McDonalds made my childern fat! Not!!!

145791014

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 268
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott:

    <strong>



    So. They could claim they were purple poodles and that wouldn't make me think they were. I repeat NO ONE can claim they didn't know smoking was bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    i agree. my wife and i were watching a movie from 50s i believe, i forget what movie but one of the characters smoked and coughed alot (i think) and his doctor told him he should stop because it was bad. i think hollywood was a reflection of the times during this period maybe, i don't know
  • Reply 122 of 268
    [quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:

    <strong>It most certainly is not absurd.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    yes it is. plus that women who sued McDonald's because the coffee was too hot. insane



    SPJ, you probably think OJ was innocent



    [ 01-24-2003: Message edited by: burningwheel ]</p>
  • Reply 123 of 268
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by burningwheel:

    <strong>

    SPJ, you probably think OJ was innocent </strong><hr></blockquote>



    OJ was innocent. He may have killed his ex-wife, but he's innocent. Didn't you hear about the court case?
  • Reply 124 of 268
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott:

    <strong>



    So. They could claim they were purple poodles and that wouldn't make me think they were. I repeat NO ONE can claim they didn't know smoking was bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    You're just lying now. Lot's of people can claim that. People were told they were good for them.



    NEWS FLASH: They're not good for you.
  • Reply 125 of 268
    rodukroduk Posts: 706member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott:

    <strong>Bah! "Boo hoo BigTobacco made me smoke when I was in the army because they gave away free smokes. I'll sue!"





    My father smoked and ate at Roy Rodges too much and when he had a heart attack he blamed no one but himself for his unhealth life style.



    A bunch of "not my fault" cry babies. That's all I see.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    My dad had no intention of sueing anyone. Just because he can claim he didn't know smoking was bad (at the time he started), doesn't mean he thought the tobacco companies knew any better. Just because it wasn't his fault doesn't mean he thought it was the tobacco companies fault.



    [ 01-24-2003: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
  • Reply 126 of 268
    Trevor, No not yet. I'm just a freshman English major in college- right out of high school. Not enough life experience yet (TRUE, BUT KIDDING ) I heard that OBRAJ1 was a lawyer, but I also heard he was a bunch of other things too. Sounds a bit Frank Abagnale to me. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
  • Reply 127 of 268
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott:

    <strong>Bah! "Boo hoo BigTobacco made me smoke when I was in the army because they gave away free smokes. I'll sue!"

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    You're obviously being sarcastic when you say "BigTobacco made me smoke" but I would contend that a profit-seeking company giving away a highly addictive product is questionable and if it is one that has been engineered to increase its addictive powers, then yes that is forcing people.



    Perhaps the first few are not forced but breaking habits is hard enough without a physical addiction to combat.



    I have no great desire to see people given large cash payouts for falling for this crap but on the other hand, people/corporations should not be able to pull stunts like that with impunity.
  • Reply 128 of 268
    [quote]Originally posted by burningwheel:

    <strong>

    yes it is. plus that women who sued McDonald's because the coffee was too hot. insane



    SPJ, you probably think OJ was innocent

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't know what the **** OJ has to do with anything but your reference to McDonalds is so wrong it's not even funny.



    <a href="http://www.consumerrights.net/mcdonalds.html"; target="_blank">http://www.consumerrights.net/mcdonalds.html</a>;
  • Reply 129 of 268
    [quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:

    <strong>



    I don't know what the **** OJ has to do with anything but your reference to McDonalds is so wrong it's not even funny.



    <a href="http://www.consumerrights.net/mcdonalds.html"; target="_blank">http://www.consumerrights.net/mcdonalds.html</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;



    welll if you can't figure it out i can't help you



    a little hostile aren't we? chill man...
  • Reply 130 of 268
    [quote]Originally posted by burningwheel:

    <strong>

    a little hostile aren't we? chill man...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It was exasperation rather than hostility, but shades of meaning are tricky to express on-line and I don't always get a chance to proofread.



    The cursing probably didn't help.
  • Reply 131 of 268
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    For those of you on the groverat/Shawn end of this thing, what, then, would you like to see ultimately done?



    I asked groverat earlier but never heard back.



    The toning down of these loud, colorful commercials so they're not too enticing? The outright banning of fast food commercials (like tobacco and hard liquor)? A voiceover disclaimer at the end of these commercials, like you see on car and prescription commercials? Disclaimers printed on the various wrappers, cups and packaging this food comes served in (like cigarette packs?)



    :confused:



    Instead of just being supportive of everyone suing everyone into oblivion (not quite a noble, worthwhile pursuit), pretend you had the power to change things to your liking. What would you like see done?



    I'm genuinely curious.
  • Reply 132 of 268
    Actually I first delineated what I wanted done in my second post.



    [quote]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. <hr></blockquote>



    To add to that would be an outright ban or at least tight regulation on the advertising of fast food to children. Groverat focused more on this aspect so I can't summarize his views. I focused more on realistic, common sense changes like making ubiquitous the availability of nutritional information.



    EDIT: Haha, did I say "nutritional information" as in the information is physically healthy? I mean "nutrition" instead. Too much time in front of the PowerBook eating French fries...



    [ 01-24-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
  • Reply 133 of 268
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by pscates:

    <strong>For those of you on the groverat/Shawn end of this thing, what, then, would you like to see ultimately done?</strong><hr></blockquote>I'll answer your question, but you have to promise to answer mine.



    I personally would like to see them have some personal responsibility. Stop selling crud that's bad for people. In a perfect world, they wouldn't exist at all. (I'm not saying that I actually want to outlaw them - you just asked what I would like in a perfect world.)



    In the real world, I'd like to see this recognized as up there with smoking in terms of health consequences in the US, and have similar regulations and anti-calorie campaigns. Perhaps warning labels. Perhaps heavy restrictions on advertising and marketing. Getting them away from (and out of) schools. I'm sure there are other similar things - you get the idea.



    But again, ideally, I'd like to see the companies themselves take some personal responsibility about their effect. But since they're not taking responsibility on their own, regulate 'em from the outside.



    My question for you: You don't think the companies are liable for their products, so do you just think nothing should be changed?



    1. Do you believe the statistics that say obesity has recently surpassed cig smoking as the number one cause of death of Americans? I believe it's around 500,000 American per year - obesity every two or three days kills the same number killed on 9/11. And look what we did after 9/11: everything changed, we went to war, we changed our laws, "we'll never be the same." I'm not saying they are directly comparable, but just looking at the numbers and the response, there is a disconnect, I think.

    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?

    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.
  • Reply 134 of 268
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by pscates:

    <strong>

    Instead of just being supportive of everyone suing everyone into oblivion (not quite a noble, worthwhile pursuit), pretend you had the power to change things to your liking. What would you like see done? </strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's a good question. Personally I think that if they are breaking the law, like the tobacco companies were, then they should be sued into oblivion. If they're chemically altering their food to create a physically addictive product, then they should be eliminated.



    You can't put a company in jail like you can a crack dealer, so the alternative is suing. But whatever the solution is (lables are a great start) the only way to get there is through the courts.



    Companies worry about their bottom line, and you have to create a problem with their bottom line in order to get a resonable response. Otherwise McDonald's "food" wouldn't have gotten to the point where it is today (that being completely worthless as far as I can tell.)



    The Feds have a food pyramid. Perhaps it should be used in marketing along with the labels. ie This Big Mac = three days worth of fats, half of your daily carbs and 1 of 12 veggies. That would scare away the customers long term. The key is getting information into the hands of the public because then they can make an informed decision.
  • Reply 135 of 268
    This whole argument seems as silly as the McDonalds I was at in Cape Coral Florida that had a Sign "Braille menus available" at the drive up.
  • Reply 136 of 268
    rodukroduk Posts: 706member
    [quote]Originally posted by bunge:

    <strong>

    The key is getting information into the hands of the public because then they can make an informed decision.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's my thought exactly. People should be presented with the facts and left to make up their own minds.



    If someone wants to smoke or eat junk food, I don't have any problems with that at all, so long as they are aware of the possible consequences.



    I guess there will always be those who think nothing will ever happen to them, even when presented with the facts, but that's a price that has to be paid for giving people the freedom to make up their own minds.
  • Reply 137 of 268
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>



    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</strong><hr></blockquote>



    No, I never advocated the exit of government from health care. I'd like to go out on a limb here to suggest that you have nothing to else to contribute to this thread besides semantics and word games. Stop it.



    [ 01-24-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
  • Reply 138 of 268
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Jesus fucking Christ on a crutch...



    Someone please tell me this isn't really posted:



    [quote]<strong>Instead of just being supportive of everyone suing everyone into oblivion</strong><hr></blockquote>



    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.
  • Reply 139 of 268
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    [quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:

    <strong>



    No, I never advocated the exit of government from health care. I'd like to go out on a limb here to suggest that you have nothing to else to contribute to this thread besides semantics and word games. Stop it.



    [ 01-24-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    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.



    You propose changes out of good intentions with very little thought to the real results.



    Health care costs are out of control because of the government who doesn't reimburse the true cost for treatment. Likewise when the people getting this treatment don't have to pay for it, they will not alter their actions regarding their decisions.



    The question isn't is being obese expensive. The question is for who is it expensive. This was exactly the case for government suing tobacco. They didn't sue because tobacco made people sick. They sued because when they were sick government had to pay for their health costs.



    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. Then on top of it we should now have corporations and likely taxpayers pay again for education campaigns in a silly attempt to stop people from making these bad decisions for which there is no consequence.



    It isn't a semantic or word game. If the cost of health care is a justification for suing McDonalds then we ought to look into what is causing those health care costs to rise. (Perhaps if the co-pay were higher people would eat healthier and likewise have less money for fast food) Likewise we should isee why people who can't afford their own health care can somehow afford to eat at McDonalds until they are obese.



    This reminds me very much of the folks screaming about S.U.V.'s. Everyone I know owns an SUV for one reason, they can fit all the mandatory car seats that we now have to put into our cars. (In California the children have to ride in a car seat until their are 6 years old or 60lbs.



    In a car that will comfortably hold five adults, you cannot comfortably fit three car seats and two adults. The result is that people buy bigger vehicles.



    Funny thing is that the same people lobbying for the car seats are the same ones lobbying about the SUVS.



    The same thing is true for government medical care and now obesity.



    Nick
  • Reply 140 of 268
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>This reminds me very much of the folks screaming about S.U.V.'s. Everyone I know owns an SUV for one reason, they can fit all the mandatory car seats that we now have to put into our cars. (In California the children have to ride in a car seat until their are 6 years old or 60lbs.



    In a car that will comfortably hold five adults, you cannot comfortably fit three car seats and two adults. The result is that people buy bigger vehicles.</strong><hr></blockquote>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.
Sign In or Register to comment.