The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I'd prefer you just donate your own money to my shitty schools to educate morons since you're so apt to reach into my pocket and steal it.
Wake me up when they blow up the IRS then moving to Washington State or Florida might make sense.
So you have nothing against all the other points and just wanted to whine about being oppressed by the man? That's nice. Go start a libertarian thread. This is about trans fat.
I'd prefer you just donate your own money to my shitty schools to educate morons since you're so apt to reach into my pocket and steal it.
Wake me up when they blow up the IRS then moving to Washington State or Florida might make sense.
So you have nothing against all the other points and just wanted to whine about being oppressed by the man? That's nice. Go start a libertarian thread. This is about trans fat.
I didn't bring up the school funding argument, I was just pointing out the dumbest part of the law: that poor fat people aren't going to "benefit" from it.
I'll reiterate my points: Laws like this usually don't work very well and have bad unintended consequences. A smart thing to do would be to wait and collect data from the NYC law and see the actual impact on the economy and population and then decide if this law is worth it from a CBA perspective.
But since the legislature here is a bunch of fucking do gooder grandstanding nags we are just gonna pass a law where we have no idea what the impact is going to be. This is almost as genius as the moratorium on fast food restaurants in South LA law the city council passed a couple days ago. Another genius law that will accomplish nothing but hurt the economy.
But since the legislature here is a bunch of fucking do gooder grandstanding nags we are just gonna pass a law where we have no idea what the impact is going to be. This is almost as genius as the moratorium on fast food restaurants in South LA law the city council passed a couple days ago. Another genius law that will accomplish nothing but hurt the economy.
Only if you think trans fat and heart disease is a myth. Is this what you think? And you haven't shown how it's hurting the economy unless a business owner is too thick to change their supplies at some point over the next several months.
Meh, that data is excluding local sales and property taxes. It's not comprehensive.
However, some states accomplish at the local level what other states accomplish at the state level, so a degree of comparability is lost as a result.
I don't benefit from Prop 13 at all and I'm paying almost a high % sales tax on top of all the other bullshit fees I pay for living here (10 bucks a month on my cell phone bill for no apparent reason other than the voters here are fools is a good example.)
But since the legislature here is a bunch of fucking do gooder grandstanding nags we are just gonna pass a law where we have no idea what the impact is going to be. This is almost as genius as the moratorium on fast food restaurants in South LA law the city council passed a couple days ago. Another genius law that will accomplish nothing but hurt the economy.
Only if you think trans fat and heart disease is a myth. Is this what you think? And you haven't shown how it's hurting the economy unless a business owner is too thick to change their supplies at some point over the next several months.
Butter and Lard don't help heart disease either Quid.
Your last sentence kinda displays your ignorance of the potential economic impact here. Either that or you're being lazy and doing a poor job of summing up the solution.
Butter and Lard don't help heart disease either Quid.
They also don't hurt it as much either. Neither does hydrogenated oil. Which can also be used. Just because they aren't the best thing ever doesn't mean we should be letting businesses use whatever they want.
Your last sentence kinda displays your ignorance of the potential economic impact here. Either that or you're being lazy and doing a poor job of summing up the solution.
Please feel free to demonstrate to everyone here what the actual impact would be.
Quid on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
But since the legislature here is a bunch of fucking do gooder grandstanding nags we are just gonna pass a law where we have no idea what the impact is going to be. This is almost as genius as the moratorium on fast food restaurants in South LA law the city council passed a couple days ago. Another genius law that will accomplish nothing but hurt the economy.
Only if you think trans fat and heart disease is a myth. Is this what you think? And you haven't shown how it's hurting the economy unless a business owner is too thick to change their supplies at some point over the next several months.
Butter and Lard don't help heart disease either Quid.
You're mad that the government doesn't allow cows with Mad Cow be slaughtered for food aren't you?
But since the legislature here is a bunch of fucking do gooder grandstanding nags we are just gonna pass a law where we have no idea what the impact is going to be. This is almost as genius as the moratorium on fast food restaurants in South LA law the city council passed a couple days ago. Another genius law that will accomplish nothing but hurt the economy.
Only if you think trans fat and heart disease is a myth. Is this what you think? And you haven't shown how it's hurting the economy unless a business owner is too thick to change their supplies at some point over the next several months.
Butter and Lard don't help heart disease either Quid.
You're mad that the government doesn't allow cows with Mad Cow be slaughtered for food aren't you?
man, red meat is already bad for you, what difference could a few prions make?
But since the legislature here is a bunch of fucking do gooder grandstanding nags we are just gonna pass a law where we have no idea what the impact is going to be. This is almost as genius as the moratorium on fast food restaurants in South LA law the city council passed a couple days ago. Another genius law that will accomplish nothing but hurt the economy.
Only if you think trans fat and heart disease is a myth. Is this what you think? And you haven't shown how it's hurting the economy unless a business owner is too thick to change their supplies at some point over the next several months.
Butter and Lard don't help heart disease either Quid.
You're mad that the government doesn't allow cows with Mad Cow be slaughtered for food aren't you?
man, red meat is already bad for you, what difference could a few prions make?
Restaurants that relied on that cheap meat totally suffered.
I would much rather pay now to have healthy people without disease than to pay later to give new hearts to people without health insurance.
If you want to get uppity about regulations, get uppity about some of the shitty stuff that's been happening with horribly-timed environmental regulations that are based on "Someone will invent it in the future" claims.
This is in no way comparable to arsenic and asbestos. The alternatives to those things do no significant harm to humans. On the other hand, saturated fat still makes you fat and still vastly increases your chances of heart disease.
Let's say, theoretically, that trans-fat-laden food actually did taste better than other foods. Would that in any way change your view on a ban?
This is in no way comparable to arsenic and asbestos. The alternatives to those things do no significant harm to humans. On the other hand, saturated fat still makes you fat and still vastly increases your chances of heart disease.
Let's say, theoretically, that trans-fat-laden food actually did taste better than other foods. Would that in any way change your view on a ban?
You mean if there was some positive difference even if it was only in taste to alternatives?
In USA: trans fat levels of less than 0.5 grams per serving can be listed as 0 grams trans fat on the food label
So even if you wanted to self regulate your intake it would be extremely hard.
Read the ingredient list. If you see "partially hydrogenated x oil" then stay the fuck away :P Another thing to keep in mind about the ingredient list that most people don't seem to know about is that ingredients are listed based on the amount present in the food, in descending order.
Barrakketh on
Rollers are red, chargers are blue....omae wa mou shindeiru
There's really just way too much incredibly good food that has no need for transfats for me to see a valid reason for transfats in anything except food which exists for long-term, emergency-use-only purposes.
This is in no way comparable to arsenic and asbestos. The alternatives to those things do no significant harm to humans. On the other hand, saturated fat still makes you fat and still vastly increases your chances of heart disease.
Let's say, theoretically, that trans-fat-laden food actually did taste better than other foods. Would that in any way change your view on a ban?
How about you actually explain the actual plus of trans fats instead of pretending there aren't better alternatives?
This is in no way comparable to arsenic and asbestos. The alternatives to those things do no significant harm to humans. On the other hand, saturated fat still makes you fat and still vastly increases your chances of heart disease.
Except for the fact that saturated fat has some nutritional value, and your body can process it. In fact, your body synthesizes its own saturated fats from carbohydrates for use in building and repairing cell membranes, providing energy for the heart, and protecting against certain diseases and infections. Yes, it's still bad for you, but that's mostly because most people consume way too much of it, which wrecks their blood cholesterol and leads to all sorts of bad shit.
Let's say, theoretically, that trans-fat-laden food actually did taste better than other foods. Would that in any way change your view on a ban?
Let's imagine a certain kind of poison making foods taste better, while slowly killing you. Hmm, let me think about that one.
Let's say, theoretically, that trans-fat-laden food actually did taste better than other foods. Would that in any way change your view on a ban?
There -will- be a difference in texture.
I still don't mind.
Americans are too poorly educated to make their own healthy decisions, and many of them are too isolated to have a choice in their purchases.
Then my question is, why not go further? Why not ban fried foods? Why not ban anything over a certain level of saturated fats? Why not just regulate everything? When KevinNash said it, you just dismissed it as "Ron Paul lol." Tell me why, exactly, this keeps the government from going further and banning everything that is quite nearly as unhealthy?
Canned food doesn't typically require it. It's food you want to keep around forever outside of cans where it's useful. Not necessary, but useful.
I guess increasing your risk of lethal heart disease is better than starving to death, but I don't think that a restaurant-only ban on trans fat significantly increases the odds of the latter.
This is in no way comparable to arsenic and asbestos. The alternatives to those things do no significant harm to humans. On the other hand, saturated fat still makes you fat and still vastly increases your chances of heart disease.
Let's say, theoretically, that trans-fat-laden food actually did taste better than other foods. Would that in any way change your view on a ban?
It's not about being fat, it's about plaque forming in your arteries. Unsaturated fatty acids are significant less healthy than saturated as your body cannot process them correctly.
Let's say, theoretically, that trans-fat-laden food actually did taste better than other foods. Would that in any way change your view on a ban?
There -will- be a difference in texture.
I still don't mind.
Americans are too poorly educated to make their own healthy decisions, and many of them are too isolated to have a choice in their purchases.
Then my question is, why not go further? Why not ban fried foods? Why not ban anything over a certain level of saturated fats? Why not just regulate everything? When KevinNash said it, you just dismissed it as "Ron Paul lol." Tell me why, exactly, this keeps the government from going further and banning everything that is quite nearly as unhealthy?
What's the harm in banning trans fat again? Because I wager most people haven't noticed the difference.
Trans fats are artificial additives that threaten health.
They are not food.
The effects appear to be cumulative.
There is no amount that is safe.
They are effectively poison.
If you want to couch the "right" to poison food with rubric about personal choice or economic impact, then you're either ignorant of the issue or batshit crazy.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
For most stuff it's mainly a convenience thing. Transfat oils don't go bad as fast and are solid at room temperature. The cost difference between cheap vegetable oil and transfat-based shortening is virtually nil.
nexuscrawler on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Let's say, theoretically, that trans-fat-laden food actually did taste better than other foods. Would that in any way change your view on a ban?
There -will- be a difference in texture.
I still don't mind.
Americans are too poorly educated to make their own healthy decisions, and many of them are too isolated to have a choice in their purchases.
Then my question is, why not go further? Why not ban fried foods? Why not ban anything over a certain level of saturated fats? Why not just regulate everything? When KevinNash said it, you just dismissed it as "Ron Paul lol." Tell me why, exactly, this keeps the government from going further and banning everything that is quite nearly as unhealthy?
Tell me why the government should ban anything if you're so worried about them going too far?
This is in no way comparable to arsenic and asbestos. The alternatives to those things do no significant harm to humans. On the other hand, saturated fat still makes you fat and still vastly increases your chances of heart disease.
Let's say, theoretically, that trans-fat-laden food actually did taste better than other foods. Would that in any way change your view on a ban?
It's not about being fat, it's about plaque forming in your arteries. Unsaturated fatty acids are significant less healthy than saturated as your body cannot process them correctly.
Really, it's just trans fats. Unstaturated cis fats are just fine, pretty much.
The sad thing is we've run into basically this exact situation once before and it didn't turn out well. Saccharine was found to cause cancer in a wide range of lab tests, the FDA wanted to ban it, and a bunch of idiots protested it along basically the same lines as FCS here.
Then my question is, why not go further?
Why not ban fried foods? Why not ban anything over a certain level of saturated fats? Why not just regulate everything? When KevinNash said it, you just dismissed it as "Ron Paul lol." Tell me why, exactly, this keeps the government from going further and banning everything that is quite nearly as unhealthy?
There is a huge difference between banning a VARIETY of an ingredient and a TYPE OF COOKING.
This is like banning MSG. Oh noes, we have to use standard salt now!
It's also much easier to avoid a type of cooking than a variety of ingredient.
Let's say, theoretically, that trans-fat-laden food actually did taste better than other foods. Would that in any way change your view on a ban?
There -will- be a difference in texture.
I still don't mind.
Americans are too poorly educated to make their own healthy decisions, and many of them are too isolated to have a choice in their purchases.
Then my question is, why not go further? Why not ban fried foods? Why not ban anything over a certain level of saturated fats? Why not just regulate everything? When KevinNash said it, you just dismissed it as "Ron Paul lol." Tell me why, exactly, this keeps the government from going further and banning everything that is quite nearly as unhealthy?
What's the harm in banning trans fat again? Because I wager most people haven't noticed the difference.
Edit: Also, this isn't about obesity.
Because it takes away people's choice to eat whatever the fuck they want, excluding things that are explicitly poisonous? Saturated fats significantly increase your risk of heart disease when consumed over a certain level, should we have limits on how much saturated fat someone can eat in a day?
Because it takes away people's choice to eat whatever the fuck they want, excluding things that are explicitly poisonous? Saturated fats significantly increase your risk of heart disease when consumed over a certain level, should we have limits on how much saturated fat someone can eat in a day?
Trans fats are explicitly poisonous, if a bit slow-acting. We didn't find this out until relatively recently, which is why they've been allowed in food all this time.
Because it takes away people's choice to eat whatever the fuck they want, excluding things that are explicitly poisonous? Saturated fats significantly increase your risk of heart disease when consumed over a certain level, should we have limits on how much saturated fat someone can eat in a day?
Trans fats are explicitly poisonous.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Because it takes away people's choice to eat whatever the fuck they want, excluding things that are explicitly poisonous? Saturated fats significantly increase your risk of heart disease when consumed over a certain level, should we have limits on how much saturated fat someone can eat in a day?
Saturated fats increase your LDL. Trans fats increase your LDL and decrease your HDL. That's the total difference. If you can find a significant group of people that actually care about the slight texture difference, a gourmet trans fats group if you will, feel free to bring them forth. Otherwise you're just arguing for a worse alternative just cause.
This is like banning MSG. Oh noes, we have to use standard salt now!
God dammit, stop making my side look stupid.
Isn't MSG supposed to cause cancer and happens to not really be an important ingredient for most palletes?
I mean they still sell the stuff in some places but Chinese Food is still freaking great with that No MSG sign.
No, that's a load of horseshit. MSG hits an entirely different set of taste buds than salt does; they're about as alike, flavor-wise, as salt and sugar. MSG doesn't cause cancer, it can cause headaches in a small fraction of the population that's allergic to it. "No MSG" Chinese food is usually either food that didn't contain MSG in the first place or uses some other glutimate as a substitute for MSG.
Because it takes away people's choice to eat whatever the fuck they want, excluding things that are explicitly poisonous? Saturated fats significantly increase your risk of heart disease when consumed over a certain level, should we have limits on how much saturated fat someone can eat in a day?
Trans fats are explicitly poisonous.
So are saturated fats over a certain level. So are cigarettes. Alcohol is a much more explicit poison. But if I suggest you ban that, you get up in arms, because those are commonly accepted.
Posts
I didn't bring up the school funding argument, I was just pointing out the dumbest part of the law: that poor fat people aren't going to "benefit" from it.
I'll reiterate my points: Laws like this usually don't work very well and have bad unintended consequences. A smart thing to do would be to wait and collect data from the NYC law and see the actual impact on the economy and population and then decide if this law is worth it from a CBA perspective.
But since the legislature here is a bunch of fucking do gooder grandstanding nags we are just gonna pass a law where we have no idea what the impact is going to be. This is almost as genius as the moratorium on fast food restaurants in South LA law the city council passed a couple days ago. Another genius law that will accomplish nothing but hurt the economy.
Nope.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/335.html
Meh, that data is excluding local sales and property taxes. It's not comprehensive.
I don't benefit from Prop 13 at all and I'm paying almost a high % sales tax on top of all the other bullshit fees I pay for living here (10 bucks a month on my cell phone bill for no apparent reason other than the voters here are fools is a good example.)
Butter and Lard don't help heart disease either Quid.
Your last sentence kinda displays your ignorance of the potential economic impact here. Either that or you're being lazy and doing a poor job of summing up the solution.
Please feel free to demonstrate to everyone here what the actual impact would be.
You're mad that the government doesn't allow cows with Mad Cow be slaughtered for food aren't you?
man, red meat is already bad for you, what difference could a few prions make?
If you want to get uppity about regulations, get uppity about some of the shitty stuff that's been happening with horribly-timed environmental regulations that are based on "Someone will invent it in the future" claims.
This Trans-fat thing isn't nearly as big a deal.
Wrong again. They are comparing their stats, which DO include those taxes, to the Census bureau's, which do not.
Let's say, theoretically, that trans-fat-laden food actually did taste better than other foods. Would that in any way change your view on a ban?
There -will- be a difference in texture.
I still don't mind.
Americans are too poorly educated to make their own healthy decisions, and many of them are too isolated to have a choice in their purchases.
You mean if there was some positive difference even if it was only in taste to alternatives?
Maybe. Probably not though.
Read the ingredient list. If you see "partially hydrogenated x oil" then stay the fuck away :P Another thing to keep in mind about the ingredient list that most people don't seem to know about is that ingredients are listed based on the amount present in the food, in descending order.
This doesn't mean it was a bad idea to ban it for general consumption.
Edit: Bar, you mean descending order, or else my cereal has more riboflavin than corn flour.
So, like, that canned bread or something, maybe.
Except for the fact that saturated fat has some nutritional value, and your body can process it. In fact, your body synthesizes its own saturated fats from carbohydrates for use in building and repairing cell membranes, providing energy for the heart, and protecting against certain diseases and infections. Yes, it's still bad for you, but that's mostly because most people consume way too much of it, which wrecks their blood cholesterol and leads to all sorts of bad shit.
Let's imagine a certain kind of poison making foods taste better, while slowly killing you. Hmm, let me think about that one.
Then my question is, why not go further? Why not ban fried foods? Why not ban anything over a certain level of saturated fats? Why not just regulate everything? When KevinNash said it, you just dismissed it as "Ron Paul lol." Tell me why, exactly, this keeps the government from going further and banning everything that is quite nearly as unhealthy?
I guess increasing your risk of lethal heart disease is better than starving to death, but I don't think that a restaurant-only ban on trans fat significantly increases the odds of the latter.
They simply aren't food
Edit: Also, this isn't about obesity.
They are not food.
The effects appear to be cumulative.
There is no amount that is safe.
They are effectively poison.
If you want to couch the "right" to poison food with rubric about personal choice or economic impact, then you're either ignorant of the issue or batshit crazy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Tell me why the government should ban anything if you're so worried about them going too far?
lol slippery slopes
Really, it's just trans fats. Unstaturated cis fats are just fine, pretty much.
The sad thing is we've run into basically this exact situation once before and it didn't turn out well. Saccharine was found to cause cancer in a wide range of lab tests, the FDA wanted to ban it, and a bunch of idiots protested it along basically the same lines as FCS here.
There is a huge difference between banning a VARIETY of an ingredient and a TYPE OF COOKING.
This is like banning MSG. Oh noes, we have to use standard salt now!
It's also much easier to avoid a type of cooking than a variety of ingredient.
God dammit, stop making my side look stupid.
Because it takes away people's choice to eat whatever the fuck they want, excluding things that are explicitly poisonous? Saturated fats significantly increase your risk of heart disease when consumed over a certain level, should we have limits on how much saturated fat someone can eat in a day?
Isn't MSG supposed to cause cancer and happens to not really be an important ingredient for most palletes?
I mean they still sell the stuff in some places but Chinese Food is still freaking great with that No MSG sign.
Trans fats are explicitly poisonous, if a bit slow-acting. We didn't find this out until relatively recently, which is why they've been allowed in food all this time.
Trans fats are explicitly poisonous.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
No, that's a load of horseshit. MSG hits an entirely different set of taste buds than salt does; they're about as alike, flavor-wise, as salt and sugar. MSG doesn't cause cancer, it can cause headaches in a small fraction of the population that's allergic to it. "No MSG" Chinese food is usually either food that didn't contain MSG in the first place or uses some other glutimate as a substitute for MSG.
So are saturated fats over a certain level. So are cigarettes. Alcohol is a much more explicit poison. But if I suggest you ban that, you get up in arms, because those are commonly accepted.