (i.e. the actual accident). But, in circumstances where they are comparatively at fault for causing the wreck, then instituting the cap seems like a nice incentive to buckle up.
All this stuff is still in my head from my Torts exam. Torts sucks because you really have to be a completely litigious in order to be an effective tort litigator; theoretically you can make a lawsuit with some of the most inane facts -- depends on your perspective, but I think it's unhealthy for society to have that mindset.
Arguing that something should be illegal so that insurance companies won't charge us more is unfathomable to me.
yeah its amazing
if youre gonna have seatbelt laws simply because X amount of people die (id like to see real statistics on the total number of people killed/hurt specifically because they werent wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident) not wearing one then we must have laws for all things related to preventative health maintenance
--all out 100% smoking ban
--all out 100% drinking ban
--all citizens will be given a governmental diet plan that they must follow
--jaywalking laws need to be strictly enforced
--mandatory twice a year doctor visits
--motocycles need to be banned
--a ban on all contact sports
ect...ect...ect...
where does it end?
I thought an all-powerful government was good?!? What, you want to fork over half your earnings in taxes, but you don't want them to tell you how to live your life? Ha! Not going to happen, sparky.
What, you want to fork over half your earnings in taxes, but you don't want them to tell you how to live your life?
what does one have to do with the other
i pay my taxes and live a pretty damn great life
why cant i pay my taxes AND expect the govt to not make ridiculous laws like the seatbelt
I don't see what's so difficult to comprehend.
There doesn't need to be a law for any of those things. The problem is you want to avoid costs and essentially 'have your cake and eat it too'. You want to partake in risky behavior but not pay the costs associated with that risky behavior.
If you want to smoke, fine -- but don't be surprised when your health insurance premiums increase because you are a greater risk to develop cancer and other sorts of diseases associated with prolonged smoking.
If you want to not wear your seatbelt, fine -- but don't be surprised when your premiums increase.
And on and on and on...
What is unfair is thinking that because you want to increase your risky behavior I have to foot the bill because I'm risk averse. If I limit my risk there is no reason that my premiums should increase; but if you increase yours it seems fundamentally fair to increase how much you pay in order to reflect the cost of your risky behavior.
You make tradeoffs every day -- don't want higher insurance premiums? Wear a seatbelt; if not, don't be surprised to pay higher premiums because you are a greater risk to file a higher claim. Make an evaluation of what is more important to you; there is no such thing as a free lunch.
IGY's plan:
1. People mostly get to do what they want and live their lives.
2. People do not get to do things that bother him, like smoking in restaurants where he's dining.
3. The government collects as much tax revenue as possible from people.
4. Despite the increased wealth, the government doesn't tell him what to do.
5. The cost of any risky, questionable, lazy, unhealthy, or perverse behavior done by a select few is communally shared by everyone thanks to the big tax dollars being collected.
How am I doing so far?
1. People mostly get to do what they want and live their lives. - yes...is this rocket science?
2. People do not get to do things that bother him, like smoking in restaurants where he's dining. - yes...people dont get to do things that risk my health (they can smoke but not near me...they can not wear a seatbelt but they cant drive recklesssly)...again this is not rocket science
3. The government collects as much tax revenue as possible from people. - define as much as possible...i dont make a ton of money pay my required taxes and still live a great life...and id have no problem with paying more taxes if they more often helped people less fortunate than me
4. Despite the increased wealth, the government doesn't tell him what to do. - i have no problem being told what to do by the govt as long as its within reason...the system will never be perfect
5. The cost of any risky, questionable, lazy, unhealthy, or perverse behavior done by a select few is communally shared by everyone thanks to the big tax dollars being collected. - not ANY risky behavior...just SOME risky behavoirs...specifically ones that danger other people
You make tradeoffs every day -- don't want higher insurance premiums? Wear a seatbelt; if not, don't be surprised to pay higher premiums because you are a greater risk to file a higher claim. Make an evaluation of what is more important to you; there is no such thing as a free lunch.
because someone disagrees with the seatbelt law doesnt mean they dont wear a seatbelt...i dont know what so hard to understand about that
The part that makes no sense is that a more wealthy government will provide you with more freedom.
That's simply not going to happen.
You can help people less fortunate than you through other ways than by paying taxes.
I think the true measure of how altruistic you are is by how much you freely donate. It's easy to say you're 'generous' by paying your taxes, because you are compelled to pay your taxes -- it's not a voluntary action.
However, donating money is made voluntarily. No coercion, no need to do it. The problem with taxes is that it just doesn't 'help out the less fortunate', it cripples economic growth, hampers productivity, and creates incentives for people to cheat the tax code because it conficates wealth arbitrarily.
If you really want to help out the less fortunate, make it easier for people to donate to their charities of choice (i.e. lower their tax burden considerably when people donate their money; the current deduction is not enough) and make it easier to start charities.
Private charities do wonderful things, mostly because they want to help out the less fortunate and can be more creative in implementing their plans -- unlike bureaucrats who just find it as a make-work position.
The part that makes no sense is that a more wealthy government will provide you with more freedom.
i dont think there is a correlation between the two and i never made one
i think the govt can be wealthy and make funamentally sound laws
i also think the govt could be broke and stupid laws
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 29, 2007, 10:19:47 AM
You make tradeoffs every day -- don't want higher insurance premiums? Wear a seatbelt; if not, don't be surprised to pay higher premiums because you are a greater risk to file a higher claim. Make an evaluation of what is more important to you; there is no such thing as a free lunch.
because someone disagrees with the seatbelt law doesnt mean they dont wear a seatbelt...i dont know what so hard to understand about that
That's fine. I disagree with the seatbelt law and I wear my seatbelt, but I also understand the costs associated when I don't wear one. What's your point?
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 29, 2007, 09:52:03 AM
Arguing that something should be illegal so that insurance companies won't charge us more is unfathomable to me.
yeah its amazing
if youre gonna have seatbelt laws simply because X amount of people die (id like to see real statistics on the total number of people killed/hurt specifically because they werent wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident) not wearing one then we must have laws for all things related to preventative health maintenance
--all out 100% smoking ban
--all out 100% drinking ban
--all citizens will be given a governmental diet plan that they must follow
--jaywalking laws need to be strictly enforced
--mandatory twice a year doctor visits
--motocycles need to be banned
--a ban on all contact sports
ect...ect...ect...
where does it end?
You were all for the smoking ban.
As I have said to you before, you cannot be all for one law like this (smoking) and dead set against another law in the same line without being a hypocrit.
One thing people fail to realize is that the IRS and the current methods of tax collection significantly favor the extremely wealthy, those that can secure an army of accountants and tax attorneys to figure out just exactly how to give them the lowest possible tax burden.
The people screwed the most are all the ranges of the middle class.
But this is now another thread. The bottom line in all of these personal freedom issues is this: a personal choice that truly doesn't affect anyone else is much more rare than those that have rippled ramifications on others, whether it seems fair or not. Banning trans fat is questionable, because while one person's choice to eat trans fat shouldn't affect another's, it does affect what the restaurant puts on its menu.
I'm against the all-out smoking bans as long as smoking is legal, which it should be. I'm against the trans fat bans as long as cooking/frying with trans fat is legal, which it should be. I'm also against the war on certain drugs like MJ, despite the fact I don't smoke it and wouldn't even if it were legal. I'm against forcing people to wear seat belts if they have properly insured themselves and are held accountable for their own injuries.
HOWEVER, the consequences should be swift when someone hurts another by abusing any of those privileges, and that's where I think the whole plan falls apart. Law enforcement sucks, and the legal system, like the tax code, is skewed significantly towards the wealthy.
You can help people less fortunate than you through other ways than by paying taxes.
fo really?
I think the true measure of how altruistic you are is by how much you freely donate. It's easy to say you're 'generous' by paying your taxes, because you are compelled to pay your taxes -- it's not a voluntary action.
However, donating money is made voluntarily. No coercion, no need to do it. The problem with taxes is that it just doesn't 'help out the less fortunate', it cripples economic growth, hampers productivity, and creates incentives for people to cheat the tax code because it conficates wealth arbitrarily.
If you really want to help out the less fortunate, make it easier for people to donate to their charities of choice (i.e. lower their tax burden considerably when people donate their money; the current deduction is not enough) and make it easier to start charities.
Private charities do wonderful things, mostly because they want to help out the less fortunate and can be more creative in implementing their plans -- unlike bureaucrats who just find it as a make-work position.
or you can donate to charities AND have the govt put a much larger piece of the tax money towards the poor...specifically for things like infrastructure...why doest the govt start a program of tearing down 85 year old rat infested projects and replace them with modern apartment buildings...why dont they rebuild and properly stock debilitated and run down public schools...instead we have inner city schools systems without textbooks competant teachers desks ect...
i dont ask for much...i just want a lex...clean sex...and every apartment furninshed in the whole projects
if he were honest, that line would stop after "lex"
You were all for the smoking ban.
As I have said to you before, you cannot be all for one law like this (smoking) and dead set against another law in the same line without being a hypocrit.
youre clueless and you will just never get it
i dont want people to not be able to smoke...i want people to not smoke in places where it negatively impacts other people
you wanna smoke in your house or car or outside knock yourself outbut dont blow YOUR smoke into MY lungs
the seatbelt and smoking laws couldnt be more different and you lumping the two together is wrong in every possible way
one is physically hurting other people the other is not
how is me smoking outside not hurting your lungs? the argument you're making depends on degrees of damage inflicted, doens't it? where do you draw the line?
And speaking of not getting it, you don't you get this vigy...physically hurting someone and costing them money are the same thing to the money lovers. I disagree with them, but they'll never see it any other way.
The fact that you can't comprehend how people not wearing their seat belts could adversely affect other people besides themself is enough for me to completely disregard any further opinions from you on the matter.
Plus, of all the laws we're talking about, making people buckle up is the only one that hardly represents an inconvenience to those inclined to not follow along. ie: Buckling up takes a few seconds and doesn't subject you to any less enjoyment than you'd usually get from driving, whereas making people at a NYC bar go outside to smoke in the middle of January or taking some of the delicious greasy taste from someone's fried foods is at least slightly annoying.
And speaking of not getting it, you don't you get this vigy...physically hurting someone and costing them money are the same thing to the money lovers. I disagree with them, but they'll never see it any other way.
yeah i know this...and realize im wasting my time....oh well what are you gonna do
Quote from: Diomedes on January 29, 2007, 10:41:22 AM
physically hurting someone and costing them money are the same thing to the money lovers
They
are the same, depending on your opportunity cost and recovery time needed to make up the loss, whether physical, financial, emotional, etc.
You can't have freedom without one person's choices affecting another's to an extent, so where do you draw the line? If one action costs you a year's salary but another costs you a month of your life, which one is more vile?
We disagree.
If you want to start limiting liberties based on their cost to society--because a monetary cost is the equivalent of a physical injury--then none of us will be able to do much of anything.
health and freedom>>>>money
Quote from: FFatPatt on January 29, 2007, 10:43:59 AM
... taking some of the delicious greasy taste from someone's fried foods is at least slightly annoying.
Talk about ignorance. Trans-fats are fake fats. They were created so that business could make semi-solid fatty stuff that said "low fat" or "fat free" (ex: margarine) because they made some nasty chemical that was fat with some extra hydrogen tacked on. Oh, and trans fats are cheaper. Real fat tastes better and is better for you. Trans fats reduce your HDL, so they are worse for you than saturated fat - the good stuff in bacon.
Yes, it would be healthier to fry your french fries in bacon fat, than to fry it in partially-hydrogenated anything.
The only comprehensible argument for trans fats is that they might make your happy meal $0.02 cheaper. So would using rat-meat and ground cockroach in the burger. Hell, it would probably be cheaper for the restaurant if they didn't make their employees wash their hands after they use the toilet.
Sometimes having the government step in really isn't a bad idea.
[FF & friends]money>>>anything[/FF & friends]
transfats are poison. they ought to be banned in food just like arsenic.
The Dio/IGY/Cerevant circle jerk really is an unstoppable force. I guess we all have to be Socialist Athiests, then.
Just goose step in line, and check your opinions at the door.
I don't eat trans fats, nor would I. But then they should be banned at a higher level than restaurants. I suppose the harmful effects of cigarettes on your lungs and marijuana on your brain should then be ignored, though.
now that we're back on the transfats topic....i watched the first hour of "supersize me" last night. the guy went a little overboard..maybe a lot...like when he vomited while trying to finish off one of his value meals...but it seemed like an interesting concept.
i missed the last hour because "rome" was on...could someone who's seen the whole movie fill me on on the last hour??? just wondering how much his health deteriated after the 30 days.
Quote from: FFatPatt on January 29, 2007, 11:14:13 AMI don't eat trans fats, nor would I.
We all eat transfats..they're practically unavoidable. Do you eat anything pre-packaged? Oreos? Doritos? Anything that has partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, which is a lot of stuff, is trans fat.
Your body simply can't process the stuff. Instead, it goes directly to your arterial walls and attaches there for, effectively, ever. It's poison.
echo...echo...
effing server
Quote from: hunt on January 29, 2007, 11:15:02 AM
could someone who's seen the whole movie fill me on on the last hour??? just wondering how much his health deteriated after the 30 days.
It was a trainwreck. I own "Super Size Me" and watch it at times to curb cravings for fast food.
Quote from: Diomedes on January 29, 2007, 11:17:49 AM
Quote from: FFatPatt on January 29, 2007, 11:14:13 AMI don't eat trans fats, nor would I.
We all eat transfats..they're practically unavoidable. Do you eat anything pre-packaged? Oreos? Doritos? Anything that has partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, which is a lot of stuff, is trans fat.
Your body simply can't process the stuff. Instead, it goes directly to your arterial walls and attaches there for, effectively, ever. It's poison.
I eat pre-packaged food, but only that without partially-hydrogenated oils. More and more of those foods are changing their formulas to voluntarily remove the trans fat.
Arguing with me or trying to educate me about trans fat is a waste of time. I know how bad they are, I know exactly why they're bad, and that's why I refuse to eat them. Frankly, I think they should be simply banned by the FDA.
Banning them at the restaurant level is pointless and avoids the real widespread issue.
i think the point of doing it at the restaurant level is so that people can be sure of what they are getting...in a grocery stores you have the option of seeing the ingrediants that youre going to be eating not so on a restaurant menu
that said i agree they should be banned oputright
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 29, 2007, 11:26:43 AM
i think the point of doing it at the restaurant level is so that people can be sure of what they are getting...in a grocery stores you have the option of seeing the ingrediants that youre going to be eating not so on a restaurant menu
that said i agree they should be banned oputright
Agree.
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 29, 2007, 11:26:43 AM...in a grocery stores you have the option of seeing the ingrediants that youre going to be eating
only thanks to the massive, out of control, evil liberal government...food companies fight tooth and nail to avoid listing ingredients
Quote from: Diomedes on January 29, 2007, 11:39:24 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 29, 2007, 11:26:43 AM...in a grocery stores you have the option of seeing the ingrediants that youre going to be eating
only thanks to the massive, out of control, evil liberal government...food companies fight tooth and nail to avoid listing ingredients
yeah...they still try to get around it. my package of chewy chips ahoy cookies listed 0g of transfat on the box but listed hydrogenated soybean oil in the ingredients list. well, which is it???
anyway, i ate 7 cookies.
Quote from: hunt on January 29, 2007, 11:42:12 AM
yeah...they still try to get around it. my package of chewy chips ahoy cookies listed 0g of transfat on the box but listed hydrogenated soybean oil in the ingredients list. well, which is it???
anyway, i ate 7 cookies.
Two possible reasons:
- The US allows the 0% label when there is less than 0.5g / serving (but how much is a serving?)
- Trans fats are partially hydrogenated - I'm still trying to find out if fully hydrogenated fats have the same issues...
Quote from: Diomedes on January 29, 2007, 10:34:15 AM
if he were honest, that line would stop after "lex"
Ew.
Quote from: Cerevant on January 29, 2007, 11:47:23 AM
Quote from: hunt on January 29, 2007, 11:42:12 AM
yeah...they still try to get around it. my package of chewy chips ahoy cookies listed 0g of transfat on the box but listed hydrogenated soybean oil in the ingredients list. well, which is it???
anyway, i ate 7 cookies.
Two possible reasons:
- The US allows the 0% label when there is less than 0.5g / serving (but how much is a serving?)
- Trans fats are partially hydrogenated - I'm still trying to find out if fully hydrogenated fats have the same issues...
QuotePartially hydrogenated oils are thought to be far more dangerous than those that have been fully hydrogenated, because not all of the trans fats are converted into saturated fat during the process. Fully hydrogenated oil is essentially saturated fat, and the health risks are the same.
And as for your other comment, yes - they're allowed to round to an extent. I'm not sure if it's under 0.5 or less, but very many foods read "0
g Trans Fat" which is different than simply "NO Trans Fat". Still, being able to put that on the package is progress for many junk foods.
Quote from: FFatPatt on January 29, 2007, 12:04:07 PM
QuotePartially hydrogenated oils are thought to be far more dangerous than those that have been fully hydrogenated, because not all of the trans fats are converted into saturated fat during the process. Fully hydrogenated oil is essentially saturated fat, and the health risks are the same.
Thanks - I've noticed that more and more products have fully hydrogenated fats, and was wondering if that was why.
QuoteAnd as for your other comment, yes - they're allowed to round to an extent. I'm not sure if it's under 0.5 or less, but very many foods read "0g Trans Fat" which is different than simply "NO Trans Fat". Still, being able to put that on the package is progress for many junk foods.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fats#United_States):
QuoteOn July 11, 2003, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a regulation[44] requiring manufacturers to list trans fat on the Nutrition Facts panel of foods and some dietary supplements.[45] The new labeling rule allowed for immediate voluntary compliance with mandatory compliance by January 1, 2006 (although companies may petition for an extension to January 1, 2008). The regulation allows trans fat levels of less than 0.5 grams per serving to be labeled as 0 grams per serving.
Like I said, requiring them to list it is a start. This might have never been an issue if not for farging Crisco.
I'm definitely pro-label - don't get me wrong. This is another pet peeve of mine - notice that Pam says "no fat" and the label shows 0g of fat per serving? Bullshtein. It is canola oil in a spray can. The devil is in the details.
(http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/pam.gif)
That's some funny shtein, Cerevant. Note the "It adds a *trivial* amount of fat" comment. Hilarious.
Serving size: 1/3 second spray
Who the farg can coat a pan in 1/3 second? I'm usually firing away for 10+ seconds.
That being said - canola oil is good for you. High in polyunsaturated fats.
Quote from: Cerevant on January 29, 2007, 12:28:24 PM
Serving size: 1/3 second spray
Who the farg can coat a pan in 1/3 second? I'm usually firing away for 10+ seconds.
That being said - canola oil is good for you. High in polyunsaturated fats.
Ha! I didn't notice the serving size was in "spray time" form. It makes sense, but 1/3 second is very short. I usually go as light on the spray as possible and don't spray much more than 3-4 seconds, but that's still 9-12 "servings".
Many oils and other perceived "bad" foods are actually good in moderation. The reason partially hydrogenated oils are a different animal is that they are good in absolutely no way.
However, I still think a blanket ban would be much more efficient than a local law just on restaurants.
Quote from: FFatPatt on January 29, 2007, 12:39:23 PMThe reason partially hydrogenated oils are a different animal is that they are good in absolutely no way.
But, but they're good for corporations because it reduces cost and that is good for the consumer!Q!
That extra *Q* at the end obviously stands for added quality.
berkeley professor michael pollan wrote a great book called 'the omnivores dilemma'....its essential reading for anyone interested in food nutrition and the health of the american people both now and going forward.....the book hasnt succeeded in changing all of my bad eating habits....but it has definitely made me think more about what i eat and where it comes from...its an all around great read even if you could care less what you eat...
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/014305841X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
check out his excellent essay from yesterdays nyt magazine.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Quoteor you can donate to charities AND have the govt put a much larger piece of the tax money towards the poor
The whole point is government is inefficient when it comes to those means because (1) they aren't responsive to cost, so they tend not to be in an efficient mindset, and (2) excessive taxation discourages charitable donations because people have a finite amount of money, they need to make choices and divide their earnings accordingly; for every dollar taken away in taxes is one less dollar someone can donate to a charitable foundation they find worthy and actually work towards helping the downtrodden. So your proposal that we should just tax people to oblivion and then expect them to donate is short sighted; those are two inconsistent positions because the incentives are conflicting. Instead, government sucks it up, dispenses it into failing programs, and then has the nerve to ask for more because billions of dollars amounts to 'underfunding'. It is about efficiency, appropriating funds correctly in order to get the most 'output' for your 'input'. Government does not do that because government doesn't have the correct incentives.
I think for the most part, as a basic assumption, Americans are good, decent people. If you encourage them to give they will do it; they do so now even with high tax burdens (but it could theoretically be more with lower). Government doesn't need to step in because charities are not a public good and are not underallocated in the free market.
And everything boils down to a cost analysis. How do we compensate people with a physical injury? Through monetary means. Like FF said, it is to compensate for opportunity cost and for costs incurred due to the actual injury suffered.
I wish there was some magic fairy dust like supposedly some of you hippies are proposing, but there isn't. So the distinction between 'physical harm' and 'money' is seemingly non-existent.
You can make little cool this>>>>this garbage all you want, but I don't see any meaningful proposals that would deal with some of these social problems. Taking a bunch of money, which seemingly is evil, and throwing it at a problem is not a very well throught out plan of attack.
Quote from: FFatPatt on January 29, 2007, 11:22:34 AM
I own "Super Size Me" and watch it at times to curb cravings for fast food.
I saw Super Size Me last night too...except after it was over, I was craving a quarter pounder with cheese.
And I haven't eat at McD's in over 2 years.
You're so cool.
saturday my diet ended 14 lbs lighter than when it started...anyway to celebrate me and my girl went out and got hammered at the local pub...on the way home we stopped off at mcdonalds for six double cheeseburgers...i think i ate four of them but i cant really remember
moral of the story: mcdonalds $ menu double cheeseburgers are better than your life
What. The. farg. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/01/skinny.models/index.html)
I for one welcome our new BMI overlords.
Don't get me wrong. I think overly skinny models are as gross and unhealthy as the next guy, but jesus christ, how can they put any sort of ban or restriction on someone's body type? I mean where does this shtein farging end?
This goes beyond restricting a person's activities and actually gets into a person's own body and by extension their profession. Completely unbelieveable.
Next up, BMI testing for everyone, because fat people cost us all money, which is the equivalent of doing us physical harm, so therefore obesity is a crime.
Seig Heil!!
It ends with NY banning RJS.
QuoteBrazilian model Ana Carolina Reston died in November at age 21. She was 5 feet 8 inches tall and weighed just 88 pounds, for a BMI of 13.4.
Holy farging farg.
How she avoided getting listed in the Good Riddance thread, I don't know..
So how can NYC ban skinny people, and transfat?
They need to come together on this.
Altogether now: transfat is poison. Banning poison is good, and the proper place of government.
Nicotine and alocohol are also poisons. Stop it.
So when they ban all of the trans fat, everyone gets too skinny, and then they are banned.
I like it.
GF is getting an erection reading about all of this banning.
Quote from: rjs246 on February 02, 2007, 09:58:50 AMNicotine and alocohol are also poisons. Stop it.
The former may be, but the latter only when taken in massive doses. And they both offer a real benefit to the consumer, which transfats do not.
Delicious fat is a drug that some people enjoy more than cigs or booze.
I don't understand those people, but they do exist. Anyway, MURP's right. Eventually NYC will ban RJS and then I'll have to smuggle myself in to get hammered and urinate in public.
Quote from: rjs246 on February 02, 2007, 10:11:17 AM
Delicious fat is a drug that some people enjoy more than cigs or booze.
transfats have no flavor.
I don't care.
would i like to see transfats abolished sure...id like to see cigarettes gone too...but in the end i really dont have a problem with transfats being legal....but at a minimum restaurants should be forced to notify the public that they serve transfatty foods...if you still wanna go there thats your choice.....
if you wanna take it a step further force them to offer two menus....one transfat one not
transfats hurt no one but the people who choose to eat them...therefore its on the individual to make that personal choice...but its on the server to be responsible in regards to notification of the public
Quote from: rjs246 on February 02, 2007, 10:15:07 AMI don't care.
Of course not..because you're wrong on this one. Banning transfats is good. Suck it.
I have a dream of opening a restaurant with two menus - one for fat people, consisting of only lean, nutritious foods - and one for skinny people, consisting of all the greasy shtein that's semi-fit to eat.
The catch is that skinny people can order off either menu, but fat people have no choice.
I wonder how quickly I'd be sued.
No I don't care because taste isn't the issue. The issue is that people can and will eat whatever the farg they want and people who use food as their drug more often than not don't give a shtein about what they are putting into their body so it might as well be arsenic because as long as it's food they're going to eat it.
No different than nicotine or alcohol.
Quote from: FFatPatt on February 02, 2007, 10:23:37 AM
I have a dream of opening a restaurant with two menus - one for fat people, consisting of only lean, nutritious foods - and one for skinny people, consisting of all the greasy shtein that's semi-fit to eat.
The catch is that skinny people can order off either menu, but fat people have no choice.
I wonder how quickly I'd be sued.
This is easily the best idea you've ever had.
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 02, 2007, 10:21:21 AMtransfats hurt no one but the people who choose to eat them...
because people choose to ingest them deliberately...yeah.
also...they cost us money, which I have recently learned is tantamount to physical harm, so whoop there it is
trust me i want them gone...but like rjs said if youre gonna have cigarettes around why not transfats....whats the difference as long as its made known to the general public that they both are killers
the difference is that transfats offer NO benefit. None. Cigarettes make you feel good, even if it's just the relaxation of your jones.
if you're a fat slob who eats as your drug, you can do so just as effectively without transfats
Quote from: rjs246 on February 02, 2007, 10:24:29 AM
Quote from: FFatPatt on February 02, 2007, 10:23:37 AM
I have a dream of opening a restaurant with two menus - one for fat people, consisting of only lean, nutritious foods - and one for skinny people, consisting of all the greasy shtein that's semi-fit to eat.
The catch is that skinny people can order off either menu, but fat people have no choice.
I wonder how quickly I'd be sued.
This is easily the best idea you've ever had.
That doesn't reflect positively on the quality of my other ideas, but I'll take it.
Nicotine in pure form = poison. In cigs it takes a long time to kill.
Alcohol in pure form = poison. In beer it takes a long time to kill. Though booze can kill in one sitting whereas cigarettes cannot.
Trasfat in pure form = poison. In food it takes a long time to kill.
I don't see any differences.
nicotine and alcohol offer a benefit to the consumer
transfats do not.
there's your difference homeboy
Let me put it in terms you can understand: There isn't anything trans-fat can do that bacon fat doesn't do better.
Quote from: rjs246 on February 02, 2007, 10:33:03 AM
Nicotine in pure form = poison. In cigs it takes a long time to kill.
Alcohol in pure form = poison. In beer it takes a long time to kill. Though booze can kill in one sitting whereas cigarettes cannot.
Trasfat in pure form = poison. In food it takes a long time to kill.
I don't see any differences.
Transfat is a harmful food additive that can easily be replaced with a non or less-harmful alternative, whose banning will evoke a minimum of consumer outrage, except from hypersensitive types in the Boston area, who also fear flashing cartoon characters.
the difference is that transfats offer NO benefit. None. Cigarettes make you feel good, even if it's just the relaxation of your jones.
if you're a fat slob who eats as your drug, you can do so just as effectively without transfats
cigarettes only make you feel good because they feed an addiciton that the cigarette itself caused...to me they are far worse than transfats which granted are horrible just as cigarettes are but at least they dont come with a high addicition rate
again im not arguing for transfats but you look silly defending cigarettes and not transfats....im guessing because youre a smoker
I don't smoke, haven't for more than 4 years. But thanks for the insult.
Fact is, smoking offers a benefit. It is true that people enjoy it, regardless of the addiction. Hard for you to believe I'm sure, but that's alright. You can't be expected to think much in matters like these. Let's be clear..I'm not saying cigarette smoking isn't harmful..just that there are aspects of it which people enjoy.
Not so with transfats. For these, there is only harm.
it is also true that there is no alternative to smoking (other than not smoking). there IS alternative to transfats..it's not as though donuts will cease to exist, or suddenly become $40 per, if you outlaw transfats. they'll still be there, they'll still taste good, they'll still be cheap.
youd do much better just to crusade against transfats....your comical defense of cigarettes eliminates your credibility
as I said, can't expect you to have an open mind on the subject. the possibility that someone could get a benefit from smoking doesn't compute because you won't think...it gets in the way of your high horse opinion.
i dont have any high horse opinion...i say keep them both...people wanna committ slow suicide them go for it
i cant believe you just linked the words benefit and cigarettes
cigarettes kill and are made for one reason and one reason only...to get people to smoke more cigarettes via additction....i guess so that they get the "benefit" of putting more death and disease causing chemicals into their bodies
Bill Hicks:
"They always say "It's the secondary smoke. It's not the smoke that you smoke but the smoke that comes out of you. Thats called secondary smoke. And thats not good smoke just because it came out of you. Shut the farg up right now. God damn it if I don't smoke there's going to be secondary bullets coming your way. I'm farging tense."
Ha!
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 02, 2007, 12:36:28 PMi cant believe you just linked the words benefit and cigarettes
you're not nearly as sharp as you think you are.
First, eat my ass Beermonkey.
Second, cigarettes offer no benefit to their customers other than a benefit that they themselves generate by being addictive.
Third, this is an idiotic conversation. Transfats are bad. Everyone agrees. But banning them outright is ridiculous and should be unnecessary.
If cigarettes offered no benefit, people would not smoke.
If transfats offered no benefit, chefs would not use them as ingredients.
FLAWED LOGIC.
Funny you should mention flawed logic. We aren't talking about the people selling the cigarettes, we're talking about the people who smoke them. We aren't talking about the people who cook with transfats, we're talking about the people who consume them.
i hope you all die this weekend, jesus farg
Feeling's mutual, ass licker.
ass licking has no benefits
Quote from: rjs246 on February 02, 2007, 02:16:15 PM
First, eat my ass Beermonkey.
Second, cigarettes offer no benefit to their customers other than a benefit that they themselves generate by being addictive.
Third, this is an idiotic conversation. Transfats are bad. Everyone agrees. But banning them outright is ridiculous and should be unnecessary.
Asbestos offers the benefit of not only being a fantastic insulator, but fire-proof to boot. Why can't I have my asbestos insulation back, god damn it?!?! This is a free country & I'll be damned if some lefty in Washington is going to tell me what I can fill my walls with.
Next thing you know, they'll be telling me I can't use my fen phen. farging commies.
Seriously, why the passion over something that most people weren't aware of until the ban came up?
Quote from: SunMo on February 02, 2007, 02:52:32 PM
ass licking has no benefits
Are you saying ATM should be banned?
Quote from: SunMo on February 02, 2007, 02:52:32 PM
ass licking has no benefits
I disagree, I found that a sneak ass lick sometimes yields fanatastic results.
Quote from: Beermonkey on February 02, 2007, 03:13:17 PM
Seriously, why the passion over something that most people weren't aware of until the ban came up?
It's principle. I don't particularly care about transfats, cigarettes or skinny models. None of them have anything to do with me because I don't smoke, I eat whatever the hell I want regardless and prefer women with tits and ass.
The point is that the government has started a trend of sticking its nose in where it has no business being. This isn't a child care facility we're living in. This is life. We are adults and if we want to suck asbestos through a straw until we're more cancer than human, that should be our right.
Your underlying point is valid. Who cares, right? Why should anyone get in a huff about this. I'll tell you why. The more these laws get passed and the more people say "Who cares" the closer we get to big brother. It's a slippery slope and we're already losing out footing.
Also, I'm not from Boston. farger.
This will not fascilitate the conversation in anyway, but whatever.
At the newspaper I intern for, this week alone, I've transcribed three different page long letters (hand written) from some dude about politicians. Except they turn into him complaining about the smoking ban three sentences in. I don't get it. A simple letter saying you disagree with it is fine. But three different page long ones in one week, and that doesn't count the weeks before and time before I started there, is nuts. Crazy old moterfargers in South Philly.
fascilitate moterfargers ineed
spelling is for losers.
I disagree, I found that a sneak ass lick sometimes yields fanatastic results.
lol
Quote from: rjs246 on February 02, 2007, 02:43:08 PM
If transfats offered no benefit, chefs would not use them as ingredients.
FLAWED LOGIC.
Chefs use them because they are cheaper than real (semi-solid) fats. If they replaced 20% of the ground beef they use with ground rat, that would be cheaper too, and you probably couldn't tell the difference. Why should you care?
I agree with you on the choice issue, except when there is a question of whether or not the consumer is making an informed choice. How is the consumer supposed to know what items on the menu have trans fats and which do not? How many consumers know what trans fats are? Based on this thread, not many.
I can agree that information on food's content should be 100% available to the consumer. There isn't much sense in disagreeing with that.
I just had a heaping helping of beef fried rice and it was some sick delicious shtein.
This joint up the road uses real NY strip steak in their fried rice instead of the mystery meat that most places use.
Yum.
NEW YORK -- A state senator from Brooklyn said on Tuesday he plans to introduce legislation that would ban people from using an MP3 player, cell phone, Blackberry or any other electronic device while crossing the street in New York City and Buffalo.
NewsChannel 4 reported that Sen. Carl Kruger is proposing the ban in response to two recent pedestrian deaths in his district, including a 23-year-old man who was struck and killed last month while listening to his iPod on Avenue T and East 71st Street In Bergen Beach.
"While people are tuning into their iPods and cell phones, they're tuning out the world around them," Kruger said. The proposed law would make talking on cell phones while crossing the street a comparable offense to jaywalking.
Some pedestrians said they were not worried about their safety while using their electronic devices while walking.
"I look for the light," said Venus Montes of Williamsburg.
"I'm still looking," said Lance Gordon of Far Rockaway. "It's not like I'm not paying attention."
Others said the proposed ban would not work.
"I don't think anyone's going to be up for this," said Patricia Lewis of Staten Island. "I don't think anyone wants this."
Some pedestrians think the proposal was a good idea.
"It's too dangerous," said Nicole Lake of Jersey City. "Drivers don't pay attention and pedestrians don't pay attention."
Because the person driving the 2,000 lb vehicle always has the right of way?
I saw that 2 days ago, and was going to post it.\
But I am one lazy sunuvabitch.
Quote from: Diomedes on February 08, 2007, 09:17:43 PM
Because the person driving the 2,000 lb vehicle always has the right of way?
Not down here they don't. At the major intersctions where you've got the little blinking guy, the cars still have ROW. Even then, they've still got to wait until everyone is done crossing after the blinking guy goes on. Everywhere else, they've got to wait for the pedestrians no matter what.
Quote from: Diomedes on February 08, 2007, 09:17:43 PM
Because the person driving the 2,000 lb vehicle always has the right of way?
That's the way it should be. This is reason number 1 that Boston drives me to murderous thoughts. I've never been someplace where people brazenly walk out into moving traffic until I came here. And guess what, since pedestrians always have the right of way in Mass, if you hit someone who just walked out into traffic without bothering to look, its your fault. COMMON SENSE BE DAMNED!
Stab stab stab.
Quote from: rjs246 on February 08, 2007, 11:05:56 PM
And guess what, since pedestrians always have the right of way in Mass, if you hit someone who just walked out into traffic without bothering to look, its your fault. COMMON SENSE BE DAMNED!
Same here in Ontario - it wouldn't piss me off so much except that people take their farging time...I'm trying to make a turn, got my ass out in traffic and these people are standing in the middle of the street with their thumbs up their asses. Grrr.
I hate it when they walk out in front of you, and then just stare at you while they slowly walk across the street like they own the place.
Uh...farging a...I was driving one day and this icehole walks out in the middle of the street (not at a crosswalk) and stares me down. Hes got 2 or 3 chicks following him kind of cowering at the curb because they don't want to walk out in traffic. This guy stands there and waves them out, and stands there until they are finished crossing.
If I hit him it would have been my fault. :boom
Not gonna even argue this one with you folks. Yay cars.
Quote from: Geowhizzer on February 09, 2007, 06:48:02 AM
I hate it when they walk out in front of you, and then just stare at you while they slowly walk across the street like they own the place.
What pisses me off the most are the people in my neighborhood who push their baby carriages in the street, even though there are sidewalks, then glare at you if you are driving over 5 mph. They need to get their fat, stretch pant-covered asses & their child on the sidewalk. If you want to run/walk on the street, great, but don't subject the child to more risk because it's "inconvenient" push your stroller over angled curbs.
Honestly, can anyone come up with a reasonable argument for pedestrians to have the right of way? Have some farging sense and don't walk out into traffic you ignorant farging douchebags.
I yell at pedestrians when they get out in front of me when I am driving, because I should have the right of way. I also yell at cars when I am a pedestrian, because again, I should have the right of way... suck it.
Touche.
Quote from: Diomedes on February 09, 2007, 08:33:15 AM
Not gonna even argue this one with you folks. Yay cars.
I'm going to make a wild guess that you're pro-pedestrian on this one. Makes sense, living in New York and such.
I actually have no problem in areas of high pedestrian traffic for there to be safeguards for those walking.
However, like in everything, there are those who take advantage of that situation, and dart out into traffic and/or have a cavalier attitude about crossing traffic. Those people annoy me.
Of course, when you have 80-year-olds crossing and taking awhile like in Florida, I guess one has to take it in stride...
Not interested in a beat down today.
Wingnut already won the argument anyway.
I was driving up in Hartford, CT recently and it was like playing a safe driving simulation where people & objects just randomly jump in front of your car. People would be walking straight down the street, then suddenly just veer off the curb into the street. I keept waiting for a child to throw his kickball in front of me to complete the experience.