viscousmemories

A dubious point, but what the heck, take it.
Interesting. Where in the body does this "will" you speak of reside?
Clear. Which leaves me wondering why you would hold them accountable for their brainwashing.
Yes.
That's a bit presumptuous isn't it? People present substantial arguments to me all the time, and I don't discount them out of hand because they challenge my views. When I said your posts were insubstantial, I meant it. If you think your initial responses had the stuff of a serious rebuttal to my comments, we have a drastically different view of what an argument consists of.
My prejudice was clear? Of course it was. I was saying, "this seems a logical conclusion to me, does anyone disagree?"
Indeed, I can appreciate effective rhetoric as much as the next guy. I just disagree that your rhetoric was effective.

vm

lisarea

That's not actually his website. It's a Banzhaf Watch website, but point taken.

However, the lawsuit was over the fact that they were cooking their french fries in beef fat and not disclosing that. It wasn't necessarily an obesity thing at all.

From this page:

Granted, he does seem to have a health agenda, but the lawsuits themselves are not targeting the health risks, but the fact that these companies aren't correctly disclosing the ingredients.

Edited because I misspoke: He does have a pending lawsuit specifically targeting contributions to obesity, but he hasn't won it or anything. (And probably won't, IMO.)

Evolved

I am obese and it's my own fault, no one forced it into me.

Currently I am on Xenical and I'm eating right and have lost 14# in the past three weeks! YES!! Part of my success is seeing a Shrink who is helping me with my emotional problems, i.e.-why am I using food as a crutch. He's helping me deal with my problems and when I feel anxious, nervous or just pissed off I don't dig through the cupboards looking for something to gorge myself on, I take a deep breath and talk myself "down" and have a Diet Coke with Lemon instead.

In talking to my Dr. I have found that I'm not lazy or stupid like my evil mother-in-law told me. But I didn't know the "correct" way to eat either so I can blame my parents...honestly.

Dad refuses to eat anything but meat, potatoes & gravy. Veggies? Corn and potatoes. His Mother would make him sit at the table with his plate until he ate everything off of it, sometimes he would still be there 6 hours later. She was trying to get him to eat and all it did was make him a damned picky eater. And my Mom catered to him by only cooking foods that he liked and many of them are rich with sauces.

Fruit? We got that during Christmas. So I'm not a big fruit eater though I love my veggies.

I know we ate out on occasion but people these days eat out all the time. At the Diner I worked at alot of families ate there at least three-four times a week and the only "healthy food" we had was a Chef salad.

School food isn't any better. It doesn't feel like I left the Diner at all.

So who really is to blame? I think it's easier to blame the fast food giants than to blame oneself.

viscousmemories

Oops. I generally try to be more careful. Sorry.
I gathered from the first article that the food giants are responding to the fear of the storm of public condemnation that would come on the heels of litigation more than the litigation itself. I think they realize that the publicity surrounding a lawsuit would amplify awareness of the facts about just how unhealthy these products are and the extent to which they've been targeting kids with their marketing campaigns. Of course I'm just guessing.

vm

King Rat

I'm assuming that we are discussing the concious and un-concious mind right? If so, then the will is a function of the concious mind. If not, then I guess your point wasn't as clear as you thought.

See above. I am beginning to think that you are referring to a type of brainwashing that I am unfamiliar with. I'm not familiar with any type of brainwashing that is transmitted through advertising and can force you to purchase and eat a Death-Burger against your will. Please bring me up to speed.

Oh, sorry, this is abuse, arguments are just down the hall...

Let me see if I can simplify my position.

If you get fat from eating fast food, stop it. Blaming the fast food franchises only subjects your fat ass to ridicule for being stupid and fat. I say this as a former fat ass. I used to weigh 245 pounds, and I'm now down to 200. It was entirely my fault for eating like shit.

If you are still confused about my position and point, by all means let me know.

lisarea

I think you're absolutely right. I think they have a secondary agenda, too, in that they're blaming a 'litigious society' for what is really, at the core, nothing more than public opinion.

It just seems all too common that stories about ridiculous lawsuits against large corporations are misrepresented and overblown in the media in such a way that it contributes to this idea that there's a huge underground community of grifters out there, falling down in supermarkets, spreading contraceptive jelly on their toast, and eating non-dairy creamer by the jar just so they can live off lawsuits, ultimately at society's expense.

girlwriter

If you're overweight, it's most likely your own fault. come on, people, you know a Big Mac is bad for you. If your children eat them with any regularity, it's because you haven't raised them on a proper diet.

VM, you said:
Yes, there is a much better way. Better and cheaper for consumers and businesses. It goes like this: you demand it, I'll supply it. If you weren't asking for deathburgers, they sure as hell wouldn't be selling them. Brainwashing, my ass. Just don't buy the damn deathburger. I saw those comercials too. I live here too. I haven't eaten at a McD's in about 15 years. Easy.

And so what if we can't deny the benefits. You can't deny that there are some benefits to religion either. Or cheating on your spouse. Good greif, come up with a better defense. Just because it can't be denied that a thing has benefits does not make it a good thing. Or the best way to accomplish something.

Are you serious? This is not an argument. No one wants the choice of Jack Russel burgers in the first place. Obviously you can't choose *anything* from *anywhere* at *any time.* That's not the point. The point is that because a few people are fat and want to shlep the responsability of that onto McD's, we are all loseing our freedom to choose to eat a 500 calorie deathburger if we so *choose.* ...Jack Russel burger.

Liserea said:
Liserea, you're twisting the facts, here. No one said anything about criminalizing stupidity or ignorance, etc. We're not talking about making it a crime to be fat. We're talking about natural consequenses. With freedom comes responsability. You cannot have one without the other. If you take advantage of your freedom to eat deathburgers, you also must live with the natural consequenses of your descision. You will be fat. It's not "corporate America's" fault. It's your fault. You have the responsability to feed yourself and your children. You have the freedom to do so however you choose. If you abuse your freedom and do the *irresponsible* thing, (eat deathburgers) and get fat as a relult, that is your loss. Now you must take responsibility for being fat. If you choose to try to shlep that onto Corporate America, you will suffer the consequenses of that as well. Your choices will be limited to what Corporate America wishes to feed you. Your food will be more expensive. It goes on and on. Make your choice. Civilization has nothing to do with removing natural consequenses from life.

that said, I'd just like to say, (in case you think I'm talking out of my skinny ass,) that it's not skinny. I'm overweight, and yup, it's my own, damn fault. I eat too much fat and sugar and I don't exercise enough. End of story.

viscousmemories

I always have a problem with discussions of will, mind, thought, conscious, subconscious, etc. The fact that the psychological meaning of these terms doesn't always correlate with the philosophical understanding of them IMHO renders them fairly useless in discussions like this. That said, I believe I understand and can accept your usage.
I'm not a psychologist or sociologist, so I really can't tell you precisely how it is that advertising works to sway the purchasing decisions people make. If it has no sway at all, there's a multi-billion dollar industry built around a myth (besides catholicism). If it has an effect, then I don't understand how one could be said to have acted entirely of their own "free-will" to purchase something.
Points for the MP reference, but I'll just head on down the hall, then.
Please do.
Your position seems to be an argument against an individuals right to sue fast-food companies for their obesity. In other words, it only marginally, if at all, relates to my actual questions. I'll reiterate one from my OP (with new emphasis to illuminate the question): "I know a lot of people think our hyper-litigious society is pathetic, but don't massive, sweeping positive movements like this illustrate a very definite benefit to the fear of lawsuits these huge companies have?"
I hope I did so adequately.

vm

Sakpo

Parents should take responsibility for raising their children properly and seeing to it that their nutrition needs are met properly. I believe the government should help them do this by ensuring that the proper information is widely available. Beyond feeding their kids properly at meal times, parents should keep track of what their kids spend their pocket money on (I'm talking about kids at an age where the most money they might get independantly would come from a paper route or whatever). Parents should also encourage their children to get plenty of exercise (and there are avenues other than competitive sports if that's a problem). The government should also ensure that there are venues for kids to have exercise, such as after school programs for urban children, decent parks, etc. Raise a kid from infancy to eat properly, and to be active enough, and they probably will stay like that. If when they're older they make the choice to eat badly and sit on the couch a lot, that's their choice.

I'm not saying fast food corporations aren't evil, because they are, in many ways (promoting unhealthy lifestyles, targeting kids and parents, mistreating employees, etc). Nonetheless, I believe parents are ultimately responsible for what their kids eat, and adults are responsible for what they eat, regardless of what external pressure and manipulation comes from the fast food chains. I was raised by two fat people, and it took real effort for me to overcome that. I'm fairly fit and healthy, and I don't eat fast food often. But I do like having the choice to do so whenever I damn well please. If I want to be a fat pig and eat a big bucket of fried chicken, that ought to be my choice, and I shouldn't be allowed to sue KFC just because I stupidly make a habit of it. Every mentally competent adult must already know you can't eat fast food a lot, watch lots of tv, and not get fat (except maybe in some rare cases with people with crazy metabolisms... who probably still get clogged arteries or something).

Stephen Maturin

I suspect you're right, viscousmemories. If such publicity moves these companies to change the way they do business, so much the better.

Of course, there's another way to go about dealing with adverse litigation-related publicity: make the litigation go away by purchasing immunity legislation. They've got that base covered as well. Here's something that got horked up in the House of Representatives earlier this year:

This measure, dubbed H.R. 339, is still at the subcommittee hearing stage. Are the food companies referenced in the USA Today article serious about implementing any genuine changes in their business practices? I suspect that'll depend on how far this corporate welfare legislation goes on the Hill.