Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
There's no upside to Cigarettes. You smell nasty, where you live smells nasty, it takes a while to get acclimated to the choking smoke, they're expensive as feth, and they'll eventually kill you.

Yet, they're perfectly legal.

Upside is what nicotine gives ya...

At least Trans-fats aren't guaranteed to kill you. They'll only kill you if you are also sedentary and each them exclusively.

Smoking on the other hand is addictive, and it screws with your nervous system to the point where you actually need the Nicotine to function, and it's only a question of when it kills you. Not if it kills you.

Assuming you aren't doing something else that will kill you even faster.


As if that wasn't enough, second hand smoke is extremely harmful. So you aren't just putting yourself in danger, everyone around you is subjected to it as well.

Trans-fats are only a threat to yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
There's no upside to Cigarettes. You smell nasty, where you live smells nasty, it takes a while to get acclimated to the choking smoke, they're expensive as feth, and they'll eventually kill you.

Yet, they're perfectly legal.

Upside is what nicotine gives ya...

Yeah, but you have to go through all that nastyness to actually develop the addiction. And you'd have the same functionality if you weren't addicted to nicotine.

Smoking creates the problem that it supposedly fixes. It makes itself desirable by making itself necessary, but if you never needed it in the first place it wouldn't be desirable. Nobody is naturally addicted to Nicotine without smoking, or being exposed to second hand smoke.

 Seaward wrote:
That's an inaccurate comparison. One's a very slow death years hence, much like cigarettes, and the other is, in most cases, instant.

Trans fat is nothing new. I knew it was bad for me back before McDonald's stopped using it, I still ate McDonald's on occasion. The notion that everyone will always avoid something that's bad for them is simply not remotely based in reality.

Obviously people won't always make the healthier choice. If they did transfats wouldn't be in products. Hell, if everyone always made the decision that was best for them then no-one would ever waste their time arguing in Off Topic.

The point is that in almost all cases that unhealthy choice has some kind of upside. McDonalds is convenient, and when you pick the couple of decent items on the menu then it tastes okay. So in that case there is way too much subjectivity to bad McDonald's, because for some people in some specific situations it is the optimum choice. So government takes a step back accepts that it's too subjective for them to step in and act in everyone's overall best interest, and just accepts that some portion of the population will over consume and do themselves considerable harm.

But then there's other products where there simply is no upside. Clothing that is no way remarkable, but includes materials that are, like carcinogenic or something... we simply know that no person who is properly informed of the dangers of the product will choose it. A product that is chosen only through the ignorance of the consumer is not a choice that needs to be preserved. And transfats, with absolutely no upside, are a product just like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Okay... fine. Is this better?

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the
insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
-Brandis

Can we stop nitpicking...

Well, I'm not at all familiar with Brandis, and I really need to get off dakka, so I'll just have to let you have that one

Generally, I'm fine with letting people kill themselves in slow self inflicted ways, but maybe this will reduce the number of sweatpant inhabiting fatty wagon jockeys at the grocery store.

I can steer a cart around you but I can't steer around your freaky lingering butt funk.

 Grey Templar wrote:
There's no upside to Cigarettes. You smell nasty, where you live smells nasty, it takes a while to get acclimated to the choking smoke so you can actually develop the addiction so that they actually become desirable, they're expensive as feth, and they'll eventually kill you.

Yet, they're perfectly legal.

We need like a surgeon that's also a general to warn people about these dangers! Those hippie, science-loving liberals will listen to a surgeon because science! and the redneck, dukes of hazzard wannabes will listen to a General, because Military!. It's the perfect plan!

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No, I think if Seaward wouldn't ban heroin, he is not hypocritical to not want to ban trans fats.

People like Seaward are never hypocritical. That's one of the great luxuries of the ideologue - when you seek to pursue absolute ideological purity no matter the conclusion, you never have to worry about hypocritical positions, you just go with wherever your little ideological model takes you.

Not worrying about how your beliefs will affect real people in the complex real world is a tremendous luxury, when you think about it. We should envy Seaward his absolute convictions.

Its not pure ideological purety. Its the same thing my wiener dogs like, just to be left alone. No one likes to be messed with.

 sebster wrote:


Yeah, because it's a car, something you buy once every few years. But did you read up on the ingredients list of the salami you put in your sandwich today? Or the chocolate bar you bought last week?

There's an obvious limit to this stuff, a point where it just isn't sensible to insist the consumer must be fully informed on all elements of the purchase. That's why buyer beware was abandoned as an absolute legal principle more than two hundred years ago - it just became straight up better in terms of economics, and in terms of making life a lot less annoying for everyone, to have some things removed as 'choices'... because they were things no-one would ever want.

We read the labels of everything we purchase that's a new purchase.

But you're right. Saying "read the label" is unfairly prejudicial against the illiterate.

That's a lot of work...and not realistic.

What you are asking for is to read every label of everything you buy in a grocery store. or go online and check nutrition info before I buy anything from a restaurant. That's like asking people to read all the words of user agreements before selecting "I agree".

Not going to happen.

GG

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No, I think if Seaward wouldn't ban heroin, he is not hypocritical to not want to ban trans fats.

People like Seaward are never hypocritical. That's one of the great luxuries of the ideologue - when you seek to pursue absolute ideological purity no matter the conclusion, you never have to worry about hypocritical positions, you just go with wherever your little ideological model takes you.

Not worrying about how your beliefs will affect real people in the complex real world is a tremendous luxury, when you think about it. We should envy Seaward his absolute convictions.

Its not pure ideological purety. Its the same thing my wiener dogs like, just to be left alone. No one likes to be messed with.

No, its purely ideological. There is no reason why this issue speaks to conservatives and libertarians, other than the fantasy that this is something that speaks to conservatives and libertarian. This is not an issue about the sanctity of the market. This is not a case about essential and inherent freedoms.

This is a case where conservatives and libertarian are trying to turn something absolutely equivalent to ''You can't take my freedom to spray whatever toxic chemicals I want on my vegetables'' into something equivalent to ''You can't take away my freedom to bear arms.''. However you end up deciding on the arms issue, you have to agree that it's an important question. It might not be an urgent one, but it's an important one. If the situation comes up where a population would need weapons to overthrow an invader or a tyrant, you want to have the whole arms debate resolved already. These are the cases where you need to take in account questions about values such as freedom and the sanctity of the market. This is not the case. No one loses by losing the option to get trans fat fries.

I know as Canadian you grew up with no protected rights but seriously, its about nattering nabobs in the government trying to tell people how to live because they know better (even though they're not good enough to work in the private sector).

I lol'ed at "nattering naboobs".

WAKE UP SHEEPLES!

 Frazzled wrote:
I know as Québécois you grew up with no protected rights but seriously, its about nattering nabobs in the government trying to tell people how to live because they know better (even though they're not good enough to work in the private sector).

Fixed that for you.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I know as Québécois you grew up with no protected rights but seriously, its about nattering nabobs in the government trying to tell people how to live because they know better (even though they're not good enough to work in the private sector).

Fixed that for you.

No you're Canadian eh! All good freedom fries loving French peoples bailed and went to Louisiana!

 Frazzled wrote:
I know as Canadian you grew up with no protected rights but seriously, its about nattering nabobs in the government trying to tell people how to live because they know better (even though they're not good enough to work in the private sector).

See Frazz...this is where socialism actually can work..you know things like, speed limits, OSHA, EPA, you know all things to try and protect us little people from hypercapitialists that could care less if they fill a pizza dough with poison as long as they make a little more money.

GG

I like OSHA.
I like the FDA when it sticks with its job to regulate drugs and rotten food.

But its like booze and big cokes. Its only bad because the user drinks too much. Just like water.

 Frazzled wrote:
I like OSHA.
I like the FDA when it sticks with its job to regulate drugs and rotten food.

... they're making a determination that transfats are rotten food, just as they banned those diet pills that caused heart attacks a few years ago.

You could disagree with that assessment, but their purview is pretty clear.

I see the merits in the argument that the government should not protect people from themselves, but I do not see it as an absolute. I think a reasonable middle ground is to ban or heavily restrict substances with little redeeming value and outsize and unambiguously negative health effects.

Sex releases endorphins that are good for you. Legalize prostitution if you really care about our health!

Edit: Well not mine. I need no help in that department, obviously. You know, legalize it for the unhealthy losers and stuff...

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I like OSHA.
I like the FDA when it sticks with its job to regulate drugs and rotten food.

... they're making a determination that transfats are rotten food, just as they banned those diet pills that caused heart attacks a few years ago.

You could disagree with that assessment, but their purview is pretty clear.

I see the merits in the argument that the government should not protect people from themselves, but I do not see it as an absolute. I think a reasonable middle ground is to ban or heavily restrict substances with little redeeming value and outsize and unambiguously negative health effects.

Its no more rotten then salt, fat, or any other damn thing. Its a step beyond their purview. Cheeseburgers are bad for you if you eat too many of them. To a starving man they're great.

 Frazzled wrote:
To a starving man they're great.

That's my argument for prostitution! Get your own argument!

 Frazzled wrote:

Its no more rotten then salt, fat, or any other damn thing. Its a step beyond their purview. Cheeseburgers are bad for you if you eat too many of them. To a starving man they're great.

If you really look at the hard science of human food, grains are far worse for you than animal fats... I agree that many ingredients are good in appropriate levels, and that many people don't follow those appropriate levels, in the looking about that I've done on Trans Fats shows them to be just as Ouze and others have said, which is basically absolute garbage that people and no living things should be consuming.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I like OSHA.
I like the FDA when it sticks with its job to regulate drugs and rotten food.

... they're making a determination that transfats are rotten food, just as they banned those diet pills that caused heart attacks a few years ago.

You could disagree with that assessment, but their purview is pretty clear.

I see the merits in the argument that the government should not protect people from themselves, but I do not see it as an absolute. I think a reasonable middle ground is to ban or heavily restrict substances with little redeeming value and outsize and unambiguously negative health effects.

Its no more rotten then salt, fat, or any other damn thing. Its a step beyond their purview. Cheeseburgers are bad for you if you eat too many of them. To a starving man they're great.

The government can restrict sales of food based on the fact that they aren't good for you anymore.
The government cannot restrict sales of food based on the fact that they were never good for you in the first place.

Dem mental gymnastics.

The government can only do what the government is permitted to do. Please show me where "aint good for you" is the standard approved under law.

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No, I think if Seaward wouldn't ban heroin, he is not hypocritical to not want to ban trans fats.

People like Seaward are never hypocritical. That's one of the great luxuries of the ideologue - when you seek to pursue absolute ideological purity no matter the conclusion, you never have to worry about hypocritical positions, you just go with wherever your little ideological model takes you.

Not worrying about how your beliefs will affect real people in the complex real world is a tremendous luxury, when you think about it. We should envy Seaward his absolute convictions.

Its not pure ideological purety. Its the same thing my wiener dogs like, just to be left alone. No one likes to be messed with.

What you just described is an ideology.

Then everything's a freaking ideology. The desire to not be messed with is as basic as it comes.

I have the right to put my wang in a toaster if I so choose to do so!

 kronk wrote:
I have the right to put my wang in a toaster if I so choose to do so!

And nobody is saying you can't. Just that you shouldn't. Remember we need you intact Kronk.

 kronk wrote:
I have the right to put my wang in a toaster if I so choose to do so!

Just as I have the right to put the plunger thing down on the toaster with your wang in it (but, for the sake of the future of all humanity, I will refrain)

 kronk wrote:
I have the right to put my wang in a toaster if I so choose to do so!

Making hot dog already? o.O

 kronk wrote:
I have the right to put my wang in a toaster if I so choose to do so!

NOOO! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

 sebster wrote:

Yeah, because it's a car, something you buy once every few years. But did you read up on the ingredients list of the salami you put in your sandwich today? Or the chocolate bar you bought last week?

There's an obvious limit to this stuff, a point where it just isn't sensible to insist the consumer must be fully informed on all elements of the purchase. That's why buyer beware was abandoned as an absolute legal principle more than two hundred years ago - it just became straight up better in terms of economics, and in terms of making life a lot less annoying for everyone, to have some things removed as 'choices'... because they were things no-one would ever want.

Nope I just pile things in my mouth and i hope that it is edible, Oh wait no I actually take the time to see what I put into my body because holy gak I care about what I eat.

So if you want to blindly follow what your government says you keep at it. People who care about what they eat however.. will take the time to read