And you should lose the overstating, smarty-pants tone, 'rat. It's not becoming and it's insulting. You're better than that. I NEVER said McWhoever is some great pillar of nutritional excellence, so getting all wisenheimer with their silly nutritional info isn't convincing me of anything (or "telling me how it is"). I KNOW what places like that are about.
THAT'S why I don't eat there four damn days a week.
See? It all starts to come together if you just let it...
Lawyer wanna be. I'd bet the reason you think it's bad is because it limits lawyer greed.
SPJ if you want to effect some social change DO IT WITHOUT SUING COMPANIES THAT MAKE LEGAL PRODUCTS. The court system is not the proper place to bring about social change in the US. Learn that now and never forget it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The court system is a very effective way to bring about social change, in fact it is the very system that has established social development/change throughout any legal system....
[quote]"The law of warnings is not designed for the best and brightest of us," Banzhaf says. It is aimed at helping people who need to be told not to stand on the top step of a ladder or not to use a hair dryer in the bathtub, he says.
For example, McDonald's warns parents not to give the toys in its kid's meals to children younger than three years of age, Banzhaf says. If parents need to be cautioned about an obvious threat such as a choking hazard, then why not issue a warning about the danger of overeating the food, he says.
Moreover, if McDonald's is already producing brochures with fat, calories and other data, why not make that information clear and conspicuous, Banzhaf asks. Maybe the disclosures should be right on the menu, he says.
To be sure, fast-food companies know that obesity is a significant problem, yet they promote high-fat foods with little disclosure, he says.
<hr></blockquote>
-December 9th, 2002 edition of the National Law Journal
What I am reading is that Samuel Hirsch's case just wasn't very good. That's not to say there isn't one against Big Fat.
"The law of warnings is not designed for the best and brightest of us," Banzhaf says. It is aimed at helping people who need to be told not to stand on the top step of a ladder or not to use a hair dryer in the bathtub, he says. <hr></blockquote>
The "law of warnings" ?
Holy cow (note McDonald's pun), where does it end ? (For that matter, where the hell did it begin... and how the fsck did we end up HERE ?)
I prefer to believe in the "Law of Natural Selection":
If you are stupid enough to use a hair dryer in the bathtub, then the human race's future is brighter without you in the gene pool.
If being smart enough to NOT need a warning to prevent you from frying your ass by trying to dry your hair in the bathtub, is sufficient to qualify you as "the best and the brightest of us", then the human race (or at least American society) is truly doomed, DOOMED, DOOMED, even moreso than a 970-less Apple..... DOOMED, I tell ya !!!
I don't feel that quote is entirely accurate. The law of warnings is more directed towards people of average intelligence. But the reasoning still stands.
Or shall we just infer that you don't feel that your point is entirely accurate ? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]
The law of warnings is more directed towards people of average intelligence.
<hr></blockquote>
I reiterate: if frying your ass in the bathtub by using a hairdryer qualifies you as an American of "average intelligence", then our society is indeed doomed.
All you (and/or Banzhaf) are doing here is lowering the bar for what is considered average intelligence and basic competence. This is one of the biggest areas where America has become sadly pathetic in our modern society, IMNSHO.
Not too different from what the vast majority of standardized testing in public schools seeks to do - to lower the acceptable standards... and therefore lower the shock to parents and taxpayers when it becomes clear that "Johnny Can't Read".....
Exercise some self-control and good sense = probably be okay
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Inject heroin = drug addiction
exercise some self-control = probably be okay
And of course the giant multinational heroin corporations can include a shitty little toy with their "happy dime bag", blanket kids TV with primary coloured advertising, sponsor the special olympics and even start supplying schoolkids from school sponored dealers.
After all, the parents will "just say no" to their kids, even when they are hooked themselves.
You know...the children might even choke on the food if they shovel it into their mouth to quickly.
In addition to the nutritional info the food should probably have a choking warning as well.
I mean according to the law of warning we can't assume everyone who puts food into their mouth is smart enough to chew it enough times to insure they don't choke on it when they swallow. Of course their children have even less experience so they might choke even more from eating food.
And of course they responsibly put warning labels on their toys and offer alternative toys which means... their admitting culpability so we can sue them out of existance.
What if they hadn't put warning labels on the toys and offered alternatives? We would sue them out of existance...
Yep... I can see how that helps your argument Shawn.
And of course the giant multinational heroin corporations can include a shitty little toy with their "happy dime bag", blanket kids TV with primary coloured advertising, sponsor the special olympics and even start supplying schoolkids from school sponored dealers.
After all, the parents will "just say no" to their kids, even when they are hooked themselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You always post strawmen arguments... you really should read more about what they are and stop doing it.
Illegal drugs does not equal food.
Clear on that? Good? Got it?
If anything you are showing exactly why drugs should never be made legal.
<strong>I'd like strike down the choices argument. It's obvious when you view advertisments and promotions for Fat Food companies that healthy choices are advertised far, far, far less frequently or ubiquitously (if at all) than the regular fatty fare. Why this is important is because ALL advertising directed at children is the regular fatty fare. They lure them with Happy Meals filled with popular toys and establish unhealthy eating patterns from the start. These children don't have a choice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Next up on the news...Las Vegas primariy advertises...gambling...
Shawn have you ever looked into the benefits of exercise? Your level of caloric intake in determined by how much muscle mass you have. Some of these weight training guys have to actually drink high calorie shakes to give them enough calories to support their muscles. They need 3500-4000 calories a day.
The reason people get fat more easily is a lack of muscle mass. The lack of muscle mass comes from lack of exercise.
If you look at most of the true health programs, they all recommend weight training because each pound of muscle burns 60 calories even when at rest. Where as a pound of fat burns 6 calories.
Why don't you see if the rise in obesity has anything to do with more idleness before you go blaming the food. Again the rise is more recent than the existance of McDonalds. I would bet it is clearly linked to the rise of cable and satellite TV, Gameboys, improved game consoles, and the Internet.
<strong>I don't feel that quote is entirely accurate. The law of warnings is more directed towards people of average intelligence. But the reasoning still stands.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes well the reasoning is still insulting because they make it sould like an average intelligence must be about 70 on the IQ scale.
I don't know if I agree with that. Small business is pretty harmless, but big business (McDonald's included) is virtually impossible for the average citizen to compete against.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I seem to be doing okayl. I eat there about every two months. But then again I'm not some fat ass sad sacl mother****er that wants to blame everything on someone else and get $millions 'cause I can't stop shoving food in my mouth.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>You can't out lobby them. You can't out advertise them. You can barely keep their influence in your own life down to a minimum. When a corporation oversteps the law, I think the courts are the best place to handle it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
YOU CAN STOP EATING IT IF YOU WANT TO! What "law" did McD' "overstep"?
I do remember it was well documented and eventually was made public. I think the first company to admit guilt (some relatively little company that got of relatively easily as compared to the big tobacco companies that held on until the end.) They produced documents that showed collusion among the companies that ultimately was considered illegal.
It was years ago though. I'm sure google would be able to help us both....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe I'll search google but in this area there's too much FUD on the net to get good info.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>
Scott, actually, it's well documented that cigarette company chemists specifically tailored the chemicals in cigarettes to spike the effect of nicotine, in essence to increase their addictive properties, if you don't want to read about it there's a little Russel Crowe film about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've "heard" people say that but I've never read a good report on it. Hollywood fiction is not proof. I mean, come on. Russel Crowe movie?
Based on a real life court case with transcripts that you can find if so inclined, and also outlined at your nearest legal library/gov't docs holdings etc...
When have I, anywhere in this thread, said that McDs was legally or punitively responsible for anyone's obesity. Because you keep arguing against me as if I'm saying that.
Can you even comment on my assertions about their business practices? Or does that somehow tie into "personal responsibility" as well?
If that's your line of thought you would be fine with Camel advertising on school lockers, right? Hell, they don't shove 'em in your mouth!
It makes no sense. The "personal responsibility" argument is such a popular weapon but when one suggests "corporate responsibility" all of the sudden it's a communist plot.
These corporations know that their advertising is powerfully effective with youth. They know the products they advertise are very unhealthy and a key part of a major problem facing the nation. This, to you, means nothing?
--
Re: exercise.
I think exercise is the #1 most important thing and biggest potential solution. Not fat-burning pills. Exercise.
Living in the slothful culture that we are readily available fatty foods are very dangerous. It's not an either/or issue; either people get exercising OR McDs (as an example of fast food) improving the health of their food. It's AND.
People need to show more responsibility for their own health (while teaching their children good values) AND McDs needs to change its advertising practices.
--
And as far as me using a tone you don't like, glass houses.
You always post strawmen arguments... you really should read more about what they are and stop doing it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for the debating tip.
I was highlighting the rather glib statement that as long as 'sensible people' aren't affected then there is no problem.
I thought I'd do that by bringing in something that supporters of "common sense" opinions like to regulate by law and bring up the relentless focus on children that is part of the McDonalds modus operandi.
You call it a straw man, I'll call it adding color. I'm happy to give the posters in this forum enough credit to not be confused and actually think about what's being said.
And if they are confused? What the hell am I supposed to do, "babysit everyone, cradle to grave"?
Comments
THAT'S why I don't eat there four damn days a week.
See? It all starts to come together if you just let it...
<strong>
Lawyer wanna be. I'd bet the reason you think it's bad is because it limits lawyer greed.
SPJ if you want to effect some social change DO IT WITHOUT SUING COMPANIES THAT MAKE LEGAL PRODUCTS. The court system is not the proper place to bring about social change in the US. Learn that now and never forget it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The court system is a very effective way to bring about social change, in fact it is the very system that has established social development/change throughout any legal system....
95% in favor of the ruling, 5% opposed to it.
That kind of audience overwhelmingly supports the decision. Here's the <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/companies/mcdonalds/index.htm"; target="_blank">link</a>. It seems that the arguments made against McDonalds were not fully fleshed out.
[quote]"The law of warnings is not designed for the best and brightest of us," Banzhaf says. It is aimed at helping people who need to be told not to stand on the top step of a ladder or not to use a hair dryer in the bathtub, he says.
For example, McDonald's warns parents not to give the toys in its kid's meals to children younger than three years of age, Banzhaf says. If parents need to be cautioned about an obvious threat such as a choking hazard, then why not issue a warning about the danger of overeating the food, he says.
Moreover, if McDonald's is already producing brochures with fat, calories and other data, why not make that information clear and conspicuous, Banzhaf asks. Maybe the disclosures should be right on the menu, he says.
To be sure, fast-food companies know that obesity is a significant problem, yet they promote high-fat foods with little disclosure, he says.
<hr></blockquote>
-December 9th, 2002 edition of the National Law Journal
What I am reading is that Samuel Hirsch's case just wasn't very good. That's not to say there isn't one against Big Fat.
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
"The law of warnings is not designed for the best and brightest of us," Banzhaf says. It is aimed at helping people who need to be told not to stand on the top step of a ladder or not to use a hair dryer in the bathtub, he says. <hr></blockquote>
The "law of warnings" ?
Holy cow (note McDonald's pun), where does it end ? (For that matter, where the hell did it begin... and how the fsck did we end up HERE ?)
I prefer to believe in the "Law of Natural Selection":
If you are stupid enough to use a hair dryer in the bathtub, then the human race's future is brighter without you in the gene pool.
If being smart enough to NOT need a warning to prevent you from frying your ass by trying to dry your hair in the bathtub, is sufficient to qualify you as "the best and the brightest of us", then the human race (or at least American society) is truly doomed, DOOMED, DOOMED, even moreso than a 970-less Apple..... DOOMED, I tell ya !!!
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]</p>
I feel this is pertinent to my point:
<hr></blockquote>Â*
but...
[quote]Â* Â*Â* Â* Â*Â* Â* Â* Â*Â*
I don't feel that quote is entirely accurate.
<hr></blockquote>Â* Â*Â* Â* Â*Â* Â* Â* Â*Â*
Let us know when you've made up your mind!
Or shall we just infer that you don't feel that your point is entirely accurate ? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]
The law of warnings is more directed towards people of average intelligence.
<hr></blockquote>
I reiterate: if frying your ass in the bathtub by using a hairdryer qualifies you as an American of "average intelligence", then our society is indeed doomed.
All you (and/or Banzhaf) are doing here is lowering the bar for what is considered average intelligence and basic competence. This is one of the biggest areas where America has become sadly pathetic in our modern society, IMNSHO.
Not too different from what the vast majority of standardized testing in public schools seeks to do - to lower the acceptable standards... and therefore lower the shock to parents and taxpayers when it becomes clear that "Johnny Can't Read".....
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]</p>
<strong>Eat fast food = get fat
Exercise some self-control and good sense = probably be okay
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Inject heroin = drug addiction
exercise some self-control = probably be okay
And of course the giant multinational heroin corporations can include a shitty little toy with their "happy dime bag", blanket kids TV with primary coloured advertising, sponsor the special olympics and even start supplying schoolkids from school sponored dealers.
After all, the parents will "just say no" to their kids, even when they are hooked themselves.
<strong>I feel this is pertinent to my point:
-December 9th, 2002 edition of the National Law Journal
What I am reading is that Samuel Hirsch's case just wasn't very good. That's not to say there isn't one against Big Fat.
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know...the children might even choke on the food if they shovel it into their mouth to quickly.
In addition to the nutritional info the food should probably have a choking warning as well.
I mean according to the law of warning we can't assume everyone who puts food into their mouth is smart enough to chew it enough times to insure they don't choke on it when they swallow. Of course their children have even less experience so they might choke even more from eating food.
And of course they responsibly put warning labels on their toys and offer alternative toys which means... their admitting culpability so we can sue them out of existance.
What if they hadn't put warning labels on the toys and offered alternatives? We would sue them out of existance...
Yep... I can see how that helps your argument Shawn.
Nick
<strong>
Inject heroin = drug addiction
exercise some self-control = probably be okay
And of course the giant multinational heroin corporations can include a shitty little toy with their "happy dime bag", blanket kids TV with primary coloured advertising, sponsor the special olympics and even start supplying schoolkids from school sponored dealers.
After all, the parents will "just say no" to their kids, even when they are hooked themselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You always post strawmen arguments... you really should read more about what they are and stop doing it.
Illegal drugs does not equal food.
Clear on that? Good? Got it?
If anything you are showing exactly why drugs should never be made legal.
Nick
<strong>I'd like strike down the choices argument. It's obvious when you view advertisments and promotions for Fat Food companies that healthy choices are advertised far, far, far less frequently or ubiquitously (if at all) than the regular fatty fare. Why this is important is because ALL advertising directed at children is the regular fatty fare. They lure them with Happy Meals filled with popular toys and establish unhealthy eating patterns from the start. These children don't have a choice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Duh... newflash.... hamburger restaurants primarily advertise.... hamburgers....
Next up on the news...Las Vegas primariy advertises...gambling...
Shawn have you ever looked into the benefits of exercise? Your level of caloric intake in determined by how much muscle mass you have. Some of these weight training guys have to actually drink high calorie shakes to give them enough calories to support their muscles. They need 3500-4000 calories a day.
The reason people get fat more easily is a lack of muscle mass. The lack of muscle mass comes from lack of exercise.
If you look at most of the true health programs, they all recommend weight training because each pound of muscle burns 60 calories even when at rest. Where as a pound of fat burns 6 calories.
Why don't you see if the rise in obesity has anything to do with more idleness before you go blaming the food. Again the rise is more recent than the existance of McDonalds. I would bet it is clearly linked to the rise of cable and satellite TV, Gameboys, improved game consoles, and the Internet.
Nick
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
<strong>I don't feel that quote is entirely accurate. The law of warnings is more directed towards people of average intelligence. But the reasoning still stands.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes well the reasoning is still insulting because they make it sould like an average intelligence must be about 70 on the IQ scale.
Nick
<strong>
I don't know if I agree with that. Small business is pretty harmless, but big business (McDonald's included) is virtually impossible for the average citizen to compete against.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I seem to be doing okayl. I eat there about every two months. But then again I'm not some fat ass sad sacl mother****er that wants to blame everything on someone else and get $millions 'cause I can't stop shoving food in my mouth.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>You can't out lobby them. You can't out advertise them. You can barely keep their influence in your own life down to a minimum. When a corporation oversteps the law, I think the courts are the best place to handle it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
YOU CAN STOP EATING IT IF YOU WANT TO! What "law" did McD' "overstep"?
Get real people.
<strong>
I do remember it was well documented and eventually was made public. I think the first company to admit guilt (some relatively little company that got of relatively easily as compared to the big tobacco companies that held on until the end.) They produced documents that showed collusion among the companies that ultimately was considered illegal.
It was years ago though. I'm sure google would be able to help us both....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe I'll search google but in this area there's too much FUD on the net to get good info.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>
Scott, actually, it's well documented that cigarette company chemists specifically tailored the chemicals in cigarettes to spike the effect of nicotine, in essence to increase their addictive properties, if you don't want to read about it there's a little Russel Crowe film about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've "heard" people say that but I've never read a good report on it. Hollywood fiction is not proof. I mean, come on. Russel Crowe movie?
When have I, anywhere in this thread, said that McDs was legally or punitively responsible for anyone's obesity. Because you keep arguing against me as if I'm saying that.
Can you even comment on my assertions about their business practices? Or does that somehow tie into "personal responsibility" as well?
If that's your line of thought you would be fine with Camel advertising on school lockers, right? Hell, they don't shove 'em in your mouth!
It makes no sense. The "personal responsibility" argument is such a popular weapon but when one suggests "corporate responsibility" all of the sudden it's a communist plot.
These corporations know that their advertising is powerfully effective with youth. They know the products they advertise are very unhealthy and a key part of a major problem facing the nation. This, to you, means nothing?
--
Re: exercise.
I think exercise is the #1 most important thing and biggest potential solution. Not fat-burning pills. Exercise.
Living in the slothful culture that we are readily available fatty foods are very dangerous. It's not an either/or issue; either people get exercising OR McDs (as an example of fast food) improving the health of their food. It's AND.
People need to show more responsibility for their own health (while teaching their children good values) AND McDs needs to change its advertising practices.
--
And as far as me using a tone you don't like, glass houses.
<strong>
You always post strawmen arguments... you really should read more about what they are and stop doing it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for the debating tip.
I was highlighting the rather glib statement that as long as 'sensible people' aren't affected then there is no problem.
I thought I'd do that by bringing in something that supporters of "common sense" opinions like to regulate by law and bring up the relentless focus on children that is part of the McDonalds modus operandi.
You call it a straw man, I'll call it adding color. I'm happy to give the posters in this forum enough credit to not be confused and actually think about what's being said.
And if they are confused? What the hell am I supposed to do, "babysit everyone, cradle to grave"?