Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 188

Thread: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

  1. #81
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    You are wrong. The Constitution is very much a rulebook. But its not for you and me, its for our government. Further it is quite specific on what the government may do and more importantly what it may not do. Unfortunately our government has been ignoring the provisions for some time now.
    I disagree. Rule books are black and white. There is wrong and right. Our Constitution was intentionally left vague so that it could be interpreted by the people later down the road. The Constitution, in many areas, isn't black and white. One of the main reasons this country was founded was to get out from under strict rules and guidelines. As the country has gotten older, rules and guidelines have gotten more and more strict due to abuses and misinterpretations of the document. Hence, why we are in the predicament we are today.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  2. #82
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    So if someone's wife decides to add arsenic to her husband's dinner, it's OK because he had the choice to not eat the food she prepared for him?
    Are you seriously comparing Arsenic to transfats?

    That's like saying someone convincing you to stay in and play video games instead of going outside to exercise is equivilent to shooting someone in the face, because both have the POTENTIAL to contribute to their death.

    Just utterly and completely retarded. how can anyone actually hope to debate with you when it's obvious that you're being ridiculous and hyperbolic to a ridiculous and idiotic extreme with your arguments?

  3. #83
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,874
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by soot View Post
    It's about taxing and spending.

    The clause allows the government to tax such that it might implicitly spend on the common defense and general welfare.

    Spending on the general welfare is an enumerated power.

    The necessary and proper clause allows government to pass laws consistent with providing for that general welfare.

    You might disagree with my understanding of the Constitution, but I certainly know what it's "about".
    Its about the GOVERNMENT taxing and spending. Telling people what they can and cannot eat has nothing to do with either one. And it certainly has nothing to do with banning something.

    And no, making general laws based on that clause has already been denied by SCOTUS. IE it does not give the government the power to make a law which dictates what a person can or cannot eat. I refer you to post# 47 for more education.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  4. #84
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,927

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    I disagree. Rule books are black and white. There is wrong and right. Our Constitution was intentionally left vague so that it could be interpreted by the people later down the road. The Constitution, in many areas, isn't black and white. One of the main reasons this country was founded was to get out from under strict rules and guidelines. As the country has gotten older, rules and guidelines have gotten more and more strict due to abuses and misinterpretations of the document. Hence, why we are in the predicament we are today.
    I guess we disagree profoundly then.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  5. #85
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Trans fats are a poison.
    It's no more of a "poison" than any other form of fat, sodium, all forms of sugar, cholesterol, etc.

    Let me use the brilliant debate tactics that you've employed all thread...

    The Government can't keep someone from lacing your food with Arsenic, so it's perfectly acceptable for government to ban any foods containing cholesterol, fat, sugar, or sodium because those things have the POTENTIAL to kill you just like arsenic, just that they're "slower acting".


  6. #86
    Guru
    soot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    04-25-17 @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,308

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
    By requiring the removal of X from food, it is effectively telling people what they can or can't eat.
    No it isn't.

    There's no law against you hydrogenating your own vegetable oil and adding it to anything you want.

    It's not like they're adding trans fats to the list of controlled dangerous substances.

    This law is simply telling manufacturers that they can't add trans fats to prepared foods.

    Trans fats provide no known health benefit and there is no safe level of consumption of artificial trans fat.

    What is to stop them from doing so with anything else they deem 'unhealthy'?

    Lead in paint is not a standard consumable. At least not that I'm aware of.
    So you're okay with a prohibition against lead and lead paint in children's toys or your not?

    I'm not sure what you opinion on that is.

    If you are okay with it, I fail to see how this is any different, except maybe to the extent that a trans fat prohibition is more relevant.

    You're not allowed to put lead in toys because of the off chance a child sticks the toy in his mouth and eats the lead it presents a danger to the child's health.

    With trans fats we're talking about a known poison that isn't safe for human consumption at any level that is deliberately added to things that the manufacturers know damn well people are going to put in their mouths, that's pretty much the only thing you do with food.
    “Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan brown,
    For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
    And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
    And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”

  7. #87
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,874
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by soot View Post
    I've already addressed this in response to Kal'Stang immediately above.

    This may not be what the Founding Fathers meant, but it is certainly what subsequent governments have interpreted it to mean.

    I'm quite certain that when the Founding Fathers said "common defense" they weren't thinking about wars of aggression in the Middle East, or that when they said "general welfare" they weren't talking about criminalizing, as Schedule I narcotics, plants that George Washington grew on his farm.

    We can think of hundreds, if not thousands, of other examples that have come equally out of left and right leaning governments.

    You have to take the good with the bad here.
    Actually they were thinking about wars of aggression. They had JUST gotten out of a revolutionary war after all. They also knew that they were weak and could have been invaded by another country. Indeed that is exactly WHY the states made a pact with each other and formed the federal government instead of just forming their own little countries.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  8. #88
    Guru
    soot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    04-25-17 @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,308

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    And no, making general laws based on that clause has already been denied by SCOTUS. IE it does not give the government the power to make a law which dictates what a person can or cannot eat. I refer you to post# 47 for more education.
    Since I mentioned two clauses, one of which you and your Wikipedia reference both ignore, I'm going to refer you back to my prior comments where, hopefully, you will learn something.

    Or you can continue to stamp your feet. Makes me no nevermind.
    “Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan brown,
    For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
    And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
    And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”

  9. #89
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    It's no more of a "poison" than any other form of fat, sodium, all forms of sugar, cholesterol, etc.

    Let me use the brilliant debate tactics that you've employed all thread...

    The Government can't keep someone from lacing your food with Arsenic, so it's perfectly acceptable for government to ban any foods containing cholesterol, fat, sugar, or sodium because those things have the POTENTIAL to kill you just like arsenic, just that they're "slower acting".

    How about tiny doses of arsenic? Small enough to cause no immediate effect but does cause long term problems?
    We should let random consumers determine the acceptable safe dose of arsenic, right?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #90
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,513

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    You can regulate your own diet in the U.S. Although arguably children cannot, and are at the whim of their parents, school cafeterias, their guardians.
    They are just pushing to ban a widely recognized harmful substance from being used by businesses in the U.S. as a food ingredient.

    Get with the program people. We went from eating largely whole foods, to engineering foods and it was a boom, and we did it with good intent. We also LEARNED scientifically, medically, as we did this, and we are discovering some of the things we engineer are significantly harmful. It's not rocket science. Are bodies did not evolve with these substances so they aren't able to do appropriate things with these substances. It's not like food mfgs set out to poison us. On the contrary, they did some really cool stuff with chemistry. But we did diligence and discovered while our goals were good, it had unforeseen consequences. Why are republicans so quick to point out government involvement and unforeseen consequences, but refuse to use that same reasoning on the unforeseen consequences of private industry looking to boost profits with a known harmful food ingredient? Put on your big boy/girl pants and admit that BOTH are not ideal....

    Why not just ban all future learning and medical discoveries and science? I mean, if you want zero change, why even have ****ing kids? (ranting a bit there)

Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •