or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › McDonalds made my childern fat! Not!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

McDonalds made my childern fat! Not!!! - Page 3  

post #81 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>

You want to bring up the economic argument? Do you know much taxpayers spend on obesity-related illnesses? The number has to be in the BILLIONS of dollars per year. And if schools are doing so poorly that they need to encourage the fattening of America, something needs to be done on some level of government to get more money to those schools.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's exactly what I'm saying. But any pol who says that we will have to raise taxes so that we can adequately fund out schools and educate our kids on proper diet is going to be fast out of a job.

Nobody cares that we will be saving billions on obesity related illness because those costs aren't billed directly to them every year. They care that their property tax assesment or their income tax bill or their car registration doesn't spike.

I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily. There's just more to it than either "If you're fat, you deserve it" or "McDonalds is an evil cabal"

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: tmp ]</p>
"..do you remember where you parked the car?"
"..do you remember where you parked the car?"
post #82 of 269
Well first you need the definition of a good diet.

Atkins says a high fat diet is good for you. :confused:

Some nutritionists talk only about the calories, others like atkins only worries about the fat vs carbs.

Frankly I do not feel that what you eat makes people fat. The average person needs to eat only what they burn. All of the excess is stored by some and voided by others. If you are a body type that stores your excess than you need to eat less. It is that simple.

Guns don't kill people, Postal workers do. Oops wrong quote...

Food doesn't make you fat, your body does.

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
The Bush public works project to repave the road from Suspicion to Paranoia is over budget.
The Bush public works project to repave the road from Suspicion to Paranoia is over budget.
post #83 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Why? Because you try and derail a point with semantics.

<a href="http://www.quitsmokinguk.com/what's_in_a_cigarette.htm" target="_blank">Try</a> Google. It's amazing....</strong><hr></blockquote>

One man's semantics are another man's facts.
post #84 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>

One man's semantics are another man's facts.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So no evidence is plausable then.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #85 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>

You want to bring up the economic argument? Do you know much taxpayers spend on obesity-related illnesses? The number has to be in the BILLIONS of dollars per year. And if schools are doing so poorly that they need to encourage the fattening of America, something needs to be done on some level of government to get more money to those schools.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So what you are really saying is that we should have government get out of health care because amazingly enough when people don't pay for their health care, they don't care about the cost of it.

In fact they likely are using the money saved to eat at places like McDonalds.

I concur....

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #86 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by MrBillData:
<strong>Frankly I do not feel that what you eat makes people fat. The average person needs to eat only what they burn.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think it's a mix of both, very heavy on the exercise aspect.

It's all about getting your fat-ass moving.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #87 of 269
groverat, I'm not throwing any stones or living in a glass house. This is just one of those things that you - and others - are, unfortunately, on the wrong side of.



McDonald's could, in theory, advertise Big Macs covered in milk chocolate and give packets of pure sugar with each purchase of a large fry.

People should be smart and level-headed enough to see through or - for health and safety reasons - resist such silliness. Now that's a goofy example, I know, because McDonald's doesn't sell chocolate-dipped burgers (not yet), but it still is up to people to do their part.

Children can't drive themselves and pay for their own food. And there certainly isn't a Ronald McDonald Tactical Brigade running around, abducting families and dragging them over to the nearest McDonald's and forcing them to eat this stuff.

Everyone could wake up tomorrow and go "that's it...I hate that food, it's bad for me, I've been putting on some weight, I'm spending too much money, etc." (pick one) and the problem would wind down and take care of itself.

But you can't stop people from doing what they want and you can't ding the place that's there giving people what they come in to get.

I'd TOTALLY see your side of it if, for the past 40 years, McDonald's had cultivated a repuation (via marketing, commercials, etc.) of healthy, low-fat, "smart" fast food and then BAM...we just found out last week that "oh man, they've lied all these years! They've been serving greasy, fat-laden junk!".

I'd be right there with you, brother man.



But that's not the case.

McDonald's can advertise how they want (I guess, within legal boundaries or whatever) and people can choose to go there and eat or not.

I just think it's a very, very simple, black-and-white issue. No one is "addicted", no one is forced to eat there, there are always alternatives (a nice can of Campbell's soup and a turkey sandwich is my favorite kind of lunch these days).

I could watch McDonald's advertising from today until this time next year, non-stop, and it's still not going to erase or overcome the fact that I know that I shouldn't eat that kind of stuff all the time.

If a simple, no-frills doofus like myself can figure that out and live my life accordingly, why couldn't others?

Why is McDonald's at fault or on shaky ground? McDonald's (and all the other fast food places) would not even exist if people didn't like them and go to them.

I just simply cannot buy that people can be born, grown up and not know - via watching others, the news, school programs, reading, putting 2 and 2 together, etc. that a life based on eating this stuff on a constant, frequent basis is not going to result in some unfortunate results down the road, be it physical or health-related.

It's up to people.

I don't need to get saucy and pull up goofy nutritional info and make fun of it to state all of this, so I'm not living in a glass house when I spoke about your tactics earlier.

I think I'm making a lot of sense without going that route.

Some times in life, common sense and acting responsibly simply trumps everything else. Despite how convoluted and funky many want to try and make certain issues.

And this is one of them.

You and everyone in your family never have to eat a bit of this type of food for the rest of your lives if you don't want to.

Whatever you might think about their advertising, McDonald's isn't physically pulling them in to their places and shoving this unhealthy food into them.

This is like the smoking thing. Lawyers and academics and people who live for arguing/debating go and over-complicate something that most of us have figured out on our own a long time ago: if you light something on fire, stick it in your mouth and suck on the smoke (and God knows what else) it produces, that can't POSSIBLY be a good, healthy thing to do.

Same with this, in my opinion.

Unless you were literally raised in a cave until last Tuesday, how can you NOT know certain things should only be done in moderation (if at all).

It's no one's fault except the person who willingly goes into, orders, pays for and consumes this food over and over again and winds up fat (or with other medical/health issues).
post #88 of 269
And yes, people should put down the video games, gadgets, satellite TV remote, etc. and exercise.

As someone earlier stated, these fast food places have been around before this all suddenly became a problem.

I'd bet my left eyeball that there is a solid, concrete link between the luxuries and technologies we enjoy today and this sudden "explosion of fat" everyone is talking about.

Digital satellite TV, video games, Internet, DVD, VCR, computer gaming, computer chatting, etc. are all relatively recent (some VERY recent) developments.

If McDonald's has been around for, say, 50 years (just throwing out a number) and was just as popular in the 60's and 70's as it is now and people weren't so fat, that points to something very obvious to me (considering we had none of these cool distractions and gadgets 20, 30 years ago).

Kids (and others) kinda had no choice but to go outside and play and run around. Now, your typical modern teen (and sometimes pre-teen) has cable TV, broadband Internet, a stack of video games and a cell phone all in their own bedroom.

Hell, I wouldn't go outside either!



Maybe these studies should look into that angle of it. Of course, I don't want to see lawsuits against Apple, Dell, Microsoft, Sega, Cingular, HBO, Nick-At-Nite, UPN, etc. either.



[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
post #89 of 269
Hey Scott, not that I think being a dick is such a bad thing, I enjoy being one myself on occassion, but quibbling over sematics only leads so far in this case. Sometimes it's a productive excerise though, if it leads to a precision of terms that ultimately redifines the case. In this case it doesn't: I never claimed that they "added" tar or other chemicals, only that they modified the product to achieve the specific end of making cigarettes more addictive. This is the gist of Wiegand's testimony, and outside the scope of law it is also well supported by the medical community.

What broke the anti-tabacco cases wide open was the fact that chemists had been tweaking the nicotine delivery system for quite some time. Whether by addition of chemicals or processing with other chemicals, I don't know, nor could I tell you how it might work unless I'm reading from specific notes, but the notes are out there and so are explanations in lay terms. The only reason to do that is to increase the addictive effect of the product, though I'm sure there were also chemists who claimed that the processing of tabacco was only to improve taste, smoothness etc etc...

Unless you yourself are going to take this debate into very formal and technical minutae, or otherwise propose a significant new direction based on the questioning of facts, you are neither advancing the discussion nor defending your position (or even really having a postion to begin with)

If you must be a dick, have a point, go somewhere with it, otherwise you debase the fine art of being a dick, and make the rest of us look bad.
IBL!
IBL!
post #90 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>
I'd bet my left eyeball that there is a solid, concrete link between the luxuries and technologies we enjoy today and this sudden "explosion of fat" everyone is talking about.
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


Of course that is a huge part of it. The most exercise that most of gets these days is a keyboard shortcut. Staying fit takes actual physical work- something most of us don't do anymore.

But also, the <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=594&ncid=594&e=3&u=/nm/20030121/hl_nm/fat_portions_dc" target="_blank">average portion size</a> has increased over the past few decades, and some of the blame for that has to go to the restaurants who keep upping the sizes of their meals; making those portions seem the norm. A supersized <a href="http://freedietlinks.com/mcdonalds.htm" target="_blank">big mac meal</a> can easily get to 1500 calories, which is 75% of the <a href="http://www.hooah4health.com/toolbox/TargetingFitness/ParticipantGuide/partguide24pt3.htm" target="_blank">daily caloric intake</a> of someone weighing 160 lbs. I was told by my doctor that it only takes an extra 1000 calories to keep who is seriously obese, seriously obese.

I do believe that most of the fault lies with ourselves. We want to have our pizza and our fettuccine alfredo, and the food industry is right there to help us get it, with convenient home delivery and microwave packs. But they aren't shoveling it down our throats, and they aren't physically barring us from the gym, or the playground. Then you add in our society's new mantra "It's not my fault!!" and you get some seriously fat people.

I have a dear friend that is nearly Nell Carter fat. She rides her exercise bike at a leisurely pace (she "hates to sweat") never walks faster than a leisurely stroll, pops every over-the-counter diet pill she can find (despite the fact that she has had a few bad rections to them), and yet still will not alter her diet one iota. I am not there to see what she eats for breakfast, but I have seen her polish off a whole basket of Louise's trattoria bread, followed by a creamy pasta dish, then up Montana avenue for ice cream, and then I leave her as she is ponying up to Coffe Bean for an ice blended. That's 3000 calories in one afternoon. I am not going to have this friend for very long, and that makes me terribly sad. But she is the one who makes the decision what to put in her body. i can only hope that she isn't dead really young, like Nell Carter
"..do you remember where you parked the car?"
"..do you remember where you parked the car?"
post #91 of 269
Sweet merciful Christ, p, have you seen me say McD's should've lost the lawsuit? Have you not seen me say those who get fat off the food are responsible for it?

I know you like your soapbox, but come on I couldn't make it any clearer.

--

[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>Unless you were literally raised in a cave until last Tuesday, how can you NOT know certain things should only be done in moderation (if at all).</strong><hr></blockquote>

1) Young kids haven't been around as you to know what you know and have the perspective you have.
2) Kids can't really grasp the long-term effects of constantly eating terrible foods.

Does that make McD's legally/monetarily responsible for those who turn into fatties? No.
Are they a corporation behaving in a socially irresponsible and morally reprehensible way? Absolutely.

Why do you think kids love McD's so much? Because of the great taste of their styrofoam "burgers"? Like it or not, kids are very easily brainwashed by colorful advertising.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #92 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>
This is like the smoking thing. Lawyers and academics and people who live for arguing/debating go and over-complicate something that most of us have figured out on our own a long time ago: if you light something on fire, stick it in your mouth and suck on the smoke (and God knows what else) it produces, that can't POSSIBLY be a good, healthy thing to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh Pscates. This is like the smoking thing. The tobacco companies were once infallible and absolved from any wrongdoing just like fat food companies are now. They have fallen and so will Big Fat. I think you know that based on your mentioning of it. And the fact that it doesn't seem like you supported that decision either is really, really suspect. I mean that decision wasn't over-argued then, it's not over-argued now. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
post #93 of 269
[quote] It's all about getting your fat-ass moving. <hr></blockquote>

once i get my fat-ass moving, it jiggles for hours...g
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
post #94 of 269
No soapbox, 'rat. It's just how it is. I don't think I'm on a soapbox at all, and I'm certainly not ranting. I just don't understand things or see them the way you and others do.

If it's such a big, nasty problem, then instead of these silly lawsuits, why aren't there good, sound programs in place (in schools?) to teach this sort of thing (nutrition, what a lifelong diet of burgers and frieds does to you, etc.).

And groverat, kids (small kids) aren't buying their little meals. They don't have money. Pre-teens? Maybe some lawnmowing allowance, but, again, where are the parents?

In any case, I still think these places are doing what they are required to do. None of them position themselves as "healthy" or whatever. They are what they are, and they are doing great business, I'm sure.

I can't make THAT any more clear.

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

Is (or shouldn't) there be something there to counter all this cool, colorful advertising?

What, ultimately, do you want? What would be your ideal solution or take on the scenario then?

Toned-down commercials? Fast-talking voiceovers at the end like on car commercials? A ban on TV commercials for fast food (like there is for tobacco and hard liquor)?

If you ran the show, knowing and believing what you do, how would you approach it then?
post #95 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>

Oh Pscates. This is like the smoking thing. The tobacco companies were once infallible and absolved from any wrongdoing just like fat food companies are now. They have fallen and so will Big Fat. I think you know that based on your mentioning of it. And the fact that it doesn't seem like you supported that decision either is really, really suspect. I mean that decision wasn't over-argued then, it's not over-argued now. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

What are you saying exactly? I don't even know. I don't smoke because it seemed like a dumb thing to do. I don't eat at these other places 24/7 for the same reason.

What do you mean "that decision wasn't over-argued then...". By me? Here? Did we have a big smoking lawsuit thread here that I missed out on?

Or argued in general, by others? I'm confused. Say what you said above but more plainly so I can understand what you're saying.

Smoke and eat all you want. I don't care. Just know there are risks and you choose to do those things, knowing something bad might happen. It doesn't bother me that people smoke (unless they're right beside me, in which case I simply move away).

:confused:

Hell, now that I think about it you might be agreeing with me (since I said it WAS like the smoking thing...), but I'm so @$%@ing accustomed to you NOT agreeing with me that even when you do I don't recognize it.



You're the only one whose posts I have to re-read 4-5 times to try and get which angle you're taking, and if you're dinging me or siding with me.

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
post #96 of 269
Can I sue the woman that sat next to me at work for bring in so many munchies and treats to eat at work. I think I gained at least 5 pounds off of her food. I mean it's not my fault. The boxes were so colorful and the snacks so salty delicious. I was manipulated.


She also brings in fresh eggs from her farm! She needs to be stopped!
post #97 of 269
Come to think of it since I work in a hospital there's tons of snacks around all the time. The fscking patients bring in all kinds of sweet treats. The people that work out at the treatment machines are freaking fat as hell! And it's all FREE!

I think we'll bring a class action lawsuit against our patients. That's a man bites dog story if I ever heard one!
post #98 of 269
Do it. In this culture, it would probably fly. You'd certainly have no trouble finding a lawyer to take the case, I'll guarantee you that.

post #99 of 269
If they saw any money in it they would.
post #100 of 269
Scott:

From <a href="http://www.jeffreywigand.com/insider/who.html" target="_blank">Jeffrey Wiggand's actual testimony to the WHO</a>: (warning - Safari doesn't like this web page)

[quote]Tobacco companies also manipulate nicotine levels in cigarettes in an effort to keep customers addicted. I know firsthand that efforts were made to change the pH of tobacco through the use of ammonia generating additives, in order to convert total nicotine to free nicotine, so that greater amounts would be pharmacologically active. Tobacco companies utilize blending techniques, changing the ratio of flue-cured to burley tobacco as a way of assuring the appropriate nicotine level. They also change the pH by using ammonia as an additive, to provide increased nicotine uptake by the body. The tobacco industry intentionally uses over 599 chemical additives which facilitate and maintain addiction, ameliorate the harshness of tobacco smoke and increase the effectiveness of nicotine, as well as unintentional residual additives from pesticides, agricultural chemicals, soil bacterial flora and manufacturing processes. Many of these additives when burned generate a more toxic tar then tobacco burned without the inclusion of these additives.

Brown and Williamson even investigated a genetically engineered tobacco called Y-1, a breeding project conducted in New Jersey, and later commercially grown in Brazil by exporting tobacco seed germplasm illegally. The intent behind Y-1 was to manage the tar-to-nicotine ratio. If you can have less mass of tobacco at higher nicotine content, you would essentially be reducing the negative aspects of smoking, as you would be reducing tar while maintaining the nicotine delivery at a constant level. That was a way of managing the tar to nicotine ratios, while lowering the tar yet maintaining the nicotine. Y-1 tobacco was incorporated into some B&W brands.<hr></blockquote>



[edited out all of the juvinile condescension]

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: tonton ]</p>
post #101 of 269
[another condescending post - SORRY!]

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: tonton ]</p>
post #102 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>Do it. In this culture, it would probably fly. You'd certainly have no trouble finding a lawyer to take the case, I'll guarantee you that.

</strong><hr></blockquote>


.
.
.
.
.
The merits of this case certainly don't neccesitate the opportunistic lawyer stereotype. I'm not really sure what you're saying about lawyers, but I think the reason that you won't find a shortage of lawyers here is because they are energized from recent victories against Big Tobacco. I think what you're saying about consuming products from Big Tobacco and Big Fat is that personal responsibility is first and foremost. But since Big Tobacco has already been defeated to some extent, what do you think that says about the parallels between that and Big Fat? What role should these corporations play besides being greedy, opportunistic, and profitable from the fattening of America? I cringe at thinking they have none as what has been suggested.
post #103 of 269
Yea yea I got it. Thanks for the read. Maybe it's because I'm a scientist but I get picky about these things.

But you know if people smoke to get nicotine and the companies find a way to give the people what they want ... what law was broken?

Maybe I just don't see the grotesque corporate manipulation others do. No one can claim that they don't know cig's are harmful. And cig's have nicotine no matter what you do. So ... you know ... I'm just not seeing it.

I also get a whiff of hypocrisy here. For example lets say pot is legal. Some super stoner hero breads a pot that has a lot of THT in it to get you good and high. Now would you all come here and cry over the grotesque corporate manipulation that caused people to smoke more pot and have ill health effects because of it? No you wouldn't. Should we sue all the crack dealers because they found an even better delivery system for cocaine? I'm sure you'd say no.
post #104 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>


.
.
.
.
.
The merits of this case certainly don't neccesitate the opportunistic lawyer stereotype. I'm not really sure what you're saying about lawyers, but I think the reason that you won't find a shortage of lawyers here is because they are energized from recent victories against Big Tobacco. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Please please SPJ don't dilute yourself this way. "energized from recent victories" Ha. You mean, "energize over huge legal fees they have won for themselves". Get real man. It has always been and will always be about money for these type of lawyers.

Heres some reading for the forum

<a href="http://www.overlawyered.com" target="_blank">OverLawyered</a>
post #105 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>.

Kids (and others) kinda had no choice but to go outside and play and run around. Now, your typical modern teen (and sometimes pre-teen) has cable TV, broadband Internet, a stack of video games and a cell phone all in their own bedroom.
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

What do you mean pre-teen? My son has wireless DSL pumped to his Duron 1100 PC with a Voodoo 5500 in it.

He's also three.

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #106 of 269
Here's a more relevant link. Enjoy


<a href="http://www.overlawyered.com/topics/tobacco.html" target="_blank">Tobacco litigation resources</a>


Anyone who thinks these lawyers give a shit about peoples' health is living in a fantasy world.

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
post #107 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>

Oh Pscates. This is like the smoking thing. The tobacco companies were once infallible and absolved from any wrongdoing just like fat food companies are now. They have fallen and so will Big Fat. I think you know that based on your mentioning of it. And the fact that it doesn't seem like you supported that decision either is really, really suspect. I mean that decision wasn't over-argued then, it's not over-argued now. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

There was a conspiracy among Big Tobacco. The same can hardly be said about "Big Fat" as you term them. I would love to see the commercials from the 50's where doctors are shown eating Big Mac's and declaring the health benefits like we see for Big Tobacco.

Big difference...

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #108 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>The Insider was an excellent, excellent film with great performances from Russell Crowe, Al Pacino, and Christopher Plummer.

THE ISSUE here is once again being looked at through very narrow perspectives. The idea that McDonalds could have any responsibility in the fattening of America is painted as utterly ridiculous by those opposed to holding Big Fat accountable. "Personal responsibility" is the buzzword used by opponents to stymie any arguments against the Fat Food companies. NOW I think that's ridiculous. One cannot paint this as an "either/or" situation. It's most certainly a combination of personal responsibility and BigFat's societal responsibility for the fattening of America.

JUST WHAT do obesity related illnesses cost our country? Billions of dollars? How much longer are we willing to let Fat Food companies profit from the fattening of America? The answer eludes me. I DON'T KNOW where to draw the line. BUT let's be realistic. Big Fat should play a greater role in helping stop America's destructive addiction to fast food. And a way to do this that should satisfy everyone is to FREE INFORMATION from its current lockdown. What I mean is that more should be done to promote the awareness of nutrition facts. They should be placed PROMINENTLY in all restaraunts. They should be on all packaging. Fast food should be taken out of schools, it should be scrutinized for being aimed at children who don;'t know any better. Remove soda and candy machines from schools. This benefits no one but the coffers of large Fat Food corporations.


THIS isn't brain surgery, folks. The status quo needs to be scrutinized for fattening America.</strong><hr></blockquote>

it's called self-control. i love fast food but rarely eat it. maybe if these people made their own dinners for once they wouldn't eat at fast food resturants a couple times a week
:eek:
post #109 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by burningwheel:
<strong>

it's called self-control. i love fast food but rarely eat it. maybe if these people made their own dinners for once they wouldn't eat at fast food resturants a couple times a week
:eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Me too. My wife an I go sometimes, get a two cheeseburger meal and split it.


Question is what will they sue Subway for?
post #110 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>Yea yea I got it. Thanks for the read. Maybe it's because I'm a scientist but I get picky about these things.

But you know if people smoke to get nicotine and the companies find a way to give the people what they want ... what law was broken?

Maybe I just don't see the grotesque corporate manipulation others do. No one can claim that they don't know cig's are harmful. And cig's have nicotine no matter what you do. So ... you know ... I'm just not seeing it.

I also get a whiff of hypocrisy here. For example lets say pot is legal. Some super stoner hero breads a pot that has a lot of THT in it to get you good and high. Now would you all come here and cry over the grotesque corporate manipulation that caused people to smoke more pot and have ill health effects because of it? No you wouldn't. Should we sue all the crack dealers because they found an even better delivery system for cocaine? I'm sure you'd say no.</strong><hr></blockquote>

THT is not addictive (physically, anyway).

Caffeine is greatly addictive. Did we sue JOLT? or Mountain Dew (yuck)? Why does a lemon-lime drink need caffeine anyway?
post #111 of 269
And I'm sorry, Scott. My post above sounded a bit rude. Your response was commendable.
post #112 of 269
I think some recent study(s) has some evidence that it is. I don't have my medline in front of me so I can't search it. The crack example is a better one. Are there any lawyers going to sue BigCrack?
post #113 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>I think some recent study(s) has some evidence that it is. I don't have my medline in front of me so I can't search it. The crack example is a better one. Are there any lawyers going to sue BigCrack?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Let's hope so. I think those of us who support regulated legal drug distribution tend to believe that harmful or particularly addictive drugs should be dealt with extremely carefully.

Meanwhile all the kids who go to raves and get what they think is a tab of E (a mild drug) that's actually composed of ketamine (a bad drug), cocaine (another bad drug), caffiene (they got ripped off) or worse - rat poison - would benefit from some sort of regulation.
post #114 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>


Question is what will they sue Subway for?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Good question, and how about the Pizza industry?? Pizza's that come with a gazillion cheeses, cheese in crust etc

where will it all end??

America is too sue crazed as everyone knows.

SPJ, do you want to follow in the footsteps of Geoffrey Fieger?

i recently read that American's are starting to super-size portions at home now. where's the self-control <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
post #115 of 269
A little responsibility for one's own actions . . . sueing McDonalds is absurd

however, that said, there is a lot to be said about the weight phenomena being a clear class issue. And, its this way for a number of clear reasons. Among them, as far as I can see, are the fact that working people very often work in environments where there are no alternatives but garbage.

take your average industrial park, you have to slog throgh a gigantic parking lot to your car then drive in a congested new development avenue just to get to the few MCwhatevers that ring the average industrial park

And, when they get home, exhaustted they have to shop at Giant Food shovelling Distributers Inc super market IF they feel that they have the time or the energy, and then once there, they get aisles upon aisles of processed foods with lists of ingredientes with compound names who's etymologies are Greek or Latin . . .

the other thing is that many people actually do not know what is good to eat

Plus, I'll say something surprising here:
When your average Working Joe steps into a Whole Foods or a natural Food Co-Op, there is a very very heavy vibe of condescencion: these Co-Op people are all just so 'happenin' and lefty-know it all, and 'doing the right and good thing' that it absolutely alienates the average working stiff . .
they just lay it on thick . . .They are dripping with their own coolness that its sickening, and, it makes people feel like failures for liking the taste of white bread

[ 01-24-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #116 of 269
It most certainly is not absurd.
post #117 of 269
Yeah, but you actually think marijuana should remain illegal.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #118 of 269
And you're from Western PA.
post #119 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong> No one can claim that they don't know cig's are harmful. </strong><hr></blockquote>

That's either a lie or you're completely ignorant. Smokes used to be advertised as healthy. Once you're addicted it's too late.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #120 of 269
Not to get in the way of the witch hunt, you boys have fun and all, but has anyone actually said that this lawsuit being rejected was a bad thing or that the fatty should have won?

Just checking.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › McDonalds made my childern fat! Not!!!