Fine, forget that I said “off the misery of others”. I meant to say “Any company that sells dentrimental products”.
And this is where you’re really losing me. Where’s the misery? I ate at McDonalds yesterday, and the food didn’t make me miserable. If anything, I found the experience rather pleasant. Granted, there have been occasions where I ate enough to feel some measure of misery; I felt exactly the same sensation that I felt following consumption of over-large portions of pizza, oranges, carbonara pasta and vegetarian curry. After each of those times, I held the merchant fully responsible for selling me poison that obviously caused my condition, since it obviously had nothing to do with the coices I’d made for myself.
Let me ask you a serious question pizzadick: Where do YOU draw the line? How far from reality would Guinistasia’s scenario be if you had your finger on the button?
Look, I don’t even hate McDonald’s that much. I don’t really hate McDonald’s at all. I’m just upset and confused about people’s kneejerk defensiveness of a firm that “everyone knows” is bad for them. All I’ve said throughout this entire thread is that McDonald’s is bad (and remember, “everyone knows” that), and that makes me the subject of name-calling (really, what makes me “pizzadick”?). Where have I suggested that I should control other people? Where have I suggested government intervention? My question at the end of my OP was never answered, it was just given more fodder to be raised again and again: “Can somebody explain the jealous defensiveness people have about these companies?”
McDonalds food is not bad for you. Eating McDonalds foods in excess over an extended period of time is bad for you. There’s a big fucking difference there, Sparky.
I’m guessing in your circle of friends you’re not The Smart One, are you?
Personally? I associate McDonalds with happiness. I just do, it’s, like, programmed into me. Whenever I feel uncomfortable or depressed or whatever, I always want to go to McDonalds.
Now, I rarely go, because it makes me feel like hell to do so – in fact, I’ve more than once driven to McDonalds and parked in the lot, only to walk across the street to the falafel joint where I can get pepper steak and fries for five dollars. (Which probably isn’t much healthier, but I feel a lot better afterwards.) But when I was a kid, I went to McDonalds all the damn time (actually, I lived down the street from one), and something stuck.
So maybe that’s part of it. McDonalds is a childhood experience, at least for me. I get bothered when people attack it. I was pretty iffy about seeing the movie, too.
–p
Pizzabrat, this deserves some kind of an award for the most ridiculously self-righteous OP I have seen on the least consequential of subjects. I eat at Mickey Ds and I will make no excuses for it. I will not regale you with the wonderful whole foods I stock at home, or the veritable barrells of GORP I keep around the house for a healthy snack. It really is none of your fucking business. Thanks to you the simple admission that I eat there and enjoy it is akin to some poor sweaty twitching soul at a NarcAnon meeting admitting he has a problem. Mickey D’s is not addictive however, and I am a creature of free will.
I am appalled that you truly seem to believe that people don’t understand that eating Mickey D’s more than occassionally isn’t good for them. It isn’t like they advertise Cortislim shakes, they give you all the information you need to make good decisions, and it is readily available at every restaurant.
Mickey D’s is food. At its core it is no different than mutton or tofu. I am blessed with many choices as to what I eat. I openly resent pantywaists and nincompoops like you infesting my consumption with your moral fervor. It ruins the experience. If you intend to save the world please condescend to someone who isn’t aware of the obvious. I encourage you to stand over the couple at the fancy restaurant and inform them of the fat and calorie content of their creme brulee. I am sure they will be much more appreciative of your fervor than I am.
Only one man has the courage to write about the fatal combination of death-spikes and junk food.
I refer to Jack Chick, of course.
Cite.
There are restaurants and restaurants, but broadly speaking this is bollocks. Firstly most restaurants keep the same menu for weeks or months, though they may have specials. Secondly most restaurants cook with tremendous amounts of fat and sugar, butter in particular. Read a basic book on the restaurant trade (“Kitchen Confidential” by Anthony Bourdain would be a start). You haven’t got a clue what goes on, clearly.
Worthless? Hmmm. Many people want food laden with sugar and fat. Oh yes they do. It tastes better to them (and me). What definition of worthless are you using, precisely? Because from the democratic, free-society place where I’m standing, what people want is the very definition of worth.
It would be doing people a favour to provide them with the information they need to know that what they want now may be regretted by them when they are 60 and have heart disease, but that’s a whole other thing.
I’m not angry at either. But I’d be angry at the former if they suggested it was anyone’s fault but their own that they ate McD’s to excess, and I can hardly blame the latter for selling people what people want.
and
Because, for about the hundredth time, people believe in freedom of choice as an ideal. And that ideal includes the choice of people to eat themselves to death on food they like. And they don’t think your nannying criticism of McD’s for selling people what they want is valid.
Resiling from your previous comment was wise, but this is not much better. Consider whether a product that people want to have because having it makes them happy is detrimental to them from their viewpoint.
And I almost forgot, one of the stupidest things about your OP analogy, besides those things pointed out already, is that the death-spike in the sofa doesn’t enhance the sofa at all. The fat and sugar in McD’s makes it taste good. Death-spikes are useless detriments to the product, fat and sugar are enhancements to the product, in a particular way.
But it’s not “bad” for them. It’s not bad for me. I hardly ever go there. And when I do, I suffer no ill effects. Even when I get the supersized fries.
Yes, McDonalds would be happier if I spent much money there. In that respect, they are like every other business on the planet. But I’m not gonna, 'cause that’s MY choice. Those who DO spend gobs of money there do so at THEIR choice.
I will agree that those who picket outside of the screening of this film are nimrods. The same could be said about those who attended the screening and accepted what they saw at face value. Really, the fact that this fool at McDonalds at every meal for a month only proves that he is an IDIOT. What would happen if he consumed nothing but orange juice for a month? What if he ate nothing but lettuce for a month? Yeah, he’s be slimmer, but he’d also be ready to stick a gun in his mouth. See, nobody with a fuctioning brain would do this. and nobody with a fuctioning brain should read anything into HIS doing other than the fact that he is trying to get some publicity for himself with his antics. He’s not a documentarian, he’s Carrot Top with a film crew, fer Chrissakes.
I said that the death-spikes make them cheaper. They’re used as the base because they’re bought cheap from the army surplus. Cheaper is a huge enhancement.
Is orange juice sold as a meal? Is lettuce sold as a meal? Stop these inaccurate analogies! McDonald’s sells “meals”, not snacks, not sides, not condiments; meals. The guy ate three of what McDonald’s calls “meals” a day. His experiment was sound.
And another thing. One can decide to live what will probably be a long life involving a degree of abstemiousness, or one can decide to live what will probably be a shorter life of indulgence.
The decision between these choices is not a no brainer. There are valid reasons for adopting either. You cannot say that everyone in their right mind makes the former choice. Therefore, who are you to say that it is unacceptable for a commercial concern such as McD’s to assist persons who have made the latter choice?
Have you actually seen the movie?
Cause you’re missing his point pretty badly. He’s not the one who came up with the idea of eating all your meals at McDonalds.
–p
His “experiment” was hucksterism.
What if he ate pancakes at IHOP for every meal? Would that be any better? How about his momma’s home-made pancakes for 30 days straight? How about my grannie’s biscuits and gravy with bacon and eggs? Those are “meals” too. And no evil corporate congolmerate to villify. Would he be any healthier after 30 days?
No. But he’d still be hack.
You’re quite right. I will have to see this film.
But in my defense, my points are againsts the OP’s conclusions. And I did agree that those who protested outside against it were nimrods.
pizzabrat, the reason why people are jumping all over you is because you are painting with too broad a brush. If you attacked specific practices, such as fast food and soft drink companies selling their products in schools, advertising aimed at children, misleading statements about the healthiness of their products, getting money from the gov’t for “employee training programs” that aren’t implemented, etc, etc, etc, you would get a better reaction. Were you to advocate the reform of some of the practices that you disagree with, rather than complete elimination (“keel over,” in your words), you would sound reasonable rather than, well, crazy.
In the above statement, you demonstrate that you do not understand that the food served by these establishment do not harm people when consumed in moderation. McD’s is not a “worthless blight,” as it fills people’s needs. I had a Sausage Egg McMuffin the other day (the only food that stops a hangover in its tracks) and enjoyed it.
As for “admonishment” - people do not like being preached at. They want credit for having the intelligence to make their own choices. They do not want anyone telling them what is good for them when.
I’m sorry to say that I cannot completely answer your question because I’m still unclear on a few things. So permit me some questions of my own…
Who is envying what? I don’t understand this part.
Are you applying this term to people who simply have a different opinion on the culpability of a company that sells food that is less-than-healthy? Given that your OP (and ensuing comments) use strong (if not confusing) imagery and accusations, a very common reaction is to make a counterpoint with equal vigor. I submit (without knowing exactly what instances you’re referring to) that the defensiveness you’re feeling may begin with the manner in which your topic is introduced.
You speak of “any company that sells detrimental products.” Your ambiguity makes it impossible to comment accurately. Just how wide a net are you casting? How do you define “detrimental”? Is the manufacturer and the seller culpable in your eyes? How about if I had a party and I offered — free of charge — a big bowl of Ruffles® Sour-Cream and Cheddar Potato Chips? Am I culpable in your eyes? I am distributing, to use your words, “addictive poison”?
How many things in this world are altogether detrimental with no redeeming virtues? Likewise, how many things in this world cannot be abused by someone with self-destructive tendencies?
You’re being a real jerk in this and other threads.
If you wanted a question answered you would have went to GQ, or maybe in this case Great Debates or IMHO. You came here to be abrasive and stir shit up. You got what you wanted and now you’re complaining about it. That’s what I don’t get.
You realize how stupid that sounds coming from the person who wrote the original post in this thread, don’t you?