Hey, you can call me a clueless git all you want and it doesn’t make you any smarter.
Everything you’ve written shows shocking poor form. For example – “No, he doesn’t want people to make their own choices. He wants people to make the same choice that he has” is a ridiculous example of rhetoric. Of course he would like people to make the same choice that he has. But that still makes it their choice. There is nothing in what he has written that seeks to deny anyone their full range of God-given full-blooded American choices. He just – to a certain extent – wishes that they didn’t make the choices that they do. Nothing wrong with that. And as for this gem that follows it:
Well… I challenge you to find evidence of this “claim” anywhere in the thread!
No: you’ve just provided yet more evidence of people are reading what they want to read and interpreting pizzabrat’s posts before they’ve even scanned them.
The guy may have come up with the World’s Shittiest Analogy. He may have disgust for an institution that you, for some reason or other, have decided is the Champion of the Free Market du jour. But he’s never been unduly insulting, he’s never made 95% of the claims that have been attributed to him, he’s been brief and to the point throughout and he simply doesn’t deserve the disapprobation that has been heaped upon him throughout this thread.
Hmmm reaches for calculator 5’4" and 120 lbs that’s 1.62 metres and 54 kilos. Calculating a BMI that’s 20.5 which must be considered very far from overweight.
Back on topic. I agree with all the sensible posters.
Pizzabrat, I’m sorry you are getting jumped on so viciously. I feel the same way you do. I also wonder why so many people stick up for the fast food industry so vehemently.
Unfortunately, I’m not going to do much to back you up, because I don’t want to put the time in to researching the assertions I’d like to make, and I know people will call me on them. I hope there are dopers out there who will do the footwork for me, and find the documentation of how many times a week the typical McDonald’s customer eats at McDonald’s, etc. Apparently, contrary to so many dopers’ opinions voiced in this thread, there are actually many, many Americans who don’t know that McDonald’s meals are full of fat and sugar and salt and will endanger your health if you make them a major staple of your diet.
I mean really, when the commercials you’ve seen your entire life show slim, fit people glowing with health eating McDonald’s food, that message is going to carry more weight with you than the little chart posted in the corner that tells you there are lots of grams of fat in a Big Mac.
I’m in favor of McDonald’s food packaging carrying great big yellow and red stickers that clearly state “This hamburger/these french fries has/have more fat than a 180-pound man should eat in 2 1/2 days. Frequent consumption of this product will lead to obesity and its related health risks.” And there should be a picture of a big fat couple to illustrate the point. After all, I have to have stupid red and yellow stickers all over the interior of my car warning me against putting a baby in a car seat in my front seat.
For those who care, I do sometimes eat fast food. I’m also somewhat fat. I’m just throwing that in so I don’t get accused of being a rail-thin health food nut.
Kabbes, Pizzabrat’s question has been answered over and over. But he just can’t cope with the fact that people have a rational answer that he disagrees with, so he keeps ignoring their answers and continuing to ask the question again. Is it any wonder people are getting antsy with him?
I think everyone should step back a minute. Even if pizzabrat is wrong in his premise calling names is just demeaning to the namer more than the named. This is called ‘being an adult’.
Now I posted a while back that I didn’t think he was entirely off the mark. There are a couple of issues here.
A) It’s clearly established in the American legal system that firms can be sued for the detrimental effects of their products…even if those products are completely legal. Therefore the idea of suing a fast food company for the health effects of eating their products shouldn’t be considered outside the norm.
B) There is an issue of externalization of costs. Sure, McDonalds has the right to sell whatever greasy and salty food they want because that’s what people want to eat. Simple enough. But when people eat there too often (and we all know they do) certain health problems develop and a certain percentage of those with these problems (do the poor disproportionately eat fast food? I don’t know but I wouldn’t be surprised) will place the burden of those health problems (medical costs and lost work time, etc) on those not directly connected to either the buyer or the fast food corporation (taxpayers and employers).
So like I said…there’s an argument to be made here. Maybe not with ‘death spike’ sofas (though there are some people I’d like to sell those to) but the argument is there to be made.
Well, Tengu, I simply disagree with you that the statements you have bolded show pizzabrat claiming that “anybody who DARES think that junk food is ok in moderation, and therefore any company that produces it shouldn’t be driven out of business is an idiot who’s in McDonald’s back pocket.”
(Which, incidentally is completely different to the opposite of “You have the right to hold whatever opinions you want, and I’ll respect that, even if I don’t agree with it.”)
I have no interest in dragging this down to a semantics-chopping contest but accusations of kneejerk defensiveness (of which there has been a lot in this thread) and wondering why a criticism of McDonalds seems to be interpreted as a criticism of capitalism (which, again, it has been repeatedly in this thread) is not the same as saying that anybody “who DARES think that junk food is ok in moderation, and therefore any company that produces it shouldn’t be driven out of business is an idiot who’s in McDonald’s back pocket.” They’re as different from eachother as sofa-spikes and junk food.
I disagree. Pizzabrat’s first reply to this thread was a one-liner in post 15. By that stage people were already being sarcastic, accusing him of not being able to think and generally implying that he was an idiot merely for suggesting that
Ridiculous analogy aside, it was a reasonable question. The responses from the word go were anything but.
When they came for McDonald’s, I didn’t speak for I don’t eat Big Macs.
When they came for Pizza Hut, I didn’t speak because pizza is bad for you.
…
When all that was left was tofu, I fucking starved to death because I don’t like tofu.
They have a product. They found a market. They aim their advertising at kids. They have to provide accurate information when asked.
Well, good Lord, shoot 'em all then. Lots of companies aim a portion of their advertising at kids. And if one of those kid’s parents are just turning him/her loose with money and not monitoring the kid’s behavior, it’s the parent that should be chastised.
We have these rules for a reason. That reason being, we see it as morally highly dubious to be broadcasting messages directly to those without the critical faculties to challenge those messages.
McDonalds is unhealthy. I’ll give you – just – that adults should realise this and behave accordingly. But to attempt to brainwash children into the subconcious belief that McDonalds Is Good is just unconscionable.
Yee-gads, thanks kabbes, I knew I couldn’t be completely insane.
And about my first paragraph, it was satire, you know, like other implausible ideas with a point. Were the British really eating Irish babies in Johnathan Swifts time? Are we really dealing with an overflow of immigrants from the future? Would anyone really air an election ad where singers patriotically sing "Only a moron wouldn’t cast his vote for [said candidate]. And if I can say so myself, it was excellent satire. Come, on! Death-spike chairs? If it were on South Park, people would love it!
Love them or shoot them all? Those are the two choices? Now who’s world is black or white?
Answered how? People are quick to defend McDonald’s because other people like it? The fact that people like something is good enough for it to exist without criticism? And of course I can’t cope with an answer I disagree with; that’s what discussion is all about. It’s not call for a survey of opinions to remind us of the wonderful diversity of thought amongst us; it’s a chance for one entity to convince others that its right and they’re wrong, preferrably without inappropriate name-calling.
Fine, but the assumption in the OP is that there are plently of adults who lack these critical faculties, and this lack of critical faculties even extends to the adults posting on this very thread, when we indirectly defend McDonald’s by attacking the dubious arguments.
Pizzabrat’s brand of politics has a huge element of condescension, suggesting that people need to be protected from themselves, even protected from things that are only bad if taken to ridiculous extremes. Is it truly shocking that he gets responses of the “screw you” variety?
Given the context, though, perhaps “spike you” would be more fitting.
Where in the OP is that assumption, actually? This thread all about is that I can’t even say that McDonald’s is the wrong choice without everybody, McDonald’s customers or not, taking offense of behalf of those who think McDonald’s is the right choice. Is it because I’m implying that I think I’m making a better choice in this regaurd than other people? So? Why should anyone be afraid of admitting they think their choices are superior to other people’s choices? Doesn’t making a choice in the first place imply that?
See, there you go again. Whether or not McDonald’s is the right choice, it’s their choice to make, and you’re assuming they make that choice out of pure stupidity and/or brainwashing. That people have choices is far more important to me than the continued existence of McDonalds, and anyone who suggests the choices should be curtailed because of an evil analogy that makes no sense whatsoever then, yes, I’ll take offense. Or I’ll call you an idiot. Or both.
No, your diet is completely irrelevant. The fact that you implicity want others to be pressured into choosing your diet is the crux of the matter.
Hey, you’re absolutely free to make any choice you like, and to discuss those choices at length. However, if you state or imply that your choice A is better than other people’s choice B becuase B is comparable to getting a spike driven up your ass, then you can expect to be challenged from people who think the spike connection is complete bullshit.
That’s what I thought. I have an opinion that I want other people to share, and that makes me an idiot. Who exactly has the right to try to influence other people’s decisions through discussion if apparently I don’t? The SATIRICAL SITUATION outlined in my first paragraph was obviously not meant to be taken at such face value, so I don’t know why you’re acting like it’s the crux of my argument. I didn’t say anything about stupidity or brainwashing either.