First Trans Fats, now this?

[QueenAdrock]

Alright, we all agree trans fats are bad for you. I'm not totally against that ban because that means it'll be easier for me to go out to eat when I visit NYC. But it was still kind of one of those "What the hell?" moments when I read about it.

But now banning iPod and cell phone use when crossing the street? (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/02/07/nyc.ipod.reut/index.html) Goddamn. You know what, let the idiots be idiots. I have the opinion now that if you're retarded enough to be fiddling around with your cell when you should be looking both ways before crossing a busy city street, you should face up to the consequences. You're taught to look before walking when you're a fucking 5-year-old, if you don't know to do it by now then you deserve what's coming. There's common sense things you should know by the time you're old enough to own a cell phone or iPod, and "look before you cross" is one of them. It's natural selection in my opinion. We have laws in place to protect our dumbest citizens and they're just going to pass their genes on to their children who will also use hairdryers in bathtubs - oh wait, not anymore, they have special labels to tell people that electricity and water don't mix. Whew! Thank god for that.

I may be in an insensitive prick mood today, but I'm really sick of this bullshit of trying to protect stupid people. At what point do you figure "These are adult human life skills that people should have by age 20, there is no need to baby them"?

[Otis Driftwood]

I may be in an insensitive prick mood today, but I'm really sick of this bullshit of trying to protect stupid people. At what point do you figure "These are adult human life skills that people should have by age 20, there is no need to baby them"?
Too true, the only thing that's left for YOU to take care of are pensions and shit like this. Politicians like to point out how you got to take more RESPONSIBILITY. They love that word. On the other hand they'll do anything that will REGULATE your life and effectively your freedom.
BTW WTF is trans fat?

[abcdefz]

When I'm on my bike in the city, I never wear the headphones. I need my ears too much to hear what's behind me or wherever. That's part of why the electric cars scare me; you just can't hear them coming.

But, yeah -- personal responsibility. I do like the hands-free phones when driving law that California's starting. I'd really prefer no cell phones except in emergencies while driving, but this is a step in the right direction.

[Otis Driftwood]

When I'm on my bike in the city, I never wear the headphones. I need my ears too much to hear what's behind me or wherever. That's part of why the electric cars scare me; you just can't hear them coming.

I think theres a 50€ fine for this here but it still is decidedly different to from crossing a street... (n)

[abcdefz]

I think theres a 50€ fine for this here



...wearing headphones on a bike?

[Otis Driftwood]

Yup.

[abcdefz]

Huh.

Might be illegal here, too, for all I know. We don't get a whole lot of training in bicycle laws. Plus, some laws (riding on the sidewalk, for instance) vary from city to city.

[QueenAdrock]

I'm totally for the cell phone bans while driving because it's been proven it's just as bad as drunk driving. Once your stupidity involves being a danger to other people, that's when it needs to be kept in check. I suppose the ban on iPods when crossing the street could be considered to be a protection of the people doing the driving (and their cars), but it's primarily to protect the idiots doing the walking.

However, it would be funny to see in the paper "iPod Listeners Considered a Threat to Cars Trying to Drive" and have them go into how terrible it is for people driving, because their car is now dented and visually unattractive.

BTW, trans fats. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat) Everyone's under agreement that they're bad for you, but there are still some people out there who say it makes food taste better and they therefore don't care that it clogs their arteries and makes them unhealthy.

[jabumbo]

if you are riding your bike in the street, you have to follow all of the same lasws as those in cars do....



but staying on topic, i think it is pretty stupid. especially if you are in mid conversation, are you just supposed to stand there at the corner and finish before you cross?

[abcdefz]

I would think you'd just say "hang on a second" and walk with the phone at your side to the other side of the street.

[QueenAdrock]

Well, people used the same argument for banning cell phones, like, what's going to happen if you're talking on the phone at a red light and then it turns green? Simply enough, stop paying attention to the person and hang up. I think it's a good idea in general to keep your attention focused on the road/walking, but to enforce you to stop being an idiot is just protecting you from yourself, which I'm against if you're a fully grown adult.

[abcdefz]

I think most laws are to deter people from being idiots.

[QueenAdrock]

True, and I'm for most of them as long as they affect other people. If it's laws to keep you from hurting yourself, it's just dumb. You should know how to do that on your own. Kinda like having a law of "Sticking pennies in a light socket is now illegal, due to many deaths resulting from electrocution." I mean, come on people.

[abcdefz]

What do you think about euthanasia? I'm kinda on the fence about it.

[QueenAdrock]

I'm more concerned about the Youth in Africa, actually. HARDY HAR! </avoids tomatoes>

I'm for it, actually. If people are in pain and want to be peacefully let go, I think it's cruel to keep them around for yourself. Just like when my kitty had multiple tumors and was struggling to breathe, they said she'd have a few months to a year to live if she got chemo or only a few weeks without. I knew that her living those extra few months would still be a painful one for her, and the process to make her better would be expensive and probably distressing for her. I loved her dearly and wanted her to pass on without dragging out or prolonging her pain. I know people would say "BUT DIANA, IT'S ONLY A CAT LOL" but to me, she was my baby since I grew up with her and spent 16 years of my life with her.

The same goes for anyone. If you love someone dearly enough and they have a legitimate excuse to go (so it can't be chalked up to depression or something that could be readily treated), let them go peacefully and don't drag out their existence if it's just going to be an unhappy one for them. Keeping them alive is more cruel in that circumstance.

[abcdefz]

See, I'm thinking even for depression. We'd be talking long-term depression.

Or what about when the social security system is bankrupt and we've got half a generation of senior citizens trying to live on the street? Why should they have to live that way if they don't want to?

I'm actually serious. I've thought about this stuff ever since I read "Welcome to the Monkey House."

[QueenAdrock]

It'd be hard to prove, but I think euthanasia should be legal if they are truly unhappy and there is no solution. So like long-term cancer patients, older people who are just in a terrible amount of pain and are done with life, etc. My grandmother tells me that she doesn't fear death. She's had a fulfilling life and there's nothing else for her to do but wait to be taken. Sure, it's terrible hearing that and she probably shouldn't be telling me that, but if I heard she wanted euthanasia, I'd support her decision. Plus, I could be there, along with other family members, so I could have the peace of mind knowing that she left the earth surrounded by those who loved her, and there wouldn't be any of that "I never told her I loved her" bullshit. She'd know. And it's a good way to go, in my opinion.

But yeah, it's hard to say who would qualify and who wouldn't. Plus, the lawsuits from family members who don't see it the same way would be staggering.

[abcdefz]

Yeah -- I have no idea what right anyone has to make someone stay alive who doesn't want it.

And I would assume that once someone had jumped through whatever legal hoops there were to get voluntary euthanasia, all bets would be off regarding lawsuits.

And those legal hoops... man. If you're already in long-term (or terribly acute) suffering physically or mentally, you're already in such an exhausted state, I don't know how you'd go about getting whatever bureaucratic permissions you'd need...

[abcdefz]

I'd definitely be for regulating food in schools, though. But I'd actually favor the ipod/cell phone law than the trans fat law.

[QueenAdrock]

True. I think a lot of people considering euthanasia would just do a suicide instead, except for those who are physically unable to.

Is suicide illegal? Like, if you're caught attempting it, can you be arrested? I know that a lot of religions say that you can't get into heaven if you commit suicide, so what about euthanasia? Would that be considered you committing suicide or someone murdering you? Would you be kept out of heaven?

Thanks a lot A-Z, now I'm gonna be stuck on this. :mad:

[abcdefz]

Is suicide illegal? Like, if you're caught attempting it, can you be arrested?


Yes, or if a person reports that you're a threat to yourself, you can be put on a 48-hour "hold" in hospital or prison.


I know that a lot of religions say that you can't get into heaven if you commit suicide, so what about euthanasia? Would that be considered you committing suicide or someone murdering you? Would you be kept out of heaven?



All I can tell you is my interpretation of what the Bible says, which would cover the Christian view and the Jewish. There's real admonition against killing yourself (the two big suicides are King Saul and Judas), and people are supposed to let God decide when people die, but there's nothing which says a person who kills themself is absolutely out of grace. The only sin specifically listed as unforgivable is actually blaspheming the Holy Spirit, but even "unforgivable" might not necessarily mean a person is damned. When we die, we're judged, and even those who are saved still account for their sins. But what that means isn't spelled out.

[cosmo105]

trans fats are far worse for you than most people realize. it sickens me just the lengths to which the food industry will go to cover that up. they can put 0g on the label if it's less than .5 grams. ugh. i'm all for a trans fat ban, everywhere. packaged food and restaurants alike.


anyway, cell phones/ipods while crossing the street? wow. um, i think that's getting a little too ridiculous. driving, sure. but jeez.

[beastiegirrl101]

trans fats are far worse for you than most people realize. it sickens me just the lengths to which the food industry will go to cover that up. they can put 0g on the label if it's less than .5 grams. ugh. i'm all for a trans fat ban, everywhere. packaged food and restaurants alike.

I second that.

When they banned foie gras in Chicago we were quite the laughing stock, but people seriously have no clue how discusting it is what they do to these animals.

[abcdefz]

I second that.

When they banned foie gras in Chicago we were quite the laughing stock, but people seriously have no clue how discusting it is what they do to these animals.


Force-feeding ....is it geese? I've read about that.

[cosmo105]

hrm. where do you draw a line with that though? i won't go into a factory farming rant, but i get a little huffy when people start going "animal rights...to a certain extent." like people that protest fur but wear leather belts. :confused:

[beastiegirrl101]

Force-feeding ....is it geese? I've read about that.

yep, foie gras is goose liver...let me find a link...brb.

ah ha (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/27/national/main1550028.shtml)

[yeahwho]

Now is the time to get a couple of fast boats and think about starting up an illegal trans fat smuggling operation on the Hudson river.

[Schmeltz]

How would they even enforce something like this? Very odd.

[yeahwho]

How is a $100 dollar ticket going to be more motivating than a 5000 lb. vehicle rolling into you?

The logic is sort of the same as a law about "no wet butter knives in electrical outlets".

Haven't Walkman's and personal stereo devices been around for decades? Remember transistor radios (http://www.jiffypics.com/continental/radio1/6.jpg)? Is this just a way to stop more people on the street and fuck with their liberty and freedom?

[QueenAdrock]

How is a $100 dollar ticket going to be more motivating than a 5000 lb. vehicle rolling into you?

Exactly.

Sigh. Dumb.

[FunkyHiFi]

Hell they should just outlaw *iPods*. Listening to all our music through earwax-encrusted earbuds just ain't right! And then we can all go back to enjoying normal audio systems like this (http://www.theanalogdept.com/molinier.htm). :D