congrats to NYC

JAXvillain

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
68,732
1,999
923
Marklar
₥0
That's their own damned fault. Research the food you eat or quit bitching but just because a bunch of fatasses are pissed off because a Big Mac gave them cottage cheese thighs and love handles does not mean I should be prohibited from eating whatever the fuck I please nor should a business owner be forced to change his menu. He wants to sell me a cheeseburger full of trans fats, I want to eat a cheeseburger full of trans fats. It's between me and the business owner. The fascist fatasses bitching about this can choose to eat a fucking salad but stay the hell out of my diet.

We're not "free" to know what's going into our bodies. If you don't know what's going into your body you are "free" to choose to avoid eating that. If you don't like eating at a restaurant that doesn't publish nutrition information that's your choice but I should be allowed to do so. I hate laws that protect people from their own fucking stupidity.

what is trans fat doing for anyone that would be missed? did you notice any difference in food at wendy's when they got rid of it? not bloody likely
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,953
18,766
823
Marklar
₥21,493
what is trans fat doing for anyone that would be missed? did you notice any difference in food at wendy's when they got rid of it? not bloody likely

No, but that doesn't mean the government has any business banning it. This is a feel good law that is not going to do anything worthwhile. Like banning scary looking guns or lowering speed limits, this won't accomplish shit. It's doing nothing more than setting more precedents for governments to slowly take more and more power away from the people. We are supposed to be the ones in charge. They are hired to serve us.
 

JAXvillain

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
68,732
1,999
923
Marklar
₥0
No, but that doesn't mean the government has any business banning it. This is a feel good law that is not going to do anything worthwhile. Like banning scary looking guns or lowering speed limits, this won't accomplish shit. It's doing nothing more than setting more precedents for governments to slowly take more and more power away from the people. We are supposed to be the ones in charge. They are hired to serve us.


that's the equivalent of saying govt groups like the fda shouldn't exist...is that your position?
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
464
648
45
Austin
Marklar
₥663
what is trans fat doing for anyone that would be missed? did you notice any difference in food at wendy's when they got rid of it? not bloody likely

You can't taste shelf life (until the food goes bad of course). I think in something as already disgusting as a fast food burger the difference is pretty imperceptible.
 

BeerAd

Flaccid Member
Aug 15, 2005
13,322
2
0
39
Largo, Florida
Marklar
₥0
Hell I've long since believed that those types of lawsuits need to be thrown out. Suits against fast food joints, tobacco companies and gun manufacturers only serve the purposes of the fucking socialist assholes who want to control how I live my fucking life.

You are insane to think that people shouldnt be able to sew tobacco companies. They target you as a kid and get you hooked by introducing addictive drug comparable to a heroin addiction. You really dont think of dying of lung cancer at 10 years old and that is who they are targeting. They should not only be sued they should also be hung and killed for the young lives they destroyed. If they were selling a non addictive product and targeting 18+ people I could see your point.
 

JAXvillain

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
68,732
1,999
923
Marklar
₥0
No, but that doesn't mean the government has any business banning it. This is a feel good law that is not going to do anything worthwhile. Like banning scary looking guns or lowering speed limits, this won't accomplish shit. It's doing nothing more than setting more precedents for governments to slowly take more and more power away from the people. We are supposed to be the ones in charge. They are hired to serve us.

WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN NTSB, I CAN FLY ANYWHERE I WANT JUST FINE :mad:


:p
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,953
18,766
823
Marklar
₥21,493
that's the equivalent of saying govt groups like the fda shouldn't exist...is that your position?

The FDA in its' current form, hell no. It's a bureaucratic mess that has done more to stifle innovation in the pharmaceutical industry than anything else it's pretended to accomplish. I do feel that a regulatory body is necessary to ensure the safety of the people but minimally. The recent spinach fiasco is a good reason for the FDA to exist but for them to say "Eh, people are too fat so no more unhealthy food." has the possibility of one day leading to "Well red meat is also bad for you. So is chocolate...and eggs and fried chicken and alcohol. Sorry, you can't have those anymore."

Let people make their own decisions.
 

reverendsaintjay

Flaccid Member
Jan 5, 2006
512
0
0
46
Maryland
Marklar
₥0
Educate Yourself.

You know what my problem is... Inconsistency. Quoted from the wiki.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) campaigned against fast foods using saturated fats starting in 1984. When fast food companies replaced the saturated fat with trans fat, CSPI's campaign against them ended. CSPI defended trans fats in their 1987 Nutrition Action newsletter. However, by 1992, CSPI began to speak against trans fats and is currently strongly against their use.

So it begs the question. Do I get my panties in a bunch about Trans Fatty Acids now, or do I wait until the next 'fad' to get all flustered?
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,953
18,766
823
Marklar
₥21,493
You are insane to think that people shouldnt be able to sew tobacco companies. They target you as a kid and get you hooked by introducing addictive drug comparable to a heroin addiction. You really dont think of dying of lung cancer at 10 years old and that is who they are targeting. They should not only be sued they should also be hung and killed for the young lives they destroyed. If they were selling a non addictive product and targeting 18+ people I could see your point.

sue*

They're not targeting ten year olds, that remains one of the biggest lies of this century right along with SUVs are melting the ice caps and schools need more money. In either case it is a parent's responsibility to keep those things away from their children. Yes, some regulation in advertising is necessary to keep them from actually advertising directly to kids; we don't want Marlboro putting ads in Spongebob comic books.

Not a single person has ever been forced by the tobacco companies to smoke a cigaratte. Not one, not ever. It always always always always always always starts with a fucking choice.
 

BeerAd

Flaccid Member
Aug 15, 2005
13,322
2
0
39
Largo, Florida
Marklar
₥0
The FDA in its' current form, hell no. It's a bureaucratic mess that has done more to stifle innovation in the pharmaceutical industry than anything else it's pretended to accomplish. I do feel that a regulatory body is necessary to ensure the safety of the people but minimally. The recent spinach fiasco is a good reason for the FDA to exist but for them to say "Eh, people are too fat so no more unhealthy food." has the possibility of one day leading to "Well red meat is also bad for you. So is chocolate...and eggs and fried chicken and alcohol. Sorry, you can't have those anymore."

Let people make their own decisions.

they are saying lets ban something that give no nutritional purpose and only harms people. It has been taken out of foods with no change in the taste so why not? I dont see how you think that taking a harmful pointless substance out of our food is the governments first step to ruling the world :fly:
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,953
18,766
823
Marklar
₥21,493
they are saying lets ban something that give no nutritional purpose and only harms people. It has been taken out of foods with no change in the taste so why not? I dont see how you think that taking a harmful pointless substance out of our food is the governments first step to ruling the world :fly:

Alcohol has no nutritional purpose and only harms people. Why not? Because this is supposed to be the land of the fucking free and if I want to choke on a tub of trans fat then it's my goddamn right to do so. You have no business telling me what I can and cannot eat.
 

zengirl

If I had a dollar might give ya 99
Oct 15, 2004
10,255
20
41
Marklar
₥100
sue*

They're not targeting ten year olds, that remains one of the biggest lies of this century right along with SUVs are melting the ice caps and schools need more money. In either case it is a parent's responsibility to keep those things away from their children. Yes, some regulation in advertising is necessary to keep them from actually advertising directly to kids; we don't want Marlboro putting ads in Spongebob comic books.

Not a single person has ever been forced by the tobacco companies to smoke a cigaratte. Not one, not ever. It always always always always always always starts with a fucking choice.

No, it's the inescapable subliminal messaging present in all advertising man... we're totally helpless and cannot think for ourselves. We need someone else to tell us what is safe at all times, otherwise, who the hell do we have to blame when shit goes bad?