Welcome to the new Sinister Design forums!
Started by Deagonx, July 25, 2011, 12:49:10 PM
Quote from: Duckling on July 29, 2011, 10:09:29 PMSorry. 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 30, 2011, 03:30:02 PMNo, 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: SmartyPants on July 29, 2011, 02:32:37 AMI 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?
Quote from: Duckling on July 30, 2011, 11:16:08 PMGoing 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 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.
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?
Quote from: Duckling on July 29, 2011, 10:09:29 PMIs the government's responsibility to protect it's citizens' well-being?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
Quote from: SmartyPants on August 04, 2011, 06:39:39 PMThe 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.
Quote from: SmartyPants on August 05, 2011, 06:10:17 PMClearly, you don't have an idea what you are talking about, since you only argument is asking nonsensical questions.