Note: This thread works under the assumption that fast food is under attack by the legal system. If you entirely disagree with this, I would prefer you not post about it because thats not what I want to argue about.
Recently I have heard some disturbing news that I think may lead to an ultimate ban on fast food.
A law has recently been released in New Jersey (Or was it New York?) that, although not targetted towards McDonalds in its own right, illegalized the selling of Happy Meals. (It was a trans-fat law)
Now, if you look at the evolution of the "seatbelt" law, one might think that they are not going to stop releasing these laws little by little. In the 1960s being caught without a seatbelt you would get little more than a pat on the nose, now you get a 200 dollar ticket.
Now, as stated I do not want to argue about whether or not this is actually going to happen, but if you agree that it SHOULD happen.
I personally think that this is completely unfair, and that the government should not be watching over our shoulders to keep us from eating unhealthy things such as McDonalds.
Your Thoughts?
What does the law forbid? Sale? Production? Purchase? Consumption? Foods cannot be banned; only actions concerning them can. Please elaborate to the best of your knowledge, lest you be presumed to be uninformed about a law you oppose.
Yes, I apologize, I should have done more research.
In New York City, not only did they ban artifical trans-fats. They illegalized the sale of toys in happy meals. San Fransisco also suffered this same law involving artificial trans-fats and now Happy Meals cannot be sold in either NYC or San Fransisco.
Do you know what their grounds were for banning the sale of toys in Happy Meals?
Might McDonald's be able to remove trans fat from their Happy Meal in the face of this decision by the legislature?
Do you believe that foods with trans fat in them taste better than those without?
Please understand that these questions are non-judgemental, and only seek to further the discussion. That is, I won't think any less or more of you (nor ought you care if I did) in a way that depends upon your answer.
I would recommend you take a look at this link:
http://publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/healthy-eating/transfat-bans
I guess their grounds on banning it are simply "Its unhealthy, they shouldn't be allowed to sell it."
(EDIT: I see you were talking about the toys. In that case, no I am not that sure about that.)
And, honestly I have no notion as to what the other 2 are.
Okay. I shall rephrase my latter two questions.
Might
McDonald's, being a
large business, and having a very
large profit margin, be able to
spend a little bit of money in order to
get rid of the
trans fat in their foods? I
don't think it would hurt their
enormous profit margin to do that.
And:
Do
you think that foods with
trans fat taste better than foods that don't have it?
Again, please don't take these questions as judgemental, nor the highlighting of key phrases as condescending. I merely seek to make sure you have a notion this time.
I read the article. It says that the grounds for banning trans fat are that:
- Americans are now more conscious about trans fat than they used to be.
- Trans fat quantities are now marked on packaged foods.
- However, Americans are now eating out more (possibly because they see trans fats in packaged foods than they used to) at restaurants.
- Restaurants aren't required to tell you how much trans fat is in their food. How could that work?
- Instead, so as to limit health problems resulting from trans fat, and let Americans know exactly how much trans fat is in their food (exactly 0g), trans fat ought to be banned
Please note that I express neither support nor denial of these claims and argument.
Its not trans-fats, its artificial trans-fats. Really, though, Im not a business man and I have no idea how much it would be to use... "real" trans-fats.
Do I think foods taste better with trans-fats? I have no idea. I have no care for my eating habits so I don't know whether or not a food has a trans-fat.
But, I know you want more than that. So, I googled "Why does McDonalds use artificial trans-fats"
Well, I didnt get an answer but I did get something else. A businessweek.com news report saying that immediately when the law was passed McDonalds complied and took out their trans-fats.
As to your notion about spending a little bit of money. Its not about the trans-fat, according to this article which states....
"McDonald's says there aren't yet good substitutes for trans fat and that switching may compromise the taste of its food. Using trans-fat frying oils also allows fast-food chains to trim costs, since the same oil can be used for weeks."
As Well As
"...it [McDonalds] has said in the past that the company's priority is to meet taste and quality expectations of customers. It originally pledged to get rid of trans fat in its restaurants by 2003. But so far, it says, it hasn't been able to find an adequate substitute. "
Note that I do not know if they are being honest. I mean, there are some companies that SAY (once again, its their word we are relying on) that they removed trans-fats without compromising tastes. But really, how would we know?
I hope that answers all your questions.
Alas, there are more.
Where was the law concerning the ban on artificial trans fats passed such that McDonald's removed trans fats from their foods?
Does this not imply that McDonalds does have an effective substitute?
Or does McDonald's claim that the taste is compromised? Do you know of any entity other than McDonald's that concurs that the removal of trans fats would compromise the taste of the foods McDonald's provides?
Is McDonald's concerned more with their profit margin, or with human health?
Q1: The laws were passed in New York (Entire State) and San Fransisco (A city in california)
Q2: I would assume so.
Q3: No I do not.
Q4: Idk.
Thanks. I think I'm running out of questions.
So, from what you've said (and I think I can answer the last one for you):
- McDonald's has managed to remove trans fats from their food in some places.
- They most likely have an effective substitute.
- No one else is complaining about a taste difference in New York and San Francisco.
- McDonald's raised complaints about costs and taste, but we both know that they make large amounts of money as a company, and, as you said, you don't know about anyone that's complained about a taste difference.
- Trans fats tend to have an overall health detriment.
- McDonald's would, therefore, appear to be insisting on continuing to use trans fats because of the costliness of alternatives despite the fact that human health is generally negatively affected by their use in foods.
- You, particularly, haven't noticed any taste difference due to the presence or absence of trans fats.
It kind of looks like McDonald's is being a bit greedy here, and hanging on to an argument about taste that no one else verifies (honestly, I've noticed that I feel better after eating non-trans-fat foods that those with it -- that could just be me), and finally the legislature decided to do something about it. Small businesses worried about rising prices of production after a trans fat ban should really look into buying cooking oils in greater bulk, and I'm sure that with a greater number of restaurants using non-trans-fat cooking oils, the costs of production of the oils will go down, and there will be no more problem. Even if it does cost a bit more if / when trans fat is banned, wouldn't the satisfaction of knowing that you'll have less of a chance of heart failure and death when you're older be worth it?
I still don't know anything about the toys-in-happy-meals ban; I'll look into that.
I can't remember if this has been brought up or not. But many restaurants have stated they use artificial trans-fats because it lasts long. And you can use the same oil for almost a week without any ill consequences. Where as "healthy" alternatives only last a day. (Not to mention compromising taste (supposedly))
Yeah, it is a bummer that preservatives and non-perishable cooking supplies tend to be unhealthy. On the other hand, think about it; Do you really want to be eating stuff that was fried in week-old cooking oils? Sure, a lack of ill consequences is professed, but I still can't say I like the idea very much.
I guess the matter comes down to whether you think it's worthwhile to increase the financial burden on restaurants somewhat in order to ensure public health.
Now, a couple more questions:
Do you think oil costs make up a very significant portion of total operating costs of a restaurant?
Are you skeptical of the health benefits of cooking without trans fats (I notice that you put quotation marks around "healthy")? If you were, that would be completely reasonable; there's a lot of possible bias around this subject.
Q1: I would say a good 15-20 percent, if I had to guess.
Q2: I am, really. I mean plenty of healthy, well-to-do people eat at McDonalds frequently.
Side Notes: Honestly, I take the approach of "This isn't Burger King, you don't get it YOU'RE way, you take it OUR way, or you can gtfo."
Quote from: Deagonx on July 28, 2011, 05:13:24 PM
Q2: I am, really. I mean plenty of healthy, well-to-do people eat at McDonalds frequently.
It would help your point if you could give some names or references. Just saying.
I don't understand why anyone thinks the government should be involved in this. McDonalds isn't secretly poisoning people to earn profits. Everyone knows that trans-fats aren't healthy and they shouldn't be consumed on a regular basis. A nutrition chart is available at every fast food chain if you ask for it, so they clearly aren't putting anything in their food that the consumers don't know about. Instead of big brother government choosing what we can eat, individuals should make their own responsible choices. When I exercise regularly, why should I have to pay more for a less tasty burger during my once a week trip to McDonalds? Consumers like me and McD stockholders/employees shouldn't be punished, because some people make bad decisions in their eating habits. Also, no body if forcing you go to McDonalds. If you don't want high levels of transfat, then go to Subway (condiments have all the fat there).
I understand that the toys in happy meals are met to entice children, yet no body is forcing that children to buy a happy meal. When I was a kid, I got some lego toy in my happy meal. Later in the week, I ask my parents to go back, so I could get another. Do you know what I didn't get another happy meal or another the toy? My parents was responsible enough to say "No". Because government got involved, even kids with responsible parents won't get toys in their happy meals.
It is trans-fat today, but what is it tomorrow? Butter? Salt? Chocolate?
I beg to differ on several points.
Does everyone know that trans fats are unhealthy? What's more, even if they have a vague concept of the fact that it's "not good for them," how many people know precisely what the risks are in eating trans fats? Science, which many people don't trust, tells us that a great many things are unhealthy, and the media simply include whatever our science finds in another article called, "Ten Items Everyone Loves, but are Really Bad for Us." Then all the risks are equated, skepticism with which the authenticity of the science is regarded increases, and no one trusts what the media says about food any more. They know that ice cream, smoking, marijuana, salt, McDonald's, beer, asparagus, and fried chicken are "bad" for them, but the reasons are very different, and all of the possible health detriments resulting from these are long-term defects and disorders, meaning that according to the theory of hyperbolic gratification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_Gratification/), no one cares.
Since I have limited time with which to adress your remarks, I'm going to single out your fear-generating, hackle-raising comment that you placed at the end to scare us all.
"It is [trans fat] today, but what is it tomorrow? Butter? Salt? Chocolate?"
All of these are ridiculous. Sodium is an essential mineral. Butter is an entirely natural and healthy milkfat. Chocolate is an assembly of sugar (an essential nutrient) and cocao, which is a generally benign substance that acts as a subtle stimulant.
Trans fat, on the other hand, serves no purpose other than to be cheap and cause heart disease.
I think the point that he is making is that why should the people who don't give a damn about trans-fats suffer because of people who complain about it?
I mean, seriously? A law BANNING a food oil? If you dont want the food oil and you care so much. Check the ingredients or something and CHOOSE not to eat it. The thought is almost sickening that something like that might happen in my state.
Sorry. When the capital letters come out, I tend to have more questions:
Are the people who really "don't give a damn" suffering without their trans fats?
Is the government's responsibility to protect it's citizens' well-being?
Do you know how much or how little replacing trans fats with their natural counterparts costs?
Do you believe that carcinogens are a true threat?
Quote from: Duckling on July 29, 2011, 10:09:29 PM
Sorry. When the capital letters come out, I tend to have more questions:
Are the people who really "don't give a damn" suffering without their trans fats?
Is the government's responsibility to protect it's citizens' well-being?
Do you know how much or how little replacing trans fats with their natural counterparts costs?
Do you believe that carcinogens are a true threat?
Q1: No as in, we dont give a damn about eating trans-fats. We eat them anyways.
Q2: To an extent. A law banning guns to be holstered on the streets is an example of this. Or a law banning driving while under the influence. Banning trans-fats, which is a CHOICE that only affects YOU. Is not an example of this. I mean, if drunk driving were allowed itd be fine if it didnt affect anyone other than the driver. But it DOES. People get hit.
Q3: Nope, cause I dont care.
Q4: What does cancer have to do with this? If you are about to say Trans-fats cause cancer Ima slap you all the way back to the lab that told you that and tell you to run the test again.
No, I'm not going to tell you that trans fats cause cancer. It's just an arbitrary question that evaluates something. If you would please answer the question, I'd be obliged.
So you'd be perfectly fine without them; you don't care either way, but for the cost?
Do you think that governmental policy on the matter of self-harm should be rethought? I mean, there is a law against suicide, and against the use of hard drugs and other self-destructive actions.
Would you care much if McDonald's raised its prices a bit to accomodate for the new laws?
Quote from: Duckling on July 30, 2011, 03:30:02 PM
No, I'm not going to tell you that trans fats cause cancer. It's just an arbitrary question that evaluates something. If you would please answer the question, I'd be obliged.
So you'd be perfectly fine without them; you don't care either way, but for the cost?
Do you think that governmental policy on the matter of self-harm should be rethought? I mean, there is a law against suicide, and against the use of hard drugs and other self-destructive actions.
Would you care much if McDonald's raised its prices a bit to accomodate for the new laws?
No, I don't think Carcinogens are a threat.
Suicide is different. Majority of suicide is caused by some sort of mental disorder and cannot be helped.
Yes. Because I hate the new laws.
Is something that kills you a threat? (Somewhat loaded question... say yes...)
Actually, much of suicide is the result of clinical depression, which can be helped.
Why do you hate a law that prevents a deadly substance from entering your body?
Quote from: SmartyPants on July 29, 2011, 02:32:37 AM
I don't understand why anyone thinks the government should be involved in this. McDonalds isn't secretly poisoning people to earn profits. Everyone knows that trans-fats aren't healthy and they shouldn't be consumed on a regular basis. A nutrition chart is available at every fast food chain if you ask for it, so they clearly aren't putting anything in their food that the consumers don't know about. Instead of big brother government choosing what we can eat, individuals should make their own responsible choices. When I exercise regularly, why should I have to pay more for a less tasty burger during my once a week trip to McDonalds? Consumers like me and McD stockholders/employees shouldn't be punished, because some people make bad decisions in their eating habits. Also, no body if forcing you go to McDonalds. If you don't want high levels of transfat, then go to Subway (condiments have all the fat there).
I understand that the toys in happy meals are met to entice children, yet no body is forcing that children to buy a happy meal. When I was a kid, I got some lego toy in my happy meal. Later in the week, I ask my parents to go back, so I could get another. Do you know what I didn't get another happy meal or another the toy? My parents was responsible enough to say "No". Because government got involved, even kids with responsible parents won't get toys in their happy meals.
It is trans-fat today, but what is it tomorrow? Butter? Salt? Chocolate?
Hate to join the party late, but Ducky, I believe the point Smarty was getting at was: If they can ban this, what's to stop them from banning more and more with no reason? If you havn't noticed, Americans have a way of going overboard.
Going overboard with what? With restrictive policy? Of course not. McCarthy tried that, and everyone hated him for it. Oppose the law when it actually is something harmless, benign, yummy, or otherwise dear to you. Until then, I don't believe that's a reasonable objection.
Quote from: Duckling on July 30, 2011, 11:16:08 PM
Going overboard with what? With restrictive policy? Of course not. McCarthy tried that, and everyone hated him for it. Oppose the law when it actually is something harmless, benign, yummy, or otherwise dear to you. Until then, I don't believe that's a reasonable objection.
Trans-fats may not be harmless, benign, yummy, or otherwise dear to me. But Fast Food is.
Is the sale of all "Fast Food" being banned?
Will fast food be harder to acquire if trans fats are banned?
Will it be much more expensive?
Would you rather pay 25% more for fast food (worst case scenario; it's not likely that prices will increase that much), knowing that you were being served a food that was quick, still quite cheap, tasted good, and won't give you heart disease; or would you rather pay the same cheap rate we pay now for quick easy food that will?
And lastly, I ask you: were you aware that approximately fifty thousand people die every year in just the United States due to heart disease induced by the consumption of artificial trans fats? That number is equivalent to saying that everyone you know, and everyone that they know is dead. That's how deadly this stuff is. In a town of 100,000, that's about sixteen people every year, meaning that at least one of the people will be someone someone you know knows.
Each one of these deaths (think: life ending, not just statistics) is entirely preventable, and is caused by something that no one even likes.
It's just cheap and convenient. So, are these some fifty thousand people worth saving from the consequences of their uninformed actions?
Quote from: Duckling on July 29, 2011, 01:19:23 PMSince I have limited time with which to adress your remarks, I'm going to single out your fear-generating, hackle-raising comment that you placed at the end to scare us all.
"It is [trans fat] today, but what is it tomorrow? Butter? Salt? Chocolate?"
All of these are ridiculous. Sodium is an essential mineral. Butter is an entirely natural and healthy milkfat. Chocolate is an assembly of sugar (an essential nutrient) and cocao, which is a generally benign substance that acts as a subtle stimulant.
Trans fat, on the other hand, serves no purpose other than to be cheap and cause heart disease.
Government has already try to limit those three things. Butter has transfat. New York City has tried to pass a law that limits the amount sodium allowed in the food. Schools across the country aren't allowed to sell candy of any type.
Quote from: Duckling on July 29, 2011, 10:09:29 PMAre the people who really "don't give a damn" suffering without their trans fats?
My wallet and tongue will suffer.
Quote from: Duckling on July 29, 2011, 10:09:29 PMIs the government's responsibility to protect it's citizens' well-being?
In this instance, No. The government doesn't have the right to limit an individual's freedom when his choices can't harm anyone else.
Quote from: Duckling on July 29, 2011, 10:09:29 PMDo you know how much or how little replacing trans fats with their natural counterparts costs?
I don't think you have a great understanding of the economy. The reason that natural alternatives are not drastically more expensive then transfats is because the demand for transfat alternatives is low. If the government forces the companies to use the natural alternatives, then they are artificially increasing the demand and the price of natural alternatives. Ethanol was also cheap until the government forced companies to put it into their gas.
Quote from: Duckling on July 30, 2011, 03:30:02 PMDo you think that governmental policy on the matter of self-harm should be rethought? I mean, there is a law against suicide, and against the use of hard drugs and other self-destructive actions.
First, the law against suicide is dumb because you can't prosecute someone who is dead. Also, your examples of self-destructive actions are harmful to others. If you knew someone who killed themselves, then you would know the detrimental effect it has on a family and community. Highly addictive drugs tend to lead to an increase in violence and crime.
Quote from: Duckling on July 30, 2011, 03:30:02 PMWould you care much if McDonald's raised its prices a bit to accomodate for the new laws?
I would care alot, because the price is one of the main reasons I buy McDonalds.
Quote from: Duckling on August 04, 2011, 03:24:53 AMWould you rather pay 25% more for fast food (worst case scenario; it's not likely that prices will increase that much), knowing that you were being served a food that was quick, still quite cheap, tasted good, and won't give you heart disease; or would you rather pay the same cheap rate we pay now for quick easy food that will?
I would be extremely angry if the price went up. Since I don't eat to excess and I exercise regularly, I don't have to worry about heart disease. If I had a weight or cholesterol problem, then I wouldn't eat fastfood even if they removed transfat.
Quote from: Duckling on August 04, 2011, 03:24:53 AMAnd lastly, I ask you: were you aware that approximately fifty thousand people die every year in just the United States due to heart disease induced by the consumption of artificial trans fats? That number is equivalent to saying that everyone you know, and everyone that they know is dead. That's how deadly this stuff is. In a town of 100,000, that's about sixteen people every year, meaning that at least one of the people will be someone someone you know knows.
Those people died due to a lifetime of bad choices. Why should people like me be punished because other people chose to eat fatty foods on a regular basis and not exercise? With your logic, alcohol should be illegal, because many people died of liver failure because they choose to excessively drink for years. Motorcycles should be illegal because many people died because they recklessly weave between cars. This reminds me of high school lunch. After playing tennis in Houston humidity for an hour in a half, I want to heat a hershey bar. I can't get my candy bar, because the government said schools can't sell them due to the high rate of obesity. Because some fat kids choose to eat six candy bars, two personal pizzas, and mozzarella sticks before going home to nap and watch tv, nobody is allowed to have a hershey bar. Why punish everybody for other people's bad choices?
Butter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butter#Health_and_Nutrition) does not have trans fats. Margarine has trans fat.
Do you know what the grounds are for limiting sodium?
Can you salt your food?
What is the strict definition of candy? Without one such objective definition, the ban is meaningless.
Does candy play a role in education?
Must you buy your Hershey's chocolate bar at school?
Can you not bring your own?
Do
you think that trans fats taste better?
Do you know by how much or how little the substitution of non-trans fats for trans fats would increase the cost of fast foods?
Quote from: SmartyPants on August 04, 2011, 06:39:39 PM
The reason that natural alternatives are not drastically more expensive then transfats is because the demand for transfats is low. If the government forces the companies to use the natural alternatives, then they are artificially increasing the demand and the price of natural alternatives. Ethanol was also cheap until the government forced companies to put it into their gas.
Are you saying that the demand for trans fats is low?
Would you care to provide a link backing up your remark about ethanol? I'd be obliged.
Why do you use the qualifier "artificially" when all actions pertaining to the economy could be construed as being "artificial"?
What makes a suicide more detrimental to a community than any other death?
Do you believe that suicide is illegal on the grounds of being damaging to the families of the suicidal?
Do you realize that attempting to commit a crime despite being stopped is also a crime?
Do you realize that restaurants constantly increase their prices, and that you would most likely not even notice the price difference due to a trans fat ban if no one told you that it was taking effect?
Are you always extremely angry when McDonald's' prices go up?
Are you not aware that while regular exercise is beneficial to human health, it cannot prevent trans fat-induced coronary heart disease, and that the risk is, in fact, barely abated by your exercise?
Do you honestly think that every single person that dies of coronary heart disease that can be attributed to trans fats has made "a lifetime of bad decisions," and that they are all people that go to McDonald's regularly? Or that they didn't exercise?
Utilizing my logical process, smoking ought be banned as a result of a combination of their addictive properties, their detrimental effect on others inhaling the air surrounding the one smoking (known as second-hand smoke), and their destructive effect on the mouth, throat, and lungs.
Public drunkenness should be and is illegal because it upsets bystanders and is, if repeated, destructive to the one drinking.
Weaving in between cars should be banned because it can result in car wrecks and death, and, like the others, is a destructive behavior. It doesn't always kill the rider. It may not ever kill the rider if he or she only does it once. But it sure as heck will kill a lot of motorcycle riders if they do it. Such is eating trans fat.
Why do you want a sticky mess that will melt promptly after playing an hour and a half of tennis, by which time anyone doing so would surely be sweaty? (not conducive to the debate)
Finally, I wish to give an argument to support my questioning. I shall use your example with the fat children. The grounds for banning the sale of candy at schools is the prevention of the purchase and consumption of candy by children without the consent of their parents. Often, it is the candy children buy with the lunch money they are given, at the expense of healthier options, that fattens the child. It is a preventative measure, designed to reduce the accessibility of these snack items. If a child with responsible parents wishes to bring a candy snack item to school at some point, they may do so without making the purchase at school. With an insulated and chilled lunch box, their candy bar will not melt. Less accessibility, but less kids buying candy without their parents' consent.
Clearly, you don't have any idea what you are talking about, since you keep asking nonsensical questions.
Quote from: SmartyPants on August 05, 2011, 06:10:17 PM
Clearly, you don't have an idea what you are talking about, since you only argument is asking nonsensical questions.
This.
I should have you know that this is the Socratic method at work. It requires asking a few questions that seem irrelevant or to even not make sense in order to try to get the one who argues the opposite side to say something he'll regret.
Are you trying to put yourself above my questions by discrediting me as one who knows nothing, thereby dodging them?
Or do you truly not see sense in any of them?
If the latter is the case, I can only conclude that you did not read through all of my questions, as some are so straightforward as to be to the point of oversimplicity.
Quote from: Duckling on August 07, 2011, 11:49:28 PM
If the latter is the case, I can only conclude that you did not read through all of my questions, as some are so straightforward as to be to the point of oversimplicity.
It really is a bit conceited to conclude someone did not read all your questions, simply because you view them as straightforward.
And, what does being nonsensical have to do with straightforwardness?
Quote from: Duckling on August 07, 2011, 11:49:28 PMI should have you know that this is the Socratic method at work. It requires asking a few questions that seem irrelevant or to even not make sense in order to try to get the one who argues the opposite side to say something he'll regret.
I understand you were
trying to use the Socratic debate and I would humor you with answers if you could do it correctly. For the Socratic debate, one needs to sensibly think of relevant questions in order to find contradictions in the answers. You just list every question that pops in your head, so you don't have to think of a reasonable argument.
I will answer your nonsense to prove how pointless they are.
Quote from: Duckling on August 04, 2011, 11:41:55 PMDo you know what the grounds are for limiting sodium?
Can you salt your food?
What is the strict definition of candy?
Does candy play a role in education?
Must you buy your Hershey's chocolate bar at school?
Can you not bring your own?
Q1: Sodium (like transfat) in large amounts is bad for one's health. Because some people make bad choices by routinely eating high-sodium foods, the NY government thinks they need to punish everyone (including people who only eat high-sodium foods occasionally) by removing sodium from foods and consequently making the food not taste as good.
Q2: You could salt your food, but most people don't have salt shakers with them when they buy potato chips from a vending machines.
Q3: a confection made with sugar and often flavoring and filling
Q4: Teachers use to give out candy as a reward, so kids want to know and answer questions correctly. Now teachers are forbidden from using candy as a reward.
Q5: No, but I also don't have to buy lunch at school. The reason I buy lunch and chocolate at school is because I want and deserve them.
Q6: I could have brought a chocolate bar to school if I didn't mind my pocket or backpack being covered in melted chocolate.
My use of the Socratic method simply asks questions that seek a given outcome through an occasionally very long path. We'll get there, I promise (unless you cut the debate short). I ask questions about points I disagree with, and hope to reduce apparent contradictions to basic disagreements which cannot be resolved or basic errors which can, on the part of either party. You can answer as many or as few of these questions as you wish, as long as you answer some questions such that the discussion may continue.
Why do you insist that the New York legislature wishes to punish? Could they not simply wish to improve overall health?
Are vending-machine products subject to this limitation on sodium?
To what extent to these confections have to be made from sugar to qualify as candy? (For example, are fruit strips candy?)
Are there not other forms of motivated learning that are less... caloric? Should students require motivation of this sort to learn?
Can people who want and deserve lunch and chocolate not bring them to school?
Are icepacks not a common phenomenon in Houston? Can't you put your candy bar in a chilled lunchbox?
Is needing to do so a punishment, or only a method by which the government can reduce the amount of candy consumed by those who do not "want and deserve" it?
What makes you different from other people in your desire and deservingness of candy?
Quote from: Duckling on August 12, 2011, 02:04:59 AM*Why do you insist that the New York legislature wishes to punish? Could they not simply wish to improve overall health?
*Are vending-machine products subject to this limitation on sodium?
*To what extent to these confections have to be made from sugar to qualify as candy? (For example, are fruit strips candy?)
*Are there not other forms of motivated learning that are less... caloric? Should students require motivation of this sort to learn?
*Can people who want and deserve lunch and chocolate not bring them to school?
*Are icepacks not a common phenomenon in Houston? Can't you put your candy bar in a chilled lunchbox?
*Is needing to do so a punishment, or only a method by which the government can reduce the amount of candy consumed by those who do not "want and deserve" it?
*What makes you different from other people in your desire and deservingness of candy?
Q1: New York legislatures are elitist who think they need to make decisions about the food people eat, because the average person is too dumb to make the responisble decesion themselves. The NY legislature's incorrect, elitist views punish the average person who makes responsible decesions.
Q2: Do vending machines have food with sodium that is sold in NY?
Q3: How am I suppose to know the exact qualifications to make something candy? I am not Willy Wonka.
Q4: How do you suggest to motivate children? Do you the fun of math will motivate most children to participate in class?
Q5: Again, chocolate melts in the Texas climate. Also, one can't bring a warm meal from home.
Q6: No, chilled lunchboxes are for elementry children. Anyone who uses them after that are ridiculed. Plus, the ice packs still melt too quickly and leave everything soggy and wet.
Q7: Punishment
Q8: I told you already. People who exercise and eat modestly shouldn't be punished, because of the lazy fatties who eat to excess and never exercise.
I think that you're using the loaded word "punished" too liberally. Punishment implies a punitive action in response to a misdeed, and there have been no misdeeds in our issue. Action to ban unhealthy foods is not punitive, but preventative, and being fat is not a crime.
Looks like you failed at the Socratic method, because the answers weren't what you desired.
I was imprecise. The Socratic method does require someone who is not deliberately being obstinate, and I merely question beliefs that I believe are flawed. I would argue your points, but I believe it futile. You ignore my questions and say what your opinion on the general matter is.
I ask again: What makes you different from other people in your desire and deservingness of candy?
Quote from: Duckling on September 25, 2011, 04:02:32 PMI ask again: What makes you different from other people in your desire and deservingness of candy?
Can you reword that? I have some similarities to other people, and I have differences to other people. "Other people" is too vague for me to answer.
Sure! I was thinking that that was a might bit vague...
Quote from: SmartyPants on August 09, 2011, 11:50:24 PM
Q5: No, but I also don't have to buy lunch at school. The reason I buy lunch and chocolate at school is because I want and deserve them.
Why do you think that you deserve candy when others do not?
Who, in particular, were you saying doesn't deserve candy?
Quote from: Duckling on September 28, 2011, 09:45:43 PMWhy do you think that you deserve candy when others do not?
Who, in particular, were you saying doesn't deserve candy?[/
I believe people who exercise and eat in moderation are more deserving of candy then overwieght and obese people.
It really doesn't matter who I think is more deserving, since I (or the government) don't have the right to say who can and can't eat certain foods.
Here is my opinion about the possible ban on fast food:
1. Nothing that only hurts the individual should be banned.
2. Considering that things that hurt the individual end up affecting the society, at least the estimated cost to the society should be included in the price of that good. (Call it the unhealthy tax, if you will.)
The costs to the society that I'm thinking about include education and health care costs through their entire life (even if they end up choosing such private services). The estimated (or average) probability of creating an health problem by ingesting such a quantity of the product would be factored in the amount to increase the price.
3. This includes (some types of) fat, sugars, salt, etc.
Regarding salt, I was speaking with a Nutritionist (or a Dietitian) that told me that there is no need to add salt to the food. Our taste was educated to have excessive salt in our food. Salt is only used as a flavour enhancer and other spices can be used with the same effect and without creating the heart problems that salt creates.
When a government so involved in a person's life that it literally says what you can and can't eat, then I think the government is a step too close towards totalitarianism.
I don't suppose that goes for marijuana, too? It can be eaten...
Duckling: I balance in favour of decriminalization of soft drugs, as I stated in another thread (http://sinisterdesign.net/forum/index.php?topic=889.msg35696#msg35696)...
Smarty: My point is: people can do whatever they want. They just have to compensate for any damage they happen to do. Since it's hard to pay after you're dead, then the amount to pay while you're alive is computed using the probability of dying and applied to the cost of taking a certain action (like eating unhealthy stuff).
Do you think that forcing people to wear a seatbelt is totalitarianism?
And what do you think about forcing restaurants to cook food using clean tools? If they didn't have to wash their tools, the food price could be lower, since less water, detergent, washing machines, electricity and even employees would be needed. And, who knows, perhaps the food flavour would be better.
I was actually speaking to SmartyPants, along the same vein of conversation as you used in your last post.
Quote from: Duckling on October 01, 2011, 07:13:57 PMI don't suppose that goes for marijuana, too? It can be eaten...
Lately, I have been having a more liberal view on marijuana, but that is another topic all together.
Quote from: Ertxiem on October 01, 2011, 09:46:37 PMAnd what do you think about forcing restaurants to cook food using clean tools? If they didn't have to wash their tools, the food price could be lower, since less water, detergent, washing machines, electricity and even employees would be needed. And, who knows, perhaps the food flavour would be better.
That is completely different. Everyone wants the food they eat to be sanitary, while not everyone wants the food they eat be healthy. Since consumers don't know how sanitary the kitchen is, they need government regulation to make sure that the food is safe. Eating fast food is completely different. Everyone who enters a fast food joint and asks for a nutrition chart, is given a nutrition chart. That means people knownly eat unhealthy fast food.
So, the problem is the time scale?
If something makes you sick the next day, then you say we need government regulation.
On the other hand, if something makes you sick the next decade, you say we don't need government interference.
Edit: Typo correction. (How could I write "seek the next decade" instead of "sick the next decade"!?)
While I'm at it, by "sick the next decade" I mean "after eating regularly the same stuff after around a decade, the disease symptoms are likely to appear".
I like this analogy! We can go into a restaurant, and ask to see which of their meals were prepared using clean utensils and cooking equipment.
I think the government is needed to protect consumers from shady business practices such as saving money by not properly cleaning cooking ware. While many people are willing to have transfat in their food, no one is willing to have salmonial in their food. The ban of transfat reminds me of prohibition. Alcohol, like transfat, is unhealthy and because some people consume too much of it and live drastically shorter lives, progressives decided to ban it for everyone including people who enjoy it in moderation.
I find it funny that people arguing for keeping trans fats in food start out saying "It's not fair; what about my freedoms?", and end up saying, "But I want to have very cheap food, and I don't care if it's bad for me."
Quote from: Duckling on October 03, 2011, 10:09:42 PMI find it funny that people arguing for keeping trans fats in food start out saying "It's not fair; what about my freedoms?", and end up saying, "But I want to have very cheap food, and I don't care if it's bad for me."
That is simply untrue. The argument the whole time has been that one should have the freedom to choose if they they want or don't want to eat cheap foods with transfat. Individuals should have the freedom to make their own choices instead of the government forcing their will on the people. If you don't want transfat in your food, then don't eat foods with transfat.
So this is really about freedoms, and not about prices?
The government has the right to regulate the substances its population intakes, as long as there is reasonable grounds that the substances are harmful -- specifically, they impair the ability of the populace to work and fight. The well-being of the country's economy and the military are reason enough to restrict trans fats.
Quote from: Duckling on October 06, 2011, 12:07:34 AMSo this is really about freedoms, and not about prices?
Organicly grown foods are more healthy. Everyone should have the freedom to choose if they want to pay more for better organic foods or if they want to pay less for products that use pesticides. The government doesn't have the right to step in and say that we can only buy what they want us to buy.
The proper and controlled use of pesticides on crops from which food products are made is not detrimental to health.
The ingestion of trans fats is.
Quote from: SmartyPants on October 03, 2011, 09:05:51 PM
[...]While many people are willing to have transfat in their food, no one is willing to have salmonial in their food.[...]
I'm not sure about that. If you sell people food and claim it's salmonella free, then people will complain if the food ends up having it. However, what if the price of food that could have salmonella was cheaper than other food and a warning was given. Perhaps there were people that may want to buy it and risk their health. Should the government restrict the freedom of these people?
Quote from: Duckling on October 06, 2011, 06:21:41 PMThe proper and controlled use of pesticides on crops from which food products are made is not detrimental to health. The ingestion of trans fats is.
Both pesticides and transfats are not "detrimental to health" unless they are consumed in large amounts. There isn't anything wrong with people consuming small amounts of transfat on occasion.
Quote from: Ertxiem on October 06, 2011, 07:39:29 PM
Quote from: SmartyPants on October 03, 2011, 09:05:51 PM
[...]While many people are willing to have transfat in their food, no one is willing to have salmonial in their food.[...]
I'm not sure about that...Perhaps there were people that may want to buy it and risk their health. Should the government restrict the freedom of these people?
Perhaps people want to buy cancer in a bottle.::) I am not going to reply to a bunch of nonsensical what ifs.
Quote from: SmartyPants on July 29, 2011, 02:32:37 AMIt is trans-fat today, but what is it tomorrow? Butter? Salt? Chocolate?
Denmark first banned tran-fat and now heavly taxes all fat filled products (http://news.yahoo.com/beating-butter-denmark-imposes-worlds-first-fat-tax-075500822.html) such as all dairy products.
This is why I like Denmark. :-[
Honestly, they're the last country in the world to have to worry about being fat.
And as for your shoddy point, fat can't be banned; it's essential. Trans fat is not.
You are missing my point. I don't think we should encourage politicians to micromanage our diet, because politicians tend make stupid decisions. For example: You allow the government to ban transfat one day and the next day they heavly tax all foods with fat including healthy ones like milk.
Well, it's certainly going to make people think twice about buying whole milk....
Will you still want to replace transfat with unsaturated fat in fast food, if it leads to greater amounts of calcium deficiency and an increase in the price of fast food, pizza, mexican food, italian food, german food, and any other food that uses transfat, dairy, cheese, butter, non-lean meat, and est.?
The price of dairy wouldn't go up.
What is "est"?
And yes, I will/would when/if this scenario you describe takes place.
Quote from: Duckling on October 18, 2011, 06:52:43 PM
The price of dairy wouldn't go up.
What is "est"?
And yes, I will/would when/if this scenario you describe takes place.
1. How do you figure? Dairy has transfats. Nearly all foods do.
est - ect. It was a typo.
1. I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. Dairy contains saturated animal fats, not trans fats.
Deagonx, what is "ect."? Is it similar to "etc.," the abbreviation for et cetera?
Quote from: Duckling on October 18, 2011, 06:52:43 PMThe price of dairy wouldn't go up.
Dairy has alot of fat, so dairy would be subject to a fat tax. When you tax somthing, the price increases. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a fat tax would increase the price of dairy.
I'm sorry. I though you were talking about this idea:
Quote from: SmartyPants on October 18, 2011, 05:44:26 PM
Will you still want to replace transfat with unsaturated fat in fast food ... ?
Maybe I need to make my wording more simple to understand. Are you okay with banning transfat in fast food if the end result is a fat tax that makes meat and dairy foods more expensive?
Oh.... you're making the rather interesting assumption that one necessarily leads to the other.
You see, I hadn't even considered the idea that you would be connecting the two as a way to further your argument; you hadn't explicitly stated your assumption of the implication of a fat tax, and I, poor fool that I am, was left to believe that you were suggesting that all dairy products had trans fats in them, as Deagonx suggested.
My answer is yes, as the ends justify the means in that case. However, I don't eat meat, as my signature stated at one point, so I wouldn't be a good person on whom to base an accurate depiction of the reception of this "fat tax" idea of yours were it to be instated in the States.
The fat tax won't improve people's health. It will make healthy foods like dairy products and meat more expensive. This means that people will consume less calcium and protein. Because healthier alternatives are more expensive due to the fat tax, people will eat more cheap foods that use high-fructose corn syrup.
Oh.... this was a misunderstanding. I like Denmark because they do ridiculous stuff like that, and not because I think it's effective. The thing about whole milk was a joke. I'm sorry if I mislead you into thinking that I actually thought that a tax on fat was a good idea.