[i]Super Size Me[/i] was the stupidest shit sandwich to ever grace a movie screen. "Hey guys, did you know McDonald's was unhealthy!?" You know what he should make a documentary about? He should show everyone that eating rat poison for 30 days will kill you. The best part is he won't make it past the first day.

The only thing more annoying than that movie is the anti-McDonald's sentiment it conjured in all the dumb fucks that saw it. If you don't want to get fat, don't eat at McDonald's. I, on the other hand, will continue to enjoy their delicious and varied selection of awesomeness, despite no longer being able to Super Size my meals. Someone seems to have overlooked the fact that to compensate, [i]all I have to do is buy more food.[/i]

It's just like the anti-smoking campaigns. Don't want to die of lung cancer? Then don't smoke, you God-damned fucktard. If people want to smoke, let them, and stop blaming the companies that provide them with something they enjoy doing. I mean, I have no idea what's so enjoyable about inhaling smoke, but you know what? [i]To each his own.[/i]

What the two have in common is that they both seem to think that advertising forces you to use a product, and that personal responsibility doesn't exist.

Edit: While all this may seem slightly off-topic, it is all sufficient reasoning to never watch anything that douche bag ever creates.

I have to agree with the above statement.

On another note, I fucking love Mc. Donald's.

Sheer, everyone knew that McDonalds was "bad." No one knew exactly how bad it was though. Super Size Me did a great job of highlighting that. Besides that, Spurlock was successful in making an entertaining, yet informative movie, making him a successful movie maker.

Have you ever gone to McDonald's after you've gotten bad service from them? Chances are, you have. Just because you had one bad hamburger, it doesn't necessarily make them all bad. Plus, Spurlock isn't the one experiencing a new situation every episode. But if that's the way you wanna play it, fine.

[quote="Blank"]Sheer, everyone knew that McDonalds was "bad." No one knew exactly how bad it was though. Super Size Me did a great job of highlighting that. Besides that, Spurlock was successful in making an entertaining, yet informative movie, making him a successful movie maker.

Have you ever gone to McDonald's after you've gotten bad service from them? Chances are, you have. Just because you had one bad hamburger, it doesn't necessarily make them all bad. Plus, Spurlock isn't the one experiencing a new situation every episode. But if that's the way you wanna play it, fine.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure the ramifications of eating only unhealthy food for an extended period of time are pretty obvious. I mean, unless you're an idiot. I guess that [i]was[/i] the primary audience for that movie, though - idiots.

Even still - if you want to document the effects of eating unhealthy food, then that's great. I am perfectly fine with that. It's when you decide to erroneously vilify a particular person or firm that you are being a douche bag. You are exploiting the incorrect notion (that only idiots tend to have) that a company which provides an unhealthy product is bad, even if that product is used or enjoyed by millions of people (hell, even if it is enjoyed by one person). If you ignore personal responsibility, then that opinion is reasonable. However, since personal responsibility exists, one should realize that neither McDonald's nor Philip Morris nor any other company is forcing you to use their products - [i]even if they are marketing directly to you or your children.[/i] Of course, this idea is difficult for an idiot to understand.

Alas, I forgot: if you mention the words "corporation" or "corporate," you are talking about pure evil, and everything in your documentary is valid. Especially if you mention tobacco companies (even though smart people know they are not evil).

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the frequency of "bad experiences." It has to do with the intensity of bad experiences. It would be like giving Hitler another chance at running a nation.

And if any one of you makes a pointless post pointing out how often I use ad hominem attacks in my otherwise valid arguments, you are an idiot.

Sheer, you're just going on a tirade here for no reason. It's pretty obvious that you haven't got any clue what the premise of 30 Days is about, and if you did, you've overlooked it.

You're just being [i]closed-minded.[/i]

The fuck? He's not talking about 30 days, you moron. He's responding to your response about him disliking the guy that makes this program.

still, I'm getting some condescending vibes from Sheer, moreso on the tobacco front.
it's clear to you and me that smoking poses a huge health risk, so if we ever got the urge to, we may be dissuaded by the fear of lung cancer, not being able to breathe well, smelling like shit, etc.
Although it may come as a surprise to you, not everyone knows the details and full risks of smoking. ESPECIALLY YOUNG PEOPLE. Therefore, in the interest of preserving the health of our young people (who we hope will later become productive members of society), WE MUST DRILL THIS INFORMATION INTO THEIR HEADS AS BEST WE CAN.

If we confront the issue of smoking with a "What? Didn't you KNOW smoking leads to lung cancer? Idiot." sort of attitude, then it is WE are are the douche bags.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the Truth and No Stank You campaigns. Sure the latter may be somewhat annoying (and in certain groups, ineffective) but the whole point is that this information has to be clear, available, and actually given directly to people.

Ideally, we'd have perfect information all the time. That's what we try for, and good for you, you know eating McDonald's isn't so hot for your body and that cigarettes are pretty much Anti-Health in a neat little package. You know that no one's being forced to buy them - we have choice. But you're completely ignoring the fact that not everyone has the information you have. You're ignoring the fact that advertising is an extremely powerful tool that can at least [i]influence[/i] what people buy. [b]When the product is harmful and the target audience is naiive and impressionable, you've got a dangerous situation on your hands.[/b] It's a disservice to these people to simply ignore it and say "Do whatever the hell you want, the information's out there."

The key to not being a dick is considering others as well as yourself.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]Edit: While all this may seem slightly off-topic, it is all sufficient reasoning to never watch anything that douche bag ever creates.[/quote]

[quote="Marekenshin"]The fuck? He's not talking about 30 days, you moron. He's responding to your response about him disliking the guy that makes this program.[/quote]

Super Size Me = Morgan Spurlock. Morgan Spurlock = 30 Days. Super Size Me = 30 Days.
If Super Size Me is not worth being watched, then 30 Days is not worth being watched because Morgan Spurlock created it.

There's something wrong with the logic here.





Hint: It's a hypothetical syllogism.

God dammit, just stop. You were fellating Super-size Me, he said it was retarded, you're both arguing about it. I wouldn't call that going on a pointless tirade. Both of you knock it the fuck off plz. ;3

[quote="Marekenshin"]Both of you knock it the fuck off plz. ;3[/quote]

::still requesting response from sheer::

Sorry, I am working a lot over the summer.

To Blank: My point is not that 30 Days = Super Size Me. I am sure 30 Days has the potential to be both enlightening and entertaining. A closer analogy to my point would be this: would you support a campaign to cure lung cancer...[i]if it were sponsored by the KKK?[/i] In some aspects, I find Spurlock to be more atrocious than the KKK, for the following reason: When the KKK promotes ignorance, nobody listens. When Spurlock promotes ignorance, people blindly accept it.

To GR: I have nothing against anti-smoking campaigns...if they were restricted to the message, "Smoking is bad." However, somewhere along the line, the campaign was switched over to "Smoking is bad...and tobacco companies are evil." [i]What?[/i] That is unfair, and it's even more disgraceful that such slander is acceptable in today's society. If you want an anti-smoking campaign, or an anti-McDonald's campaign, stick to the following message: "This shit is not good for you." When you cross over to, "The people who provide this shit are bad," you are promoting ignorance.

I would support a campaign by the KKK to cure lung cancer because I am able to distinguish between the KKK's beliefs and a good cause.

The assumption, which I erroneously (read: stupidly) left out, is that you could alternately put your money into countless other campaigns of similar or identical nature. Like, say, changing the channel.

I agree that companies should not necessarily be vilified for their product, however, they should be held responsible for omitting or denying damning facts about their product. For example, tobacco companies used to run ads with doctors promoting cigarettes, implying there was nothing unhealthy about smoking. They didn't actually lie, but they were certainly trying to mislead.

I did not feel that the goal of Super Size Me was simply to condemn McDonald's or the fast food industry, but that's just me. Sure, a reasonable person should take any advertising with a grain of salt, but educating people further can lead to changes that help people make more informed decisions - such as nutritional information on fast food packaging and the Surgeon General's warning on cigarette ads.

Anyway, sounds like an interesting show. Might check it out.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]However, somewhere along the line, the campaign was switched over to "Smoking is bad...and tobacco companies are evil." [i]What?[/i] That is unfair, and it's even more disgraceful that such slander is acceptable in today's society. If you want an anti-smoking campaign, or an anti-McDonald's campaign, stick to the following message: "This shit is not good for you." When you cross over to, "The people who provide this shit are bad," you are promoting ignorance.[/quote]

Sorry to pull the "think of the children" card...but are you considering social responsibility at all here? No, there's nothing inherently wrong with a supplier of good X selling to a buyer who can legally buy good X, but when the product is something as dangerous as cigarettes you've got to be careful. Some people label tobacco companies (perhaps not all of them) as being "evil" or at least slightly immoral because greed influences them to advertise in potentially harmful ways. You know why Joe Camel isn't used anymore, right? The character was designed primarily to attract children - children can't legally buy cigarettes, and at their young age, likely don't know the risks of smoking. Therefore, that business practice is immoral.

As you're no doubt aware there's a darker side to a ton of advertising out there. Whether advertisers to constantly push the "ideal" image of a woman as being absurdly skinny, or push outdated and offensive gender roles, there's a lot that goes on that isn't cut-and-dry "neutral."

Imagine the stereotypical "stranger" who tries to lure a child into their car with candy.
He's providing a product, the child can choose yes or no, nothing's being forced here. Wouldn't you call the person "bad" because they're knowingly being deceptive?

"bad" in terms of advertising, specifically tobacco companies:
-advertising directed (not overtly) at young people
-promoting an false image of smokers as being cool, popular, attractive people
-not being clear (aside from the surgeon general's warning) about the health risks
-information coverups, deceiving the public, etc.

You may argue that most advertisers have to portray an image of their product that may be a little warped. Diet Coke won't make me ecstatic. Axe won't get me a date. Herbal Essences shampoo likely doesn't cause orgasms. But we're talking about stuff with significant health risks. That changes the game, so we can't just say "all in capitalism is fair and well."

de-merit goods, brah.