Then why did you say them? That was a pointless post.

That's cool, Jomei. Can't blame you for not wanting to join the discussion in its current state.

I didn't mean for it to turn into a war, though. I've been really sleep-deprived the past few days, so maybe I've come across a little too harsh or uncongenial. Man, now I feel super guilty, like:

[img]http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/12/632167/discouraged.gif[/img]or[img]http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/12/632167/disappointed.gif[/img]

Mare (or is it sheer?), we can agree to disagree if you want. I admit I could've have phrased my assertion on dependency slightly more accurately, but to me, doing stuff like labeling people morons seems like taking one (of many) easy ways out of actually understanding the situation.

How is it an easy way out to blame people for their own poor choices? If you choose to use a habit-forming product, get addicted to it, and develop well-known health problems caused by it, it's your own damn fault and nobody else's. I don't see how that's trying to find an easy way out, I see it as a very simple and obvious truth in this situation.

Truth. Perhaps in the past there was a valid reason to blame tobacco companies, but today, it is nearly impossible to not know that cigarettes are both harmful and addictive (and illegal, if you are a minor).

Well sheer, the whole thing that's ridiculous about the whole thing about the trailer with McDonalds passing the Hamburger Bill (where it's illegal to sue fast food companies for making a person fat) and Spurlock drawing attention to it is because...it is a stupid fucking bill that I feel, should never, ever have been passed in the first place. Whether or not the girls who sued McDonalds actually were fat -because- of McDonalds should have had a chance to be proven in court on an individual basis. If someone went on the McDonalds' diet and gained a shitload of weight and began experiencing health problems like Spurlock did, they should have the right to sue, just as people who were the victims of the side-effects of smoking have the right to sue tobacco companies.

McDonalds is providing a service, and responsibility should be in the hands of its consumers, yet McDonalds should still be liable if the product they provide is harmful.

If the smoking to McDonalds argument doesn't suit your taste, we can compare it with putting MSG in foods and that causing cancer as well. There are a shitload of things we can compare this with.

The problem is that any lawsuit aimed at McDonalds for making unhealthy food that can make a person fat would be dropped as being frivolous and stupid. It's like suing a candy company because it's not part of a balanced breakfast.

[quote="Marekenshin"]The problem is that any lawsuit aimed at McDonalds for making unhealthy food that can make a person fat would be dropped as being frivolous and stupid. It's like suing a candy company because it's not part of a balanced breakfast.[/quote]


That post reminds me of how a woman sued some fast food place for not putting "caution this cointer is hot handle with care." On there coffee. It's stupid because in common sence coffe IS hot when ever you make it/buy it . She sued them and actually won. Stupid! So it's interesting how people act retarded just to make a quick dollar. If it's to hot they sue if it's to cold the complain.

[quote="Marekenshin"]The problem is that any lawsuit aimed at McDonalds for making unhealthy food that can make a person fat would be dropped as being frivolous and stupid.[/quote]

Right, but there's still some legal grey-area when it comes to the company. Now I can't name any specific cases, but haven't they gotten themselves into trouble with misleading advertising and the like? I mean, they're within health standards to be selling the food they're selling, but there's a line that must be drawn when it comes to how that food is presented to the public. By presented, I mean advertised.

It's interesting to note that Japan is packed with Makudonarudo, but I've never seen a really fat person there. From my perspective, it's fine to show McDonald's for what it is (really unhealthy food) and show the public a cautionary tale about the results of over-indulging in this type of garbage. That sort of educational documentary will help us take steps toward changing our cultural eating habits.

I loves me some Mc. Donalds.

@Jomei: And did you notice that their serving sizes are smaller than those in US? I don't even know that you can "super-size" in Japan.

@Metal: People love to throw this one up as an example, but have you actually read about the case? I don't think it's entirely frivolous to expect that my food is not going to give me third degree burns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

[quote="sheerheartattack"]A firm has the responsibility to follow the law - and legislators have the responsibility to make proper laws (for advertising, legal age, availability, etc.). So unless cigarette companies are currently engaged in illegal practices, they should not be wrongly vilified.[/quote]

If a company only changed its unethical ways due to legal or market pressure, that doesn't suddenly make them ethical in my view. Yes, perhaps they bring in new management later and this and that, but I wouldn't say a poor image is entirely unfair.

good heavens, if we were to make mcdonalds actually be explicit in their advertising, think of what we'd have to do for beer commercials.

[quote="clouds"]think of what we'd have to do for beer commercials.[/quote]

I was surprised when beer commercials started putting in "please drink responsibly" in their ads recently.

[quote="Jomei"]It's interesting to note that Japan is packed with Makudonarudo, but I've never seen a really fat person there. From my perspective, it's fine to show McDonald's for what it is (really unhealthy food) and show the public a cautionary tale about the results of over-indulging in this type of garbage. That sort of educational documentary will help us take steps toward changing our cultural eating habits.[/quote]

@Jomes: I agree with you 100%. I have no problems with anyone who wishes to explain the adverse health effects of eating unhealthily. My only problem is when you are explicitly (or in a heavily implied manner) blaming the company itself, therefore disregarding personal responsibility.

@terra: You can't "Super Size" in the United States, either. Also, the coffee case isn't entirely frivolous, although I heavily disagree with "punitive damages." Just because the offender deserves to lose millions, that does not mean the offendee deserves to inherit millions.

If the company were a person, I would agree - but it would be like continuing to regard Germany as an anti-semetic, despotic nation (I mean, they only changed because they lost a war, right?).

@Blank: While I might agree that every person deserves the right to sue, for whatever reason, I also must say that suing McDonald's for making you fat is 100% indubitably frivolous, and therefore we instead need a better system for dealing with such frivolous suits. It's almost as stupid as blaming a firearms company for a murder, or an automobile manufacturer for a vehicular manslaughter.

I also agree that it's frivolous and pretty stupid, but I still feel that passing a law was completely unnecessary and against what the constitution stands for.