[Zimphire]

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...th/8156634.htm

[dcolton]

Yeah, now the conservatives are fighting to abridge the rights of obese Americans now.

[typoon]

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=205225

Not sure how you can call it a conservative conspiracy when all they are trying to do is to lessen the amount of frivolous lawsuits brought on by people who don't want to take responsibility for there actions and have to blame others for something they caused themselves. The blame someone else then sue that other person for there own stupidity.

[DBursey]

For a liberal, personal responsibility extends to and includes a measure of collective responsibility.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by typoon:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=205225

Not sure how you can call it a conservative conspiracy when all they are trying to do is to lessen the amount of frivolous lawsuits brought on by people who don't want to take responsibility for there actions and have to blame others for something they caused themselves. The blame someone else then sue that other person for there own stupidity.

The topic was a joke.

[macvillage.net]

Yawn.

Fast Food companies don't shove food down your throat, or force you to go there.

You go there willingly, you eat willingly, you know it's bad for you. You enjoy it.

There's no basis for a lawsuit in that.

This is no different than hurting yourself with a knife you buy at Walmart. Walmart isn't liable for injury with an object it's understood is a hazard.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Yawn.

Cigarette companies don't shove cigarettes down your throat, or force you to buy them.

You buy them willingly, you smoke willingly, you know it's bad for you. You enjoy it.

There's no basis for a lawsuit in that.

This is no different than hurting yourself with a knife you buy at Walmart. Walmart isn't liable for injury with an object it's understood is a hazard.

edited by spliffmeister

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
edited by spliffmeister

well....not exactly. Although I agree both are issues of personal responsibility, there is a difference from the corporate end that involves differing levels of corporate responsibility.

Whoppers™ are not inherently harmful to the consumer, only through long periods of overconsumption, unbalanced consumption, and even then they are only part of the pattern of the consumer's habits which cause obesity. The fast food industry complies with area health standards.

Cigarettes, on the other hand, ARE inherently harmful, are directly linked to cancer and other diseases, are intentionally formulated to be MORE addictive through additives which are themselves carcinogenic. Further, tobacco companies have a tradition of outlawyering those who bring complaints against them and historically stonewall government investigations into their practices. The surgeon general has determined cigarettes to be outright harmful.

Do you see the difference?

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Cigarettes, on the other hand, ARE inherently harmful, are directly linked to cancer and other diseases, are intentionally formulated to be MORE addictive through additives which are themselves carcinogenic.

sorry, have to disagree with you here. the same could be said for fastfood. it has a lot of things in it that makes it "addicive". not to mention the advertising, the money factor etc. it's all the same issue of "structure".

oh, and the predisposition to "crave" addictive substances (and the related behavior) is genetic. so much for personal responsibility.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
edited by spliffmeister

Yep.

You do something stupid... you deserve it.

I think my friend deserves money from Ford, because he went out joyriding in the snow, and recked his car. It's ford's fault he went around a turn over 50Mph, when at most, it says 30 (for dry days).

Why doesn't Ford owe him? It's ford's fault the car couldn't handle that, despite the car being physically able to go that fast. No warning on the car saying down't go 50 around a corner designed for 30.

Ford owes him!





Why can't people just kill themselves without involving lawyers?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by DBursey:
For a liberal, personal responsibility extends to and includes a measure of collective responsibility.

Power without responsibility is tyranny. Responsibility without power is futile. The two must go hand in hand in order for anything good to occur.

This is the major ideological point of most conservatives (relative to modern America): You are not entitled to anything that you do not take responsibility for, but you cannot be forced into responsibility for anything without your consent. This may mean that no one takes responsibility for something; if this happens, then it happens; it is considered a worse crime to force someone into taking responsibility than for no one to take it.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by DBursey:
For a liberal, personal responsibility extends to and includes a measure of collective responsibility.

I'm a liberal. But when I think of collective responsibility, I think of things like environmental regulations and shared burden of costs that enrich/enable the society we live in (roads, libraries, schools, et al) ... not policing people's overconsumption of things which, if taken in moderate quantities, are harmless.

Note, if you read the text of the article, it just says "Democrats said the industry did not need the protection" -- not that they we're for the types of suits that this bill bans. Realistically, this bill was probably just a waste of time ... I have a hard time believing anyone could win a suit like that since there are plenty of mom n' pop greasy spoons out there that would be just a liable. I can't believe they even felt the need to waste time bothering with such a bill.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
sorry, have to disagree with you here. the same could be said for fastfood. it has a lot of things in it that makes it "addicive". not to mention the advertising, the money factor etc. it's all the same issue of "structure".

Whoa, there. Fast food is not in same league with nicotine in terms of addictiveness. The dramatic neuroendocrine changes that occur after a drag on cigarette are not associated with chomping a Big Mac. Physical dependence does not occur with fast food as it does with nicotine.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Whoa, there. Fast food is not in same league with nicotine in terms of addictiveness. The dramatic neuroendocrine changes that occur after a drag on cigarette are not associated with chomping a Big Mac. Physical dependence does not occur with fast food as it does with nicotine.

Exactly. There is no physiological component to any "addiction" to fast food (therefore, it actually violates the medical definition of addiction). Compulsive behavior (the correct term for "addictions" without a physiological component) may arise, but this is very seldom the cause of fast food itself; there is virtually always some other component at work, usually having something to do with the target's life. This is not the concern of any food provider; it is the concern of each individual, and any professionals from which they might seek help.

Should alcoholics be able to sue liquor stores? If we go by this idea that a store can be responsible for the behavior of its customers, then an alcoholic (who usually has a physical component to the addiction) has a much stronger case than someone who has overeaten fast food. And yet, even most liberals would call that scenario ridiculous. Why is fast food being singled out?

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Whoa, there. Fast food is not in same league with nicotine in terms of addictiveness. The dramatic neuroendocrine changes that occur after a drag on cigarette are not associated with chomping a Big Mac. Physical dependence does not occur with fast food as it does with nicotine.

maybe not on the same level, for sure. but in as much as it does contain highly addictive additives they are very similar. on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of addictiveness, if cigs are a 10, then fastfood is certainly a solid 6.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Exactly. There is no physiological component to any "addiction" to fast food (therefore, it actually violates the medical definition of addiction). Compulsive behavior (the correct term for "addictions" without a physiological component) may arise, but this is very seldom the cause of fast food itself;

nope. there are things in fastfood that make it a lot more addictive then any other regular "food". the second component that usually plays a role, is a person's genetic predisposition towards addictive substances, which usually gives rise to, what you have termed, "compulsive behaviour". lifestyle and life effecting decisions are, by and lanrge, heavily influenced by these two factors. (another factor, which is even more important than the two afore mentioned, is the "structural availability" of food).

if we would follow your argument, - why not legalize heroin, cocaine, pot, pcp, or mdma? after all, it's a person's "choice" to engage in substance abuse. - works both ways.

[theolein]

I agree that the issue of obesity (in plainspeak: fatness), is one of personal responsibility....


to a large extent. Suing McD or whoever because you're fat is ridiculous. ON the other hand the fact that processed food is cheaper and more readily available in the US as compared to natural food is a fact as well, and one that probably contributes just as much to obesity as well as the sedentiary lifestyles (in plainspeak: sitting all day) of large numbers of people who no longer walk, use public transport or bicycles.

I was a bit shocked on my visit to the US in 2001 to find that fresh vegetables are so hard to find compared to processed stuff.

In any case: suing the industry for obesity is ridiculous, but the industry should NOT be protected from willfully ignoring harmful additives in food that are known to be dangerous. By this I mean if company X adds chemical Y to food product Z and X is known to cause some health disorder then there definitely should be avenues for consumers to protect themselves. I say this because the food industry is like any other industry and is there to make a buck. If adding chemical X to the food is cheaper than safe chemical A, for instance, and they can get away with it, they most probably will.

They do NOT have your best interest in mind, but their own.

[Captain Obvious]

Spoken like a true fat guy who doesn't think its possible to stop shoving those fries down because they are too yummy. Dammed those companies for putting additives that contribute to the taste of otherwise gray bland processed meat. If they only made it taste like charcoal no one would have to deal with it not to mention that they would be out of business so availability wouldn't be a problem for us either.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
nope. there are things in fastfood that make it a lot more addictive then any other regular "food".

Let's hear the names of these substances, and how physically addictive they are considered to be.

if we would follow your argument, - why not legalize heroin, cocaine, pot, pcp, or mdma? after all, it's a person's "choice" to engage in substance abuse. - works both ways.

This is an unfair comparison, because the drugs you've mentioned have physically-addictive components. Fast food does not, unless they've started lacing the stuff with nicotine or something.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Spoken like a true fat guy who doesn't think its possible to stop shoving those fries down because they are too yummy. Dammed those companies for putting additives that contribute to the taste of otherwise gray bland processed meat. If they only made it taste like charcoal no one would have to deal with it not to mention that they would be out of business so availability wouldn't be a problem for us either.

well if it contributes to profit...well then....yeah right, whatever.

news flash: corporate profit is not more important than public health! hello!!!!

there is enough food out there which tastes great without the (addictive) additives. go figure!

oh, and i am anything but fat!

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by theolein:
to a large extent. Suing McD or whoever because you're fat is ridiculous.

oh, and that automatically makes it an issue of "personal responsibility"...

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Let's hear the names of these substances, and how physically addictive they are considered to be.

This is an unfair comparison, because the drugs you've mentioned have physically-addictive components. Fast food does not, unless they've started lacing the stuff with nicotine or something.

fwiw

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:


there is enough food out there which tastes great without the (addictive) additives. go figure!

Exactly, so then people have the choice to buy it or not. If they get fat because they continue to buy foods that are bad for them then that is a matter of choice. Not that it matters anymore because your POV lost.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Exactly, so then people have the choice to buy it or not. If they get fat because they continue to buy foods that are bad for them then that is a matter of choice. Not that it matters anymore because your POV lost.

nope. it sure hasn't.

of course, it would boil down again to the, "is everything a personal responsibility?", issue. well, yes and no. of course, in the end the indidvidual makes a conscious decision wether he or she actually engages in "addictive" behaviour (that also goes for drugs like mdma, pot, alcohol, or anything else that might be addictive, btw).

but i am absolutely fu<kining sick and tired of hearing this stupid a$$ conservative apologist rethoric for those in power.

it's a good thing that there are many studies out there that make light of the issues involving the factor of "genetic predisposition" and the actual effects of addictive substances on the brain. peole who zealously argue for the "personal responsibility" factor simply act as apologists for those in power and profit from the different factors involved.

afaic, i have made it a point in my life to ignore anything based on this conservative rubbish. all i need to know is "how things actually work". that is enough for me to make a firm personal decision.

the alcohol lobby, the tabacco industry and fast food corps know damn well whats going on. and there is no fu<king way they aren't going to at least shoulder a part of the responsibility. frivolous law suits are one thing, using the "false attribution theory (error)" to constantly put those under pressure who are in a "non power situation", is something completely different. especially when taking all factors into consideration. not just "personal responsibility".

so, actually, your side of the argument "lost". as usual. sorry, no "position of power" to argue from here.

[andi*pandi]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
edited by spliffmeister

I basically agree with you Spliff, you can apply parallelism from Big Cheeseburger to Big Tobacco.

BUT as I said in the other thread... the difference I see in this is that Big Tobacco used to advertise smoking as healthy and refreshing, which is misleading false advertising. McDonalds never said a Big Mac was health food. Granted those smoking ads were 50 years ago--anyone who started smoking 20 years ago (or after the Surgeon Generals warning was put on the package) should not have benefited from that lawsuit.

http://www.chickenhead.com/truth/kool1.html

(a fun site, courtesy of google)

[Millennium]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
fwiw

So accoring to this article, fats and simple sugars can prove addictive when injected into the brain.

This still does not render fast food in any way responsible. There are two reasons for this. One, fast food is not, last I checked, directly injected into the brain. Two, fats and simple sugars occur in nearly all foods, and it is therefore unfair to single fast food out; all food is then "responsible".

From the article:

Hoebel says: "Highly palatable foods and highly potent sexual stimuli are the only stimuli capable of activating the dopamine system with anywhere near the potency of addictive drugs."

Well, yes; that's human evolution at work for you. If one didn't eat, one would die. If one didn't reproduce, the species would go extinct. These are basic instincts which have been around for many thousands of years longer than fast food, and can be triggered by many other kinds of foods.

You choose what you eat. You can choose what not to eat. If you do not choose moderation, that is no one's fault but your own.

[Millennium]

Actually, let me ask you an honest question, phoenixboy.

We all know that moderation (as well as overeating) are choices. That is a fact. The dubious science posted by this lawyer you mention notwithstanding, there is no evidence that there is any physically addictive component to fast food. One of these choices -overeating- brings instant gratification, but has negative long-term consequences. The other -moderation- lacks these consequences, but can make for less gratification (and sometimes inconvenience or even true hardship) in the short term. This is a theme which holds true not only for eating, but most things in life.

I am trying to figure out what exactly your problem with this situation is. But I've found a theme among a lot of people who share your viewpoints (that a store can be held liable for the actions of its customers). It seems to be a problem with the idea that a mistake can have long-term (or even permanent) negative effects on a person's life. It is possible to royally screw yourself over with a single mistake, and a lot of people seem to believe that this is unjust.

Is this the problem you have with this situation? Would you prefer a reality where it was the worst possible consequences of a person's choices were temporary at the absolute worse, effectively producing infinite "second chances"? Do you think it could be done without severely limiting the positive consequences of choices a person could make?

This is honest curiosity. It seems to me as though those who favor the abandonment of personal responsibility have pure intentions: they want to be sure it's not possible to screw up your life with a single mistake. My problem with this is that while it limits the depths to which one can sink, it also inherently limits the heights to which one can rise, and I consider that to be a far greater crime than the status quo.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It is possible to royally screw yourself over with a single mistake, and a lot of people seem to believe that this is unjust.

Tis a good question.

But couldn't you screw yourself over even quicker with a screw driver, chainsaw, knife, or other sharp object? Guns, cars&bridges/trees, gasoline, oil, a stove...

They all acn do it in a single mistake.

It's all about choices. I think the big issue here is that fast food makes money, and people want money. Nothing more.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
maybe not on the same level, for sure. but in as much as it does contain highly addictive additives they are very similar. on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of addictiveness, if cigs are a 10, then fastfood is certainly a solid 6.

The New Scientist article you pointed out contains some interesting claims. I would like to read more about the studies mentioned in it.

One question that came to mind: if fats stimulate the same pathways as heroin, as one study claims, that would imply that you could subsitute a heroin addict's fix with a Big Mac or two. Maybe we could even treat addicts with cheeseburgers instead of methadone.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Tis a good question.
It's all about choices.

Then how free are we exactly?

[Krusty]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Maybe we could even treat addicts with cheeseburgers instead of methadone.

Hey .. and those cheeseburgers would balance out the emaciation often associated with heroin addiction. Voyageur, you're a bloody genius

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...th/8156634.htm

"Nothing personal: it is only business"

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Millennium:
My problem with this is that while it limits the depths to which one can sink, it also inherently limits the heights to which one can rise, and I consider that to be a far greater crime than the status quo.

millennium:

actually, the idea about having 2nd and third chances in life is very appealing to me, yes. not that a single choice of food could seriously screw up your life (unless it was poisonous ), but with other things, certainly yes.

what makes the situation worse, is that people who have certain advantages in life (let's face it, most of the time financial), do have second, third and in some cases infinite chance. which is, ultimately, not only very unfair (yeah i know, life isn't "fair"), but beyond that very hypocritical.

"trial and error" is an okay philosophy for sciences and other things in life, but when it comes to people's existences and prosperity, there should be (and am almost 100% sure in the future will be) other determining factors (though i do believe "personal responsibility" is important. but i also think it should be "self administered"). people can excel without external pressures, as well as "fail" without them. it is my firm belief that everything people produce and have produced, which bears the mark of excellence, was done from "internally motivating" factors (see davinci, einstein, bohr, kant, newton etc.).

to me the "personal responsibility" (false attribution error), is (especially when it comes to "politics") nothing but a means, a method, to get people to "comply" (by either psychological or physical force). the threat of failure, a mediaeval torture instrument (akin to "blackmail"). religion (on a certain level) pretty much works the same way (it's all been very well documented, and researched). another thing that the "personal responsibility" philosophy does, is that it cleanly opens up the possibility for the arbitrary abuse of power. in the end, it is just a matter of where you (and who gets to) draw the line. and we know who that always is...

in regards to the issue of "fast food", i think a far bigger problem than the fact that most fast food chains add, and design their food around, highly addictive substances (without a doubt to maximize profits, regardless of consequences to public health), is that food which is potentially health threatening and which contributes to obesity IN ALMOST ALL CASES IS A LOT CHEAPER AND EASIER TO ACCESS than healthy food.

i recently heard a very interesting commentary on the radio where people actually conducted a study in which they researched the "structural availability" of food, and how that factor practically de-terminates the level of "fatness" and obesity in a culture (i hope i can find a link to that on the net somewhere).

on a personal note, over the last few weeks i have decided to lose a few pounds to get into shape for the summer. i made it a point to buy only fresh fruits, vegetables, and other very healthy low fat, low sugar groceries. i can tell you first hand, - a lot more!!! expensive than picking up a burger at macdonalds etc. plus much harder to come by as well.

i believe, if getting a salad and other healthy food etc. was easier and cheaper than simply walking into a macdonalds, and picking up burger and fries, "being overweight" wouldn't be such a tremendous public health issue. but the way things are right now, it is just the other way around.

i enjoy some fries or a shake at mcds every once in a while, and that's okay. everything in moderation. hey, that way even a little thc and coke can be fun