[QUOTE=sgman91;42789299]It would be like telling someone who drives a small civic, "Hey, do you WANT to drive an unsafe car?!?" Obviously there are other factors involved.[/QUOTE]
But if the car is demonstrably unsafe then surely it should not be allowed to be sold the the public.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;42789339]But if the car is demonstrably unsafe then surely it should not be allowed to be sold the the public.[/QUOTE]
Civics are demonstrably unsafe compared to other cars.
To make the argument more clear: Take a 1980 Civic. It's obviously unsafe compared to newer cars.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42789265]Did you purposefully ignore the part where I said [b]I want the government to provide information?[/b]
It's so funny to me, you are still in that elitist mindset where you need to take care of the ignorant mindless masses who can't learn and make choices on their own.[/QUOTE]
[quote]US food safety officials have taken steps to ban the use of trans fats, saying they are a threat to health.[/quote]
Are you implying this is a conspiracy
[QUOTE=sgman91;42789355]Civics are demonstrably unsafe compared to other cars.[/QUOTE]
Then they shouldn't be sold to the public? I don't see why, other than as a representation of government stomping on the free market, that would be a bad thing.
[QUOTE=Nightsure;42789366]Are you implying this is a conspiracy[/QUOTE]
No? I want the government to provide information to people about healthy choices, but I don't want them to ban things because they're bad for you. To say that information isn't enough is to say that the "elite" class must make those choices for people because they're too stupid to decide on their own free will.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42788847]No more partially hydrogenated oils...
They add partially hydrogenated oils to food to make it taste more delicious. Transfats are both natural and man-made, and they are trying to ban the man-made transfats from being added to food.[/QUOTE]
Oils are actually hydrogenated to make them a solid, its for texture not flavor.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42789389]No? I want the government to provide information to people about healthy choices, but I don't want them to ban things because they're bad for you. To say that information isn't enough is to say that the "elite" class must make those choices for people because they're too stupid to decide on their own free will.[/QUOTE]
Folks will buy what's cheap, no matter the quality or ethics - especially if they're poor. This is fairly well established phenomenon and often, people don't have the time and energy to spend the next hour searching for the one without trans-fats - assuming, getting back to the original point, they can afford the safe one. The only effective way to protect the population is to outright ban predatory behavior such as this.
[QUOTE=bigdandyd;42789431]Oils are actually hydrogenated to make them a solid, its for texture not flavor.[/QUOTE]
Which is an extremely important thing for food enjoyability in it's own right.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;42789375]Then they shouldn't be sold to the public? I don't see why, other than as a representation of government stomping on the free market, that would be a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
So the only acceptable car is the most safe car possible?
[QUOTE=sgman91;42789265]Did you purposefully ignore the part where I said I want the government to provide information?
It's so funny to me, you are still in that elitist mindset where you need to take care of the ignorant mindless masses who can't learn and make choices on their own.[/QUOTE]
And how exactly do you propose teaching 314 million people (most of whom wouldn't understand the difference between trans fats and others) that trans fats are bad and they should read the small print on the back of their food to see if there's any there?
And do you really think people will remember to actively choose the products that don't use trans fats?
[QUOTE=sgman91;42789455]So the only acceptable car is the most safe car possible?[/QUOTE]
Dunno how it works across the pond but all cars here have a yearly check (The MOT) to see they pass minimum safety requirements. New cars sold in the UK also have to pass minimum safety requirements or they aren't allowed to be sold here.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42789455]So the only acceptable car is the most safe car possible?[/QUOTE]
Well yeah I'd say having all cars reach a minimum level of safety is pretty important. And if that minimum is too low then maybe it should be changed?
[QUOTE=sgman91;42789389]No? I want the government to provide information to people about healthy choices, but I don't want them to ban things because they're bad for you. To say that information isn't enough is to say that the "elite" class must make those choices for people because they're too stupid to decide on their own free will.[/QUOTE]
I thought banning very unhealthy things indirectly encourages people to make healthier choices anyway, a Government can't and wont tell you how to live your life they can only tell you what they [I]think[/I] is good for you based on what they gather.
I don't know about how food regulation and whatnot works over there, though I can almost be certain there's Government, or Government related associations out there that promote living healthily, there [I]has[/I] to be.
when i saw "US moves to ban trans..." from the front page i thought this thread was going to be horrible
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42789462]And how exactly do you propose teaching 314 million people (most of whom wouldn't understand the difference between trans fats and others) that trans fats are bad and they should read the small print on the back of their food to see if there's any there?
And do you really think people will remember to actively choose the products that don't use trans fats?[/QUOTE]
The government should make information easily accessible, but in the end it's the responsibility of the people making the choice to actually learn.
Again, I don't think people are too stupid to read labels. If they are then that's a much bigger problem than unhealthy eating.
[QUOTE]Well yeah I'd say having all cars reach a minimum level of safety is pretty important. And if that minimum is too low then maybe it should be changed?[/QUOTE]
Wait, who gets to set the arbitrary line about what minimum level of safety is adequate?
[QUOTE]I thought banning very unhealthy things indirectly encourages people to make healthier choices anyway, a Government can't and wont tell you how to live your life they can only tell you what they think is good for you based on what they gather.[/QUOTE]
Eating in a healthy way isn't the only concern when making eating choices. Things like price, enjoyment, etc. always play major roles. So to say that something makes people eat healthier isn't inherently a positive thing if it makes food more expensive and less enjoyable.
I'm sure EVERYONE can possibly make healthier choices, including you, but many of those choices aren't worth the cost or lack of enjoyment.
[QUOTE]I don't know about how food regulation and whatnot works over there, though I can almost be certain there's Government, or Government related associations out there that promote living healthily, there has to be.[/QUOTE]
When did I say government doesn't provide any information? I've said they SHOULD only provide information, not ban things. At the moment they do both.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42789552]Wait, who gets to set the arbitrary line about what minimum level of safety is adequate?[/QUOTE]
A government regulating body that compiles in-factory testing and accident reports from the general public? It isn't someone walking along a line of cars blindfolded and picking every third one as unsafe.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;42789581]A government regulating body that compiles in-factory testing and accident reports from the general public? It isn't someone walking along a line of cars blindfolded and picking every third one as unsafe.[/QUOTE]
No, no, no, I'm not asking about how the data of how safe cars are is collected. I'm saying who gets to say a car must be X safe to be allowed to drive. That is a value decision that no amount of data can solve.
For example, one person might say that as long as a person can drive safely they are adequately safe while another person might say that a car must be able to keep a person alive when hit at 20 mph to be adequately safe. Who gets to make that decision and what makes it non-arbitrary.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42789607]No, no, no, I'm not asking about how the data of how safe cars are is collected. I'm saying who gets to say a car must be X safe to be allowed to drive. That is a value decision that no amount of data can solve.
For example, one person might say that as long as a person can drive safely they are adequately safe while another person might say that a car must be able to keep a person alive when hit at 20 mph to be adequately safe. Who gets to make that decision and what makes it non-arbitrary.[/QUOTE]
Well at that point there's no reason to have any safety regulations at all because it's entirely subjective, which I assume is your main point given my memory of your political stances as expressed through other posts. In which case I don't care because it's, yet again, another [I]honest discussion[/I] in which two sides yell at each other until one is banned or just gives up.
That's two sick wins in one day man you're on a roll
You've went off on a bit of a tangent there sg
[QUOTE=sgman91;42789607]No, no, no, I'm not asking about how the data of how safe cars are is collected. I'm saying who gets to say a car must be X safe to be allowed to drive. That is a value decision that no amount of data can solve.
For example, one person might say that as long as a person can drive safely they are adequately safe while another person might say that a car must be able to keep a person alive when hit at 20 mph to be adequately safe. Who gets to make that decision and what makes it non-arbitrary.[/QUOTE]
Great let's just put 2 tonnes of lead at the front of airplanes because statistics are useless, right?
If a vehicle is a danger to the driver and/or nearby people, it shouldn't be driven. E.g: Headlights don't work, tyres are about to pop, etc etc. You don't need to be a genius to guess what's likely to kill someone.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street-legal_vehicle[/url]
Educate yourself
[QUOTE=Nightsure;42789644]You've went off on a bit of a tangent there sg[/QUOTE]
Can you point out where? It's very possible that I misread a point that you made if I didn't respond to it correctly.
[editline]7th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42789649]Great let's just put 2 tonnes of lead at the front of airplanes because statistics are useless, right?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how that relates at all.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42789669]Can you point out where? It's very possible that I misread a point that you made if I didn't respond to it correctly.
[editline]7th November 2013[/editline]
I'm not sure how that relates at all.[/QUOTE]
A good pilot might be able to fly that plane - doesn't mean it's safe or a good idea. I'm saying your post was shit.
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42789649]Great let's just put 2 tonnes of lead at the front of airplanes because statistics are useless, right?
If a vehicle is a danger to the driver and/or nearby people, it shouldn't be driven. E.g: Headlights don't work, tyres are about to pop, etc etc. You don't need to be a genius to guess what's likely to kill someone.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street-legal_vehicle[/url]
Educate yourself[/QUOTE]
I agree with regulation on things that effect others, but that isn't the topic we're talking about.
For example, I think people should be able to ride motorcycles without a helmet on.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42789702]I agree with regulation on things that effect others, but that isn't the topic we're talking about.
For example, I think people should be able to ride motorcycles without a helmet on.[/QUOTE]
And what happens when someone hits and kills that rider? That doesn't affect them at all? What about the family of the dead person?
If we can prevent needless deaths easily by banning one fat easily substituted by others, why not do it?
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42789692]A good pilot might be able to fly that plane - doesn't mean it's safe or a good idea. I'm saying your post was shit.[/QUOTE]
It's regulated because it hurts other, not because it hurts the pilot making the choice to fly.
Remember the original topic was trans-fat. The eating of trans-fat doesn't hurt anyone but yourself.
[editline]7th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42789720]And what happens when someone hits and kills that rider? That doesn't affect them at all? What about the family of the dead person?
If we can prevent needless deaths easily by banning one fat easily substituted by others, why not do it?[/QUOTE]
You can easily prevent needless death by forcing everyone to drive armored tanks (without guns of course).
[QUOTE=sgman91;42789724]It's regulated because it hurts other, not because it hurts the pilot making the choice to fly.
Remember the original topic was trans-fat. The eating of trans-fat doesn't hurt anyone but yourself.
[editline]7th November 2013[/editline]
[/QUOTE]
What about your family and friends?
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42789740]What about your family and friends?[/QUOTE]
We don't make laws to protect people's feelings (Well, in the US we don't... Europe has plenty). Being free of sadness isn't a right.
If we made laws to protect the emotions of family and friends then we would ban everything that's high risk ( downhill mountain biking for example).
[quote]Some processed baked goods such as cakes, cookies, pies
[b]Microwave popcorn[/b], frozen pizza, some fast food
Margarine and other spreads, coffee creamer
Refrigerator dough products such as cinnamon rolls[/quote]
NO. Don't touch my microwave popcorn. :v:
[QUOTE=sgman91;42789749]We don't make laws to protect people's feelings (Well, in the US we don't... Europe has plenty). Being free of sadness isn't a right.
If we made laws to protect the emotions of family and friends then we would ban everything that's high risk ( downhill mountain biking for example).[/QUOTE]
So you're in favour of legalizing all illicit drugs then?
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;42789802]So you're in favour of legalizing all illicit drugs then?[/QUOTE]
Yup, not only is it a personal choice I believe the crime created by making them illegal does greater harm than the harm that would be done by users.
The statistics of how most (as far as I know) Government-related things (i.e. transfats giving people heart attacks) will have came from institutions that [I]know what they're talking about[/I], obviously anyone can say 'oh, why should I just their word?', though the Government would be in a much bigger problem if they employed people if they didn't know what they were talking about if it affeted the terms of legislation.
As much as you can say "Who are these people to say what makes x safe if it's y saying it?" but I'd tend to trust a food administrations word about food and how it would affect me, they will have thousand upon thousands of statistics proving this shit, so you do just trust their word above yours because what can you say about trans-fats other than they are unhealthy?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
