Spoonist wrote:Why would the 350+ eat for free? Wouldn't that be the core customers for the restaurant?
Because every time somebody dies there, it makes international news. Also, because they still have to pay for sodas, cigarettes, and alcohol, so it could potentially work out to kind of a big tab even if they don't pay for the burger.
I dunno, I'm thinking about moving to Vegas. I don't smoke, I don't drink beer and I'm not a huge fan of soda. This place could save me in a pinch.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
It's a success of capitalism, which isn't society. The huge cost of your nations terrible eating habits show that. One day you'll catch back up to my country. :v. This place is basically a battery farm for fat people used as marketing fixtures, and that doesn't sound very positive.
Does America prohibit promotions that encourage unhealthy behaviors like bone drinking or eating, dangerous driving, risk taking behavior etc?
Dude, capitalism is our society.
I'm not saying it's good or not decadent, but I get sick of people like him being smug shits about things like this while we absolutely waste money on shit we absolutely don't need and no one bats an eye.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Right, but smartphones and $30,000 shower curtains aren't the immediate health issue that 'eat more and when you get super fat eat for free in order to create the media spectacle my business plan requires' is. People can make poor decisions about money or lifestyle, but there's a big difference between 'bought a load of games I'll never play on steam because FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS' and 'I was encouraged to eat so much I died/got sick/developed lifetime habits'.
The laugh is that every Korean BBQ place I've ever seen is 'all you can eat' and thus exactly the same thing as this place (and all the other 'shovel as much food as you want' places), except not exploitative and targeted at the vulnerable (well, I feel sorry for the proprieters).
You think video games don't shape bad lifetime habits? And lets start tallying up how many people are dying because they are looking at their smartphones and crashing their cars.
And I can't speak for any other fatties, but I wasn't encouraged to eat so much in my life. I chose to. Anyway, my beef (rimshot) was with him bringing up the issue of decadence.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Sorry, this isn't actually about you. Saying something else is dangerous doesn't change how dangerous this is.
I know your country is built on social practical jokes and think if you give loaded dice to a desperate man its not your fault if they lose because I NEVER FORCED HIM, but please. All the other all you can eat places probably kill people too - this guy just directly profits from the deaths through his marketing design.
Good for him? Not sure what else you want me to say. These guys didn't get to be gigantic fatties eating at this guy's place and if he found a niche market that attracts customers that are going to die either way from their horrible habits and diets and turns it into profit, well, like I said good for him. Capitalism Achievement acquired.
And I never said or insinuated that it wasn't dangerous or that other things change the level one way or another. You were the one that molded "{highhorse]this just speaks to our decadence[/highhorse]" "XYZ is decadent also so can it" into "yes but they aren't unhealthy" which was never a point of contention of mine in the first place.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Stark wrote:It's a success of capitalism, which isn't society. The huge cost of your nations terrible eating habits show that. One day you'll catch back up to my country. :v. This place is basically a battery farm for fat people used as marketing fixtures, and that doesn't sound very positive.
Does America prohibit promotions that encourage unhealthy behaviors like bone drinking or eating, dangerous driving, risk taking behavior etc?
It would only catch up to us if we get Socialized Medicine. Otherwise, it doesnt matter. Spoiler
Actually, some scientist suspect that many will live just as long, but with more debilitating diseases and sicknesses.
It needn't catch up to you even with socialized medicine, if you introduce a system by which heavy drinkers, smokers, fatties have to pay a moron penalty to offset their additional burden on the system.
Having socialised medicine is irrelevant. According to the CDC, alcohol abuse in the US causes over $200b each year in damage of which the government pays about $140b. You don't need socialised medicine to have individual health decisions cost the taxpayer.
The american gov spends more per capita on healthcare then the UK gov, and still only manages to treat a 1/3 of the population.
Socialised or not, your health system has deeper structural problems.
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:Having socialised medicine is irrelevant. According to the CDC, alcohol abuse in the US causes over $200b each year in damage of which the government pays about $140b. You don't need socialised medicine to have individual health decisions cost the taxpayer.
Medical care not the only cost of poor health? Who knew knock on and second order effects would 'cost' by reducing value regardless of how much you cut off the sick and let them die?
Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:Having socialised medicine is irrelevant. According to the CDC, alcohol abuse in the US causes over $200b each year in damage of which the government pays about $140b. You don't need socialised medicine to have individual health decisions cost the taxpayer.
I've always been curious about this... does anyone ever check to see how many jobs and man hours are created on the other side of health issues? What would happen tomorrow if all the heavy drinkers, smokers and fatties had zero health problems and didn't have to go to the hospital anymore?
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Stark wrote:Medical care for everyone else would improve.
Or are you worried that all those poor gastroenterologists will end up huddled in the street? Worst justification for bad health ever.
Oh shush. I know that and that's not why I am asking, I really want to know the numbers and have no idea where you would get them.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:Having socialised medicine is irrelevant. According to the CDC, alcohol abuse in the US causes over $200b each year in damage of which the government pays about $140b. You don't need socialised medicine to have individual health decisions cost the taxpayer.
I've always been curious about this... does anyone ever check to see how many jobs and man hours are created on the other side of health issues? What would happen tomorrow if all the heavy drinkers, smokers and fatties had zero health problems and didn't have to go to the hospital anymore?
I've seen estimates for dollar costs. You could probably back calculate based on average doctor wages.
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
