Well, it’s pretty lame if they have to print “Don’t eat this shit too often” at the bottom of the screen. But somehow I doubt it would make any difference anyway - the visual of the person will make a stronger impression on our little brains than any text we might read.
Just remember that it was good 'ole B.F. Skinner who started all this crap. Him and his little maze rats figured out how to manipulate people & it’s been hell to the chickens ever since. Imagine a world without their tomfoolery.
It says something when the consuming public needs to be told that the Audi slaloming on an icy road while everyone is doing 360s around him is a dramatization. And what it says isn’t good. I’d be all for the people who might believe that as fact working themselves out of the human race, but car accidents tend to take others with them.
More consumer , from a few years ago.
idiocy
So you’re suggesting they make commercials only using big people? 
Skinner’s findings have also been quite beneficial to mankind as well.
The problem with common sense is that not everyone’s ‘common sense’ is the same. To a lot of people, “common sense” is giving creationism and evolution equal time in high school classrooms.
I’d prefer the judges try to interpret the law as cleanly and straightforwardly as possible. They’re supposed to respect the law as written, even if it’s bad law.
I have no opinion about whether MickeyD’s ads are misleading; I don’t see enough of their ads to have an opinion. But that’s what the case is now about; it is not about protecting consumers from the consequences of their own stupidity.
Wonder what constitutes ‘moderation’ here. I’m serious - how many standard fast-food meals per week/month can one absorb without either (a) putting on the pounds, or (b) having to go above and beyond normal diet/exercise habits to counteract the effects of the fast-food meals?
Here I’m thinking of a typical fast-food meal as the ‘flagship’ burger - Big Mac, Whopper, etc. - along with medium fries and a medium non-diet soda. And not necessarily the size that’s called medium, but the one that’s in the middle of their sizing scale, if they’ve got 3 or more sizes.
I’m betting that if someone did a study, it would show that it would take a surprisingly small number of fast-food meals per week to pile on the pounds. If I ate 3-4 meals a week like that, I’d blimp out in no time. Which is why I go for months in between fast food burgers.
This isn’t to say that such food should be banned, but that consumers need to be aware of just how little fast food is too much of it. Once that sort of warning is part of the package, consumers can decide on their own whether they want to super-size themselves.
I see this McDonalds lawsuit as a harbinger of things to come. If it succeeds, wewill see the legal industry ramp up to persue other "unsafe, deceptively advertised "products. Some possibilties:
-Sun Tanning salons: exposure to UV radiation causes skin cancer…the people who make UV lamps ought to be worried.
-Breweries: drinking beer leads to alcoholism, cirhosis of the liver, delirium tremens, etc. Why don’t the beer ads show the elderly, jaundiced drunks?
-Bicycles: you can get killed or seriously injured riding a bike…why doesn’t Huffy include this sobering message in its ads?
-Scuba Diving equipment: drowning or being attacked by sharks is a hazard…let’s sue Jaques Cousteau’s estate!
Anyway, I’m off toget a double cheeseburger…and consult a lawyer!! 
Sure I agree but we should be attacking the supply side of the lies too. 
I don’t know the specifics of the ad compaign they are suing over or their excuses for not figuring out it was unhealthy at an earlier point. I just have faith that the judges are not idiots and are merely dotting their i’s and crossing there t’s. If this case is without merit the McD’s lawyers should be able to smack it down on the hearing on the one remaining motion(if motion is the correct legal term, IANAL of course).
As an aside:
Here in Canada the Competition bureau has been making noise against some “inflated savings” advertising (CBC story on 1.7M SportChek fine,and Sears
CITE?
I think it’s fine for the lawsuit to go ahead. I think it should be defeated, but it seems obvious that society needs for this to be hammered out in the courts sometime soon. Why not now?
Part of the importance of lawsuits is to determine applicability of law. The degree to which fast-food chains are liable for making people fat is much debated; it was bound to be in the courts some time.
All juries are morons, eh, World Eater? Your bullheadedness and inability to comprehend people whose points of view differ from yours–not mention your idiotic generalities–are as moronic as any of the more outrageous jury settlements I can think of.
Actually, I just recently saw a television report saying many tanning salons are giving deceptive information about their tanning lamps, claiming their exposure didn’t increase risk of skin cancer or cause aging, which is completely untrue. So yeah, they should be worried.
Sorry I have no cite. Pregnancy brain. It was a Dateline / Primetime / W5 type show.
/Ms. Cyros
I meant cause wrinkles, not aging of course.
sigh
I think this lawsuit should go forward. I think the jury should find for the plaintiff. And, in damages, they should award…one dollar.
That should send the message that “you’re technically right, but you’re still a tool”.
So long as they are also ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of counsel, I concur.
Sheesh, if they’re after deceptive advertising, why aren’t they going after Lucky Charms or Cocoa Puffs? ‘Part of this nutrious breakfast’-as if, it’s all the other stuff that’s nutritious not the sugar coated sugar. Man, some people need to get a life.
On what grounds should they find for the plaintiff? Where are McD’s ads deceptive? Pervasive, maybe, but deceptive? Where do they say, or even intimate, that a diet of supersized Big Mac value meals is a healthy, complete, nutricious diet? I don’t pay much attention to commercials and advertisement, so maybe I missed it. But I doubt it.
dancewithcats, I like that. Better still: You get one dollar, however if you or your non-adult offspring ever eat fast food again, you will be liable for the entire fast food industries court costs because you are too stupid to learn from your mistakes.
If you think my comments are as outrageous as some insane settlement from a jury, you require some sort of recalibration. The implication was that many (not all) of them are morons. A quick glance through some of the punitive sums they’ve doled out will confirm I’m correct.
People deviate just as much when interpreting the law. The problem is people.
You said all are morons.
The word I used was “moronic.” Not “outrageous.”
Yes, the huge sums of money given out for moronic liability suits is outrageous. Nothing you’ve said is comparable outrageous. Just moronic. Get it?
I truly hope the lawsuit loses, but I don’t see a problem with it going to the courts. The courts are supposed to determine this kind of thing, especially if there is a broad and persist social debate about it.
“Comparably outrageous.”
GARG!
I’m going to put forth another of my patented wildly unpopular opinions. The McD’s lawsuit is wholly unjustified, yet could potentially do enough good that I support it. Yep, people need to take responsibility for their own actions and their own health, McD’s probably hasn’t done anything illegal, but I’d still like to see them pilloried, even if some schlubs make some undeserved money in the process.
It may not be illegal, but McD’s has been an enthusiastic contributor to, and has profited greatly from, the promotion of the bizarrely unhealthy lifestyle that has become the norm through much of the US. Where else does some sinister clown entice our children with unhealthy treats and freakish toys? Who else would serve a meal where the drink alone caps out someone’s recommended daily caloric intake? I say fuck’em.
I predict that McD’s settles for much, much less than is being asked for. But before that time loads of damaging dirt may get dug up, and hopefully people learn to avoid the golden arches and the rest of that ilk.
Setting off waves of litigation on the rest of the industry, because, hey, Taco Bell will settle too!
So if the suit is unjustified, it can do good? By underscoring the fact that you can act without regard for onself or others, and when it becomes a shit stew, you dial 1-800-SUIT? Step one in taking responsibility is for a savvy jurist to kick this piece of legal excrement onto the heap where it belongs, together with those who brought it before the court.
So they made money owing to the stupidity of the masses. Regarding the sinister clown, it’s called advertising. Millions of parents don’t buy into it and I’ll be damned if the emotionally weak should be supplemented via the judicial system. Would you like a McBackbone?
I hope Ronald moons the plaintiff. To quote you: Fuck 'em.