hahaahahahahahahahahaaahhhhaha

That is towards all the pussy non-smokers who wanted smoking bans who are now sheding little tears when things start to head down a slope to affecting them negatively.

9/28/2006 12:34:03 PM

Yeah this is starting to piss me off. First they canned smoking, which is great. But now they're trying to get rid of foie gras, and now everything with trans-fat? No way it'll pass...I hope!

9/28/2006 1:22:19 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps they shouldn't ban spinach with e coli either, if you don't want e coli don't eat spinach, right?"

Ha! Nice bait-and-switch.

I'd say that if they sold spinach with a warning that said "Contains E. Coli, hazardous to health" and people still bought it, I'd have to problem with that.

Of course, their is a good argument here to be made that restaurants should label their foods, but that would make sense, whereas banning people from eating it would just be an additional loss of freedom and the government protecting us from ourselves. They really ought to ban keyboards, becausae even with the big warning label on mine, I still type and type and have early stage CTS.
I shouldn't really be free to use this thing, because it can hurt me.

9/28/2006 2:40:28 PM

stop banning stuff i like

9/28/2006 2:43:43 PM

Quote :

"First they canned smoking, which is great."

Then they will smoke canned food, which is not so great... I never want to be parted with my canned chickpeas, dammit!

9/28/2006 2:46:45 PM

Quote :

"They really ought to ban keyboards, becausae even with the big warning label on mine, I still type and type and have early stage CTS. I shouldn't really be free to use this thing, because it can hurt me."

What if some other alternative existed that you weren't exactly aware of, but worked equally as well for data input. Wouldn't you like to see someone enforce a rule to switch to the new alternative?

9/28/2006 2:55:36 PM

Nope,
But if there were an alternative that worked even better, I'd probably use it.
Doesn't mean I need to be COMPELLED to do so, though.

9/28/2006 3:16:05 PM

People who are fighting this are retarded. Big fast food businesses have been using this stuff NEEDLESSLY for too long. There are plenty of other, healthier solutions that have the EXACT same effect on food and don't change the taste. They are forcing these companies to make a needed switch. Individual consumers and small businesses can still do as they like.

And those people comparing it to the smoking ban are also morons. There, I said it. This is more akin to forcing SUV manufacturers to put in anti-tilting devices in their vehicles or forcing them to improve gas milage. Its a change that is needed for the consumer but the manufacturer won't fix it until they are forced to do so.

9/28/2006 3:56:41 PM

Quote :

"But if there were an alternative that worked even better, I'd probably use it. "

How could you use it if you weren't aware of it's existence?

9/28/2006 4:14:28 PM

Quote :

"People who are fighting this are retarded. Big fast food businesses have been using this stuff NEEDLESSLY for too long. There are plenty of other, healthier solutions that have the EXACT same effect on food and don't change the taste. They are forcing these companies to make a needed switch. Individual consumers and small businesses can still do as they like."

So, lets stick it to the corporations that endanger us, but not the small businesses that do the same thing?

Quote :

"How could you use it if you weren't aware of it's existence? "

Well if I'm not supposed to be aware of it, then I guess your analogy fails. Because people OBVIOUSLY know that there is an alternative to hydrogenated oils.

9/28/2006 4:50:42 PM

the addition of seatbelts will lead to cars will rollbars which will in tunr lead to cars being banned completely!

also, national healthcare will lead to them dictating what we can eat, because we all know the proponents of such plans are out to drive us into such a state due to their love of the big state. if you arent with the libertarian lovers of freedom, you are on the side of the borg!

look, i can jump on the Libertarian slippery slope too!

9/28/2006 4:58:34 PM

^sadly, Pinko, that is exactly what such groups have us heading towards. why should a tyrranical minority be able to dictate what i eat based on their skewed views of what they think is "healthy". apparently what is really healthy is forcing people not to eat certain things!

9/28/2006 5:00:46 PM

Vote Libertarian in November!

So what if they're crackpots? At least they'll let you eat a Big Mac!

(good slogan)

9/28/2006 6:17:09 PM

Quote :

"Because people OBVIOUSLY know that there is an alternative to hydrogenated oils."

People obviously don't. Sure, college educated kids that have nothing else to do but bullshit about the media all day do, but a massive amount of the population probably has no clue. They don't really discuss it too much during Greys Anatomy, Desperate Housewives, and whatever the fuck is on MTV these days.

9/28/2006 7:03:11 PM

Quote :

"That's great you have all these easy answers. Tell a single mother working multiple jobs to support her family to get on an exercise plan and to cook healthy meals daily for herself and family. Make sure you don't consider how much energy she has just to make it through a day when you request more of her time to work out and cook (not to mention the time to get educated about such matters). The whole concept of "well, tell her not to have kids out if she can't handle it" juxtaposes with your "tell the government to stay out of my life" viewpoint. Whatever will you do?"

Cooking moderately healthy food takes ~1 hr / day. If she can't find 1 hr to cook for her family there's bigger problems than a little trans fat. She could spend that hour talking to her kids, and being a part of their life. Hell most of the prep for cooking could be done the night before and left in the fridge.

Quote :

"And no, I don't suggest the government regulate everything that makes us fat, I rather enjoy indulging on my ice cream, but when they come to a brain dead conclusion to ban trans fats when non trans fats work just as equally in their place, to the betterment of the nations health, I think we should stand up and applaud them."

Clearly they don't work equally the same. As was already noted, it's cheaper. Consumers obviously value price over health because the companies are still using trans fats. Also, not all companies are, so clearly some companies are finding it worth their while to avoid it, and others aren't.

Quote :

"You mean uneducated consumers that aren't aware of the issues? "

They're educated enough to get wendy's to stop, and frito-lay, why can't they get McDonalds to stop? Hell if you want, just make it a big health scare on the news for a bit. If they can get McDonalds to have fucking Atkins menus they can sure as hell get them to switch away from trans-fat, especialy if they "work equaly well".

Quote :

"I guess if you are eating rice and canned foods all day you might can eat this cheaply, but the last time I figured it for myself it was around $10 on the aveage day. I figured $2 for breakfast (typically oatmeal, milk, peanut butter, protein powder and some fruit where most of the cost comes in), $3-5 for lunch (which very often contains a $1.50 can of tuna alone, and a similar value at dinner, plus all the fruit I have around during the day, which isn't cheap. So I guess if you aren't really active and require quality nutrition, you might can get by on $5.50 a day, but I certainly can't."

No, I'm not talking rice and canned foods. I'm talking steak (2 times a month), corn, carrots, greenbeans, peas, brocoli, buscuits, grilled/fried/baked chicken, hamburgers (real ones), hot dogs, omlettes, stir-fry, pot-roast, potatoes, burritos, tacos, chilli, spagetti, stews, orange juice, milk, tea, soda, sausage, fench toast, pancakes, bread, english muffins, cereal, pot-pies, pizza, grilled cheese and more. All of this is done on right about ~$10 a day for two people. The average dinner takes about a hour between prep time and cooking time, lunches tend to consist of left-overs and breakfast is usualy toast and juice or if we're splurging, perhaps a corn muffin or croissant. And this budget also includes extras like cooking oil, marinades and charcoal for the grill.

Quote :

"What if some other alternative existed that you weren't exactly aware of, but worked equally as well for data input. Wouldn't you like to see someone enforce a rule to switch to the new alternative?"

Like ergonomic keyboards? Let's force all computer manufacturers to only use ergonomic keyboards in their computers.

Quote :

"How could you use it if you weren't aware of it's existence?"

If you were concerned, you might use this wonderful new invention they have called the internet to do a little research, you don't even have to leave your home.

Quote :

"People obviously don't. Sure, college educated kids that have nothing else to do but bullshit about the media all day do, but a massive amount of the population probably has no clue."

Willful ignorance is not a reason for the government to step in and regulate.

Quote :

" They don't really discuss it too much during Greys Anatomy, Desperate Housewives, and whatever the fuck is on MTV these days."

Perhaps instead of spending 4-5 hours a day watching TV they could do a little fucking research into their health? All of those activities are voluntary in lieu of something more productive like being an educated citizen. Government regulation encourages willful ignorance, it doesn't solve it.

9/28/2006 8:36:44 PM

Quote :

"you could petition your health insurance company to stop providing insurance to people who are grossly overwieght "

Many businesses and insurers would love to limit coverage, but they aren't allowed.

State gov'ts require businesses who offer health care benefits to offer it to every employee...those who live a healthy lifestyle as well as those who do not. Insurers have to charge higher and higher prices in order to cover these unhealthy people.

If gov't got out of the insurance business, companies could keep health care expenses so much lower if they weren't required to cover unhealthy workers. These workers would have to get their own coverage and pay the higher premiums they should be paying to cover their increased risky lifestyles.

That's why many smaller companies are forced to dropped coverage for everyone. The few high-cost employees are raising the price for everyone else. And the gov't won't allow companies to pick and choose who they want to offer benefits to.

9/28/2006 8:44:29 PM

Quote :

"Cooking moderately healthy food takes ~1 hr / day. If she can't find 1 hr to cook for her family there's bigger problems than a little trans fat. She could spend that hour talking to her kids, and being a part of their life. Hell most of the prep for cooking could be done the night before and left in the fridge."

Awwww, how simple and fitting into nice neat compartments your life is. You purport to know exactly what it is like to struggle through life and have all the answers for those that really do. You're such a compassionate soul!

Quote :

"Like ergonomic keyboards? "

Don't try to anecdotify my argument so that you could win it, clearly, if you know of an ergonomic keyboard existing, it doesn't fall under the realm of an alternative that you weren't aware of.

Quote :

"If you were concerned, you might use this wonderful new invention they have called the internet to do a little research, you don't even have to leave your home."

You mean...you mean the same mothers that have that extra hour a day in their life to cook ALSO have more time to actually use the internet (assuming they could afford to have it) and might could figure all this out?

Quote :

"Willful ignorance is not a reason for the government to step in and regulate."

Willful ignorance? If you don't know something, how are you supposed to know it if you don't already?

Quote :

"Government regulation encourages willful ignorance, it doesn't solve it."

Weren't aren't trying to fix the problem of willful ignorance, and the lack of government intervention won't solve it either. We are trying to fix the problem of an overweight country, through a brain dead simple way. You should spend your "we have the right to be as stupid as we want" capital on something else.

9/28/2006 10:28:08 PM

Quote :

"Awwww, how simple and fitting into nice neat compartments your life is. You purport to know exactly what it is like to struggle through life and have all the answers for those that really do. You're such a compassionate soul!"

I come from a family of four, with one parent that could work and provide for the family. We weren't destitute but time to cook was definately a luxury. I currently work out of the house 10 hours a day between work and commute, share a car with my better half who works two jobs, and go to school half time. Free time is not exactly easy to come by as there are days we leave the house by 7:30AM and neither one of us return until 9PM. I may not have kids, but I do know what it's like to not have money or free time in order to do things, but if you're concerned about your health, you find the time to cook. No it's not easy and yes it's tiring, but it's cheaper than eating out, it's healthier than eating out and quite frankly, no one said it was supposed to be easy.

Quote :

"Don't try to anecdotify my argument so that you could win it, clearly, if you know of an ergonomic keyboard existing, it doesn't fall under the realm of an alternative that you weren't aware of."

Is there anyone out there who is unaware that there is an alternative to McDonalds?

Quote :

"You mean...you mean the same mothers that have that extra hour a day in their life to cook ALSO have more time to actually use the internet (assuming they could afford to have it) and might could figure all this out?"

Not at all. If said mother is finding that time to cook, this law is irellevant and worthless because the law ONLY affects restraunts and doesn't prevent her from buying such products at the grocery store. She doesn't need to do the research because she isn't eating out and this law won't protect her from her own ignorance at the store. By contrast if she can afford to eat out all the time, she can afford a $10/month internet connection and a little bit of time if she is concerned about her and her children's health.

Quote :

"Willful ignorance? If you don't know something, how are you supposed to know it if you don't already?"

What mom lives in a bubble and doesn't talk to other people? She's made it to 30 something and never known that McDonalds is bad for her health?

Quote :

"We are trying to fix the problem of an overweight country, through a brain dead simple way. "

Why not fix the problem by educating citizens rather than legislating and wasting tax money? Perhaps if taxes were lower and not being spent on protecting stupid people from themselves your destitute mother might have the extra money she needs to not work that second job. Instead of spending your resources lobying the government and decrying the evil corporations, why don't you spend those resources helping educate destitute mother? Why does the problem of an overwieght country require government intervention to solve? Perhaps if people spent a little less time watching TV and a little more time being pro-active about their health the problem might solve itself without wasting taxpayer money on the laws and enforcement thereof.

9/29/2006 8:14:00 AM

Ok, I know this thread has died, but KFC has voluntarily changed from trans-fat.

Hooray for free market forces!

11/4/2006 9:40:19 AM

im alittle late but this is stupid.

11/4/2006 9:46:50 AM

The thread or the ban...or both?

11/4/2006 9:48:14 AM

the ban and im assuming the thread but I havent read it all.

11/4/2006 9:48:56 AM

Yeah, the ban is ridiculous. I know you shouldn't engage in the slippery slope argument, but things like this really scare me. It isn't inconceivably far away from mandated exercise and ban of red meat.

11/4/2006 9:50:11 AM

Or they woke up and smelled the fried chicken.

11/4/2006 9:54:07 AM

im not saying it couldnt happen but cattle is a huge business and I think it would prevent that from happening. But any government regulation on this sort of stuff is silly to began with.

also on a different note, i would like it if cattle was done away with and everyone ate Buffalo. It would make everyone much better off.

11/4/2006 9:55:40 AM

But does Buffalo taste like Heaven with some A1?

Because if it does, I will eat it.

(what's the deal, is it leaner or something?)

11/4/2006 10:00:36 AM

No no, your white people would just come through and drive the buffalo close to extinction again like you did 150 years ago.

[Edited on November 4, 2006 at 10:05 AM. Reason : grammar]

11/4/2006 10:05:13 AM

its overall better for you, they are larger and eat less and need less land to do their thing.

ive never had a buffalo steak but the burgers are awesome. Out around Colorado and Utah there are buffalo on the side of the road instead of cows and all the resturants serve it and the stores carry it.

its awesome city.

11/4/2006 10:05:17 AM

That does sound like a good idea. They use less land and are tasty...

If someone offered Buffalo around here, and I liked it just as good, I'd choose the one better for the planet. Or at least we could have them both and reduce the amount of beef eaten by having a viable substitute.

Is there any catch? Does it cost more to raise them?

11/4/2006 10:08:55 AM

well i dont know enough but apparently most buffalo raised today have cattle genes and the only pure buffalo live in yellowstone. Also they arnt very nice and are huge.

and I think whole foods has steaks which are not cheap and Teds Montana Grill has steaks and burgers. They burgers are 9-10 dollars and massive.


wiki has some random stuff about them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bison

11/4/2006 10:17:27 AM

Well, I will go to WF and check it out.

I already know I like their wings

11/4/2006 10:23:25 AM

I find it hard to imagine that the cattle lobby would allow a wholesale change like this. Sorta like alcohol and tobacco keeping marijana out of the loop.

Quote :

"I'd choose the one better for the planet."

You sir, kick ass.

11/4/2006 10:24:21 AM

Thanks. I think most people would feel the same way.

(And just so you know for the future, I'm about as far away from you on that political chart as can be. We're not all earth-hating bastards)

[Edited on November 4, 2006 at 10:28 AM. Reason : .]

11/4/2006 10:25:39 AM

^^ thats the main problem. But there are parts of the US where buffalo is served at most resturants and has prices comparable to beef so I wouldnt quite compare it to pot.

11/4/2006 10:29:47 AM

^^ I will make sure to get out my torch and pitchfork promptly.

[Edited on November 4, 2006 at 10:30 AM. Reason : slow fingers]

11/4/2006 10:30:10 AM

wheres that test from?

11/4/2006 10:32:06 AM

Well dammit, it is now up to us to have buffalo and beer parties to get the word out.

(that whole, I love the environment thing gets you so much pussy...if you don't mind hairy armpits )

__

Yeah, where is it, I want to retake it. I was Donald Trumps eyeball last time. (right up in the Capitalist/Libertarian boundry)

[Edited on November 4, 2006 at 10:33 AM. Reason : .]

11/4/2006 10:32:27 AM

Sorry to hijack this ever so important thread for what could probably be settled over PMs, but I think the reason why you and I are seemingly on opposite ends of the spectrum is because I live in the world of hopes and dreams where the government runs effieciently, for the people, and looks after the well being of the citizens over their own special interests. Sadly, this is not reality by any means and the proof is in the pudding that individual free will is far superior to state control "incentive".

---


I have actually switched almost entirely to chicken. Mostly because that is all my girlfriend eats, but it is hella better for you. And even chicken can be trumped by ostrich meat but once again the poultry lobby is too large for any kind of change. Ostrich meat is still considered "exotic" to most. sigh.

11/4/2006 10:41:33 AM

never had it osterich

but pork is better for you than chicken fyi.

11/4/2006 10:45:05 AM

O rly? Yay NC. [#1 in hogs, #41 in teachers] (that is a real bumper sticker)

11/4/2006 10:48:16 AM

im gonna go fry me up some pork ribs

YEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAA

11/4/2006 10:49:00 AM

I MEAN SERIOUSLY...

PEOPLE COULD HAVE SIMPLY PICKED OUT THE RED M&M'S.....





I like the effect this ban will have, but the ban shouldn't be necessary.
If people are stupid enough to eat this crap, they should be allowed.
(As long as my tax dollars don't go to their inevitable health care bills.....)

It's like the ban on telemarketing calls to those who have opted out.
I like the effect of the ban, but I don't agree with the principle/precedent.

[Edited on November 4, 2006 at 1:09 PM. Reason : 2000!!!!]

11/4/2006 1:08:42 PM

Quote :

"Sorry to hijack this ever so important thread for what could probably be settled over PMs, but I think the reason why you and I are seemingly on opposite ends of the spectrum is because I live in the world of hopes and dreams where the government runs effieciently, for the people, and looks after the well being of the citizens over their own special interests. Sadly, this is not reality by any means and the proof is in the pudding that individual free will is far superior to state control "incentive"."

You have no idea how happy I am to hear you say that. I feel that most people who differ from me suffer from the same delusion as you realize you are prone to. They are generally well meaning people who simply don't pay enough intention to incentives.

Also, Ostrich is fantastic. The only time I ever had it was at Horizons at Grove Park Inn and it was a 3 oz medallion of Ostrich and one of Boar and one of Antelope.

Tres Bien.

11/4/2006 1:08:52 PM

Quote :

"Many businesses and insurers would love to limit coverage, but they aren't allowed. State gov'ts require businesses who offer health care benefits to offer it to every employee...those who live a healthy lifestyle as well as those who do not. Insurers have to charge higher and higher prices in order to cover these unhealthy people. If gov't got out of the insurance business, companies could keep health care expenses so much lower if they weren't required to cover unhealthy workers. These workers would have to get their own coverage and pay the higher premiums they should be paying to cover their increased risky lifestyles."

yeah, i don't think they should be able to pick and choose who to offer health insurance to in as general of terms as you're suggesting, but i think that if you're a fatbody, they ought to be able to nail you just like if you're a smoker. our obesity epidemic is absolutely ridiculous, and i think we ought to hit those fatasses up for their fair share.

i couldn't tell you the last time i went to a doctor for anything other than my annual flight physical. i think it was about 3 years ago, for stitches. i take good care of myself, and people like me should get dirt cheap insurance. The people who voluntarily don't take care of themselves and need more medical care should pay the price.

Quote :

"I'd choose the one better for the planet."

I'd make my choice on taste and how healthy each was.

In reality, I'll eat beef and buffalo like it's my job, but I don't care too much about how much land it takes to let a cow graze.

11/4/2006 2:27:00 PM

I want blood from my beef to trickle down my chin and if that shits on the planet then so be it GOD BLESS AMERICA

[Edited on November 4, 2006 at 2:32 PM. Reason : .]

11/4/2006 2:32:44 PM

Quote :

"If someone offered Buffalo around here, and I liked it just as good, I'd choose the one better for the planet."

Duke, in that bolded section is where I consider taste and health.

You know me, I'm all about economics. If the two aren't substitutes, I'm not down with it.

11/4/2006 2:32:58 PM

that is incorrect grammar.

11/4/2006 4:47:49 PM

^^ah, ok

even in that case, i don't really care that much.

11/4/2006 5:26:42 PM