What's new
By:

**** DuPont

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date Start date
Cy said:
Have you pre-seasoned your pan evenly before?
Click to expand...
I don't think so.

Is that my main issue, you think?
 
I still use teflon for eggs, but that's it. And you dont really need to cook eggs on anything more than medium heat, so I dont believe the health risk are too serious for that.
 
Stainless steel > cast iron, regardless of whether the latter is seasoned. Also, as far as health risks, it's not like using Teflon is gonna kill you. It's been used for half a century. I'd just rather minimize industrial polymer particles in my food.
 
Siro said:
Stainless steel > cast iron, regardless of whether the latter is seasoned. Also, as far as health risks, it's not like using Teflon is gonna kill you. It's been used for half a century. I'd just rather minimize industrial polymer particles in my food.
Click to expand...

nah bruh, cast iron > stainless steel

Stainless steel is cool if you got a wok and are doing stir fry.

Cast Iron superior for everything else.
 
Cy said:
nah bruh, cast iron > stainless steel

Stainless steel is cool if you got a wok and are doing stir fry.

Cast Iron superior for everything else.
Click to expand...

Enjoy your cast iron pressure cooker then!
 
Cy said:
Meant like pans!
Click to expand...

I was kidding. I use cast iron quite often. I prefer stainless steel since you don't have to be as delicate with it, but cast iron is good too, specially because you can get it real hot and put in the oven after browning meat on stovetop.
 
dalamon said:
Sure-- but I struggle to see how one could read that entire article (and I feel like very few, if any actually have), and walk away with the conclusion that "yup! smaller government would help!". Baffling.



Oh man--not even gonna get started on this. Lord knows I only have so many hours in a day.

EDIT: Just went through the thread. There was nothing political for the first two pageless-- only well-placed rage with the unethical conduct of a company. You were the first to bring in this "slamming anti-capitalist agenda" nonsense (which still baffles me) and then Hantlers used the diet recommendation example of why we should strive for smaller government. Kudos to you both.
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension man...I never said anything about striving for a smaller government. I've been implying that small or large government, this stuff is going to happen. It's our human condition. People want power. People want money. It's sad, sickening, disgusting, and vile. Government isn't our savior, it isn't going to change it.

Now then, what I was trying to show you was why I don't trust our government to make proper decisions. You're extrapolating because you're emotional, which is ok, but rather ironic after your rant about emotional arguments on abortion.
 
Howard said:
Your reading comprehension man...I never said anything about striving for a smaller government. I've been implying that small or large government, this stuff is going to happen. It's our human condition. People want power. People want money. It's sad, sickening, disgusting, and vile. Government isn't our savior, it isn't going to change it.

Now then, what I was trying to show you was why I don't trust our government to make proper decisions. You're extrapolating because you're emotional, which is ok, but rather ironic after your rant about emotional arguments on abortion.
Click to expand...

What's even the point of saying that, though? Should we not mention corruption and unethical behavior because they will continue to happen?
 
dalamon said:
I'd rather have corruption that means I only get 80 cents for my dollar, as opposed to letting companies contaminate my farmland, and groundwater. To treat all corruption as its one and the same, or to treat an increase in government regulation as its all one and the same-- is, frankly, stupid.

If that's really the point you're trying to make, it does absolutely nothing to help those who have suffered in the article. Nothing.
Click to expand...

Bud, I'm not talking about money. You are. Don't project what you think I care about when you don't know. And yes, some corporations pollute ground and water and that's wrong. The EPA does the same thing. I don't have a problem with more government in some areas, but it seems like it's your solution to everything, and I disagree with that. The same people running these companies are the same people that become politicians. They're not looking out for the greater good, they're looking out for themselves, that's what people do.
 
Siro said:
What's even the point of saying that, though? Should we not mention corruption and unethical behavior because they will continue to happen?
Click to expand...

I never said that, did I? I'm merely explaining a one sentence statement I made. I'm not even talking about the article! I'm just saying the government isn't going to fix all our problems. Until we as a people change what's important to us, until we decide we care more about people than money, than nothing is going to change no matter what process we use to implement it.
 
Read the entire article.

That is pretty messed up of DuPont and pretty much all of the decision makers and lawyers etc.

As to getting out of the article anything about large gov't vs small gov't, there wasn't anything. Obviously a large government didn't help at all either. It couldn't have been much worse with a smaller government and some of the responsibility to monitor being on state governments.

I'm with Dala on not wanting to support this company in any way and will try to avoid it's products if I can. The problem here is they seem to be everywhere in some form or another. These new derivatives of C8 may not be as bad, or it may just be that we don't have enough data yet to prove they are just as bad. I don't like it at all.
 
Survive-an-Encounter-with-an-Ostrich-Step-3.jpg
 
Just a general comment for now. These sorts of public examples of corporate malfeasance are but the tip of the iceberg. This sort of shiite has been going on as long as there have been corporations. In this light, I find my Tea Bagger family's childlike naive faith in the virtues of the free market to solve all of society's ills and their imputing of all things good and virtuous in the world to markets (along with their visceral hatred of government imputing of all things bad and inefficient to nefarious to the government) to be a very interesting thing.

Surely there's a balance there somewhere between allowing the free market to allocate economic resources, etc., while maintaining a vigorous set of laws and prudential regulations to constrain their behavior within reasonable bounds and within some notion of the public good. Shouldn't we be talking about what the best way to maintain this balance as opposed to demonizing the one or the other?
 
dalamon said:
Not a fan of how this was delivered, but I agree to some extent. A lot of this falls on the government as well. Corporation's responsibility is to make money-- government's is to serve its people. I disagree with the contention that businesses have no responsibility to be ethical.

Still, I like to think that all humans have some sort of moral ethics instilled within them. How any human could have seen their operations causing women to have birth defects, and just ignore this is simply beyond me. Vile. Despicable.
Click to expand...

I'm not cynical on humanity and have way more faith in people than most I interact with. You are giving way too much credit here if you think that at least some of the most successful, driven, cutthroat people in the world are not going to do whatever is necessary to be the absolute best. I've worked for people who were utterly despicable human beings who had no clue and thought they were doing God's work (A whole lot of LDS businessmen are well known for treating people like trash and being clueless to the fact).

Business has no responsibility to be ethical whatsoever. Government has a responsibility to ensure that business people are ethical. A few swift, high profile cases would go a long way in preventing this stuff. Our drawn out litigation (often a decade plus) and structural corporate protections leave many unharmed by the damage they cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top