Man, you should have had me around when you were trying to cut costs, Rex: I would’ve saved you a bundle. If you’re on a tight budget, the deli isn’t the best place to go for sliced meats. It’s much cheaper to go to the cooked counter in the meat department of a grocery store.
Basically, would people rather pay 40 cents more, or 7 dollars more? That’s an easy one, Rex.
OK, lets see a damn cite that says they have profited from , or in any caused the deaths of millions.
Statements like this do not help your case.
Grim, you seem to think that the fast food chains are deliberately killing off their customers. Why the hell would they do this? Their managers don’t sit in the boardroom discussing the latest death rates from heart-attacks, rubbing their hands in glee and rejoicing over the fact that more of their client base is dead. They’re not choosing how to make their burgers out of some vindictive spite against people who love fast food.
You contend that McDonald’s et al would love it if everyone ate at their restaurants six times a week. Not true, if they want to keep their client base in the long-term - which they do. They are big commpanies that can make big, long-term plans. Fast food companies make no profit from people having heart-attacks and being sworn off fast food. They make their best profits from people eating a couple of times a week at their restaurants, eating otherwise well, and living long enough to keep on doing this in the long-term. And not suing them.
All these companies want to do is make more money. That’s it. They don’t care how they do it, not in the slightest. I imagine you don’t disagree with this. So if they could make more money by making and marketing leaner products, they would do so. The reason they can’t make more money in this way is that people do not go to fast food restaurants for a healthy option - they go because they want fast food! If the big chains all started making leaner burgers, would people stop eating there? Quite possibly - and soon enough rivals would spring up selling the fatty burgers that people seem to want.
Recently I have been trying to gain some weight. I detest fatty food, hate the taste of it and don’t see why people do like it, but I need to put on a few pounds. So this week, in addition to my regular healthy diet, I ate a McDonald’s in order to get a lot of calories relative to the mass of the food. I also switched from the diet soda* I’ve been drinking for years to full-strength, because that’s a very efficient method of delivering calories to your body. In my case, fast food is good for me. If there was suddenly no high-fat option available at the fast-food restaurants, would I be within my rights to sue them for not providing me with alternatives that, for me, are healthier?
Of course I wouldn’t. I could, if necessary, go and buy build-up shakes at the health-food store (I don’t because I dislike the taste of them) or get fattier beef at the gorcery store and make my own burgers. I have options just as this litigant does.
*I’m sure you’re aware of this, but if all soda was made diet, as you suggest, there would be an outcry from the significant number of people who don’t want to put aspartame or other artificial sweeteners in their system.
From the article quoted in my first post:
Regarding Trans Fats, from the same article:
Just because I want more than one source, here is some more information about Trans Fats.
Also, about obesity
Surely you don’t disagree that the Fast Food industry is more than partially responsible for the increase in obesity?
Do you really need me to explain where the fast food industry gets money from? In case you didn’t realize, it’s from selling fast food. And if that fast food is a major contributing factor to a condition that causes 300,000 premature deaths each year, then they are profitting from death. Again, this is pretty obvious to me.
QueenAl, you are flat wrong. And very optimistic, which can sometimes be admirable. Just not in this case. I never said that the fast food industry wants to kill people, or that they take pleasure in doing so. They simply don’t care. This is an industry that switched products to a more deadly version, in order to give the impression of making the product more healthy.
Flatly wrong, and easy enough to disprove. Let’s do the math.
6 meals a week x 52 weeks a year x 45 years x $5 a meal = $70,200
2 meals a week x 52 weeks a year x 70 years x $5 a meal = $36,400
These numbers show that the fast food industry makes nowhere near the profit off people who eat in their restaurants 2 times a year, even if those people eat fast food for 25 more years. In fast, for the profits to equal, our hypothetical person would have to eat fast food 2 meals a week for 135 continuous years.
I don’t. And that’s my ethical issue. Caring only about making money and not caring who suffers in order for you to get it is practically the definition of unethical.
No, it is practically the definition of the free market. In general, it works, because we do have choice - if they don’t provide what we want to buy, we’ll go somewhere else, so they provide what we want. And it seems we want fatty hamburgers. The McLean failed. You contend this is because of lack of advertising, which I find mildly offensive: it implies that people will only eat what they’re told (through adverts) to eat, like mindless pigs being led to the swill trough. Do you really have such a low opinion of American consumers that, in your opinion, they cannot exercise free choice?
Only because you’re counting every single year from birth onwards. Not only do young children have different nutritional requirements than adults, they don’t have as much choice about where they eat as adults do - it depends where their parents take them. If you only add up the figures from the age of 18, the figures fit quite easily. A consumer living to the age of 40 and eating 6 times day from about the age of 18 (at $1560 per year), spends the same amount ($34,320) as ($520 per year) to the age of 84. The longer-lived, healthier, not obese person also has a higher chance of having a family and creating more little consumers.
Perhaps I shouldn’t even have brought that up - as others have pointed out, the businesses’ intentions are largely irrelevent.
Obviously eating lots of fast food, without the context of a balanced diet, contributes to obesity. But that’s your own dumb luck for choosing to eat lots of fast food.
Again, I point out that I currently have a reason to prefer the fattier burgers: if you replaced all the fattier burgers with leaner ones, you would be depriving me of options in exactly the same way that you contend Mr Barber is deprived. Where’s the ethics there, if only obese people get the choice?
Aren’t you omitting something rather important here? The reason that the fast food companies made the switch to partially-hydrogenated vegetable oil products is because at that time, those products were believed to be healthier. They weren’t simply acting to “give an impression of a healthier
product”- to the best of anyone’s knowledge at that time, the product WAS healthier! The companies were acting to satisfy consumer demand for healthier food - which later studies showed is actually worse for you. They behaved no differently than all those people who switched from using butter to using margarine, and who completely gave up eggs because they were supposedly “high in cholesterol”. And since the general public STILL doesn’t fully realize the dangers of partially-hydrogenated vegetable oils, the companies would catch hell if they switched from the “safer” (in the public’s mind) vegetable oil products they’re using now to the supposedly “unsafe” (in the public’s mind - but probably actually safer, given current scientific knowledge) stearic acid they originally used.
All this tells me is that Americans are lazy bums. How does that equate paying them millions? Smoking is just mentioned due to a political agenda. I ate a hamburger once, i demand 50 billion dollars! This thread makes me read, i demand $40 million from Grim to repair eye damage caused by reading his posts. Using his logic, i deserve it, after all, why should Grim keep posting when he knows that reading computer screens may damage people’s eyes if they do it for long term. Such negligance. ::shakes head::
As for independent fast food places, i live in San Francisco, we have a trillion restaraunts featuring food from every ethinic group on earth and a few new ones the wackos in this town made up. There are more independent fast food places in this town than i can mention, despite having only lived here for 4 months and running into a small percentage. they do exist! (dry land is not a myth, i’ve seen it!)
Absolutely.
For the love of god, it is a free country. If you can prove to me that eating a big mac is going to hurt you (unless of course you have some exisiting medical condition) you might have a point.
Otherwise, maybe we should sue the cattle industry as liver is very high in iron, and eating too much of that can be bad for you too. Heck! While you’re at it, sue the pork industry. Ribs are bad for you too (if you eat them EVERY FUCKING DAY!!!) Hey! Here’s another! Maybe sue the Ford family for Henry’s mistake of perfecting the production line. Without it burgers, meat, food in general wouldn’t be affordable.
Grim, surely you can’t disagree that Henry Ford is at least partially responsible for obesity? Hell! He even made cars more common so people couldn’t get exercise! Those poor people were hopeless once affordable automobiles came on the market!!
:rolleyes:
Bernse, the rediculous hypothetical – with exclamation points!!! has been done. In fact, me explaining that a poster isn’t the first to attempt that particular brand of debate has also been done. Three times now.
Attention World: No matter how many times someone abuses the phrase “by that logic” to envision some completely rediculous hypothetical (!!!) that bears no relationship to the current discussion, it will never magically become a good point. It will always be shit, no matter how many times it’s repeated. This means you, Tars Tarkas.
Now I’m not going to explain why you and bernse are huge idiots for even attempting to score points off that tactic. I’m a busy man, involved in a very tough game of Freecell (#13272). I don’t have time to explain to every moron that wanders into the thread exactly how moronic they are. From now on, valid points only, please.
So what your saying is, in order to mislead the public into believing they are offering a healthier product, the fast food industry refuses to switch to safer product? Oh, well, when you put it that way, there’s nothing wrong with that at all.
I’m kidding.
QueenAl, are you offering this statement up as if it makes sense?
Because it doesn’t. Your statement is a total non sequiter, as whether something is “free market” or not bears little relation to its ethical value.
Wrong. I was using the numbers from this actual case. Mr. Barbar claimed he started eating fast food “sometime in the 50s”. I assumed it was 1957, simply because 45 is a nice round number. Your assumption of starting at 18 and stopping at 40 is a complete hypothetical, thought up solely to make the numbers fit your particular theory. As such, I reject your numbers as useless. Even if they were correct, which they demonstrably aren’t, given the choice between $30,000 now, and $30,000 40 years from now, it doesn’t take an MBA to choose now.
No, what I am clearly saying is that the fast food industry has responded to the public’s mistaken impression that partially-hydrogenated vegetable oils are a “healthy” product. And the public didn’t come by that impression due to the machinations of the fast food industry - no siree, that one can be blamed on many years of “experts” such as the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society advising people to use these products in place of “dangerous” ones such as butter. Advice the public was bombarded with from the late 60s through the early 90s. And it takes YEARS to reverse the effects of such public advertising campaigns, so it’s no surprise that so many people are still unaware that partially-hydrogenated oils are not as good for us as those “experts” previously thought. When the public begins to flex the power of their wallets to choose fast food franchises that don’t use these products, the industry will respond and phase them out. They’ll have to - or they’ll go out of business.
And yes, the public IS capable of doing that, even while continuing to eat fast food. All that’s required is to go to Subway instead of McDonald’s. So don’t keep whining about how victimized the public is by the terrible fast food industry. People are choosing to eat those products because they LIKE them, not because they’re unthinking automatons being manipulated by this monstrous, near-omnipotent industry you keep portraying in your posts. The sad truth is that many people don’t particularly care about making healthy dietary choices - either in the grocery story or when eating out - until their health is damaged, and then it’s too late. And they never will. Pleasure now wins out over pain later. The public isn’t the simply the victim - it’s the problem.
Well, actually, it does. I also elaborated on that statement, if you remember.
But no, fuck this. I am not going to debate any further with someone who not only uses logic from beyond the looking glass, but throws insults around like a kid in a playground. When you call the people who disagree with you morons - as only the most obvious of a number of insults you throw around - this is where I step out of the discussion.
Oh, but its fun, QueenAl! Grim shoots of insults and illogic so often he should change his username to Old Faithful! And i Like exclamation points!!! but besides that, I fail to see Grim’s logic in supporting this lawsuit based on “unhealthy” food that is knowledgably given to customers. Why can’t it be expanded to other things? This lawsuit itself is an expansion of the Gun and Tobacco lawsuits, what magic powers suddenly give the order “No more expansion, because you are a moron” when this is discussed? Sure, the tobacco people lie to congress, but Mcdonalds tells us their food is bad! And we love it!! Pass the Fries!!!
Unfortunately, precident has a nasty habit of effecting laws and peoples decision. So, yes, it is has a relationship. Whether you like it or not.
I AM THE grim spectre of death. These ridiculous arguments have no relationship whatsoever to the ridiculous argument I am making. That makes it unimportant to the ridiculous argument at hand.
If you had your mind even open just <> this much, you’d see that the exact argument you are using against myself and others would have been thrown out if I someone made the ridiculous argument that 1 year ago McDonalds would be getting sued because its burgers are not good for you. This whole lawsuit is ridiculous to the extreme.
And yes, I read that you are not “supporting” it, but you sure seem to be doing your best to give it credibility when it has none, at least none with those of us in the crowd without tinfoil hats or crooked lawyers. Is MacDonalds good for you? Of course not. Is coca-cola good for you? Of course not. Are Pork Rinds good for you? No. Are these companies criminally responsible for making products that aren’t good for you and they know it? No. Why? Because nobody is forcing anyone to patronize their products.
Once again, back to the very, very first post. Welcome to the US - Where you aren’t responsible for anything. A bit of an over-generalization of course, but that is exactly what it boils down to. Caesar is so fucking lazy he can’t make himself a sandwich (or whatever) and chose of his own free will to eat fast food 5 times a week. He chose to. He chose to give himself a lifestyle where he would be prone to heart-attacks and obesity. And he is not prepared to take the blame himself. That is the whole basis of this entire thread. Everyone knows, even Caesar that eating hamburgers and fries 5 times a week = BAD FOR YOU. It is nobody elses fault than his alone.
Now, go back to your exciting freecell game.
I’m getting tired of this. Fred needs to learn the concept that correlation != causation (funny, there’s a thread about this going on here, maybe he ought to check it out). Engaging in behavior that increases your risk of a specific outcome is leagues away from the conclusion “activity X causes Y”.
Listen. Heart disease and obesity have causes that are far more complex than whether or not you went to McDonald’s a few times too often. Eating a Big Mac is not inherently unhealthy. Eating a Big Mac per day is not inherently unhealthy. Eating a Big Mac every single day in combination with scarfing pints of Ben & Jerry’s in front of the TV at night, getting no exercise, drinking a pot of coffee every day and leading a stressful life might lead you to heart disease. Might.
Yes, overconsumption of a poor diet increases your risk for both obesity and heart disease, but to distill that one action down to the cause of those health problems is ludicrous, and going one step further to blame the restaurant that sold you high calorie food is even moreso.
I’ll say it one more time (and it has been said repeatedly in this thread, but you choose to repeatedly ignore it)…no single food item is inherently unhealthy. Food is nothing more than a combination of nutrients that your body breaks down and uses for energy. How you choose to feed yourself is only one small factor in a much larger picture of the way you choose to live the rest of your life outside of your food choices.
Want an anecdote? My sister lives to eat buffalo wings. Absolutely loves them. By every nutritionist’s guidelines of “healthy” food, buffalo wings are in the cellar and digging furiously. Do you know what? She eats wings probably 4-5 times a week. Want her health profile? She’s 5’ tall and weighs approximately 120 lbs. While I don’t know her body fat percentage, I know that it’s in the athlete range for women. She’s all muscle. Do you know why? Because she rides a few hundred miles a month on her road and mountain bikes. She runs. She rock climbs. She competes in adventure races. Her blood pressure is perfect and her total cholesterol is around 140. In other words, she can dump thousands of calories of high fat food into her body because…wait for it…she makes responsible choices about her lifestyle overall that mitigate her “poor” food choices. If she slacks off on her exercise and continues to stuff wings down her gullet, she doesn’t sue the restaurant who sold them to her. See how easy that is? She takes responsibility for her health.
Honestly, I’m baffled that there’s a single person out there besides this guy’s lawyer that actually believes that this case has some merit. Unbelieveable.
You described the free market, rather than the ethics. If you believe that no company that operates in the free market can ever be unethical, I can debate you on that point. I’m sure you’re not alone in holding that opinion, it’s just not one I agree with.
I’m sorry you’re leaving. I found your opinion valuable, and the points you raised cogent. I would like to point out that I’m not in the habit of calling everyone I disagree with a moron: you’ll note that I never insulted the vast majority of those whose position is opposite to my own. I’m frustrated by the belief that creating a bizarre hypothetical that bears little relation to the situation at hand is somehow a valid debating strategy, and this frustration translated into uncalled for harshness.
In addition, I feel like I should apologize for coming across as condescending – not just to you, but to everyone in this thread who has brought up valid points that contradict my own opinions (especially, among others, RexDart). Although it’s no excuse, I’ve been feeling more than a little over my head in this thread. More than a little overwhelmed. As soon as I finish one reply, I begin another. Now, after spending some time away from this thread and able to put things in perspective, I have come to regret my poor attitude. I can see why this seems like a lame excuse for the shortness of temper that I’ve shown, but perhaps you are feeling forgiving this evening. I’m a good guy if I’m not snarling like a cornered animal. I swear. 
bernse, I was mean to you. It was uncalled for. With that behind us, I seriously don’t understand this statement:
Perhaps some clarification is in order? Also,
I’m not sure to which argument you are referring to. By necessity, I’ve been kind of leap-frogging all over this thread; I’ve espoused quite a few points, and I’m not sure quite which one you are referring to here.
Tars Tarkas: Man, oh man. I hope that one day you and I can overcome the emnity that has been formed between us in this thread. I fully accept my responsibility for creating a large portion of that emnity.
I realize now that it was counter-productive to sling insults instead of explaining what the differences are between your hypothetical paper lawsuit and any possible lawsuit against the fast food industry. I’ll attempt to do so now.
The only similarities that I can see between your hypothetical paper lawsuit and the fast food lawsuit is that both involve a company, a person, and an alledged tort. Are there other similarities that I am missing, that would make the analogy more apt?
I thank everyone for having patience with me (or not, as the case may be) over the course of this thread. I understand how frustrating it can be to attempt to converse with someone who’s opinion runs counter to what you believe to be unavoidable fact. I’d love to continue this discussion, but I’m going on vacation for the next week or so. When I come back, either the thread will be dead, or powered by pure astonishment at my position, and it’s stupidity thereof. I doubt even I will be able to wade through a week’s worth of hostile replies, so I guess this is goodbye. So long, folks.
I’m sorry. I meant a cite that actually supports what you allege. You said that the fast food joints profit from millions of deaths. And imply that they cause those deaths.
Here is the point of out contention.
You: “This food is causing obesity and people are dying because of it. It’s the fast food industries fault. Because God knows, if weren’t for them, their would be no obesity. Mr Barbar would be svelte were it not McDonalds heinous act of providing tasty food.”.
Me: “Horsefeathers. Some people are over consuming and have poor health. Others are not over consuming, enjoying the food, and leading healthy lives. So obviously, you cannot prove causation. Those that over consume and blame others for that are the bottom of the fucking barrel, and the world would be a better place without them, as well as those who apologize for them and rationalize what they do.”
Again, can you show that a McDonalds meal, by itself, causes any health disorders? And notice I did not say a McDonalds meal, eaten every freaking day, or 3 times a day. Because then we are not talking about the meal, but the abuse by the consumer.
No, McDonalds doesn’t say that, nor did I claim that McDonalds said that. What I said was
I did not, in any way, mean to imply that this was an official McDonalds stance. What I said was that Big Macs could be eaten frequently (w/o the french fries) as part of an otherwise overall healthy lifestyle.
I noticed, from your linked article, that it wasn’t the lean beef that one buys in the grocery store. It was modified for purposes of the test so that it doesn’t dry out. I said that store-bought lean mean is too dry, and they agreed. Of course, none of us knows the additional cost of adultering the beef, so these cost analyses presented thus far are moot.
The case has been thrown out a second time!
Wooooohooo!
The judge said they can’t refile either.
We all know that the leagl industry is sizing up the fast-foodindustry, as a source of potentially profitable litigation. I think the lawyers should extend the lawsuits to:
-the alcoholic beverage industry (becoming an alcoholic shortens your life)
-the candy industry (dental caroes and obesety result from consumption of candy)
-the suntanning industry (suntans cause skin cancer, and the availblity of tanning booths convincespeople that they are “safe”
The way I see it, there is more than enough litigation to go around…we’ll have to build more court houses though!
I love this man.