Too fat? No food for you!

[Darth Wong]

What precisely is McDonald's guilty of? Making unhealthy food people like too much?

How about failing to make the health information about their menu clearly visible?

[Master of Ossus]

What precisely is McDonald's guilty of? Making unhealthy food people like too much?

How about failing to make the health information about their menu clearly visible?

Really? I actually find McDonald's health information quite easy to find compared to that of most restaurants. They have a big sign up by the door that gives you the listings of every menu item. It's pretty easy to find online, too. It's not printed on the wrapper, or anything, like foods I prepare myself, but it's not completely hidden (or non-existent) from restauranteurs, either, like in sit-down restaurants that I go to.

[Darth Wong]

What precisely is McDonald's guilty of? Making unhealthy food people like too much?

How about failing to make the health information about their menu clearly visible?

Really? I actually find McDonald's health information quite easy to find compared to that of most restaurants. They have a big sign up by the door that gives you the listings of every menu item. It's pretty easy to find online, too. It's not printed on the wrapper, or anything, like foods I prepare myself, but it's not completely hidden (or non-existent) from restauranteurs, either, like in sit-down restaurants that I go to.

I haven't gone to McDonald's in years, so that may have changed. Also, it may have changed after the film Supersize Me came out and nailed them on that exact point (they claimed that the film did not change anything, but I doubt that).

[Terralthra]

What precisely is McDonald's guilty of? Making unhealthy food people like too much?

How about failing to make the health information about their menu clearly visible?

Without necessarily saying this is true of all McDonald's, all the McDonald's around here have a poster to the side of the ordering queue containing most of their menu's nutritional information, and most of them have a pamphlet holder with even more detailed information. What more would you ask?

[Stark]

Most obese people probably got their 'habit' in their youth, long before McDonald's recent image shakeup. Back when they used polystyrene boxes and never told you shit about what was in anything.

Unlike now, where their boxes are giant ads for how much Australian beef they use and shit. The entire rear surface of their chip boxes are a nuitrional information panel.

[Darth Servo]

Smoking harms people besides the smoker.

So does obesity. Or were you under the delusion that the ONLY smoking related harm to non-smokers is from second-hand smoke?

Let see:

• increased medical costs that ultimately are borne by society.
• Use of hospital space that could be put to better uses.
• Decreased productivity at work.
• Emotional stress to friends and family.

All of these are shared by the obesity problem and smoking.

What ever happened to some degree of personal accountability?

What ever happened to corporate accountability?

What precisely is McDonald's guilty of? Making unhealthy food people like too much?[/quote]
And pretending it isn't all that bad.

What is Phillips Morris guilty of? Making unhealthy product people like too much and pretending it isn't all that bad.

Yet you think we should sue the latter and not the former.

Plenty of places offer healthy food; they aren't nearly as popular. A lot of people clearly want unhealthy food.

Plenty of places don't sell tobacco products either. That doesn't take the heat off of those that do.

Do you think we should outlaw corporations from making food that is any less than perfect because some people can't eat it in moderation?

False dilemma fallacy. Something it either a heart attack waiting to happen or its baby food? Also a false dilemma in the fact that we aren't saying "outlaw or total allowance". Guess what, we aren't outlawing tobacco companies.[/list]

[Darth Servo]

Without necessarily saying this is true of all McDonald's, all the McDonald's around here have a poster to the side of the ordering queue containing most of their menu's nutritional information, and most of them have a pamphlet holder with even more detailed information. What more would you ask?

Yes, and all cigarette packages have that warning from the Surgeon General. That didn't save the Tobacco industry's ass, now did it?

[Master of Ossus]

And pretending it isn't all that bad.

What is Phillips Morris guilty of? Making unhealthy product people like too much and pretending it isn't all that bad.

Yet you think we should sue the latter and not the former.

In fairness, Phillip Morris also deliberately manipulated the nicotine levels in their cigarettes to make them more addictive, and then repeatedly lied about doing so (and even about the fact that nicotine WAS an addictive compound).

[Darth Servo]

In fairness, Phillip Morris also deliberately manipulated the nicotine levels in their cigarettes to make them more addictive, and then repeatedly lied about doing so (and even about the fact that nicotine WAS an addictive compound).

True. And McDonalds does seem to be actively trying to make THEIR food as revolting as possible, if even Mike's dog (may Fuzzy rest in peace) wouldn't eat it.

[Terralthra]

Smoking harms people besides the smoker.

So does obesity. Or were you under the delusion that the ONLY smoking related harm to non-smokers is from second-hand smoke?

Let see:

• increased medical costs that ultimately are borne by society.
• Use of hospital space that could be put to better uses.
• Decreased productivity at work.
• Emotional stress to friends and family.

All of these are shared by the obesity problem and smoking.

As opposed to second hand smoke, which kills people nearby directly, as opposed to nebulous and indirect harms like those you list. Pretending that "kills people besides the user" is equivalent to "causes emotional distress to friends and family" is ludicrous.

To put it another way, at what point are you prepared to stop banning things because they cause "emotional distress" or "increased medical costs"?

What ever happened to corporate accountability?

What precisely is McDonald's guilty of? Making unhealthy food people like too much?

And pretending it isn't all that bad.

What is Phillips Morris guilty of? Making unhealthy product people like too much and pretending it isn't all that bad.

Yet you think we should sue the latter and not the former.

McDonalds makes the health information for their food clearly and easily available to anyone who walks in the door, and said products, while unhealthy, do actually provide nutritional content to the consumer.

Phillip Morris, on the other hand, still denies any link between smoking and cencer, while providing a physiologically addictive, carcinogenic product harmful to anyone who uses it and anyone nearby, with no tangible benefit.

Hmmm, no difference there at all.

Plenty of places offer healthy food; they aren't nearly as popular. A lot of people clearly want unhealthy food.

Plenty of places don't sell tobacco products either. That doesn't take the heat off of those that do.

Yeah, now if you could show me that McDonald's food is physiologically addictive and harms both the consumer of it and anyone nearby directly, immediately, and for a long duration of time, that might matter.

Do you think we should outlaw corporations from making food that is any less than perfect because some people can't eat it in moderation?

False dilemma fallacy. Something it either a heart attack waiting to happen or its baby food? Also a false dilemma in the fact that we aren't saying "outlaw or total allowance". Guess what, we aren't outlawing tobacco companies.

If we treated food like we treat smoking (which is your implied desire, based on the repetitive comparisons), then eating wouldn't be allowed in restaurants, businesses, or within 50 feet of an entrance to a business, in some states.

[Tanasinn]

I can't say I understand why people think that obesity is an issue for the government to address.

Do you also feel the govt shouldn't address the hazards of smoking and other self-destructive-but-corporate-sponsored activities?

What ever happened to some degree of personal accountability?

What ever happened to corporate accountability?

I'm not particularly interested in smoking, no, just so long as I'm not forced to endure its effects and the corporation isn't allowed to lie its way out of the health dangers. You want to kill yourself with smoke for a chemical high? That's fine with me. I feel the same about most things, though I'm iffy on harder drugs due to their incredibly addictive nature.


As for corporate accountability? It's not like McDonald's is shoving the Big Mac down your throat when you sleep. No one is forcing anyone to eat unhealthy food, be it from McDonald's or anywhere else. Fast food's unhealthy nature is commonly-known and has been for years; you've been able to find out just HOW unhealthy by simply asking for a nutrition fact sheet for years, as well.

[Darth Wong]

As for corporate accountability? It's not like McDonald's is shoving the Big Mac down your throat when you sleep. No one is forcing anyone to eat unhealthy food, be it from McDonald's or anywhere else. Fast food's unhealthy nature is commonly-known and has been for years; you've been able to find out just HOW unhealthy by simply asking for a nutrition fact sheet for years, as well.

It is NOT enough to keep fact sheets behind the counter. There's plenty of legal precedent to state that a corporation which sells a product to the public must proactively warn customers about any risks associated with that product. This precedent was established in many, many lawsuits about warning labels.

That's why McDonald's caught heat for not making their nutrition information as visible as possible, and why lawsuits stemming from the period when they tried to keep this information low-key are not entirely without merit.

[Mr. Coffee]

It is NOT enough to keep fact sheets behind the counter.

These days they keep it posted on the wall right next to the counter. Most of the Micky D's I've been to even have them posted on the wall outside next to the drive-thru window.

[Darth Wong]

It is NOT enough to keep fact sheets behind the counter.

These days they keep it posted on the wall right next to the counter. Most of the Micky D's I've been to even have them posted on the wall outside next to the drive-thru window.

Yeah, they do NOW, years after those lawsuits were filed.

[The Spartan]

It has been my observation, on the times that I have no other choice but fast food, that none of the patrons actually read the nutritional information. Hell, I don't read it, but then I'm just trying to get something fast so I can get the hell out of there and get what I need to get done so I can eat real food again.

[Darth Servo]

As for corporate accountability? It's not like McDonald's is shoving the Big Mac down your throat when you sleep. No one is forcing anyone to eat unhealthy food, be it from McDonald's or anywhere else. Fast food's unhealthy nature is commonly-known and has been for years; you've been able to find out just HOW unhealthy by simply asking for a nutrition fact sheet for years, as well.

Once again, one can say the exact same thing about the tobacco industry. No one is forcing anyone to smoke cigarettes either and their health hazards are just as commonly-known.

[Darth Servo]

Smoking harms people besides the smoker.

So does obesity. Or were you under the delusion that the ONLY smoking related harm to non-smokers is from second-hand smoke?

Let see:

• increased medical costs that ultimately are borne by society.
• Use of hospital space that could be put to better uses.
• Decreased productivity at work.
• Emotional stress to friends and family.

All of these are shared by the obesity problem and smoking.

As opposed to second hand smoke, which kills people nearby directly, as opposed to nebulous and indirect harms like those you list. Pretending that "kills people besides the user" is equivalent to "causes emotional distress to friends and family" is ludicrous.

Don't change the subject. The point was "does it cause harm to others", not "how big is the magnitude of the harm" or "what causes the harm". And the answer to the actual question is clearly "yes".

That list was hardly exhaustive. How about the harm done to medical professionals who have to move those people. Ever tried turning a 300 pounder? Few better ways to quickly need a chiropracter.

To put it another way, at what point are you prepared to stop banning things because they cause "emotional distress" or "increased medical costs"?

WHO THE FUCK IS SAYING WE SHOULD COMPLETELY BAN FAST FOOD OR TOBACCO?

What ever happened to corporate accountability?

What precisely is McDonald's guilty of? Making unhealthy food people like too much?

And pretending it isn't all that bad.

What is Phillips Morris guilty of? Making unhealthy product people like too much and pretending it isn't all that bad.

Yet you think we should sue the latter and not the former.

McDonalds makes the health information for their food clearly and easily available to anyone who walks in the door, and said products, while unhealthy, do actually provide nutritional content to the consumer.

Phillip Morris, on the other hand, still denies any link between smoking and cencer, while providing a physiologically addictive, carcinogenic product harmful to anyone who uses it and anyone nearby, with no tangible benefit.[/quote]
And yet the Surgeon General's warning is right there on the pack of cancer sticks, isn't it?

Hmmm, no difference there at all.

Nope, there isn't.

Plenty of places offer healthy food; they aren't nearly as popular. A lot of people clearly want unhealthy food.

Plenty of places don't sell tobacco products either. That doesn't take the heat off of those that do.

Yeah, now if you could show me that McDonald's food is physiologically addictive and harms both the consumer of it and anyone nearby directly, immediately, and for a long duration of time, that might matter.[/quote]
I wasn't aware that harm had to be in close proximity, immediate or of a long duration to be harm.

If we treated food like we treat smoking (which is your implied desire, based on the repetitive comparisons), then eating wouldn't be allowed in restaurants, businesses, or within 50 feet of an entrance to a business, in some states.

Concession accepted, we are NOT saying we should completely outlaw smoking or fast food. Now drop this pathetic strawman.

Penalties or prohibitions or warnings should be commensurate with harm done. There is harm to both the consumer of fast food, those close to them

[Terralthra]

So does obesity. Or were you under the delusion that the ONLY smoking related harm to non-smokers is from second-hand smoke?

Let see:

• increased medical costs that ultimately are borne by society.
• Use of hospital space that could be put to better uses.
• Decreased productivity at work.
• Emotional stress to friends and family.

All of these are shared by the obesity problem and smoking.

As opposed to second hand smoke, which kills people nearby directly, as opposed to nebulous and indirect harms like those you list. Pretending that "kills people besides the user" is equivalent to "causes emotional distress to friends and family" is ludicrous.

Don't change the subject. The point was "does it cause harm to others", not "how big is the magnitude of the harm" or "what causes the harm". And the answer to the actual question is clearly "yes".

No, you've shown that obesity causes harm, and that fast food can potentially cause obesity, in people who lack the ability to moderate their intake or exercise. Clearly, this is the corporation's fault.

That list was hardly exhaustive. How about the harm done to medical professionals who have to move those people. Ever tried turning a 300 pounder? Few better ways to quickly need a chiropracter.

To put it another way, at what point are you prepared to stop banning things because they cause "emotional distress" or "increased medical costs"?

WHO THE FUCK IS SAYING WE SHOULD COMPLETELY BAN FAST FOOD OR TOBACCO?

Then what's your policy proposal? How do you propose to appropriately regulate McDonald's, other fast food places, all restaurants, grocery stores, and any other place at which people can eat more calories than they are willing to expend?

And pretending it isn't all that bad.

What is Phillips Morris guilty of? Making unhealthy product people like too much and pretending it isn't all that bad.

Yet you think we should sue the latter and not the former.

McDonalds makes the health information for their food clearly and easily available to anyone who walks in the door, and said products, while unhealthy, do actually provide nutritional content to the consumer.

Phillip Morris, on the other hand, still denies any link between smoking and cencer, while providing a physiologically addictive, carcinogenic product harmful to anyone who uses it and anyone nearby, with no tangible benefit.

And yet the Surgeon General's warning is right there on the pack of cancer sticks, isn't it?

Way to actually ignore the main point, that smoking is directly harmful to both the smoker and anyone nearby, with no benefits to it at all. McDonald's is not.

Hmmm, no difference there at all.

Nope, there isn't.

You're retarded.

Plenty of places don't sell tobacco products either. That doesn't take the heat off of those that do.

Yeah, now if you could show me that McDonald's food is physiologically addictive and harms both the consumer of it and anyone nearby directly, immediately, and for a long duration of time, that might matter.

I wasn't aware that harm had to be in close proximity, immediate or of a long duration to be harm.

You're of course missing the key word "directly." McDonald's food doesn't cause any harm to family and friends of the consumer, obesity causes those harms. Given that there are plenty of people who eat McDonald's and manage to be healthy, perhaps the problem lies in the individual people who can not moderate their intake and can not exercise commensurate with their calorie intake. Smoking, on the other hand, causes harm from the first inhalation on the part of the smoker, and the first exhalation inflicts harm on those around him or her (which McDonald's doesn't do at all). There is a difference here, and pretending to be stupid and/or myopic so you don't have to admit it doesn't make it go away.

If we treated food like we treat smoking (which is your implied desire, based on the repetitive comparisons), then eating wouldn't be allowed in restaurants, businesses, or within 50 feet of an entrance to a business, in some states.

Concession accepted, we are NOT saying we should completely outlaw smoking or fast food. Now drop this pathetic strawman.

Then what's your fucking policy proposal? The reason I keep making suggestions as to what you might want to propose is that you refuse to actually state a position, other than "You guys who think that fat people ought to bear the responsibility for being completely incapable of managing such a simple thing as caloric intake are wrong, it's all McDonald's fault."

Penalties or prohibitions or warnings should be commensurate with harm done. There is harm to both the consumer of fast food, those close to them

So, if someone consumes their product relentlessly and without any care as to their own health, and then becomes a burden on their friends and family, it's the product creator's fault?

[Darth Servo]

Don't change the subject. The point was "does it cause harm to others", not "how big is the magnitude of the harm" or "what causes the harm". And the answer to the actual question is clearly "yes".

No, you've shown that obesity causes harm, and that fast food can potentially cause obesity, in people who lack the ability to moderate their intake or exercise. Clearly, this is the corporation's fault.

And YOU tried to change the subject to "the harm isn't 'immediate' or as severe as tobacco". And yes, it is partially the corporation's fault, especially since they advertise their shit as being enjoyable (another point the tobacco companies got nailed on--remember the Marlboro Man?). Clearly you are a complete idiot.

Then what's your policy proposal? How do you propose to appropriately regulate McDonald's, other fast food places, all restaurants, grocery stores, and any other place at which people can eat more calories than they are willing to expend?

Make the corporations at least partially liable for the costs of their hazardous product.

Way to actually ignore the main point, that smoking is directly harmful to both the smoker and anyone nearby, with no benefits to it at all. McDonald's is not.

No, YOU missed the point with these pathetic red herrrings and splitting hairs about what does or does not constitute actual harm.

Hmmm, no difference there at all.

Nope, there isn't.

You're retarded.

I'm not the one who thinks harm needs to be "direct", "immediate" or "nearby" in order to be harm.

Yeah, now if you could show me that McDonald's food is physiologically addictive and harms both the consumer of it and anyone nearby directly, immediately, and for a long duration of time, that might matter.

I wasn't aware that harm had to be in close proximity, immediate or of a long duration to be harm.

You're of course missing the key word "directly."

No, the key word is "harm". Your points are nothing but splitting hairs.

McDonald's food doesn't cause any harm to family and friends of the consumer,

Already shown to be false.

So before it was an issue of "direct" harm and now its no harm at all. Way to be consistent.

obesity causes those harms.

Which is caused by eating too much fast food. The fact that it isn't "direct" is a red herring.

Given that there are plenty of people who eat McDonald's and manage to be healthy, perhaps the problem lies in the individual people who can not moderate their intake and can not exercise commensurate with their calorie intake. Smoking, on the other hand, causes harm from the first inhalation on the part of the smoker, and the first exhalation inflicts harm on those around him or her (which McDonald's doesn't do at all). There is a difference here, and pretending to be stupid and/or myopic so you don't have to admit it doesn't make it go away.

Two words: George Burns. The exceptions do not disprove the rule, dumbass.

The only real difference is one of magnitude of the harm which does NOT diminish from the corporation's responsibility of producing a crappy product.

Then what's your fucking policy proposal? The reason I keep making suggestions as to what you might want to propose is that you refuse to actually state a position, other than "You guys who think that fat people ought to bear the responsibility for being completely incapable of managing such a simple thing as caloric intake are wrong, it's all McDonald's fault."

Once again, another false dilema fallacy. We do NOT hold the tobacco companies "completely" at fault for the harm of their products. I simply show SIMILARITIES between the tobacco companies and the fast food industry. Similarities that the tobacco companies got assraped for, so logically, the fast food companies should get assraped for them too. The fact that the two are not completely identical is irrelevant.

Idiots like you obviously think it should be completely the consumer's responsibility and thus you project your own thinking onto others and assume they're saying it must be only the corporation's responsibility. Responsibility is not a binary number.

So, if someone consumes their product relentlessly and without any care as to their own health, and then becomes a burden on their friends and family, it's the product creator's fault?

Merely repeating your false dilema.

[Tanasinn]

As for corporate accountability? It's not like McDonald's is shoving the Big Mac down your throat when you sleep. No one is forcing anyone to eat unhealthy food, be it from McDonald's or anywhere else. Fast food's unhealthy nature is commonly-known and has been for years; you've been able to find out just HOW unhealthy by simply asking for a nutrition fact sheet for years, as well.

Once again, one can say the exact same thing about the tobacco industry. No one is forcing anyone to smoke cigarettes either and their health hazards are just as commonly-known.

That's the thing, though: I don't see it as relevant. So long as the tobacco industry (or food industry) is forced to provide health facts upon request, the burden is on the comsumer to say yes or no.

Tobacco I only find trickier because it interferes with surrounding people (in the form of second-hand smoke), and because nicotine is highly addictive (which cheaply-produced greaseburgers are not).

[Terralthra]

Don't change the subject. The point was "does it cause harm to others", not "how big is the magnitude of the harm" or "what causes the harm". And the answer to the actual question is clearly "yes".

No, you've shown that obesity causes harm, and that fast food can potentially cause obesity, in people who lack the ability to moderate their intake or exercise. Clearly, this is the corporation's fault.

And YOU tried to change the subject to "the harm isn't 'immediate' or as severe as tobacco". And yes, it is partially the corporation's fault, especially since they advertise their shit as being enjoyable (another point the tobacco companies got nailed on--remember the Marlboro Man?). Clearly you are a complete idiot.

Maybe they market it as enjoyable because people clearly enjoy eating it? If a large number people didn't enjoy eating McDonald's food, they would not be in business, and if a significant number of people didn't enjoy it so much they are unable to restrain themselves from eating too much of it, it wouldn't contribute to obesity.

Then what's your policy proposal? How do you propose to appropriately regulate McDonald's, other fast food places, all restaurants, grocery stores, and any other place at which people can eat more calories than they are willing to expend?

Make the corporations at least partially liable for the costs of their hazardous product.

Hazardous, right. I'm sure your geiger counter goes off the scale whenever you have a fucking hamburger within 50 yards.

Way to actually ignore the main point, that smoking is directly harmful to both the smoker and anyone nearby, with no benefits to it at all. McDonald's is not.

No, YOU missed the point with these pathetic red herrings and splitting hairs about what does or does not constitute actual harm.

When you come up with something that shows hamburgers are physiologically addictive and provide zero nutritional benefit (and that McDonald's knew this and deliberately covered it up), then the comparison to tobacco is meaningful. McDonald's provides far more information on the contents of their food than nearly any other restaurant chain in business. It is up to individuals to decide what type of food they want to eat, and how much of it, and to exercise commensurate with that intake. That they do not is another sign that people can be fucking stupid, not that McDonald's is liable for their customer's bad decisions.

Nope, there isn't.

You're retarded.

I'm not the one who thinks harm needs to be "direct", "immediate" or "nearby" in order to be harm.

Yeah, now if you could show me that McDonald's food is physiologically addictive and harms both the consumer of it and anyone nearby directly, immediately, and for a long duration of time, that might matter.

I wasn't aware that harm had to be in close proximity, immediate or of a long duration to be harm.

You're of course missing the key word "directly."

No, the key word is "harm". Your points are nothing but splitting hairs.

I didn't say it had to be nearby to be harm; "nearby" is significant because not only does smoking harm "friends and family," it also harms someone just walking in the same vicinity. When you can show me that McDonald's hamburgers inflict real harm on someone just by being in the same room as another person eating one, then you can start dismissing "nearby" as a factor.

As for immediate and direct, yes, I feel that we shouldn't be regulating based on indistinct chains of probable causality. Lots of people manage to become obese without eating a single McDonald's hamburger.

McDonald's food doesn't cause any harm to family and friends of the consumer,

Already shown to be false.

So before it was an issue of "direct" harm and now its no harm at all. Way to be consistent.

McDonald's is not responsible for people feeding their faces like pigs at a trough and not exercising.

obesity causes those harms.

Which is caused by eating too much fast food. The fact that it isn't "direct" is a red herring.

How is it McDonald's fault people eat too much of it? Should they make their food taste less appealing? Also, obesity is cause by eating too much FOOD. Not fast food, just food. Almost any food, if over-eaten, can cause weight gain. The government already requires that food manufacturers provide information about the contents of that food to consumers, with penalties if that information is deceptive or unclear.

Given that there are plenty of people who eat McDonald's and manage to be healthy, perhaps the problem lies in the individual people who can not moderate their intake and can not exercise commensurate with their calorie intake. Smoking, on the other hand, causes harm from the first inhalation on the part of the smoker, and the first exhalation inflicts harm on those around him or her (which McDonald's doesn't do at all). There is a difference here, and pretending to be stupid and/or myopic so you don't have to admit it doesn't make it go away.

Two words: George Burns. The exceptions do not disprove the rule, dumbass.

he only real difference is one of magnitude of the harm which does NOT diminish from the corporation's responsibility of producing a crappy product.

There are studies showing an inescapable link between smoking and emphysema, smoking and lung cancer, smoking and asthma. One exception does not overrule those studies. Can you present those same sorts of studies for McDonalds?

Then what's your fucking policy proposal? The reason I keep making suggestions as to what you might want to propose is that you refuse to actually state a position, other than "You guys who think that fat people ought to bear the responsibility for being completely incapable of managing such a simple thing as caloric intake are wrong, it's all McDonald's fault."

Once again, another false dilema fallacy. We do NOT hold the tobacco companies "completely" at fault for the harm of their products. I simply show SIMILARITIES between the tobacco companies and the fast food industry. Similarities that the tobacco companies got assraped for, so logically, the fast food companies should get assraped for them too. The fact that the two are not completely identical is irrelevant.

Tobacco companies got assraped for consistently false and fraudulent advertising. Tobacco companies got assraped for actually promoting smoking as a medicine, rather than a harmful substance. Tobacco companies got assraped for denying that nicotine was harmful or that smoking kills despite knowing that those denials were completely false. Show me McDonald's doing any of that, and then we can talk about their liability being similar.

Idiots like you obviously think it should be completely the consumer's responsibility and thus you project your own thinking onto others and assume they're saying it must be only the corporation's responsibility. Responsibility is not a binary number.

No, I do not feel it should be completely the consumer's responsibility, but that is a nice straw man you erected there. I think that food companies should be required to make nutrition information easily available on their products, and that if provided with all the relevant information, then it becomes the individual's responsibility to eat healthily.

[Lusankya]

Maybe they market it as enjoyable because people clearly enjoy eating it? If a large number people didn't enjoy eating McDonald's food, they would not be in business, and if a significant number of people didn't enjoy it so much they are unable to restrain themselves from eating too much of it, it wouldn't contribute to obesity.

Why the hell would they market it as not enjoyable? Hell, the only reason anyone could enjoy that swill is because they ate it as children, and one of the reason kids eat it is because their marketing is heavily marketed towards kids: "It's Shrek time at McDonalds! Buy a Happy Meal and get a free toy!" McDonalds is very much liable for targetting their advertising at a group of people who are very vulnerable and lack critical analysis abilities.

[Darth Wong]

Maybe they market it as enjoyable because people clearly enjoy eating it?

Do you believe that a company which sells products to the public has any ethical responsibility to minimize the negative impact of its products on the public? If so, would you agree that if a company had researchers working on ways to make its products more profitable, they could also have researchers working on ways to make its foods more healthy without noticeable impact on taste?

There have been many improvements in the way food is cooked which have little or no impact on its taste. Those improvements were almost invariably driven by independent researchers who forced the fast-food companies to react out of public-image concerns. Not ONCE to my knowledge has a fast-food company ever lifted a finger to do anything about these issues without public pressure.

So, regardless of the legal issues, there is a serious ethical issue here that goes beyond individual freedom.

[Darth Servo]

Well, Terralthra obviously isn't interested in having any kind of intelligent discussion as he has now (perhaps sarcastically) equated my statement of "hazardous" to being radioactive and out-right denies his claim of proximity being essential to harm, even though he has quoted me quoting him saying precisely that.

Terralthra continues trying to brush away the comparison with the tobacco industry with red herrings that the two aren't EXACTLY alike in every last detail (no shit Sherlock, no analogy ever is), while making many excuses for the problems with fast food, even though the tobacco company had those exact same problems. The fact that the tobacco industry has OTHER problems as well does not change that, yet Terralthra thinks that if the tobacco industry got nailed to the wall for those other problems, then it didn't also get nailed to the wall for the problems it shares with fast food. Textbook case of trying to disprove A by proving B, even though A and B can easily both be true.

[Terralthra]

Do you believe that a company which sells products to the public has any ethical responsibility to minimize the negative impact of its products on the public? If so, would you agree that if a company had researchers working on ways to make its products more profitable, they could also have researchers working on ways to make its foods more healthy without noticeable impact on taste?

I agree that a company has a duty to provide products that do not harm its customers, and where such products can be abused or have negative effects, to provide adequate warning and information about the products to allow individuals to make an informed decision.

There have been many improvements in the way food is cooked which have little or no impact on its taste. Those improvements were almost invariably driven by independent researchers who forced the fast-food companies to react out of public-image concerns. Not ONCE to my knowledge has a fast-food company ever lifted a finger to do anything about these issues without public pressure.

I do not know of any examples either, but very rarely do most companies make those sorts of moves without public pressure. I may be mistaken in this belief, but I was under the impression that a situation in which "the pressure of its customers' desires forces a company to do business differently" is one of the benefits of a free market.

So, regardless of the legal issues, there is a serious ethical issue here that goes beyond individual freedom.

Agreed, but I do not go so far as to say that the fast food companies are necessarily unethical, merely not as ethical as we would want them to be. I don't think that justifies holding them legally liable.

Well, Terralthra obviously isn't interested in having any kind of intelligent discussion as he has now (perhaps sarcastically) equated my statement of "hazardous" to being radioactive and out-right denies his claim of proximity being essential to harm, even though he has quoted me quoting him saying precisely that.

Having read your past posts in this thread, I realize you are quite good at twisting my words to mean what you'd like them to mean, and then rebutting them. However, your skill at straw-manning does not make it in any way not a straw man.

The quote in question:

Yeah, now if you could show me that McDonald's food is physiologically addictive and harms both the consumer of it and anyone nearby directly, immediately, and for a long duration of time, that might matter.

Now, to anyone with, say, 8th grade literacy, the fact that I put "anyone nearby," "directly," "immediately," and "for a long duration of time" as qualifiers on the harm being done, it stands to reason that I feel it is possible to harm people indirectly, to harm people in a manner other than immediately, etc. I was very obviously placing those as qualifiers because they are categories of harm for which smoking qualifies, and fast food does not. These massive differences are cogent to the question of legal liability, and your avoidance of that central point is obvious to anyone reading this conversation.

Terralthra continues trying to brush away the comparison with the tobacco industry with red herrings that the two aren't EXACTLY alike in every last detail (no shit Sherlock, no analogy ever is), while making many excuses for the problems with fast food, even though the tobacco company had those exact same problems. The fact that the tobacco industry has OTHER problems as well does not change that, yet Terralthra thinks that if the tobacco industry got nailed to the wall for those other problems, then it didn't also get nailed to the wall for the problems it shares with fast food. Textbook case of trying to disprove A by proving B, even though A and B can easily both be true.

They are dissimilar in many important details. Would you like a table, or do you want to just keep glossing over things like addiction, fraud, and cover-ups/denials of studies linking smoking with various health risks as "red herrings"?