I so predicted this.

Cypress said:
Doctors agree that trans fats are unhealthy in nearly any amount, but a spokesman for the restaurant industry said he was stunned the city would seek to ban a legal ingredient found in millions of American kitchens.

On a case-by-case basis, elected officials and public agencies should look at public heath threats, and ways to mitigate them.

Its the same reason we banned lead from paint, and DDT pesiticides from our produce.

I don't know much about the body of medical knowledge about trans-fat, but I'd be willing to have a transparent and public discussion of public health and policy implications.
Click to expand...

Trans fats are terrible for you according to all the information currently available. You should avoid them. And I think restaurants should be required to put that information on their menus.

But you'll die anyway. And not necessarily any later. I think eating healthy is smart for me, because I feel better when I do, and because I'd rather die than be one of those obsese out of shape people who literally, cannot seem to walk! That is so gross, and how can you live that way? I don't think it guarantees me a long life span though.
 
Well said Darla. I support labeling. Hell if they want to put a skull and crossbones on the wrapper that says this will kill you go ahead. But if someone sees that and says "Fuck it! I like McDonalds fries enough to shave ten years off my life." let em have it.
 
Damocles said:
I'm sorry, I don't know even one person who doesn't know that McDonald's food is fattening. Including my 5 year old daughter.
Click to expand...
<*sigh*> I thought you, at least, would understand the nature of statistical sampling. :(

The fact that you don't personally know anyone who doesn't believe it is literally meaningless. People -- all people -- tend to associate selectively: no one person's personal experience is a statistically representative sample. Not one individual, anywhere.

I talk politics with people a lot. In 2000, judging by my experience, you would have thought George W. Bush couldn't be elected Homecoming King if he were the only male in an all-girl school. No one I talked to even considered voting for the twerp. Yet my personal experience was statistically irrelevant. As yours is now.

Now, I don't really know that such a sample would produce a majority ignorant of the health risks. In fact, if I were betting money, I'd bet that only a minority of people were ignorant of them and that minority would be confined to the sample from the poor and illiterate classes. I do suspect, however, that the minority would be a lot larger than you or IH8 seem to believe it would be. And the very fact that it would be confined to the poor and illiterate illustrates exactly why some people think a ban is in order: it is those least prepared to fend for themselves who are most likely to be victimized.

Again, I'm not arguing for the ban. Generally, I agree with Darla and I do think this proposal goes too far. OTOH, I find the elitism inherent in an offhand dismissal rather agravating.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
<*sigh*> I thought you, at least, would understand the nature of statistical sampling. :(

The fact that you don't personally know anyone who doesn't believe it is literally meaningless. People -- all people -- tend to associate selectively: no one person's personal experience is a statistically representative sample. Not one individual, anywhere.

I talk politics with people a lot. In 2000, judging by my experience, you would have thought George W. Bush couldn't be elected Homecoming King if he were the only male in an all-girl school. No one I talked to even considered voting for the twerp. Yet my personal experience was statistically irrelevant. As yours is now.

Now, I don't really know that such a sample would produce a majority ignorant of the health risks. In fact, if I were betting money, I'd bet that only a minority of people were ignorant of them and that minority would be confined to the sample from the poor and illiterate classes. I do suspect, however, that the minority would be a lot larger than you or IH8 seem to believe it would be. And the very fact that it would be confined to the poor and illiterate illustrates exactly why some people think a ban is in order: it is those least prepared to fend for themselves who are most likely to be victimized.

Again, I'm not arguing for the ban. Generally, I agree with Darla and I do think this proposal goes too far. OTOH, I find the elitism inherent in an offhand dismissal rather agravating.
Click to expand...
The assumption here is that I do not know a good sampling of the populace, and that would be wrong.

I understand that statistical reality. However, the fact remains that I do not know of even how a person could get past three days of TV watching without knowing that McDonald's food is fattening. You have Jarod explaining it in Subway commercials, it is mentioned in kids shows, on cartoons... It is saturated into our society in magazines, books, school...

The idea that somebody can come through all of that and still not know that McDonald's food is fattening is "possible" but extremely unlikely.

So *sigh* away... It doesn't change my original statement. I don't know even one person who could possibly not know this simple fact. It would take so much ingorance of our society that it would be truly an imbecile. They would have to not have gone to school, not watched TV, not ever read even comic books, not walked past billboards or if they had they would need to be totally unable to read them or understand the pictures...

By the time you get to a place where it would be possible for somebody to believe that McDonald's food isn't fattening, they wouldn't be able to know that McDonald's existed or be able to order from their menu...
 
Virtually all adults realize that fast food isn't healthy.

But, I think many people are shocked when they actually see the nutritional data, and find out a big mac has more fat, than say a five gallon bucket of ice cream does.
 
but haven't you folks seen that latest mickeyd's commercial with the mother and daughter. It implies that the stuff is healthy for ya. Well you can get water there I guess ;)
 
I could also say it is elitist of you to try to say that because people are poor they are more likely to be ignorant of such a thing. Often times good basic common sense exists in greater amounts among the lower classes than the upper ones.

Frankly ignorance of such levels should be criticized. Are you as considerate of the ignoramuses who hold onto religious dogma like the world was made in seven days or people lived with dinosaurs?
 
I think it is as difficult to find someone who is unaware of the unhealthiness of McDonald's food as someone who is unaware that smoking cigarettes in unhealthy.
 
This is ridiculous. The "lead in paint" example of Cypress was a pretty good example but to me it isn't the same thing. People were using paint "not knowing" it was harmful. When it was found out, it was banned. I don't want the government (even if it is in New York City) trying to turn me into a vegetarian because it is healthier for me. This is where I get crossways with the left (and I realize it is the extreme left): They want to ban harmful foods and such but want to legalize drugs. Odd, very odd.
 
Good point Leaning. Basically its nothing more than legalize what I like. Ban what I don't like.

Very few people operate outside this paradigm.

I hate drugs and think using them is totally foolish. But if you want to use them go ahead just don't steal my car stereo to buy them.

I also think wearing furs or alligator shoes or the like is awful. But I wouldn't make it illegal either.
 
Damocles said:
Exactly! The information permeates society on even subconscious levels.
Click to expand...
As does the information that Mickey D's food is cool and good and wonderful and will make you happy, happy, HAPPY!

And which is the stronger, better funded voice, do you suppose? ;)
 
Last edited:
IHateGovernment said:
Frankly ignorance of such levels should be criticized. Are you as considerate of the ignoramuses who hold onto religious dogma like the world was made in seven days or people lived with dinosaurs?
Click to expand...
I tolerate them.

It is elitist to think that all people should be resistent to the immense and unquestionable power of advertising to the same degree that the privieleged few college educated are. Deliberate ignorance of the effects of social stratification is not egalitarianism but rather the opposite of egalitarianism.
 
Ornot, I am not sure that college or educaation really has much to do with resisting commercials. Just based on my observations though. Most prople that buy expensive cars have college educations....
 
Last edited:
I tolerate them.

I didn't ask if you tolerated them. I asked if you are considerate of them. Do you see them merely as victims like those advertised to.

It is elitist to think that all people should be resistent to the immense and unquestionable power of advertising to the same degree that the privieleged few college educated are.

You think that a college education is necessary to question advertising? Who is the elitist here. It almost seems that you think people are generally stupid but that this stupidity is not their doing.

Deliberate ignorance of the effects of social stratification is not egalitarianism but rather the opposite of egalitarianism.

Who says I am being ignorant of social stratification. I simply don't believe that poor = stupid or ignorant.
 

lets let people become fat pigs.... LOL but as for banning dogs then IHG appears fine with that...

Hey thanks strawbuddy. I know I have come on here frequently suggesting banning things.

:bs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top