I do think the mere presence of an important nutrient is the difference between unhealthy food that one should theoretically never eat, and food that “is healthy” and is OK to eat (although in moderation). I mean, over here you have a food that is all downside. Over here you have a food that has nutrients necessary to live, but with similar downside. I think the difference is obvious. And I’m still not championing McDonalds. the average American eats much more than their daily RDA of protein.
And it is, provided that instead of the hamburgers you are eating something equivalent but healthier. The difference is whether it is part of your regular diet or not. I never said that eating it once would make you instantly unhealthy, but this is what you and others think I am saying. Otherwise, if you eat at McDonalds, say, once a month, and your diet is otherwise healthy, your diet is still healthy. If you are eating there every day, I don’t think you can say the same thing.
Got it. Got it a long time ago. But simple logic says that a component with, say, much more fat than any necessary nutrients will not make maintaining a healthy diet much more difficult. For example, perhaps I can eat half a stick of butter every morning as long as I eat absolutely no other fat the rest of the day and be healthy. That doesn’t mean a stick of butter is a healthy part of this breakfast.
What if I try and convince them to eat lots of Happy Meals, starting a lifelong trend that will not be good for their health? Oh wait, you don’t have to tell me, because Big Macs fall under “ANYTHING”. Again, you are agreeing with me here.
About breaking the law in the crack example… since it’s a theoretical example (get that spooje?) and we’re talking about the morality of the situation, the law is irrelevent. Things that are against the law are not necessary immoral.
Ah, but whether a food’s content of a certain nutrient is an upside or a downside depends on the rest of your diet!
If you’re eating Big Macs every day, but your overall diet is healthy (no excessive fats, sodium, etc.), then what’s the problem?
If a Big Mac has 50% of your RDA for fat and sodium but 0% of your RDA for vitamin C and fiber, you can add other foods that have low fat and sodium but are rich in vitamin C and fiber. Difficult, perhaps, but far from impossible.
Of course, if you eat lots of Big Macs but don’t add the other foods, you’ll be deficient in vitamin C and fiber–but that’s nobody’s fault but your own. You control what goes in your mouth.
It means it’s a part of your healthy diet. You might be able to put together a diet that will make you happier if you eliminate the stick of butter (so you can spread your fats out through the day), but if you really like eating butter and you can remain healthy doing it, then what’s the problem?
Yeah. Trying to convince shool children to smoke crack is equal on the morality scale to trying to convince them that Big Macs are tasty.
:rolleyes:
Yes, there is advertising. And children are sometimes targeted by advertising. Still, what they eat is their parents responsibility.
That advertising can be effective. And when those children reach adulthood, some of those messages are stuck in their brain. We all get that. Still, it doesn’t mean that these adults don’t have a choice to disregard those messages, and it doesn’t mean that someone else is responsible if they fall in line with those messages.
I can still recite advertising jingles from my youth. It doesn’t mean I have been brainwashed into salivating whenever I think of those products like Pavlov’s dog. They have not overpowered my free will.
I don’t eat fast food. It’s a choice I make. But I can always make another choice. See, I’m a human being with a brain. I like to have choices. I like having options, even if I never use those options. I want their to be Big Macs and Whoppers and Chalupas in case I want to have one.
This will be my last word on the subject. If you want to eat that stuff, you have that priviledge. If you eat it at every meal and make it the cornerstone of your diet, that is also your priviledge. If you blame someone else because you got fat doing that, then you are a piece of shit. If you whine about being decieved into thinking they were health food options that would never impact your body no matter how many you stuffed down your throat , you should be deported. To a place where the government will make all your decisions for you and protect you because you obviously cannot handle freedom.
If you actually had the self-discipline to do this, it would indeed be accurate to say that that stick of butter was a healthy part of your breakfast, as it would be providing 100% of the necessary fat in your daily diet (fat IS an essential nutrient).
The problem is that most people wouldn’t have the self-discipline to balance their diet in such a way, and they’d end up consuming excessive amounts of fat. But that’s a problem of their overall diet, though, and not some intrinsic property of butter. What matters for your health is the TOTAL balance of nutrients, vitamins, and minerals consumed, not what particular food items are providing them. It’s DIET that matters, not individual foods. ANY food can be a part of a healthy diet, if eaten in the right quantities.
Since the judge dismissed it, but granted leave for the plaintiffs to replead most of their claims, we need to start betting on whether the plaintiffs try to ressurect this critter.
That’s standard when a court rules on a motion to dismiss on the pleadings, Robb. What the judge has determined is that the plaintiffs the facts alleged by the plaintiffs, even if true, cannot support the legal theories they are attempting to assert. If the plaintiffs come up with facts that would support those legal theories, or a new legal theory that would be supported by their factual allegations, then they can refile. If they don’t, they can’t. And as a practical matter, they won’t come up with anything new. This sucker is over (apart from any motions for sanctions, which I still say McDonald’s shoudl pursue).
What I have read suggests that the plaintiffs really aren’t that close to stating a survivable claim, but I wonder whether they have sense to give up when there’s still a chance. I’ll bet that if you glance through the opinion you’ll develop a good feel for whether the plaintiffs will be sanctioned.
The link to the news story above features a poll asking if you agree with the judge’s decision. Although the vast majority of those polled agreed, I still can’t believe that 5% didn’t and think like these fuckwits.
