Printable View
NOT THE BEST SOURCE, but it was all I could come up with. If anyone else finds a more reputable source, link to it.Quote:
Congress has two bills before it, one in the Senate and one in the House, designed to limit the fast-food industry's liability for consumer obesity. Neither bill limits the right of consumers to bring a lawsuit based on false or misleading advertising.
I think I'm glad about this potential legislation.
I like it. Tobacco companies should get the same protection.
Yeah, this bill is GREAT, we really need to protect those poor multi-billion dollar conglomerates from the wicked consumers.
Hey, after the bill is railroaded through the corporate enslaved Congress and signed into law by a man who can't swallow a pretzel without putting his life in danger, we should sink an oil tanker off the Alaskan coast and roast some marshmellows over the miles and miles of burning crude oil!
No, it's more like the "wicked consumers" need to take responsibility for their own fuckin' actions. Eat a lot of fast food, you get fat. It's your fault. Period.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
So what you're saying is that we should deny any sence of consumer responsability, because "McDonalds made me eat those burgers," yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
This isn't about "protecting" the corporations. It's about protecting the judicial system from these rediculous frivilous law suits.
Way to not know what the Hell you're talking about.
I agree with the ends of the bill, but its totally misplaced.
The problem is that the courts need to be able to decide liability. This is just a bandaid on the gaping wound. It's not really going to fix anything, and in fact it sets a bad precendent and undermines the power of the legal branch of government.
The legal system needs to come up with better standards for corporate liability. They can't just let congress tell them who can and can't be sued. This is just testing the water for legislation to protect tobacco companies and gun manufacturers and other special intrests and undermine the power of our courts.
I agree that it's totally ridiculous that companies can be sued over this, but I think it's something the courts need to work out. There's an epidemic of frivolous law suits and this is just the beginning, and it can't and shouldn't be fixed by arbitrary congressional guidelines.
They advertised for them, they encourage you to eat them, but no where in the "i'm lovin' it" commericals do I see a fat motherfucker struggling to get up or clutching his chest from the stroke all the cholesterol gave him. Its simple, McDonalds lies to us by omission.
Should the consumer accept some responsibility? Yes. However, McDonalds is no stranger to being called out on lies concerning their products. This clearly makes them eligible for prosecution.
Veggie, before you throw your lot behind "poor, poor McDonalds" I suggest you do some reading. I'll give you some places to start.
Here and Here
I can't resist this one: "Practice what you preach."Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
*temper check*
Not everyone here seems to understand.
Listen to me closely:
IF YOU EAT TOO MUCH FOOD AND DON'T EXERCISE, YOU WILL GET FAT!!!!!
Eating too much of ANYTHING makes you fat. If you don't exercise, you will get fat. If you think that fast food chains are responsible for people getting obese, then you are an idiot and should learn to take responsibility for your fucking life.
I'm flabberghasted. Essentially what you are syaing is that "Yes, CV, I believe in removing all accountability from the consumer."Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
McDonald's omits nothing. The nutritional value of each McDonald's item is available to anyone who would care to ask. If this "fat MF" doesn't care enough to know what he is putting into his body, that's on him, not McD's.
McD's isn't forcing his hand to purchase their food, nor are they employing any type of mind control device to capture him against his will through their advertising, as you would suggest.
It is his fault he is fat. Not the corporation.
I am well aware of nearly all of McD's VALID legal suits. According to this legislation, these cases will still be valid. It does not limit a consumer's right to sue based on false advertising.Quote:
Should the consumer accept some responsibility? Yes. However, McDonalds is no stranger to being called out on lies concerning their products. This clearly makes them eligible for prosecution.
Veggie, before you throw your lot behind "poor, poor McDonalds" I suggest you do some reading. I'll give you some places to start.
Here and Here
You persist in missing the point. It's almost like you actually want to be ignorant.
I do, my friend. I do.Quote:
I can't resist this one: "Practice what you preach."
That applies to essentially all advertising. The ability to discern reality from fantasy is something any intelligent human being should possess. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't associate lots of fast food with obesity. This isn't a mystery or a sudden, unexpected phenomenon. It's really just lazy people who like the idea of getting money for their own inadequacies. Which is sickening.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Well, yeah, obviously.
The point here isn't whether or not McDonalds should pay for making people fat, that's absurd, the point is that McDonalds LIES to the consumer and deserves to pay for it. You know why you don't see cigarette commercials anymore? Because they were filled with happy, healthy, smiling people. They were perpetuating a lie, and the government clearly called them out on it. Someday, hopefully, the same will go for all things that are unhealthy for you. They'll be there, but it will be YOUR CHOICE to indulge in them at your own risk instead of being continously bombarded by deceitful advertising.
It is and always will be YOUR CHOICE, slugger. Whether or not the advertising is "deceitful."Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
McDonalds has never lied to the consumer. And if they had, the government would have stepped in. Deceitful advertising is a way of life in America. Should we sue car companies for ruining the earth because their SUV commercials make offroading and driving fuel hungry beasts look like so much fun? Sue beer companies for our alcholism because they insisted beer is nothing but a party?
If one is unable to see the truth behind advertising, then I'm sorry, they're unfortunately too stupid and deserve their fate.
I was trying to be civil about this, but since you seem dead set on being insulting I have no choice but to retort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
If the point isn't holding McDonalds accoutable for false advertising, then what IS the point? What makes a lawsuit frivilous? Is that for you or I to decide? No. I think that's for a judge and jury to decide. I see no reason why Congress has to get involved in something like this.
If in these cases McDonalds is so clearly not accoutable for the effects on the plantiffs then any sane judge would toss the cases out court without a flinch, right? So then, why do these cases persist? Because these judges obviously see something to the claims, if not something immediately liable then something at least worth further investigating.
Wrong, check your facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by lithium
Just because this is true doesn't mean it's not something we shouldn't work toward changing.Quote:
Originally Posted by lithium
I'd be all for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by lithium
See, now you're catching on.Quote:
Originally Posted by lithium
Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising designed to make you want to buy their product. They don't do this by telling you the negative sides of it, and while that's certainly sound business practice it is morally and (more important) legally questionable. I find it ironic that conservatives want people to be more morally conscious, but corporations can be as amoral and deceptive as they like.Quote:
Originally Posted by lithium
The fact that the judges see something with the claims is the problem. The judges themselves seek to gum up the works by allowing for these rediculous cases to actually be heard instead of throwing them out, where they belong. The judges are removing accountability from the consumer. Something the judges were never meant to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
That is why this legislation is good. It gives the consumer back their responcibility, and takes it out of the hands of these judges.
Sorry about the attacks. I'll be more civil.
I don't see this so much as Congress trying to champion consumer responsibility, but trying to appease special interests groups. The judges on the other hand are more (if not altogether completely) independant minded and come at this problem legally, as it was intended.
What False Advertising? I understand about those two cases you linked to AND those cases wouldn't be thrown out. McDonalds does not have a responsibility to tell you to get your fat ass out and exercise. They have every right to advertise to sell their product. It's not like it's addictive like cigarettes, any dipshit that eats a lot of fast food and gets obese deserves what they get. Do we as a nation really need babysitters?Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
g0zen are you trying to sound like an obtuse idiot? Because it's working if you are.
If you don't have enough common sense to understand a bit about the situation you are in, then it's your own damn fault. Taking a cigarette, an item that produces smoke, and inhaling that smoke into your body... if you aren't the least bit bothered by that idea, or don't understand even slightly that that might not be such a good idea, you get what you deserve.
Same thing here. If all you eat is McDonalds food and sit on your fat ass, then you deserve your fat ass. It doesn't take a rocket sceintist to look at, smell, and taste fast food, and understand that maybe it isn't the best quality food in the world.
More and more, Americans are sick of having to take responsibility for their actions. Instead, they just sue everybody. That trend should be stopped.
Damn, that's some impressive, intelligent powers of argument you've got there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Error
Thank you, I try.
There's nothing deceitful about an ad that makes McDonald's fries look good, because you know what? They are. And unless I'm mistaken, not every person who eats at McDonald's becomes fat. In fact, I could get fat just as easily by going out to a really nice restaraunt every single day. Does that mean they should warn me I could get fat from their food, too? You don't seem to want honesty in advertising, you want compaines to show people the worst possible scenario, which is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
McDonald's provides nutritional information for everything they make. If yo're concerned about what you're eating, then ask for it. If you're not, then quit bitching.
...so, what should be done, Mr. Genius- should all fast food advertising be banned? Why not just BAN ALL FATTY FOOD.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
I cannot believe that people like you exist- who really feel that people are not responsible for their actions.
I challenge you to go outside right now and find me ONE sane person who actually believes that eating fatty foods is healthy.
Find me ONE sane person who actually thinks that fast food is healthy.
I'd love to live in your little world- where I can do anything and just BLAME SOMEONE ELSE for my problems.
Your opinion has put me in a bad mood. If I should happen to beat someone up during my lunch break- should I sue YOU that? Should the person I beat up sue you for making me hurt them?
I'm going to eat McDonald's for lunch...because IT FUCKING TASTES GOOD! If I wanted to be healthy, I would eat lettuce and water...
I can't believe this nonsense.
Fat people are fat because they can't stop eating and can't go on a proper diet. Fat genes, my ass. Only Samoans can make that claim.
People eat McDonalds, start to get fat an lazy.
They are lazy so they sit watching tv all day, getting fatter.
They then are subjected to hours and hourse of advertising
And of course, known fact, TV makes you stupid, so they are tricked into believing fast food is good
They go back to McDonalds cause they were lied to
Its a vicious cycle!! We must protect our lazy and ignorant from themselves!! We will sue until they can no longer fit through the courtroom door!! Next we take on WHITE CASTLE...cause its what you crave...!
Samoans are cool peoples. The fact that they're all fat makes them that much more lovable. And they're always so damned jolly. It's like they're a race of Santa Clauses . . . but without all the red . . . and in the middle of the Pacific . . . and black.
Am I the only one here who grasps that this is not the issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
I don't think congress should decide who can and can't be liable. It's not their place. Then again I didn't think the supreme court should have chosen the president either, so maybe I'm just old fashioned.
And second of all congress shouldn't HAVE TO draw this line for them. If the court isn't making this distinction then there's a greater problem that needs to be addressed and this bill won't fix it.
I see what you're problem is with this situation, Frog, but I do not agree with it. The companies need protection against this rediculousness, and Congress should be the ones to give it to them.
As conservative as I am, there are things I believe the government needs to get involved in. This is one of them, the "permanent-temp" is another, as well as jobs going overseas.
Though I'll admit my views aren't so strong on that last one.
What...how can you think that congress has any right to make decisions that rule over the judicial system? Isnt why we have a 3 branch goverment in the first place?!
And how can you compare a few fat people wanting to sue huge corporations over the millions of jobs lost overseas!
It's a patchwork fix. If there needs to be a change in the law, it needs to be a redefinition of the burden of liability, and not just a bar on one kind of suit. It's stupid and it won't fix anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
I agree that if there's a problem with the law, then legislation may be the answer, but not like this. This is just telling them a certian kind of company can't be held liable in a certain kind of case. It's just undermining the legal system's ability to interpret the law, not clarifying the law itself.
The law needs to apply equally to all kinds of companies in the same ways and for the same reasons. It's wildly inappropriate to just give the food industry a waiver instead of letting these things work themselves out by due process. The food industry is not "special". They should be as accountable as anyone else. I don't think companies should be responsible for this kind of common knowledge danger, but that's not just the food industry.
The judicary is responcible for interpreting the law and deciding whether or not the law is constitutional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mman
It is Congress who makes these laws.
In every law ever created, Congress has essentially told the judicary what to do, or "ruled over it."
That's how our system works. It is the Congress' job to define how the judicary finctions.
I'm not comparing them. I was saying that even though I am conservative, I could do with a little more involvement from the government on those issues. That doesn't mean the issues are even remotely related. ;)Quote:
And how can you compare a few fat people wanting to sue huge corporations over the millions of jobs lost overseas!
Ah! I believe we are seeing eye to eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Understood.Quote:
I agree that if there's a problem with the law, then legislation may be the answer, but not like this. This is just telling them a certian kind of company can't be held liable in a certain kind of case. It's just undermining the legal system's ability to interpret the law, not clarifying the law itself.
The law needs to apply equally to all kinds of companies in the same ways and for the same reasons. It's wildly inappropriate to just give the food industry a waiver instead of letting these tings work themselves out by due process.
Man, this shit is unbelievable.
Does McDonald's have deceptive advertising? Not that I've ever seen, other than its disgusting aims towards children (and let's face it, that's hardly a crime or really even wrong).
Let's face it, if Lardy McGreaseballs eats at McDonalds five times a week without bothering to check out the FREELY AVAILABLE nutritional information on their products (not all restaurants make that freely available!), then tough. There's a certain onus on the consumer to figure out this stuff on his own; after all, he's putting this crap into HIS body. McDonald's may not scream out during every commercial, "HEY! THIS SHIT WILL MAKE YOU FAT AND DEAD IF YOU EAT TOO MUCH OF IT!" but they're not exactly obligated to.
It's not like McDonald's is even freaking purporting to be health food. Anyone that's ever bothered to read the freaking nutritional value of a food product knows that highly processed junk is generally bad for you, and McDonald's food is some of the most processed crap out there! Even if not, anyone that doesn't live under a rock knows that all that grease and salt isn't good for you. If you want something free of garbage and relatively healthy, then cook your own damn food! For the cost of two McValue Meals, I can buy deli meat, bread, and cheese (the good stuff) and have enough for ten sandwiches!
But wait, that would mean actually DOING something on the consumers' part, except suing corporations because you ate so many Big Macs that you could cook french fries in your sweat, just because they don't deliver dissertations on something that anyone with a functioning cerebrum should know.
Makes sense to me.
I see it and agree. The court systems of the US should have control over this, and start using that control. People who sue over hot coffee and people who sue Dr.s over the effect of pills should all be laughed at and kicked out of the court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
It's not the fault of McDonalds if you don't know your coffee is hot, it is coffee. It is not a Doctors fault if you have a negative response to something you take that he was not told about. Yes, it is his fault if he prescribes to much, or to little, but not if the pill ends up causing cancer 10 years down the line. Why? Because he only knows as much about it as the Drug-rep and pill manufacture tells him about the pill. It is not his job to buy monkeys and rats and test the pills out for years before he trust them.
The court systems as a whole need to start exercising common sense. Making one law like this isn't going to fix things.
Also, all this rich people hate is just fucking juvenile and stupid. Something is wrong and stays wrong, it doesn’t become ok once it is someone with more money than you. You don’t butcher the system just so you can get some “pay back”.
No, but KFC does, with their whole "Atkins freindly fried chicken diet" ads, which I really think are pushing the line into irresponsible territory. I can only imagine that'd be worse if they were officially legally unaccountable.Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalSphere
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by lithium
No, KFC doesn't. Fried chicken most certainly is Atkins friendly. The only problem with it would be the breading, which isn't so hard to alter. KFC is perfectly fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
I suppose I should also note that I don't really condone Congress getting involved in this crap, in case that isn't clear. The bottom line is, big business and the government aren't necessarily going to look out for you (the consumer), so you have to do that for yourself. If you're unwilling to do that, well, there's this thing called natural selection...
KFC was forced to remove those ads, they were only up for a short while.
And even though diffx deleted his post, I agree with the sentement that the tabacco companies should be aforded the same protection.
And even though diffx deleted his post, I agree with the sentement that the tabacco companies should be aforded the same protection.
And even though diffx deleted his post, I agree with the sentement that the tabacco companies should be aforded the same protection.
Exactly. You have to look out for yourself. This includes not pinning the blame on McDonalds when you become obese from eating there 5 times a week for years. And not suing tobacco companies when you develop lung cancer when everybody knows that smoking cigarettes gives you cancer.Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalSphere
It's still pretty deceptive to call it healthy. Generally those kinds of ads are careful to say things like "in moderation" or "as part of a balanced diet" but the KFC ads really don't and they're deceptive, in my opinion. It makes it sound like you can eat KFC every night and get thin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
I think companies shouldn't be obligated to tell you common sense things, but they shouldn't be feeding you BS pseudo-science to the contrary either.
Assuming KFC is really okay with the Atkins diet (I wouldn't know, since I've never researched that and Atkins seems terrible for the human body anyway), then they are technically being honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
All they said was that it was part of the Atkins diet and could help you lose weight. I don't remember them saying it was necessarily good for you. After all, most of the studies concerning the Atkins diet itself is that it works in making you lose weight, but it wasn't necessarily the healthiest diet in the world to be on.
New Flash: You can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Check the tenants of the Atkins diet.Quote:
I think companies shouldn't be obligated to tell you common sense things, but they shouldn't be feeding you BS pseudo-science to the contrary either.
I think the KFC ads toed the line, not neccessarily crossed it. They bother me. That's all.
The reason tobacco companies are in such shit now is because they ran all these ads back in the 50s that flat out claimed there were no health risks to smoking cigarettes, which, coupled with the addictive nature of cigarettes, made for some serious fall out. But people who started smoking in the last 20 years have no basis to sue, and they're generally not the ones winning any suits.
I think the distinction needs to be made. Truth in advertising is important.
This is true. You can technically lose weight by eating cream-filled tube steak every night, but that will absolutely play hell on your digestive, urinary, and excretory systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
Not that the Atkins diet is necessarily about this, but people have royally screwed themselves up by going on this diet and not being careful about it (like not seeing a DOCTOR first, or not following it correctly). Going on Atkins is just about as risky as eating fast food...
Exactly. Atkins stresses moderation like all diets.Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalSphere
Actually, I'd say it's more risky.Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalSphere
You see, not unlike the KFC ads, I never said it was healthy. Just that it was true. ;)
Hmm a diet baised on eating cream filled tube steak you say? What a great way to help others lose weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalSphere
I don't see how that can be the case. The amount of carbs one eats on an Atkins diet suggests anything but moderation. Any diet that leads to gout (and the Atkins diet has a high occurance of this), can't possibly be moderate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
"The amount of carbs one eats on an Atkins diet suggests anything but moderation"
Exactly. And that's a problem I have with companies trying to play this Atkins angle to get people to buy their products. If someone was trying to do eat differently and asked me if this Atkins chocolate bar would be good, I'd tell them to go eat a real one if they need something like that. This diet nonsense is junk. Everyone is on a diet...a diet is simply what you eat.
In essence, I disagree with most lawsuits against fast food companies.
However, the amount of advertising McDonalds and the like have directed towards children keeps me from siding with them either. Children in America are almost conditioned to accept Happy Meals as part of their life. Adults can make their own choices, but McDonalds would have a better argument for immunity if they didn't focus on children as much as they do.
Children don't make purchasing decisions. Nothing irks me more than parents who say their kids made them buy them stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilykat
That's true, you just need to advertise towards a child enough until they nag their parents into submission.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Lets be honest here. We all know that a big ammount of McDonalds money comes from kids. They are about the only people who give a damn about the place anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilykat
I agree with both Frog and CV on this issue, something more needs to be done but this isn't neccasarily a bad idea. Gozen's logic really suprises me and makes me pretty angry at the same time. I guess computer companies should stop advertising because their products have been known to cause carpal tunnel syndrom, and tissue companies because their tissues can give you a rash and chapped skin from blowing too much.
Yes, clearly in this case television is being an irresponsible parent, and should be held accountable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilykat
This situation is one of the areas where I really break ranks with the American left. I don't know why reducing personal responsibility has become a liberal crusade, except that it the opposes corporate intrests of the right, but it really shouldn't be. People need to cope with their bad decsions. They should not have their lives padded for them. They shouldn't be lied to, and they should have the information they need to make informed decisions, but they should not be able to sue people over their own negligence.
If anything, I think parents should be held more accountable for what their kids do.
I agree that the burden of liability is on the parent for making the decision to buy their child fast food on a regular basis if healthier food is available. I just feel that giving fast food companies like McDonalds immunity would be be less ambiguous if, in exchange, tighter restrictions were placed on advertising these products towards children.
Let's make no bones about it: Ronald McDonald has been trying to work itself into the mindset of children for decades now. Even if a five-year old isn't the one buying the Happy Meal themselves, the constant commercials are designed to place that desire there. "Everybody else eats McDonalds". The idea that a child should grow up eating McDonalds contributes to the overall obesity of our country. That's bad.
I'm not arguing in favor of lawsuits against McDonalds, and against personal responsibility. Just that McDonalds should target only conscious adults with their marketing if they full legal protection from consumers.
I was just arguing the point from the side of the consumer. I don't think the flames sent my way were really necessary, but I doubt any of you give a shit about that.
Suffice it to say that the root of my argument is that this is a matter that should be left up to the courts to decide, instead of giving blanket protection for the companies implicated. That's where I'll stop on the matter.
The courts in the United States of America are a joke, sometimes I think they pass stuff simply because they can with no real grasp on what it can do. I definately think they need to be reformed.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
The courts don't pass anything. They interpret the law as written. They're not there to decide what the law should be, they're there to uphold it as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
I chose the wrong word their, but even still their "interpretations" tend to be pretty messed up at times. I'd go out on a limb to say that the courts are the most corrupt part of our government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Please. The legeslative branch is totally overrun by special intrests, and the special intrests have actually managed to wedge themselve into office in the executive branch. If you don't see something corrupt about the CEO of the largest importer of Iraqi oil making decisions about who to give Iraq's oil to, then I wonder what exactly your definition of corruption is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
There are a few judges who abuse their venue to get press and attention. Justice Roy Moore in Alabama is a fine example. He clearly had no understanding of or intrest in the law. The rougue justices here in jersey issuing marriage liscenses to same sex couples are similar. But as has been demonstrated in both cases, you can't get away with that, and they got what was coming to them.
Did you see the fine print at the bottom of the screen during those ads? It read: "not a low fat, low sodium, low cholesterol food." Hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
I agree. It was extremely funny. ;)