<strong>I don't think either of your slippery slope arguments are the least bit realistic. Taxing food based on the sugar content? Damn that unhealthy fruit! Taxing clothes based on plus sizes? I can see a constitutional crisis here.
Get real, guys. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea that's the whole point. Getting real and not trying to satisfy lawyer greed with frivolous lawsuits. Getting real and not using the court system of effect social change. Getting real and allowing people to eat whatever the **** they want without do gooder liberal telling them they should pay more for it because it tastes good.
This used to be a free country were people were responsible for themselves. Now everyone?s a victim and a lawyer can make a buck or a billion off of it.
The only problem I have with taxing "fat" is that government becomes too reliant upon the monies that are collected. The high taxes on cigarettes here and in New York mean only that some people quit, lots buy out of state, and the dedicatedly addicted pay the extra freight.
And why should McDonalds be the only one targeted? Someone earlier pointed out that a Frappuccino has 870 calories and an entire day’s worth of saturated fat into a 20-ounce venti; why not sue Starbucks? Have you seen the calorie and fat count for a Chicken Tostada bowl from <a href="http://www.kookooroo.com/nutrition1.htm"; target="_blank">Koo Koo Roo</a> (a very popular LA based fast food place that does sell itself as a healthy alternative to burger places)? 1269 calories and 73.6 grams of fat. Shouldn't they be sued for that? After all, it's not your fault that you didn't have the one original Chicken breast with a side of green beans at 213 calories and 7 grams of fat, is it?
After my Dad died, my Mom pretty much refused to cook for herself. She lived on a diet of fast food. Within five years of my Father's death, she had put on enough weight and raised her blood pressure enough to have the stroke that killed her. While I don't equate the behavior of everyone who is overweight from eating crap food with my Mother's behavior, I have to think that a lot of the seriously obese people I see have, uh, issues with food that are not going to be cured by suing Taco Bell or Baskin Robbins, or putting a tax on Cheetos or clothes from Lane Bryant.
As for the clothes part... how are clothes healthy or unhealthy? I am a little lost on that one. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess you're differentiating because "fat" is a sub category of food whereas the other things I mentioned are seperate entities altogether.
Since we've already argued for full disclosure from fat food chains, but that's too much for the likes of scott, taxation is a different approach. Is it realistic? Maybe not (although it might be), but it's better than doing nothing.
Well you can alter the price or taxation of stuff, but that won't affect those Fatties that are on Public Assistance ( Social Security Ruling, SSR 02-1p; Titles II and XVI: Evaluation
We can derail the thread as much as we want but when it comes down to it McDonald's shares responsibility for the product they produce. Just as Ford is in part responsible for the air pollution their cars create, not those lazy people who can't figure out how many particles of pollution per million each car releases.
If they share any responsibility then there is a case for a lawsuit. I've seen a lot of people claiming that the lawsuit was without merit, but no one has explained why. Just simply "it's your fault if you're fat." Well, what's in the lawsuit that's so impossible? No one can explain. Seems to me you're just giving your gut (no pun intended) reaction.
The lawsuit is without merit because McDonalds never conspired to make their customers fat. Any more that Coca-Cola conspired to rot your teeth, or the producers of "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" conspired to rot your brain.
McDonalds provides a perfectly legal foodstuff that just isn't something that you should base your diet upon. So does Hostess, M&M Mars, Pepsico, Burger King and KFC.
<strong>The lawsuit is without merit because McDonalds never conspired to make their customers fat. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you. Can you prove that, or would a court have to prove that?
Scott, I think you're wrong. People have become incredibly smart if they can make statements like the one above without the need for courts. No trial. No jury. No Judge.
That's AMAZING. This is going to simplify EVERYTHING!!!
I don't have to prove that McDonalds didn't conspire to make their customers fat. A Judge, who I assume has some actual knowlege of the law, threw the suit out as <a href="http://www.spittingllamas.com/posts/000607.php"; target="_blank">meritless</a>.
This is not the case of Ford going ahead with manufacturing the Mustang, <a href="http://www.bonforums.com/mustang_safety/door/"; target="_blank">knowing that the doors on the SN95 Mustang convertible would jamb in a rear impact</a>, and that it's gas tank would <a href="http://www.bonforums.com/mustang_safety/"; target="_blank">leak like a sieve in a rear-end collision</a>.
[quote]Ashley Pelman, 14, of the Bronx, submitted an affidavit saying she weighs 170 pounds at 4 feet, 10 inches and has been eating at the chain three to four times a week since she was five.
Another named plaintiff, Jazlyn Bradley, 19, of Brooklyn, said she weighs 270 pounds and is 5 feet 6 inches tall, and that during a four-year-period she ate twice a day at McDonald's.
The parents of these children say they never saw posters in the restaurant explaining the nutritional content of the food.<hr></blockquote>
If you are trying to say that the parents need to be told, in this day and age, with a diet book on every corner and food pyramids in every book and endless infomercials screaming "Stop the Insanity!" to realize that there might be a correlation between little Jazlyn wighing as much as Shaquille O'Neal and her twice daily trips to Mickey D's, then I just have to say BULL$HIT. Not only is this a meritless lawsuit, but little Jazlyn's parents should face child endangerment charges for letting her get to this point.
TO blame MD for making you fat is dumb idea, because unlike big tobacco, who intentionally made a product to addict the consumer to a point at which they could not stop, MD offers food. You find it in supermarkets and gas stations, and all the in-betweens. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY it is clearly marked with how much to have, daily value charts. IN FACT it is illegal to sell food on an interstate level with out a daily value chart. This suit is like suing a car company for personal injury because you drove into a metal pole at 60 mph, or suing a knife company for selling a lethal product, yes it?s dangerous but you need a knife to cut food. You need to eat but don?t over do it. You need to wash your hands, but if you over do it you will throw your immune system into a weaken state and be very susceptible to disease(scientific fact). one last thought: <a href="http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/cellphones/cell3.asp"; target="_blank">http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/cellphones/cell3.asp</a>; (the first one)
You know what I mean. And actually i think i would be hard pressed to find any meat distribuitor who can give me a leg of lamb, of ribs,that were produced without using a knife.
Comments
<strong>I don't think either of your slippery slope arguments are the least bit realistic. Taxing food based on the sugar content? Damn that unhealthy fruit! Taxing clothes based on plus sizes? I can see a constitutional crisis here.
Get real, guys.
Yea that's the whole point. Getting real and not trying to satisfy lawyer greed with frivolous lawsuits. Getting real and not using the court system of effect social change. Getting real and allowing people to eat whatever the **** they want without do gooder liberal telling them they should pay more for it because it tastes good.
This used to be a free country were people were responsible for themselves. Now everyone?s a victim and a lawyer can make a buck or a billion off of it.
Get real indeed.
[edit: funny typo]
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>
This used to be a free country were people were responsible from themselves. </strong><hr></blockquote>
And then multi-national corporations started selling poisons to the free peoples effectively killing them and their freedoms.
Damn shame rampant "free trade" economy has usurped the definition of democracy.
And why should McDonalds be the only one targeted? Someone earlier pointed out that a Frappuccino has 870 calories and an entire day’s worth of saturated fat into a 20-ounce venti; why not sue Starbucks? Have you seen the calorie and fat count for a Chicken Tostada bowl from <a href="http://www.kookooroo.com/nutrition1.htm"; target="_blank">Koo Koo Roo</a> (a very popular LA based fast food place that does sell itself as a healthy alternative to burger places)? 1269 calories and 73.6 grams of fat. Shouldn't they be sued for that? After all, it's not your fault that you didn't have the one original Chicken breast with a side of green beans at 213 calories and 7 grams of fat, is it?
After my Dad died, my Mom pretty much refused to cook for herself. She lived on a diet of fast food. Within five years of my Father's death, she had put on enough weight and raised her blood pressure enough to have the stroke that killed her. While I don't equate the behavior of everyone who is overweight from eating crap food with my Mother's behavior, I have to think that a lot of the seriously obese people I see have, uh, issues with food that are not going to be cured by suing Taco Bell or Baskin Robbins, or putting a tax on Cheetos or clothes from Lane Bryant.
<strong>
As for the clothes part... how are clothes healthy or unhealthy? I am a little lost on that one. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess you're differentiating because "fat" is a sub category of food whereas the other things I mentioned are seperate entities altogether.
Since we've already argued for full disclosure from fat food chains, but that's too much for the likes of scott, taxation is a different approach. Is it realistic? Maybe not (although it might be), but it's better than doing nothing.
of Obesity ).
They will just lobby for more benefits.
If they share any responsibility then there is a case for a lawsuit. I've seen a lot of people claiming that the lawsuit was without merit, but no one has explained why. Just simply "it's your fault if you're fat." Well, what's in the lawsuit that's so impossible? No one can explain. Seems to me you're just giving your gut (no pun intended) reaction.
McDonalds provides a perfectly legal foodstuff that just isn't something that you should base your diet upon. So does Hostess, M&M Mars, Pepsico, Burger King and KFC.
<strong>I can't believe how incredibly stupid so many people in this country have become.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, stop bashing the US, The rest of the World has stupid people too, you know!
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>I can't believe how incredibly stupid so many people in this country have become.</strong><hr></blockquote>
^I know.
<strong>The lawsuit is without merit because McDonalds never conspired to make their customers fat. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you. Can you prove that, or would a court have to prove that?
Scott, I think you're wrong. People have become incredibly smart if they can make statements like the one above without the need for courts. No trial. No jury. No Judge.
That's AMAZING. This is going to simplify EVERYTHING!!!
This is not the case of Ford going ahead with manufacturing the Mustang, <a href="http://www.bonforums.com/mustang_safety/door/"; target="_blank">knowing that the doors on the SN95 Mustang convertible would jamb in a rear impact</a>, and that it's gas tank would <a href="http://www.bonforums.com/mustang_safety/"; target="_blank">leak like a sieve in a rear-end collision</a>.
[quote]Ashley Pelman, 14, of the Bronx, submitted an affidavit saying she weighs 170 pounds at 4 feet, 10 inches and has been eating at the chain three to four times a week since she was five.
Another named plaintiff, Jazlyn Bradley, 19, of Brooklyn, said she weighs 270 pounds and is 5 feet 6 inches tall, and that during a four-year-period she ate twice a day at McDonald's.
The parents of these children say they never saw posters in the restaurant explaining the nutritional content of the food.<hr></blockquote>
If you are trying to say that the parents need to be told, in this day and age, with a diet book on every corner and food pyramids in every book and endless infomercials screaming "Stop the Insanity!" to realize that there might be a correlation between little Jazlyn wighing as much as Shaquille O'Neal and her twice daily trips to Mickey D's, then I just have to say BULL$HIT. Not only is this a meritless lawsuit, but little Jazlyn's parents should face child endangerment charges for letting her get to this point.
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: tmp ]</p>
Yes you do.
<strong>you need a knife to cut food.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you don't. Your entire premise is therefore flawed and will be summarily dismissed. Have a nice day.
Welcome, Xterra. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />