<strong>I call BS on that. I have a Honda Civic, and even it will easily hold two adults in the front and and three car seats in the back.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Booster seats or the full blown car seats? Our Accord cannot hold all three and it certainly is a bit bigger than the Civic. The booster seats are much smaller but don't offer the as much protection.
<strong>Likewise when the people getting this treatment don't have to pay for it, they will not alter their actions regarding their decisions.
...
If it were expensive for the individual then the individual might alter their actions. Instead since it isn't, they act as they want to act.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn´t that a bit simplistic (<-- I`ll get flamed for using the s word )?
"What the heck. I´ll grab three quarter pounders. If that means I´ll be so fat I can´t move myself out the door so be it. I´m not the one who is going to pay for the hospital bills"
"Well I might as well drive down this SF steep road with blindfolders on and sitting on the wrong direction on my bike. If I break a leg trying the state will pay my bills"
I think people also care a bit about appearences and other illeffects of their actions. If they don´t I really don´t see them thinking so far as to who is gonna pay their medical bills.
You just don't like the level of control that must come from folks like yourself with continual good intentions, but very few workable plans. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well there are a few plans already laid out in this thread.
Another part of the plan should be mandated preventative health care. Most HMOs are reactionary rather than precautionary and that could be improved.
You seem to come from a position that companies should be able to market anything they want without any responsibility whatsoever. My position is asking for responsibility from both parties.
Well there are a few plans already laid out in this thread.
Another part of the plan should be mandated preventative health care. Most HMOs are reactionary rather than precautionary and that could be improved.
You seem to come from a position that companies should be able to market anything they want without any responsibility whatsoever. My position is asking for responsibility from both parties.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mandated and the land of the free... two great tastes that don't go great together.
Actually most health plans I have seen will gladly help you start and maintain a diet, especially HMO's versus PPO's. Ours even allows the repeated follow ups with no co-pay.
The deal is though that the patient has to want this and of course no law can "mandate" that.
All companies in this day and age have responsibility. You go well beyond that. No one is arguing that McDonald's shouldn't pay taxes, be inspected by health officials, or allowed to pay wages below minimum. We have already imposed numerous responsibilities on that company.
Your "responsibilities" move to well beyond that. You literally want a product to be sold that has no effects regardless of customer actions. It isn't as if eating at McDonald's is guranteed to make you obese. It is perhaps almost exclusively eating there that would cause this in conjunction with choosing not to exercise. This moves well beyond a social contract and into nanny-state babysitting.
Using your reasoning companies selling bottled water should put warning labels on about over and under hydration out of "responsibility" that someone might misuse their product.
Anything can be misused or abused. The fact that this is so does not mean companies should be sued or accused of neglecting their social responsibility.
<strong>Mandated and the land of the free... two great tastes that don't go great together.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Constitution was written for individuals, not corporations. Sorry.
As for labels on water bottles, the difference with McDonald's and Cigarettes is that the danger comes even when those products are used under normal conditions. You don't have to eat 5 meals a day and McDonald's to die from it. You would practically have to set up an IV to die of over hydration (barring some medical problem.)
That's part of the issue. When a product used as it should be is deadly (leaded gasoline, leaded paint, Cigarettes or McDonald's) a warning is valid.
The Constitution was written for individuals, not corporations. Sorry.
As for labels on water bottles, the difference with McDonald's and Cigarettes is that the danger comes even when those products are used under normal conditions. You don't have to eat 5 meals a day and McDonald's to die from it. You would practically have to set up an IV to die of over hydration (barring some medical problem.)
That's part of the issue. When a product used as it should be is deadly (leaded gasoline, leaded paint, Cigarettes or McDonald's) a warning is valid.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually if you check into it a corporation is nothing but a legal "person." If what you were saying was true we could abolish things like Playboy and Penthouse because they wouldn't be subject to free speech.
Your contention about McDonalds being dangerous under "normal" use is just silly. I suppose people buying Starbucks Frapachinos, or going to the Cheesecake Factory, or who order...dessert all deserve warnings as well right? I have seen plenty of people who probably eat that stuff daily who don't gain a pound. Of course they work in manual labor type trades and burn tons of calories doing the work they do.
Thank goodness your wise intellect will watch over all the idiots you presume the rest of the population to be.
Isn´t that a bit simplistic (<-- I`ll get flamed for using the s word )?
"What the heck. I´ll grab three quarter pounders. If that means I´ll be so fat I can´t move myself out the door so be it. I´m not the one who is going to pay for the hospital bills"
"Well I might as well drive down this SF steep road with blindfolders on and sitting on the wrong direction on my bike. If I break a leg trying the state will pay my bills"
I think people also care a bit about appearences and other illeffects of their actions. If they don´t I really don´t see them thinking so far as to who is gonna pay their medical bills.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually that is pretty much the attitude I don't know if there is a 1 to 1 correlation on the actual thinking, just a devil may care attitutde.
I actually have quite a bit of experience with this since I am a landlord. I have probably seen quite a few more credit reports than the average person and this is the type of person I end up renting to quite a bit. They generally have a decent job and income, but the dings on their credit are all from medical care at the county hospital and things of that nature. It is either that or child support....
Maybe I have some delusions that make me see several posts in this thread where I stated I don't think the lawsuit fatty should have won. Repeatedly. Over and over.
I'm genuinely curious as to what exactly the barrier is between the English language and whatever mental mechanisms involved in comprehension.
Give me strength, Lord, give me strength.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe he is just demonstrating the type of willful ignorance that makes people think they should be able to eat at McDonalds seven days a week and not become fat.
Of course when he doesn't comprehend all the warning labels or acts in disregard of them (like the 25% of the population that still smokes) then you will need even more patience and strength for the next round of tax hikes needed to fund educational commercials, pamphlets, school intervention programs, etc. that will be needed to overcome this comprehension and willful ignorance.
<strong>I'll answer your question, but you have to promise to answer mine.
1. Do you believe the statistics that say obesity has recently surpassed cig smoking as the number one cause of death of Americans?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe it, sure. There are a lot of overweight people out there (and I think there are some regional/cultural factors involved as well). But I believe, even more, that people have the ability to do - or not do - things to themselves. I place this trend more on the people doing the eating, that's all.
[quote]<strong>2. Do you believe that the easy availability of cheap high-calorie foods is a major contributor to this fat trend over the past several years/decades?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, not really. Not solely, anyway. I much more believe that the increased popularity of cable/satellite TV, the Internet, video games, computer gaming, online chatting, etc. have played a HUGE part (as I said earlier in this thread). In addition to people shoving this stuff into their face, they don't seem to counteract that with any sort of physical exercise or activity. If you eat this food many times a week (even multiple times a day) and simply sit on the couch or in front of your computer, you're going to get pudgy. These restaurants were around years and years and years ago and there didn't seem to be this huge "fat epidemic" or "crisis" (I really hate when that word is flung around so casually).
[quote]<strong>3. What do you think should be done about it? Nothing? To me, that's what telling people to "take personal responsibility" means. Sit back and watch the problem get worse and worse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've said here a few times that I think the solution is quite simple...and doesn't involve attorneys, the courts, nasty lawsuits, etc. People need to be smarter about what they do and what they put into their bodies. They need to perhaps not be so easily swayed by loud, colorful ads as if they have no will of their own. To me, that is the epitome of "personal responsibility": you're exercising self-control and actually looking down the road a bit and trying to live a smarter, better-informed life so you don't have all these problems later in life. You are being RESPONSIBLE for your PERSON.
You're taking care of yourself (and your family) because THAT'S your job in life. It's not up to courts, politicians, fellow citizens, endless social programs, etc. to guide you through 75 years on this planet because you're too stupid, lazy, unmotivated or willfully ignorant to get a clue about how things should be.
And also, it's laziness: I know so many people who've literally said "I'd get up and make my own lunch, but it's just easier to grab a burger...I get to sleep in an extra 10 minutes" and things along those lines. You could wake up, make a turkey sandwich on whole wheat bread, choose a favorite soup and a fruit of your choice and pack it into a little bag or lunchbox. Problem solved. It's cheaper than fast food and it's better for you. I know a lot of people who do that. If you've got the money to spend on burgers, fries and shakes everyday, you certainly can re-route that to the grocery store and buy a pack of sliced turkey, a loaf of bread, soups, fruits and vegetables, crackers, low-fat microwave popcorn or pretzels, etc.
Yeah, you might have to wake up 10 minutes earlier to gather all this together...
NOBODY is addicted to fast food. Nobody HAS to eat it. Nobody is forced to.
You know what this type of food is about. You can choose to take it in moderation (like I try to do) or you can cut it out altogether (which, if everyone did, it would force these places to either a) pack it in and go out of business or b) change their fare based on true, actual public demand and desire and not mandated artificially by courts and lazy, weak-willed individuals who wake up one day to miraculously discover that 15 years of eating Double Whoppers 3-5 times a week has resulted in an enormous ass and possible health problems.
I don't think eating fast food several times a month is going to harm anyone. But if you CHOOSE to eat it all week long, several times a day even, that's on YOU.
I'm sorry if that's just beyond some of you.
These places, to my knowledge, NEVER tried to pass themselves off as "healthy" or "eat here and you won't get fat" kinds of places.
What I find more offensive and annoying than these places selling the kind of crap they do (and they do) is the notion that otherwise capable, intelligent people have to be told the obvious and babysat/handheld through the most simple, basic and common sense-based things in life.
Because eating this stuff is strictly voluntary and no one is having a gun to their temple, forcing them to finish up that Quarter Pounder, then I lay more of the responsibility on those eating it, not serving it.
If people were truly concerned about this alarming "fat trend" as some reports would have you believe, people would, in droves, simply stop eating this stuff. I'm not aware of fast food places spiking their burgers and fries with some sort of secret addictive substance. If you can't resist eating a burger offered to you by some red-haired clown breakdancing in a stupid commercial, then YOU'RE the one with the problem.
I'll concede this (and ONLY this): print up wrappers with the nutritional information and even a doctor's warning on it, to the effect of "Eating this type of food on a frequent, ongoing basis may result in..." and list the things (obesity, high blood pressure, etc.). Faced with the information in numbers AND with a medical warning right in front of them, people can simply choose - for themselves - if the risk is worth it or not.
Thank goodness your wise intellect will watch over all the idiots you presume the rest of the population to be. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, kids and people who grew up decades before the "health crazed 80's" are idiots. That's the exact basis of my argument. How could you figure that one out?
The people against the lawsuit are saying "No one has a right to sue." I'm saying you're full of crap if you believe that because, well, there are a lot of people that could have a case, even if it's only 1% of the population. Should the courts decide that since a majority of the population isn't in a position to sue no one can sue? Obviously not. It only takes one example to prove your (plural) position in the argument as completely off base.
The anti-lawsuit crowd here is creating a straw man argument. Trying to shift the meaning of the lawsuit/argument to say that anyone that got fat on McDonald's can sue. That's not the argument anyone here is making but you all will continue to pursue that line of thinking because it's a winnable argument, not because it's valid.
It's the Rush Limbaugh school of discussion. Keep repeating something that's not relevant and eventually people will start to believe it's relevant.
"You guys want everyone to be able to sue because they're fat."
"No, we don't."
"Yeah, but you're wrong because you want everyone to be able to sue because they're fat."
It's just like the "hot" cup of coffee. No one has ever argued that everyone that burns themselves at a restaurant should be able to sue. It's the anti-lawsuit crowd that's refusing to look at the merits of a case, any case. Forget law, if it sounds sketchy throw it out of court! And when anyone questions your position you go back to the strawman argument of claiming that liberals want everyone to be able to sue because they spilled their coffee.
You got us there, pal. It means absolutely nothing. Guilty as charged.
Jeez...
Here is where I think someone could sue (and not be laughed out of court):
1. If McDonald's (or any other fast food restaurant) opened their doors decades ago proclaiming, from the get-go, that they have "healthy, low-calorie burgers and fries..." and the like. Then, 50 years later we just now discover they've been foisting crap on us all this time, to our utter shock and horror. THAT is worthy of litigation. I'd sue too!
Or...
2. Fast food places are discovered to have all been in cahoots with one another, intentionally developing, perfecting and adding secret addictive substances to their food, thereby creating generations of true, genuine addicts who simply can't NOT eat a Big Mac three times a week. Yes, that's low, despicable behavior and should be punished. Of course!
On the otherside, some of the lawsuit people are trying to say that this is just like big tabacco. It isn't.
The food industry has some accounting to make of its practices, but moreso than that, the food beauracracies should have to answer some very serious questions about what and why they've allowed what they have. Is it really McDonald's fault you kids are fat? I think there are a few more culpable people in that chain before you ever get to McDonalds. First parents, then Food and Drug.
Tabacco is different only because of the practices Wiegand exposed. A line between narcotics onthe one hand and food and marketing on the other needs to be drawn, probably to the partial dissatisfaction of all, but it doen't seem sensical to me to lump them all together.
You got us there, pal. It means absolutely nothing. Guilty as charged.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
WE WIN!! WE WIN!!!
"These restaurants were around years and years and years ago and there didn't seem to be this huge "fat epidemic" or "crisis" (I really hate when that word is flung around so casually)."
This is an important fact. Let's find out what's changed between then and now. Some is our eating habits, and some is the "food" itself. There's the crux of the issue. No one here can say how much weight (no pun intended) can be given to either side without getting the facts that show up in court.
So, the lawsuits will iron out the details. Like with the hot coffee suit. Those that still think it was crap probably never got past the initial shock of "What? Someone's suing because they spilled their coffee?" and those people just don't seem to have an interest in learning and/or understanding. Set in their ways....
as someone who tends to think liberally, I stand in opposition to sueing Mdonalds on grounds of fatness . . . In fact I think it weakens the whole notion of arguing from a "position" if your position takes this stance . . in other words, it makes 'liberals' truly seem idiotic to back this as a matter of principle.
Perhaps there could be some labeling or more general nutritional info being put out . . . but it is a person's responcibility to eat well.
True there are all the other issues of the difficulty of getting decent food for the average working person . . . .but,
I would also add that the impression left by so many granola lefties about their food eating and its radical-righteousness probably does more harm to the average American by stearing them emphatically away from Organics or etc than Mcwhatever TV commercials . .. .
<strong>I'll concede this (and ONLY this): print up wrappers with the nutritional information and even a doctor's warning on it, to the effect of "Eating this type of food on a frequent, ongoing basis may result in..." and list the things (obesity, high blood pressure, etc.). Faced with the information in numbers AND with a medical warning right in front of them, people can simply choose - for themselves - if the risk is worth it or not.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
THANK YOU. That's my main point I wanted to get across to those who emphasize the "person" aspect to personal responsibility. I do believe BRussell's "corporate" aspect to personal responsibilty remains important too. And finally, Groverat's ideas about curbing advertising to kids has to be one of the single most important things we could do.
Wheat is tax free, 75% 'Lean' ground beef is now $5 a pound instead of $.50. A 95% lean half pound burger becomes cheaper and better for you than a quarter pounder at McDonald's.
This also protects small business owners because they don't have nationwide chains that would be federally taxed. It promotes local farmers rather than industrial farms.
The more we get out of mass produced food, the better off we'll ultimately be, especially farmers. Disincentives to technologize food production -- GMO, pesticides, hormones -- while simultaneously producing smaller but higher quality yields, (not higher aesthetic quality) would be a great benefit to consumers and producers (unless you're a huge factory farm operation)
One example we know well in Ontario revolves around milk and milk marketing. Every year, super-cows produce hundreds of thousands of liters of milk that has to be dumped to keep up prices. In the meantime we're getting some pretty strong milk for our money. Limiting the tolerances for hormones in our milk might make it more expensive in the short term, but the price of milk (and other agricultural products) is already artificially maintained. And as a real plus boys might not grow tits when they hit puberty and girls might not hit puberty at 8 instead of 13.
Wouldn't it be better to have a lower, more "natural," yield and let prices maintain themselves? Speaking of "Natural" and "Organic," you are aware that the majority of you who pay extra for products with these labels are probably NOT getting a pesticide/hormone/GMO free product? At least not in Canada, where these terms can be used to describe only a part of your food preparation.
I think our respective legislators have more to answer for than McDonald's when we speak of the quality of food.
Comments
<strong>I call BS on that. I have a Honda Civic, and even it will easily hold two adults in the front and and three car seats in the back.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Booster seats or the full blown car seats? Our Accord cannot hold all three and it certainly is a bit bigger than the Civic. The booster seats are much smaller but don't offer the as much protection.
Nick
<strong>
A bunch of "not my fault" cry babies. That's all I see.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As Harry Nilsson would say:
"Ever been to Paris? Ever been to New Delhi? You see what you wanna see. You hear what you wanna hear."
<strong>Likewise when the people getting this treatment don't have to pay for it, they will not alter their actions regarding their decisions.
...
If it were expensive for the individual then the individual might alter their actions. Instead since it isn't, they act as they want to act.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn´t that a bit simplistic (<-- I`ll get flamed for using the s word
"What the heck. I´ll grab three quarter pounders. If that means I´ll be so fat I can´t move myself out the door so be it. I´m not the one who is going to pay for the hospital bills"
"Well I might as well drive down this SF steep road with blindfolders on and sitting on the wrong direction on my bike. If I break a leg trying the state will pay my bills"
I think people also care a bit about appearences and other illeffects of their actions. If they don´t I really don´t see them thinking so far as to who is gonna pay their medical bills.
<strong>
You just don't like the level of control that must come from folks like yourself with continual good intentions, but very few workable plans. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well there are a few plans already laid out in this thread.
Another part of the plan should be mandated preventative health care. Most HMOs are reactionary rather than precautionary and that could be improved.
You seem to come from a position that companies should be able to market anything they want without any responsibility whatsoever. My position is asking for responsibility from both parties.
<strong>
Well there are a few plans already laid out in this thread.
Another part of the plan should be mandated preventative health care. Most HMOs are reactionary rather than precautionary and that could be improved.
You seem to come from a position that companies should be able to market anything they want without any responsibility whatsoever. My position is asking for responsibility from both parties.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mandated and the land of the free... two great tastes that don't go great together.
Actually most health plans I have seen will gladly help you start and maintain a diet, especially HMO's versus PPO's. Ours even allows the repeated follow ups with no co-pay.
The deal is though that the patient has to want this and of course no law can "mandate" that.
All companies in this day and age have responsibility. You go well beyond that. No one is arguing that McDonald's shouldn't pay taxes, be inspected by health officials, or allowed to pay wages below minimum. We have already imposed numerous responsibilities on that company.
Your "responsibilities" move to well beyond that. You literally want a product to be sold that has no effects regardless of customer actions. It isn't as if eating at McDonald's is guranteed to make you obese. It is perhaps almost exclusively eating there that would cause this in conjunction with choosing not to exercise. This moves well beyond a social contract and into nanny-state babysitting.
Using your reasoning companies selling bottled water should put warning labels on about over and under hydration out of "responsibility" that someone might misuse their product.
Anything can be misused or abused. The fact that this is so does not mean companies should be sued or accused of neglecting their social responsibility.
Nick
<strong>Mandated and the land of the free... two great tastes that don't go great together.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Constitution was written for individuals, not corporations. Sorry.
As for labels on water bottles, the difference with McDonald's and Cigarettes is that the danger comes even when those products are used under normal conditions. You don't have to eat 5 meals a day and McDonald's to die from it. You would practically have to set up an IV to die of over hydration (barring some medical problem.)
That's part of the issue. When a product used as it should be is deadly (leaded gasoline, leaded paint, Cigarettes or McDonald's) a warning is valid.
<strong>
The Constitution was written for individuals, not corporations. Sorry.
As for labels on water bottles, the difference with McDonald's and Cigarettes is that the danger comes even when those products are used under normal conditions. You don't have to eat 5 meals a day and McDonald's to die from it. You would practically have to set up an IV to die of over hydration (barring some medical problem.)
That's part of the issue. When a product used as it should be is deadly (leaded gasoline, leaded paint, Cigarettes or McDonald's) a warning is valid.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually if you check into it a corporation is nothing but a legal "person." If what you were saying was true we could abolish things like Playboy and Penthouse because they wouldn't be subject to free speech.
Your contention about McDonalds being dangerous under "normal" use is just silly. I suppose people buying Starbucks Frapachinos, or going to the Cheesecake Factory, or who order...dessert all deserve warnings as well right? I have seen plenty of people who probably eat that stuff daily who don't gain a pound. Of course they work in manual labor type trades and burn tons of calories doing the work they do.
Thank goodness your wise intellect will watch over all the idiots you presume the rest of the population to be.
Nick
[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
<strong>
Isn´t that a bit simplistic (<-- I`ll get flamed for using the s word
"What the heck. I´ll grab three quarter pounders. If that means I´ll be so fat I can´t move myself out the door so be it. I´m not the one who is going to pay for the hospital bills"
"Well I might as well drive down this SF steep road with blindfolders on and sitting on the wrong direction on my bike. If I break a leg trying the state will pay my bills"
I think people also care a bit about appearences and other illeffects of their actions. If they don´t I really don´t see them thinking so far as to who is gonna pay their medical bills.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually that is pretty much the attitude I don't know if there is a 1 to 1 correlation on the actual thinking, just a devil may care attitutde.
I actually have quite a bit of experience with this since I am a landlord. I have probably seen quite a few more credit reports than the average person and this is the type of person I end up renting to quite a bit. They generally have a decent job and income, but the dings on their credit are all from medical care at the county hospital and things of that nature. It is either that or child support....
Nick
<strong>Jesus fucking Christ on a crutch...
Someone please tell me this isn't really posted:
Maybe I have some delusions that make me see several posts in this thread where I stated I don't think the lawsuit fatty should have won. Repeatedly. Over and over.
I'm genuinely curious as to what exactly the barrier is between the English language and whatever mental mechanisms involved in comprehension.
Give me strength, Lord, give me strength.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe he is just demonstrating the type of willful ignorance that makes people think they should be able to eat at McDonalds seven days a week and not become fat.
Of course when he doesn't comprehend all the warning labels or acts in disregard of them (like the 25% of the population that still smokes) then you will need even more patience and strength for the next round of tax hikes needed to fund educational commercials, pamphlets, school intervention programs, etc. that will be needed to overcome this comprehension and willful ignorance.
<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]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Nick
<strong>I'll answer your question, but you have to promise to answer mine.
1. Do you believe the statistics that say obesity has recently surpassed cig smoking as the number one cause of death of Americans?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe it, sure. There are a lot of overweight people out there (and I think there are some regional/cultural factors involved as well). But I believe, even more, that people have the ability to do - or not do - things to themselves. I place this trend more on the people doing the eating, that's all.
[quote]<strong>2. Do you believe that the easy availability of cheap high-calorie foods is a major contributor to this fat trend over the past several years/decades?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, not really. Not solely, anyway. I much more believe that the increased popularity of cable/satellite TV, the Internet, video games, computer gaming, online chatting, etc. have played a HUGE part (as I said earlier in this thread). In addition to people shoving this stuff into their face, they don't seem to counteract that with any sort of physical exercise or activity. If you eat this food many times a week (even multiple times a day) and simply sit on the couch or in front of your computer, you're going to get pudgy. These restaurants were around years and years and years ago and there didn't seem to be this huge "fat epidemic" or "crisis" (I really hate when that word is flung around so casually).
[quote]<strong>3. What do you think should be done about it? Nothing? To me, that's what telling people to "take personal responsibility" means. Sit back and watch the problem get worse and worse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've said here a few times that I think the solution is quite simple...and doesn't involve attorneys, the courts, nasty lawsuits, etc. People need to be smarter about what they do and what they put into their bodies. They need to perhaps not be so easily swayed by loud, colorful ads as if they have no will of their own. To me, that is the epitome of "personal responsibility": you're exercising self-control and actually looking down the road a bit and trying to live a smarter, better-informed life so you don't have all these problems later in life. You are being RESPONSIBLE for your PERSON.
You're taking care of yourself (and your family) because THAT'S your job in life. It's not up to courts, politicians, fellow citizens, endless social programs, etc. to guide you through 75 years on this planet because you're too stupid, lazy, unmotivated or willfully ignorant to get a clue about how things should be.
And also, it's laziness: I know so many people who've literally said "I'd get up and make my own lunch, but it's just easier to grab a burger...I get to sleep in an extra 10 minutes" and things along those lines. You could wake up, make a turkey sandwich on whole wheat bread, choose a favorite soup and a fruit of your choice and pack it into a little bag or lunchbox. Problem solved. It's cheaper than fast food and it's better for you. I know a lot of people who do that. If you've got the money to spend on burgers, fries and shakes everyday, you certainly can re-route that to the grocery store and buy a pack of sliced turkey, a loaf of bread, soups, fruits and vegetables, crackers, low-fat microwave popcorn or pretzels, etc.
Yeah, you might have to wake up 10 minutes earlier to gather all this together...
NOBODY is addicted to fast food. Nobody HAS to eat it. Nobody is forced to.
You know what this type of food is about. You can choose to take it in moderation (like I try to do) or you can cut it out altogether (which, if everyone did, it would force these places to either a) pack it in and go out of business or b) change their fare based on true, actual public demand and desire and not mandated artificially by courts and lazy, weak-willed individuals who wake up one day to miraculously discover that 15 years of eating Double Whoppers 3-5 times a week has resulted in an enormous ass and possible health problems.
I don't think eating fast food several times a month is going to harm anyone. But if you CHOOSE to eat it all week long, several times a day even, that's on YOU.
I'm sorry if that's just beyond some of you.
These places, to my knowledge, NEVER tried to pass themselves off as "healthy" or "eat here and you won't get fat" kinds of places.
What I find more offensive and annoying than these places selling the kind of crap they do (and they do) is the notion that otherwise capable, intelligent people have to be told the obvious and babysat/handheld through the most simple, basic and common sense-based things in life.
Because eating this stuff is strictly voluntary and no one is having a gun to their temple, forcing them to finish up that Quarter Pounder, then I lay more of the responsibility on those eating it, not serving it.
If people were truly concerned about this alarming "fat trend" as some reports would have you believe, people would, in droves, simply stop eating this stuff. I'm not aware of fast food places spiking their burgers and fries with some sort of secret addictive substance. If you can't resist eating a burger offered to you by some red-haired clown breakdancing in a stupid commercial, then YOU'RE the one with the problem.
I'll concede this (and ONLY this): print up wrappers with the nutritional information and even a doctor's warning on it, to the effect of "Eating this type of food on a frequent, ongoing basis may result in..." and list the things (obesity, high blood pressure, etc.). Faced with the information in numbers AND with a medical warning right in front of them, people can simply choose - for themselves - if the risk is worth it or not.
[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
<strong>
Thank goodness your wise intellect will watch over all the idiots you presume the rest of the population to be. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, kids and people who grew up decades before the "health crazed 80's" are idiots. That's the exact basis of my argument. How could you figure that one out?
The people against the lawsuit are saying "No one has a right to sue." I'm saying you're full of crap if you believe that because, well, there are a lot of people that could have a case, even if it's only 1% of the population. Should the courts decide that since a majority of the population isn't in a position to sue no one can sue? Obviously not. It only takes one example to prove your (plural) position in the argument as completely off base.
The anti-lawsuit crowd here is creating a straw man argument. Trying to shift the meaning of the lawsuit/argument to say that anyone that got fat on McDonald's can sue. That's not the argument anyone here is making but you all will continue to pursue that line of thinking because it's a winnable argument, not because it's valid.
It's the Rush Limbaugh school of discussion. Keep repeating something that's not relevant and eventually people will start to believe it's relevant.
"You guys want everyone to be able to sue because they're fat."
"No, we don't."
"Yeah, but you're wrong because you want everyone to be able to sue because they're fat."
It's just like the "hot" cup of coffee. No one has ever argued that everyone that burns themselves at a restaurant should be able to sue. It's the anti-lawsuit crowd that's refusing to look at the merits of a case, any case. Forget law, if it sounds sketchy throw it out of court! And when anyone questions your position you go back to the strawman argument of claiming that liberals want everyone to be able to sue because they spilled their coffee.
Apparently law means nothing to conservatives.
You got us there, pal. It means absolutely nothing. Guilty as charged.
Jeez...
Here is where I think someone could sue (and not be laughed out of court):
1. If McDonald's (or any other fast food restaurant) opened their doors decades ago proclaiming, from the get-go, that they have "healthy, low-calorie burgers and fries..." and the like. Then, 50 years later we just now discover they've been foisting crap on us all this time, to our utter shock and horror. THAT is worthy of litigation. I'd sue too!
Or...
2. Fast food places are discovered to have all been in cahoots with one another, intentionally developing, perfecting and adding secret addictive substances to their food, thereby creating generations of true, genuine addicts who simply can't NOT eat a Big Mac three times a week. Yes, that's low, despicable behavior and should be punished. Of course!
Or...
3. Well, I can't think of a third one...
[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
The food industry has some accounting to make of its practices, but moreso than that, the food beauracracies should have to answer some very serious questions about what and why they've allowed what they have. Is it really McDonald's fault you kids are fat? I think there are a few more culpable people in that chain before you ever get to McDonalds. First parents, then Food and Drug.
Tabacco is different only because of the practices Wiegand exposed. A line between narcotics onthe one hand and food and marketing on the other needs to be drawn, probably to the partial dissatisfaction of all, but it doen't seem sensical to me to lump them all together.
If either of the two scenarios I outline above are shown to have take place, then go after "Big Fat" all you want. I won't utter a peep.
All I'm saying is that the situation has a very simple, inexpensive and foolproof solution.
Not my fault that people don't want to do it...
<strong>
You got us there, pal. It means absolutely nothing. Guilty as charged.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
WE WIN!! WE WIN!!!
"These restaurants were around years and years and years ago and there didn't seem to be this huge "fat epidemic" or "crisis" (I really hate when that word is flung around so casually)."
This is an important fact. Let's find out what's changed between then and now. Some is our eating habits, and some is the "food" itself. There's the crux of the issue. No one here can say how much weight (no pun intended) can be given to either side without getting the facts that show up in court.
So, the lawsuits will iron out the details. Like with the hot coffee suit. Those that still think it was crap probably never got past the initial shock of "What? Someone's suing because they spilled their coffee?" and those people just don't seem to have an interest in learning and/or understanding. Set in their ways....
as someone who tends to think liberally, I stand in opposition to sueing Mdonalds on grounds of fatness . . . In fact I think it weakens the whole notion of arguing from a "position" if your position takes this stance . . in other words, it makes 'liberals' truly seem idiotic to back this as a matter of principle.
Perhaps there could be some labeling or more general nutritional info being put out . . . but it is a person's responcibility to eat well.
True there are all the other issues of the difficulty of getting decent food for the average working person . . . .but,
I would also add that the impression left by so many granola lefties about their food eating and its radical-righteousness probably does more harm to the average American by stearing them emphatically away from Organics or etc than Mcwhatever TV commercials . .. .
well...maybe that's little hyperbole
<strong>I'll concede this (and ONLY this): print up wrappers with the nutritional information and even a doctor's warning on it, to the effect of "Eating this type of food on a frequent, ongoing basis may result in..." and list the things (obesity, high blood pressure, etc.). Faced with the information in numbers AND with a medical warning right in front of them, people can simply choose - for themselves - if the risk is worth it or not.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
THANK YOU. That's my main point I wanted to get across to those who emphasize the "person" aspect to personal responsibility. I do believe BRussell's "corporate" aspect to personal responsibilty remains important too. And finally, Groverat's ideas about curbing advertising to kids has to be one of the single most important things we could do.
Wheat is tax free, 75% 'Lean' ground beef is now $5 a pound instead of $.50. A 95% lean half pound burger becomes cheaper and better for you than a quarter pounder at McDonald's.
This also protects small business owners because they don't have nationwide chains that would be federally taxed. It promotes local farmers rather than industrial farms.
Lots of positives.
One example we know well in Ontario revolves around milk and milk marketing. Every year, super-cows produce hundreds of thousands of liters of milk that has to be dumped to keep up prices. In the meantime we're getting some pretty strong milk for our money. Limiting the tolerances for hormones in our milk might make it more expensive in the short term, but the price of milk (and other agricultural products) is already artificially maintained. And as a real plus boys might not grow tits when they hit puberty and girls might not hit puberty at 8 instead of 13.
Wouldn't it be better to have a lower, more "natural," yield and let prices maintain themselves? Speaking of "Natural" and "Organic," you are aware that the majority of you who pay extra for products with these labels are probably NOT getting a pesticide/hormone/GMO free product? At least not in Canada, where these terms can be used to describe only a part of your food preparation.
I think our respective legislators have more to answer for than McDonald's when we speak of the quality of food.