Suit Seeks to Ban Kids From Eating Oreos

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-05-14 01:47am

Oh, and to those people who've been saying, "Well, I don't like Oreos, so I don't care.": Jesus F. Christ, that's how these motherfuckers get away with this shit in the first place. ANY time some donkeyfucker tries to use the law to meddle in other people's lives because he thinks he knows what's good for them better than they do, you should fucking care. If they're not harming anyone else, it's nobody's goddamn business what other people eat, smoke, drink, snort, fuck, buy, watch, read, or sell, and it's the fucking responsibility of free people to say, "Fuck you, mind your own fucking business".</rant>

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-05-14 01:55am

I wasn't saying that as in "if it doesn't harm me, then they can win the lawsuit." I was saying it as in "It doesn't harm me, so personally I don't care what the outcome is, but I still find this lawsuit annoying, stupid, and frivolous."

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-14 02:49am

Taking cookies away from kids -- ugh. Well, okay, if it turns out these "trans fats" are actually dangerous, then maybe there should be a warning. But kids have been eating Oreos for at least, what, 20+ years now? I've never heard of anyone being seriously disfigured by long-term cookie exposure.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2003-05-14 04:54pm

Only in America.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-05-14 05:42pm

Let me get this straight.

This legal hazzle is because the food was not labeled with it's energy content?

Here in Sweden ALL food that is pre packaged (not fresh) is labeled with:

Per 100grams how much is:
Energy in kj and kcal
Protein in %
Carbohydrates in %
Fat in %

Also there is a listing of ingridients and addectives(sp?)

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-14 05:50pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Taking cookies away from kids -- ugh. Well, okay, if it turns out these "trans fats" are actually dangerous, then maybe there should be a warning. But kids have been eating Oreos for at least, what, 20+ years now? I've never heard of anyone being seriously disfigured by long-term cookie exposure.

Obviously nothing that makes you happy can actually be good for you, and these children all need medication to treat there sugar addictions.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-05-14 05:51pm

It isn't so much the energy content as the type of fat.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-14 07:51pm

Faram wrote:Let me get this straight.

This legal hazzle is because the food was not labeled with it's energy content?

Here in Sweden ALL food that is pre packaged (not fresh) is labeled with:

Per 100grams how much is:
Energy in kj and kcal
Protein in %
Carbohydrates in %
Fat in %

Also there is a listing of ingridients and addectives(sp?)

yea ours all have to have the same thing, and every oreo comes with it, though we also give fat(and the rest which includes certain vitamins and minerals and other stuff) in Grams and what % of your daily recomended dosage is.

We also tell you the ingrediants, and the type of fat (saturated or unsaturated)

You have all the facts, its just that people think that normall people arent smart enough to know this and that the law should exist to think in place of the average person. n

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-05-15 02:19am

NapoleonGH wrote:You have all the facts, its just that people think that normall people arent smart enough to know this and that the law should exist to think in place of the average person. n

Okay this is just a case of people is dumb and can't read.

To bad that your current law system protects dumb people that can't read.

My sympathies.

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-16 03:17pm

Crayz9000 wrote:I wasn't saying that as in "if it doesn't harm me, then they can win the lawsuit." I was saying it as in "It doesn't harm me, so personally I don't care what the outcome is, but I still find this lawsuit annoying, stupid, and frivolous."

And what i am saying is wether or not you eat oreos is no reason why you shouldn't care B/C it does matter for you. A infringement of anothers freedom is an infringement on your own.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls......

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-16 03:35pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Crayz9000 wrote:I wasn't saying that as in "if it doesn't harm me, then they can win the lawsuit." I was saying it as in "It doesn't harm me, so personally I don't care what the outcome is, but I still find this lawsuit annoying, stupid, and frivolous."
And what i am saying is wether or not you eat oreos is no reason why you shouldn't care B/C it does matter for you. A infringement of anothers freedom is an infringement on your own.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls......

I am pleasantly surprised that you have completely and utterly summed up my position and we seem to be in total agreement, strange from some of the other stuff we have said.

Any infringement on ANYONE's liberty to do what they please so long as they dont violate another person's liberty in the process is unjust and most be fought at the top of your lungs. As Voltaire said

"I may not agree with a damned word you said, but ill fight to the death to defend your right to say it" this isnt only true for what you say, it is true for all forms of liberty. A true lover of freedom must fight for all freedoms, not just those that he can/does make use of.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-05-16 03:55pm

NapoleonGH wrote:"I may not agree with a damned word you said, but ill fight to the death to defend your right to say it"

AAAUUUGGHHHH!!! MISQUOTE!!!

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Sorry, that one gets to me.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-05-16 05:22pm

No need to worry. The guy has withdrawn the suit. For now...

Here.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-16 05:22pm

you do realize the potential for translational differences right?

that said i could very well have gotten it wrong

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-16 06:25pm

NapoleonGH wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Crayz9000 wrote:I wasn't saying that as in "if it doesn't harm me, then they can win the lawsuit." I was saying it as in "It doesn't harm me, so personally I don't care what the outcome is, but I still find this lawsuit annoying, stupid, and frivolous."
And what i am saying is wether or not you eat oreos is no reason why you shouldn't care B/C it does matter for you. A infringement of anothers freedom is an infringement on your own.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls......
I am pleasantly surprised that you have completely and utterly summed up my position and we seem to be in total agreement, strange from some of the other stuff we have said.

Any infringement on ANYONE's liberty to do what they please so long as they dont violate another person's liberty in the process is unjust and most be fought at the top of your lungs. As Voltaire said

"I may not agree with a damned word you said, but ill fight to the death to defend your right to say it" this isnt only true for what you say, it is true for all forms of liberty. A true lover of freedom must fight for all freedoms, not just those that he can/does make use of.

Just b/c i am Xian doesn't mean i don't believe in involiatable Rights...

In fact my sig means We Dare Defend Our Rights.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-16 06:56pm

i just meant it was funny that we found something in common. thats all