OK Fatso! How Many Big Macs This Week?

[caesar]

If we are to "ban" ads from McDonalds; we would have to ban ads from coke and pepsi; too much of these soft drinks certainly is not healthy. Too much of any one type of food is unhealthy. People have to take responsibility for their own choices. Easy to try to blame McDonalds when it is our own lack of control which is too blame. I would bet there are many people who are obese or chubby from a lack of strength to push themselves away from the dinner table or consuming too many desserts. Parents treating their children to too many chocolate bars.

I am not a fan of McDonald's burgers and very seldom eat them but some of their new sandwiches look very good ; they do have pretty good coffee which recently is gettting difficult to find downtown.

Eat right and exercise even if it means just going for a walk. Take responsibility for your own choices.

(ps. despite the name; I am not fat)

[daniel]

These two paragraphs sound like you are on the same side of the issue opposing both. Sure didn't sound like you supported the legalization of pot.

Maybe you support homosexuality too? Please clarify.

I believe everything I said about the negative aspects of both homosexuality and marijuana. I also believe that it is absolutely none of my business what consensual acts other people get up to. Therefore, I believe passing laws against consensual acts is unethical no matter how destructive those acts may be.

Sorry, I must clarify myself. I wasn't criticizing your position. I was questioning what your positions were. Those two paragraphs sounded like you were opposed to both homosexuality and pot.

I was confused when I read in later posts that you supported legalized pot and homosexuality.

There's a new TV ad campaign in Ontario right now which labels smokers as "stupid." Do you think they'd support a campaign to label homosexuals as "stupid"? Why not? Either statistically risky behaviour is stupid or it isn't, no?

Smoking is a habit that one can change. Homosexuality isn't. But the practice of non-safe sex is "stupid" regardless of gender preference.

[Hugo]

Smoking is a habit that one can change. Homosexuality isn't.

That is debatable. I won't get into it now, but suffice it to say that I know someone who decided they were gay and then changed their mind a year later and decided they were straight again. It is not clear-cut.

But the practice of non-safe sex is "stupid" regardless of gender preference.

No, it is not "stupid". You are falling into exactly the same kind of trap here. Because a person makes different choices and has different values to you does not make them stupid.

The "stupid" campaign is an attempt to label one value-set as stupid and another, by inference, as intelligent. This is exactly the kind of mistake that MS and ndpnic are making: eating fast-food is not stupid, it's just a choice, and because you would not make that choice does not make those who do make it stupid.

People have to take responsibility for their own choices.

Amen. Give people freedom of choice, but let them bear the consequences of those choices. If a person wants to eat junk food and sit on the couch all day long, that's fine, but should they have a right to appropriate my tax dollars to cure their heart disease?

[Black Dog]

That is debatable. I won't get into it now, but suffice it to say that I know someone who decided they were gay and then changed their mind a year later and decided they were straight again. It is not clear-cut.

Oh come on Hugo: anecdotal evidence is the worst kind. In any case, it is not clear cut simply because sexuality is a continuum, not a bianary.

Carry on.

[daniel]

Smoking is a habit that one can change. Homosexuality isn't.

That is debatable. I won't get into it now, but suffice it to say that I know someone who decided they were gay and then changed their mind a year later and decided they were straight again. It is not clear-cut.

I would diagnose your friend as bi-sexual. His current taste is opposite sex but favourite flavours change.

People don't know themselves sometimes until they accidentally find out about it while reading or listening to the radio about similar experiences of others.

[ndpnic]

First, let me say that I never said fastfood advertising should be banned!

What I said was they should be subject to the same packaging laws as tobacco; smoke packs have graphic pics and info on them. Let the Big Mac have graphic pics and info of obese people on them. I bet alot of us would start healthier eating if thats what you had to look at!

[Hugo]

People don't know themselves sometimes until they accidentally find out about it while reading or listening to the radio about similar experiences of others.

I said I wouldn't get into it, and I won't. A statement such as "homosexuality is not something one can change" is hotly contested and there is certainly enough argument and evidence on each side that there is no consensus, and such a statement evidently cannot be proven sufficiently to reach any kind of consensus. Therefore, I will thank you not to throw opinions around as though they were facts.

Now, do you have anything else?

What I said was they should be subject to the same packaging laws as tobacco; smoke packs have graphic pics and info on them.

Shouldn't cars come from the factory with graphic pictures of mangled corpses from highway accidents on the dashboard, then? As just about everything is dangerous, if your argument is indeed sound, it would be smart to plaster everything in sight with warning labels and graphic pictures.

[ndpnic]

I think graphic pics and info should be placed on Any product that impacts life, health, and tax dollars.

The favorite argument of anti-smokers is the drain on the health care system.

I suspect obesity, cars, and alcohol are a bigger drain!!!

[daniel]

Now, do you have anything else?

Of course, this is a discussion forum isn't it?

Shouldn't cars come from the factory with graphic pictures of mangled corpses from highway accidents on the dashboard, then?

When one is taking driving lessons, the instruction booklet does have pictures of mangled bodies in them. At least mine did when I learned many decades ago.

But automobiles nowadays come from the factory packed with standard safety features. And I might add, those safety features are there due to legislation regardless of the lobbying by the auto manufacturers.

[Hugo]

I think graphic pics and info should be placed on Any product that impacts life, health, and tax dollars... I suspect obesity, cars, and alcohol are a bigger drain!!!

What about power tools? Those must be a drain on the healthcare system. People are in the ER all the time after construction-related accidents. Don't we need graphic warnings on power tools? What about showerheads? You might get scalded! And don't get me started on kitchen knives! We'll have to make the handles two feet long to fit all the warnings and graphics on there, but hey, anything for health and safety... right?

But automobiles nowadays come from the factory packed with standard safety features. And I might add, those safety features are there due to legislation regardless of the lobbying by the auto manufacturers.

Legislation? Richard Nixon tried to outlaw airbags, and the first act of the FDA was to press charges against Coca-Cola for removing cocaine from their beverage. I can find you plenty more examples where legislation has acted against the best interests of the consumer. For instance, perhaps you've heard of the drug Alleve. It's legal in the USA, banned in Canada. Either the American government is allowing Americans to take an unsafe drug, or the Canadian government is needlessly denying Canadians a perfectly good option for pain relief. In either case, one legislative body is doing harm to those it is supposed to protect.

Now tell me, what legislation makes car manufacturers put ABS and EBD systems in cars? What piece of law encourages them to install side airbags and window curtain airbags? Why is it that car manufacturers struggle to exceed federal crash-survival ratings and compete with each other for resilience in a crash? What makes them install large ventilated disc brakes on all wheels, making them stop in far shorter distances than listed in government guidelines? Why has Mercedes developed a system that will automatically keep a car on the highway in its lane and a safe distance from other vehicles if the driver should fall asleep?

I think that market forces, not legislation, make cars safe. People want to drive safe cars, and manufacturers want to sell them safe cars. Plain and simple. If there were no legislation of the automotive industry at all, I'd bet that cars would actually be safer than they are now. For instance, Ford is fighting a class action lawsuit at the moment because in some of their trucks the doors come open during a collision. Their defence is that the doors met federal safety standards! Now if those standards did not exist, they would not have a defence, would they? In that event, to avoid the lawsuit (which would most probably have gone against them) they probably would have tried to make their doors safer from the outset, rather than just scraping by at what the government had decided was an acceptable minimum.

When one is taking driving lessons, the instruction booklet does have pictures of mangled bodies in them. At least mine did when I learned many decades ago.

You can learn to drive and get a license without ever seeing an instruction booklet. I did.

[August1991]

Hugo,

Stuff (cars, pills, power tools) are sometimes bad.

Does it not make sense that we rely on someone else to determine whether this stuff is bad? (Several million people each testing a pill for poison is dumb, no?)

Does it not make sense that we only need one person to make the test? (Once we know the pill is poison, do we have to test it again?)

Hugo, does it not make sense to have only one person do the pill test for us?

That one person, is he or she not the "government"?

[daniel]

No it doesn't make sense. Governments are bad and they waste taxpayers' hard earned money. It'll be inevitable that the government service who tests the poison pill will spend too much doing it. It's always more efficient to let private individuals perform that task because they know where to do the spending. Let the market forces decide. If the pill turns out to be poison, it's sales would slump and the company producing it would go out of business. Simple as that.

[Hugo]

Does it not make sense that we rely on someone else to determine whether this stuff is bad?

Sure. I assume you're familiar with Consumer Guide, Reseller Ratings, and so on. Most online stores now have databases of customer reviews, for instance.

Does it not make sense that we only need one person to make the test? (Once we know the pill is poison, do we have to test it again?)

Hugo, does it not make sense to have only one person do the pill test for us?

No, that's a bad idea. All it takes is for that one person to make a mistake, forget something, have a bad day at the office, take a bribe and the whole test is worthless.

Let me ask you this. Say you were going to spend $20,000 on a car. Would you read one review of it and base your purchasing decision on that? Or would you read several reviews, go on the web and look for recall information, ask other owners what they thought of it, etc.?

That one person, is he or she not the "government"?

Depends - is he or she using violence to maintain a monopoly?

[August1991]

Sure. I assume you're familiar with Consumer Guide, Reseller Ratings, and so on.

Of course, and these agencies are "gouvernement", by another name.

Governments are bad and they waste taxpayers' hard earned money.

Wal-Mart seems good at picking what is good to buy. Are the Liberals or PCs or NDP any different?

Let me ask you this. Say you were going to spend $20,000 on a car. Would you read one review of it and base your purchasing decision on that? Or would you read several reviews, go on the web and look for recall information, ask other owners what they thought of it, etc.?

I want good info. And I don't want to filter through the bad info. I pay you, as an agent, to figure it out for me.

Hugo, sometimes this makes sense. That's government. (Hugo, have you ever hired a lawyer?)

[Hugo]

Of course, and these agencies are "gouvernement", by another name.

No, August, they are not, by any stretch of the imagination. "Government" does not mean "whatever August1991 thinks it should mean today so that he can play silly games", it means a political body with a monopoly over law and justice in a given geographical region backed by violence or threat thereof. Consumer Guide and Reseller Ratings do not fit that description in any way.

I pay you, as an agent, to figure it out for me. Hugo, sometimes this makes sense. That's government.

Government is not an agent you hire. Government is an agent who forces you to hire him and violently attacks anyone else trying to get in on his market. Yes, I have hired a lawyer, and no, hiring a lawyer is nothing like government. For one thing, there were many lawyers I could have retained in my geographical area.

Stop talking nonsense now. Don't make me start pasting from dictionary.com.

Wal-Mart seems good at picking what is good to buy. Are the Liberals or PCs or NDP any different?

Yes. Wal-Mart spends their own funds. The Liberals, PCs and NDP spend other people's funds.

[August1991]

I'll start here.

Yes. Wal-Mart spends their own funds. The Liberals, PCs and NDP spend other people's funds.

Wal*Mart spends 'my' money, just as the Liberal Party supposedly spends 'my' money too.

Hugo, I see the big difference between the PLC and Walmart. But they are both non-market institutions.

I give corporations thousands of dollars every year, and I choose which corporation gets my dollar.

I give governments thousands of dollars every year, and I choose a political party every so often.

Huh?

I fear the Leftists on this Forum won't get my point. (The Leftists who think Corporations are worse than Governments. Suits vs. suits. All Yes Men.)

----

Nevertheless, the government is an agency worth having. Why have two poison pill testers?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

I fear the Leftists on this Forum won't get my point. (The Leftists who think Corporations are worse than Governments. Suits vs. suits. All Yes Men.)

The gov't hasn't got the resources to be as 'evil' as corporations. (I'm sure Hugo will disagree based on whom of the two has a monopoly on 'violence') If there is a 'big brother' out there, it is surely corporate America and not the Canadian Gov't. The gov't does not have the resources to use huge media campaigns, attempt subliminal advertising, assign 'spyware' to your home computer, spam you, or any of the other nefarious means of coersion available to them that 'the market' does.

[willy]

Name one corporation in Canada that is the size of the

Canadian Government. Name one Corporation in Canada that has $180 billion in annual revenue generated within our boarders.

Oh they have plenty of resources and they are the largest organization within our boarders.

[August1991]

The gov't does not have the resources to use huge media campaigns, attempt subliminal advertising, assign 'spyware' to your home computer, spam you, or any of the other nefarious means of coersion available to them that 'the market' does.

Gov't does not have the resources? WTF?

Let's be honest, Thelonious.

There are two people: One can take money from your bank account at any time. The other must convince you to give it money.

For some reason, you are suspicious of one person but not the other. Why?

Thelonious, ever heard of a Rambler? What happened to Eaton's? Why didn't these corporations use "subliminal advertising"?

Government is not an agent you hire.

It is. Government is like an insurance company, or a lawyer, or family.

But agreed, a country is something else again.

[Hugo]

Wal*Mart spends 'my' money, just as the Liberal Party supposedly spends 'my' money too.

Wrong. Wal-Mart hopes that you will voluntarily give them your money in exchange for goods and services. The governing party takes your money by force in exchange for whatever they deem you are worthy of, which is often nothing, or services that are worth less than nothing (e.g. the "service" of imprisoning you for smoking pot or riding without a motorcycle helmet).

Nevertheless, the government is an agency worth having. Why have two poison pill testers?

The Space Shuttle has three main computers. They do not share the workload, the workload is tripled and they perform exactly the same computing tasks at the same time, in parallel. The reason behind this is that if any one computer should malfunction, the other two can "vote" the faulty calculation off the network and catastrophe can be avoided.

August would say that this is unnecessary, because in his world, hardware never malfunctions, software never has bugs, and people never make mistakes or lie.

The gov't does not have the resources to use huge media campaigns, attempt subliminal advertising, assign 'spyware' to your home computer, spam you, or any of the other nefarious means of coersion available to them that 'the market' does.

The funny thing is that "the market" has also provided antidotes to all of those problems. Tivo will skip TV commercials, and the Zap will hang up on telemarketers for you. Hotmail and Thunderbird will filter out your spam. Ad-Aware and Seek and Destroy will remove spyware from your computer, and if you don't want to get spyware in the first place, run Linux.

Oh they have plenty of resources and they are the largest organization within our boarders.

Exactly. I believe that in the US, the government has a larger turnover and employs more people than all Fortune 500 companies put together.

But the thing that should concern you the most, willy, is that unlike a corporation, the government has the power to imprison you or even kill you if you don't do their bidding.

It is. Government is like an insurance company, or a lawyer, or family.

I can choose a different insurance company or lawyer or divorce my wife, estrange my parents and start a new family without leaving my house. Can I choose a different government?

[Cartman]

Name one corporation in Canada that is the size of the Canadian Government. Name one Corporation in Canada that has $180 billion in annual revenue generated within our boarders.

By "resources", I don't think that fleabag just meant revenue, I thought that it meant that governments are under much greater scrutiny than are corps. (esp. private ones) in their day to day operations.

[willy]

Cartman, what did he mean by resources then.

They have employees, building, transport, airplanes, media, PR staff, taxing authority, law making ability and jailing authority.

Now corporations have regulators, media and shareholders. They do bad things and they get caught and then the stock value goes down and the company goes through layoffs and fires the executive. If they are lucky the company may survive but the people are gone. Example World Com that is now MCI.

In government they have a commission. We still have the Liberals.