King Rat

That was the thrust of your argument? I bypassed it as irrelevant commentary.

So, the answer is no. There are still millions of fat customers that are throwing money at the evil fast food empire for more death-burgers. If these suits succeed the FFF will just factor them in as the cost of doing business. Just as car companies do.

Listen man, people need to gird up their loins and take some responsibility for their actions. You were not brainwashed to eat that tasty-fat-laden-death-burger. Yes, it was temptingly suggested to you, but exercise some retraint and eat a salad instead, o.k.?

Zephyrus

Really, it is everyone's choice on whether to eat excessively and to be lazy. They choose one way, and they receive the consequences (ignoring rare glandular defects and conditions). However, that's not the whole perspective.

Let's say you had an arms manufacturing company, selling weapons to some dictatorial regime, knowing full well that those weapons would be used for nefarious ends. Don't you bear some responsibility for what happens to those at the end of the line? A rough analogy, admittingly, but I fell it's still valid.

If the public or the state has a compelling interest in regulating the actions of these corporatons, it's completely acceptable for the corporation to be regulated. Forcing a change of the products sold, or at the very least more vigorous and viewable nutritional standards (who'd buy a meal with 1500 calories, half from fat?--not sure on the exact numbers, but they are exceedingly high) is totally acceptable when the company is causing a decline of health in a significant segment of society for profit, even if everyone in that segment (and that's ignoring children, one of the groups eating that trash without any say in the matter) is cooperating by buying those products sold.

viscousmemories

That's probably our biggest source of miscommunication, then. I read what I thought was an interesting article in the newspaper, and started a thread to solicit the opinions of everyone here. There was no thrust to my argument, because I wasn't presenting an argument. Even if I didn't make that clear enough in my OP, I'm positive I have bent over backward to make that clear in every post since.
You, on the other hand, haven't veered the slightest bit from your initial knee-jerk response to an imaginary argument that has nothing to do with the conversation I tried to initiate here. If you had actually read my OP carefully, followed that up by reading the article I referenced, then paid attention to everything everyone has said since, you would see this. Instead, you have chosen to simply reiterate your initial comment that people need to take responsibility for their own actions. As much as I'd like to argue against the oversimplification inherent in that stance, I don't see any point in taking on an issue that is irrelevant to the discussion.

vm

King Rat

Silly me, I thought your title was relevant somehow.



Perhaps your title should have been;

Heh, try it, it may actually end up being interesting. One man's oversimplification is another man's pearl of wisdom.

Despite your valiant efforts, it seems to be what the thread is about now. I guess everyone decided to talk about the truly interesting facets of your post instead of what you wanted.

In the entire history of the net this has never, ever happened before!


BTW the opening quote of your homepage

Had me laughing pretty hard. Skeletor...

livius drusus

King Rat, although the title of this thread is somewhat inaccurate, it is customary to respond to the OP, not just the title. I don't believe the OP was unclear at all. There has been plenty of dicussion on the value of using civil law to effect societal change in this thread. In fact, the first response to the OP was precisely on topic. The majority of posts (see those by Kinross, JGL53, lisarea, Stephen Maturin, boingo82, seebs, MortalWombat and Zephyrus) have also been apropos.

viscousmemories, since a handful of people have responded to the title alone, I'd be glad to change it to something more indicative of the question you asked in your OP if you'd like.

King Rat

Dammit, and I was having such a good time.

viscousmemories

Fair enough. How about, "Obesity Litigation: Do "Frivolous" Lawsuits Have An Upside?"

vm

livius drusus

Done, sirrah.

King Rat

Nice qualifiers there "Kraft plans to reduce the portion size, fat and calories of many of its foods."

Now nobody will buy fries!

I don't believe one single word of this one. Shall we bet if this ever happens. I'll lay a fiver via Paypal.

Does this mean that the entire Kellogg's line will stop using refined sugars and preservatives? Huzzah!

Was this more in line of what you were looking for VM?

viscousmemories

Dramatic speculation as to whether or not the companies referenced in the article will actually follow through with their promises? Nope. Not exactly what I was looking for. What I was looking for (and which, as livius pointed out, most other participants in this thread have provided) is a discussion of the pros and cons of so-called "frivolous" litigation and the potential societal benefits of the same.

You are of course free to continue painting the thread with sarcastic hyperbole that frames your obviously quite solid and unchangeable opinion on all matters great and small, but since that really has nothing to do with the topic we're trying to discuss, forgive me if I refrain from encouraging you by responding. If you'd like to discuss the real topic of this thread, now at your implied request clearly spelled out in its title, please do.
I don't have a firm opinion on the subject we're discussing. That's why I initiated the discussion. I am actually genuinely interested in hearing other people's opinions, and will draw my own conclusions based on the input of everyone else. It's called having an open mind and trying to learn from other's perspective. I strongly recommend it.

vm