girlwriter

lisarea, you are still missing my point. You said:
Duely noted. In my first post, I did insert the complete quote. The reason I left parts of it out the second time is that you appeared to be claiming not to have said what you did in fact say, and I was trying to show you precicely what I was responding to.

So here's your clarified view:
Yes, I understood that from the beginning, I was merely calling you on your choice of words, (which, I can only assume from your assertion above, you chose deliberately,) because they are very relevant to the core of this issue. Here's my main problem with your statement.

Based on my viewpoint on this subject, I would say that I fall into your category of people who think that "stupid people should be punished." Unfortunately, you've twisted and oversimplified it. In the first place, I'm not arguing that obese people, or people who eat hamburgers are stupid. What I am saying is that it is irrational to make choices that lead to obesity and blame those choices or thier consequenses on others. We all make irrational choices, genius or imbecile. It is human. You have arbitrarily added the value judgement of "stupid" to the argument. You are also ignoring the difference between punishment and natural consequenses. Punishment is inflicting a penalty, whereas natural consequensce is an inevitable effect or result of an earlier occurance. There is a very important difference here which I hope you can see.

The reason I have a problem with your statement "stupidity is not a crime," is that it implies that the people who oppose your viewpoint on this subject wish to "criminalize" stupidity. No, I do not think you believe anyone is trying to actually pass a law, but you are the one who chose the word, and I believe you did not do so frivolously. You say there is a general attitude that people should be punished for being stupid, and you can easily show that to be a mean-spirited attitude, completely devoid of compassion. The problem is that you are equating 'it is inevitable that people suffer the natural consequenses of thier actions' with stupid people should be punished.' The words you chose reveal your attitude about responsibility. (Specifically, that someone besides the obese person is responsible for his being obese.) "Criminalize" and "crime" carry very negative implications. Criminals are people who deliberately harm others. It's quite clear that an obese person does not fit into that description, so as long as you define it that way, it's easy for you to knock down arguments. But that is not what I was getting at, and I think that the "general attitude" you speak of is a bit more complex and less judgemental than you give credit for.

However a person becomes obese, it boils down in the end to the fact that what that person did or did not do is the cause of the current situation. That is to say, the ultimate responsability for the condition of your body is yours. Yes, you can trace your behavior to many influential factors, some of which can be overwhelming, but that does not change the inevitability of the consequenses, or the ultimate truth that you were not tied to a couch and force fed. The reason this is important is the same reasoning that is used to recover from a drug or alcohol problem. Without acceptance of ultimate responsability for one's actions and physical condition, there is no chance of recovery. So whatever McDonald's or my parents did to influence me, I am the one who has to live in my body, I am the one who chooses what to eat and whether to exercise. No one else. It sounds lovely to imagine a world where all businesses operate on the principal of looking out for the best interests of it's customers even if it means lower profits, but litigation is not the path to that utopia.

So is there value to said litigation? In the short term, maybe. In the long term, though, no. The negative consequences to the business are obvious. Society in general is harmed by making owning your own business a much greater risk, among other consequenses. And most of all, it doesn't help obese people. It fosters the sentiment that they are not responsible, that someone else can suffer the consequenses for their actions and encourages them to maintain a position of denial.

The sad thing about this is that consumers overall are not placing a high value on nutrition in thier food choices. They are choosing unhealthy foods, getting fat, and trying to blame the fast food chains. If the only reason that food manufacturers are making positive changes in the direction of nutrition is that they are being forced to assume financial responsability for the choices of consumers, then I do not see that as a positive thing at all. It is an indication of how screwed up our values are as a society. We want to make irrespopnsible choices and blame the consequenses on an impersonal entity.

Bottom line: Freedom and responsability are one and the same. If you assume responsability for your actions, you are free to determine them.

girlwriter

VM, If you were truely interested in hearing other people's opinions, you would refrain from punishing anyone who disagrees with you with knee-jerk, combative condescention. You've lashed out at everyone who disagrees with you and praised everyone who has echoed your sentiment. That's not very open-minded, and it doesn't invite intellegent exchange of ideas. If that's how you choose to interact, then it's not a suprise that most of the responses you are getting seemed designed to inflame you. Or were you just interested in the opinions of those who agree with you? If so, you should state that in your OP. I suggest that *you* try to be open-minded. Your assertion that you don't have an opinion falls on deaf ears because you've stated your opinions quite openly and conclusively from the beginning. Rather than responding to people's arguments, you've accused them of not responding to your OP, and claiming that you didn't present an argument in the first place. Clearly what you meant and what you said are two different things.

lisarea

girlwriter: I am not, I assure you, missing your point.

I am simply responding to content of the OP, and you are responding as though I were simply responding to the original title.

If you'll carefully review what I've said, I never advocated that fast food producers should be held liable for the actual content of their products. I have said, time and time again, that the real issue is disclosure.

All of the successful lawsuits I've seen against fast food chains have involved some misrepresentation or something similar--no "I'm fat" claims. Feel free to shadowbox all you like with that issue, but I am not a party to your spectral pugilism.

At any rate, you have quote-mined a single sentence and built a large and hoary strawman out of it in which I advocate the absolution of personal responsibility. Please feel free to continue to do so, as I have no reason to believe my point is unclear to anyone but you.

viscousmemories

Girlwriter,

I apologize for taking so long to respond to your second to last post. Allow me to kill two birds with one stone and reply to both of your most recent replies to me at once.
I think �hostile� is a bit of an exaggeration, girlwriter. Snide, definitely. But I don�t think I was at all hostile to you. As for why I was snide, consider these statements of yours:

�Brainwashing, my ass.�
�Good greif(sic), come up with a better defense.�
�Are you serious? This is not an argument.�
��

Responding to you in the same tone you used with me is surely not the most mature response, but I never claimed to be a saint. I tend to snipe back when sniped at. Since the rest of your post consists mostly of arguing about a point that is really unrelated to the subject we�re now talking about, I don�t think this is the right thread to keep going with that. I admit I was more easily sidetracked in the beginning of this thread, but around the time I agreed that it needed a new title, I pretty much settled on what I think the point of the thread should be and would prefer to stay on that subject now.
As I already said, I tend to use the same tone people use with me. I think you�ll notice that I have been extremely pleasant with people who have been pleasant with me, regardless of whether or not they have agreed with my points. When I speak very slowly and clearly, it�s because I genuinely believe that my audience isn�t understanding what I�m saying. I�m sorry if you take that personally.
Most of the responses I�ve been getting seem designed to inflame me? I can�t find any examples of posts that were designed to inflame me from anyone other than you and King Rat. I think I made it clear what I think of King Rat�s comments in my responses to him, and I�m trying to make it clear what I think of your comments in my responses to you.
Is this a serious suggestion? Do you really think that I am only interested in the opinion of people who agree with me, and you are sincerely recommending that I put that in my OP? Or is this just another example of you being sarcastic and condescending to me? It certainly seems like the latter. Perhaps if you really want me to be nicer, you should lead by example.
Apparently my assertion really did fall on deaf ears, because what I said was that I don�t have a firm opinion on the subject. I obviously have an opinion, or I wouldn�t be here talking to you about it.
I have responded to people�s arguments when I understand them, I have complained about people not responding to my OP when they haven�t, and the claim that I didn�t present an argument in the first place can be verified by simply reading my OP, which you probably should have done before you started responding. Instead, as lisarea pointed out, you are challenging an argument that wasn�t raised with an enemy that doesn�t exist.

vm

King Rat

O.K., you don�t have a position and yet you do? VM, I�m having a hard time reconciling the contradictions in your posts. I�m getting the impression that your reading comprehension skills are fuzzy as well. So I�ll make it clearer for you; I brought up these very legitimate and on-topic questions in my posts, I don�t buy for a second that you were �confused� by my rhetoric. Trying to whitewash by saying that �I said nothing of substance� is not going to work. Answer my questions, or concede that you are sidestepping:

1. How does personal responsibility factor into this?
2. How do the FFF's brainwash customers? Extraordinary claims and all.
3. Do you feel FFF�s efforts to address these issues are legitimate?
4. Are the FFF�s adding addictive substances like the tobacco companies? More proof please.

BTW, stating that all you were looking for is opinions, and then discounting my opinions would be less than genuine eh?

viscousmemories

You really should refrain from condescending comments about my ability to read, King Rat. You only draw more attention to your inability to follow the discussion. At what point did I say I don't have a position? Let me see if I can phrase this in a way that you can understand. Aw heck, why don't I just repeat myself yet again as I did for girlwriter just one post ago. I don't have a firm position. My mind is not made up. I am interested in a discussion. You are interested in winning. Your preoccupation with this need to win is not interesting or engaging to me. I am interested in having a discussion along the lines of the one we (that being those of us who have actually contributed something to a reasonable discourse) have been having.

I honestly don't remember ever saying that I was "confused" by anything you have said, King Rat. If I did say it (which I doubt) I request that you point me to where I said it so I can edit it out. Because frankly, I find it very difficult to believe that I would ever even insinuate that you have confused me. I rather find your points painfully obvious, and glaringly irrelevant.

What you don't seem able to understand, King Rat, is that when you responded directly to the title of the thread originally, without reading the OP or any of the subsequent posts, I initially went along with you and allowed myself to become embroiled in an argument that wasn't relevant to the discussion I wanted to have. I am over that now, and no longer interested in continuing to derail this discussion to pursue it. I am very sorry if you can't comprehend this, and instead wish to think that I am running terrified from your awesome intellect. But alas, if that's what warms your toes, by all means relish it.

The topic, King Rat, is "Obesity Litigation: Do Frivolous Lawsuits Have An Upside?" Now you tell me, how is your question relevant?
The topic, King Rat, is "Obesity Litigation: Do Frivolous Lawsuits Have An Upside?" Now you tell me, how is your question relevant?
The topic, King Rat, is "Obesity Litigation: Do Frivolous Lawsuits Have An Upside?" Now you tell me, how is your question relevant?
The topic, King Rat, is "Obesity Litigation: Do Frivolous Lawsuits Have An Upside?" Now you tell me, how is your question relevant?

I am aware of the fact that you have an opinion that you have an absolute need to express, even in the face of all evidence that it is completely irrelevant to the discussion the rest of us are trying to have here. However, what makes you think I'm going to turn my back on the people who are actually interested in having this discussion to assuage your needs? Whatever it is, I suggest that you get over it. If you want to talk about the topic of this thread, I encourage you to do so. If you want to continue with the argument that we were temporarily sidetracked with earlier in the thread, then by all means you may bound out of the room clapping and singing with the imagined victory you will surely suppose from my ignoring you.

vm

King Rat

I'm condescending?!? Way to sidestep, again.

So, the topic is not allowed to evolve based on items brought up by you, myself, and others? My questions are not relevant, because you do not wish to answer them? Some of my questions even directly address the article to which you posted a link. For example:

Are you really trying to tell me that personal responsibility has no bearing on the substance of the article you linked?

Despite your attempts to sidestep this issue, it is still relevant.


You mentioned that you belived FFF's brainwash, please explain. This may not have anything to do with the OP, but it was an interesting issue that is related, and is a logical addition to the issues addressed in the linked article.

This question directly addresses the linked article; Do you feel FFF�s efforts to address these issues are legitimate? Since you are asking for opinions and all.

This one was alluded to in the linked article on more than one instance, are the FFF�s adding addictive substances like the tobacco companies? It wasn't specifically stated, but the inference was clear. Unless, the rhetoric clouded the issue in the linked article as well.

Just because you don't like my questions, it does not make them irrelevant. If you don't want to talk about the things I'm bringing up, fine. But your ad homs are tedious.

ju'iblex

<mod hat>

people, play nice or don't play, it's as simple as that. now quit the rhetoric and actually discuss.

</mod hat>

girlwriter

VM, you're right, I did start our on the sarcastic side, and for that I sincerely apologise. That Jack Russel bit just really got to me because I thought it was a pretty frivolous argument, but that was rude of me.

Also, Liserea, I dont' know what to say. Your assessment of my intent (quote-mining and building a straw man) is completely inaccurate. I was honestly trying to respond to your statements, and I honestly felt my response was relevant to the current discussion, so I'd appreciate the benefit of the doubt here. Apparently I was completely unsuccessful. The reason I stated that you missed my point is that you never *appeared* to be addressing it, so I'll just start over.

The topic, if I'm not mistaken, is do lawsuits against FFF's have an upside?

Well, I answered this a couple of times, but I'll state it again more clearly. (Hopefully.)

It seems from your posts (VM,) that you have already found the upside and are defending that position quite vehemently. (That is why it *appeared* to me that you already have a "firm" opinion on the subject. I'm sorry I was not able to determine otherwise from reading your OP - which I did, BTW - or your other posts.)

My response to the question is: So what if it does? Just having an upside does not make a thing worthwhile, or even beneficial overall. I think I mentioned before that religion has upsides, but so what? That doesn't mean that they outweigh the downsides. Are you trying to determine if the upsides *outweigh* the downsides?

I'll assume the answer is yes, and continue. If I'm wrong, let me know.

I don't think the upsides (McDonald's serves better food and puts nutrition labels on it) outweigh the downsides. (We as a society fail to take individual responsability for our actions and attempt to shift that responsability onto an impersonal segment of society.)

Is that clear? I'll stop there, just in case I'm way off here or otherwise wasting my time, please let me know.

viscousmemories

Based on the fact that you seem able enough to identify when I�m being deliberately condescending, I doubt that I have to point out to you specific examples where you did the same. At any rate, it is of course pointless and boring to continue in that vein, so I�m more than willing to get over myself and carry on if you are.
Of course the topic is allowed to evolve. And in some ways it has. In other ways it has clearly devolved. I'd like to see it get back on track.
I could be wrong, because I�m really just learning all these debating terms, but I believe that this is an ad hominem argument. Your questions are either relevant to the discussion or they aren�t. Whether or not I wish to answer them has nothing to do with it.
Again, your insistence that I am somehow trying to evade discussing the issues is really offensive. I think I can see why you think that question is pertinent to the issue, but I maintain that it isn�t. You seem to be most interested in debating whether or not the lawsuits have any inherent merit, and I want to discuss whether the benefits to society as a whole excuse them (to any degree). In other words, even if I concede that a particular lawsuit is completely frivolous and stupid and the plaintiff isn�t entitled to a dime of compensation, if the end result is significant positive social change, where�s the harm?
It is an interesting issue, I would like to talk about it, and it has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing. Go ahead and accuse me of side-stepping again, but as I said before, that question has more to do with scrutinizing the lawsuits themselves than evaluating the possible beneficial side effects of the suits. Yes I did say that, I do believe it's true that advertising (to a degree) employs a kind of brainwashing, and I shouldn't have brought it up because it's irrelevant to what I intended the thrust of the discussion to be when I started the thread. I'd be glad to have that conversation another time in another thread. I just don't believe it belongs here.
I agree that your question addresses the linked article directly. However, again, it doesn�t address the topic of the discussion. At any rate, your use of the "rolleyes" smilie seems to indicate that you disbelieve that I am genuinely interested in others opinions. Do you still claim to be unaware of how you�ve been condescending?
I have no idea if they are or not, I disagree that the article implied that they do that, and again, such an examination of whether or not there is any basis for the litigation does not address the topic. And when I say �the topic�, I don�t just mean the title or the OP, I mean the whole flow of the discussion from the start. As I said before, I am as guilty as anyone of going way off the track from the discussion I wanted to have in the very beginning, but I�m trying hard to get back on it.
And ironically, I believe this is another example of an ad hominem argument. As I said before, either your comments are relevant to the discussion or they aren�t. Whether or not I like them is beside the point.

Contrary to what you seem to think about me, I am not participating in this discussion solely because I love to hear examples of my brilliance echo through the halls, because I have some kind of political or moral agenda that involves convincing everyone that fast food companies are evil, or because I delight in trying to make people who disagree with me feel small. I am having this discussion because it�s an interesting subject to me, and I�m genuinely concerned about ways in which we can, as a society, improve the human condition.

As much as I would like to engage in a critical analysis of the marketing strategies of the fast food and junk food purveyors, and of businesses as a whole, this simply isn�t the topic of this thread. I know what you are saying about thread evolution, but I think your questions cross that fine line between evolution and derailing. Just to be clear, that is to say that I am not evading answering your questions because I don�t think they�re valid, because I don�t like them, because I�m afraid of them, or because it�s you posing them. I�m not answering them because I don�t think they�re relevant to the discussion.

vm