TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Laws like this are ones that need to get passed:
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by Spam No no no, you don't get it. Liberty is all about equal rights, NOT equal treatment. There's a difference.

Ah...but I'm not talking about liberty...I'm talking about equality and fairness amongst each other.
Everyone, rich or poor should receive the same value. I don't believe in a class system, anymore than I believe in the power of the purse or control by the church. If the lawsuit against McDonald's was by rich obese ppl...I'd still support them b/c I believe that we are essentially fed chemicals and additives that can be harmful to us over the long period of time. The fact of the matter is that lobbyists protect those with self interest for profit. Corporations main legal argument over the last 20 years has been for privatization based on their promise to protect and do what's right for the public. Time and time again, those rights are trampled on and battled in court. And more than often, I see them walk away with a slap on the wrist, claiming no responsibility.

Some of us can't keep the blind faith going...I used to hold similar beliefs as you, Jayx1 and DigiNut...but time has changed my views. I cannot continue to ignore or turn a blind eye to what's going on.
I only hope some day...you'll also come to discover the same thing too.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Ok so lets get this straight. You believe that - mcdonalds should taste like shit because you think it's toxic and hazardous - advertisers should think of every single thing that can go wrong if you abuse their product and should post it everytime they advertise. (WARNING USING HAMMER COULD RESULT IN BROKEN FINGERS) - advertisers should also refrain from encouraging people to use their product - Holding signs up in the street is a form of subliminal advertising - Most people are pathetic and cannot think for themselves and therefore should be protected from everything other than granola and water - everything is always someone else's fault Did i forget anything?

You really have a talent at putting words in peoples mouths, and failing to see the side of the picture that goes against your arguement.

Point 1. I didn't say McDonalds should taste like shit. It tastes good but it has unhealthy consequences. The commercials reinforce an idea in the minds of the consumer that its OK to eat McDonalds all the time. Not forcing, but making it EASIER for a consumer to act on their wants where without such mental reinforcement, they'd find it easier to not endulge and hold off. I'm on the path of quitting smoking, and I do get cravings for cigarettes all the time. I've been doing a pretty good job of holding off thus far, but lemme tell you, if I saw an ad of somebody smoking a cigarette right now, teasing me with it, I'd be tempted to smoke. The same goes for McDonalds foods. Sure it's not a chemical addiction like nicotine, but food cravings I find can be just as strong, and vary amongst people. Somebody on a DIET, and not just for asthetic reasons, but to reduce cholesterol, cope with diabetes and become healthy on dr's orders, has alot harder time dealing with the cravings when they see juicy big macs in ads in their faces all the time.

Point 2. No advertisers shouldn't list every possible consequence of eating mcdonalds food in their ads. They should be able to however give an honest perspective of what their typical consumer looks like. Not a whole bunch of fit models or professional athletes endorsing their food, having the time of their lives eating McDonalds. Also, be responsible for what you advertise. "Lighter Choices" depends on your perspective of it. With McDonalds logic, if a quarter pounder has fewer calories than a big mac, say maybe 1% less, they could consider it a lighter choice even though it is not. This is in referance to the yoghurt that they sell which I've brought up and you guys seem to ignore.

Point 3. Advertisings goal should simply be to make aware that a product exists, not to defer them from the product. It's up to the consumer, or a source of unbiased perspective, to discover whether or not it is good worthwhile product. Of course this is a dream and hoping for much, but in an ideal world, this would be the norm. I don't feel advertising should give the illusion that said product would drastically improve your life like many ads do. A line from Adam Freeland's - We Want Your Soul: Buy a better life from the comfort of your sofa

Point 4. I brought up the sign thing as a form of advertising that I find a little extreme and personally find it cruel. If you enjoy it, more power to ya, but I personally see it as degrading to the sign holder.

Point 5. No, we shouldn't hold the populations hand in nutritional decisions, however the companies that push these unhealthy products should stop and think about what they are doing to the world when they are flat out encouraging people to consume their products excessively. No matter what exec you talk to of any fast food business, their dream is to have their food to be everybodies choice food in order to have larger profits. I just simply feel that these corporations should be held partly accountable for this, considering what I've already mentioned about their advertising tactics, as giving the illusion of a better life.

Point 6. I surely mentioned numerous times that ultimately, people have the right to their own decisions. With that being said, how do you figure my view is to blame somebody else for all the worlds problems? Your attempts at rhetoric are blatently obvious, or maybe you just simply misunderstood what I've tried to state so clearly before by only seeing your side of the picture within my words.

Through all of this, no hard feelings. To be honest, I love to debate issues and I'm having a blast. Thanks guys.


Karim

Wooo, now I'm a JUNIOR tranceaddict.


Karim

quote:

Originally posted by b4k-oz Jayx1 we are definately of two different world. I believe all should be treated equally regardless of race, creed, colour, religion, class, etc. I believe in assimilation and cooperation for a better quality of life. and I believe that all businesses can be rich without the need to trample on others rights.

Actually i believe in all of these things. Its just that we believe in different ways of acheiving that goal. You think that everyone and his uncle is responsible for every ill in the world and i think that people should be held accountable for their own actions.

quote:

Originally posted by karim The commercials reinforce an idea in the minds of the consumer that its OK to eat McDonalds all the time.

Isnt that the job of an advertiser? to encourage people to buy the product? Cars pollute and transit is a better choice. Shall we sue carmakers next?

quote:

I'm on the path of quitting smoking, and I do get cravings for cigarettes all the time. I've been doing a pretty good job of holding off thus far, but lemme tell you, if I saw an ad of somebody smoking a cigarette right now, teasing me with it, I'd be tempted to smoke. The same goes for McDonalds foods.

So now you are comparing fast food to cigarette addiction? Hahahahahah Thats choice. I wont even delve into why that is a pathetic comparison.

quote:

Sure it's not a chemical addiction like nicotine, but food cravings I find can be just as strong, and vary amongst people. Somebody on a DIET, and not just for asthetic reasons, but to reduce cholesterol, cope with diabetes and become healthy on dr's orders, has alot harder time dealing with the cravings when they see juicy big macs in ads in their faces all the time.

Ok well based on that diagnoses then we are addicts when it comes to ANYTHING we enjoy doing and thus should only do things we don't like to do.

quote:

Point 2. No advertisers shouldn't list every possible consequence of eating mcdonalds food in their ads. They should be able to however give an honest perspective of what their typical consumer looks like. Not a whole bunch of fit models or professional athletes endorsing their food, having the time of their lives eating McDonalds.

I quite often see hot young women eating fast food.

quote:

Also, be responsible for what you advertise. "Lighter Choices" depends on your perspective of it. With McDonalds logic, if a quarter pounder has fewer calories than a big mac, say maybe 1% less, they could consider it a lighter choice even though it is not. This is in referance to the yoghurt that they sell which I've brought up and you guys seem to ignore.

Again buyer beware. The nutritional information is there if you really care to read it. Otherwise its your own fault for not educating yourself. If the information were not available and deliberately hidden then you might have a case but not so here.

quote:

Point 3. Advertisings goal should simply be to make aware that a product exists, not to defer them from the product. It's up to the consumer, or a source of unbiased perspective, to discover whether or not it is good worthwhile product.

NO advertising's goal should be and is to make one aware, demonstrate and tell you why you would want to choose their product over the competitors.

quote:

I don't feel advertising should give the illusion that said product would drastically improve your life like many ads do.

. Well it depends what improving the quality means to you. A lot of people enjoy McDonalds knowing that its bad to eat a big mac but it makes them happy. It gives them pleasure. Thats a pretty good measure for quality of life if you ask me. I make the concious decision to eat fast food when i do knowing full well the consequences but thats MY choice.

quote:

Point 4. I brought up the sign thing as a form of advertising that I find a little extreme and personally find it cruel. If you enjoy it, more power to ya, but I personally see it as degrading to the sign holder.

Great, then dont ever apply for a job holding a sign since there are lots of people willing to do it anyways. Then everyone will be happy. (cruel??? degarding?? huh???? I didnt know we made them do it naked! LOL)

quote:

Point 5. No, we shouldn't hold the populations hand in nutritional decisions, however the companies that push these unhealthy products should stop and think about what they are doing to the world when they are flat out encouraging people to consume their products excessively. No matter what exec you talk to of any fast food business, their dream is to have their food to be everybodies choice food in order to have larger profits.

Sure just like its the organic farmers dream for the same profits. Just that you happen to agree with one food choice but not the other. If people didnt buy mcdonalds then mcdonalds wouldnt exist. Like i said, mcdonalds has actually closed restaurants in the past 2 years for the first time ever because consumers ARE making a choice. But you chose to ignore that point.

quote:

I just simply feel that these corporations should be held partly accountable for this, considering what I've already mentioned about their advertising tactics, as giving the illusion of a better life.

They are. Its called the board of health and it's strict reglations regarding food handling and safety. It's called the CFIA which is the government agency that ensures food safety. These places are held accountable for reasons that diginut describe above.

quote:

Point 6. I surely mentioned numerous times that ultimately, people have the right to their own decisions.

you say this but then go on about how other's should be held accountable for those decisions and not the actual person who made that decision.

quote:

With that being said, how do you figure my view is to blame somebody else for all the worlds problems?

go back and read everything you just posted. You say that individuals are driven to eat fast food without control of their own behaviour because they are "idiots" who don't know any better and need to be protected.

quote:

Your attempts at rhetoric are blatently obvious, or maybe you just simply misunderstood what I've tried to state so clearly before by only seeing your side of the picture within my words.

I think i understand your point of view quite clearly

quote:

Through all of this, no hard feelings. To be honest, I love to debate issues and I'm having a blast. Thanks guys.

None taken. Different points of view are what make the world go round, even if you are wrong LOL

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Actually i believe in all of these things. Its just that we believe in different ways of acheiving that goal. You think that everyone and his uncle is responsible for every ill in the world and i think that people should be held accountable for their own actions.

Jayx1...there you go again....changing words around....I believe in the chain of command...the root of our common law-legal foundation. Believe me...if there was a way to go after the big guy without having to go thru the little guy...then I'd be all for it...but our court system doesn't permit it. In every legal suit, you have to follow the chain. But you can't follow the chain if someone blocks it.

Perhaps you'll understand it this way....suppose a retail manager is told by his new area supervisor that he must fire 2 of his best workers (black guys) b/c they are black. The basis for dismissal is made up. When the manager refuses he is dismissed, then the 2 guys are also dismissed. a complaint is lodged under employment standards...but just as an investigation starts....the area supervisor is supposedly dismissed. Word is he now works in Quebec but the new company is under the same umbrella corporation.....now...can we still proceed in Ontario.....the answer is no. Ontario has no reciprocity with Quebec...the guy walk away from culpability of wrongful dismissal. Substitution of liability is turned and suit proceeds against the Corporation....then the corporation closes operation overnite. Leaving 60 employees stranded and without pay. Can we sue...no...Corporation wins. Only option is have Ont. lawyers pursue thru lawyers in Quebec...= lots of money, time and grievance. Approximate time to settlement 10-15yrs....statute of limitation prohibits prosecution after 7. Corporation wins.
This a clear example of how blocks are put in to circumvent regulations to protect inherent rights. Add to that some changes to employment standards limiting rights to make a claim--->down from 1 yr to 6mths. And so on and so on....more blocks to eliminate the chain. Now I ask you, for who benefits from these changes to employment standards? Who pays and controls ES? Do u understand the chain of command or the blocks now?

quote:

Originally posted by b4k-oz I believe in the chain of command...

Funny how you say that, because I've been having some problems seeing how you believe in the chain of command.

In case you forgot, in a constitutional monarchy such as Canada, the chain of command goes:

Constitution -> Queen -> Parliament -> Courts

Perhaps it's convenient to forget about the first two links in that chain, but they still exist. The Queen, I suppose, is not very relevant, but the constitution is, and neither parliament nor the courts are supposed to be able to override that. The only thing that can override the constitution is a constitutional amendment passed by majority vote.

DigiNut I'm talking bout chain within a court case. Perhaps its time to hit the law books. Try Carswell Rules. It's only 585 pages.

but you might find that watching free jumpers on tlc more interesting than the book.

quote:

Originally posted by b4k-oz DigiNut I'm talking bout chain within a court case. Perhaps its time to hit the law books. Try Carswell. It's only 585 pages.

Courts are supposed to operate within constitutional boundaries, not override it because they feel sympathy for some dumb lazy fuck who never exercised and couldn't stick to a reasonably good diet. Do I need to get into the reasons why it's unconstitutional to make a corporation pay for a customer's misuse of the product?

The problem is liberal judges, and it's very fortunate for America that they know have a [somewhat] conservative government that has the balls to say to those judges, fuck you and your political beliefs, you're going to start doing your job the way it's supposed to be done and you're not going to screw over any more innocent people.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Courts are supposed to operate within constitutional boundaries, not override it because they feel sympathy for some dumb lazy fuck who never exercised and couldn't stick to a reasonably good diet. Do I need to get into the reasons why it's unconstitutional to make a corporation pay for a customer's misuse of the product? The problem is liberal judges, and it's very fortunate for America that they know have a [somewhat] conservative government that has the balls to say to those judges, fuck you and your political beliefs, you're going to start doing your job the way it's supposed to be done and you're not going to screw over any more innocent people.

hahahaha innocent people....don't you mean innocent corporations. Isn't that who you support. Are you confusing yourself now?

dude read the book or watch tlc....it's your choice

quote:

Originally posted by b4k-oz hahahaha innocent people....don't you mean innocent corporations. Isn't that who you support. Are you confusing yourself now? dude read the book or watch tlc....it's your choice

Innocent is innocent, whether it's a corporation or an individual. In this case it's a corporation, but many more frivolous lawsuits have been successfully filed against individuals (like the burglar who got himself locked in somebody's garage for a few days and got $40,000 out of it... ridiculous).

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Innocent is innocent, whether it's a corporation or an individual. In this case it's a corporation, but many more frivolous lawsuits have been successfully filed against individuals (like the burglar who got himself locked in somebody's garage for a few days and got $40,000 out of it... ridiculous).

Ah....but now your confusing frivolous lawsuits with non-ethical law practice. A good experienced lawyer would have fixed this right. That's the problem when you get juniors with no trial experience.
Now if it's ethics that you believe in....then why are you siding for a corporation when reasonable doubt exists? Have you confused yourself again?

quote:

Originally posted by b4k-oz Ah....but now your confusing frivolous lawsuits with non-ethical law practice. A good experienced lawyer would have fixed this right. That's the problem when you get juniors with no trial experience.

Huh?

I'm sure Microsoft had very good lawyers on the antitrust case, but they still lost it.

Civil cases let the judge decide singlehandedly instead of having a trial by jury (which I think is a big mistake). When you have crackpot judges, the cases have ridiculous outcomes. That is the problem, not junior lawyers.

quote:

Now if it's ethics that you believe in....then why are you siding for a corporation when reasonable doubt exists? Have you confused yourself again?

Again... huh?

The term "reasonable doubt" generally only applies to criminal court cases - tort law is just on the balance of probability. But the restrictions for tort law on what can pass as a lawsuit are pretty clear, and the judges really have not been following them.

One particularly important requirement is foreknowledge. In order for a suit to be successful, there had to be foreknowledge that the complainant could or would be harmed. Now you tell me, how would a fast food franchise come to expect that somebody would eat the most unhealthy items on their menu once a day or more and never excersize? That's not a *reasonable* expectation. The foreknowledge requirement isn't even close to being fulfilled. You might as well sue your electrician for putting electrical sockets in your house after you stick your finger into one of them, because that amounts to the same thing.

What do you want them to do... put a big sign up in the store saying "CAUTION: EATING HUGE AMOUNTS OF FAST FOOD EVERYDAY WITHOUT EXERCISING MAY MAKE YOU OBESE"? Doesn't that strike you as common sense? Do you really think having that sign would even change anyone's mind?

To be honest, I think the whole concept of "liability" is bullshit no matter what you apply it to. All it does is open the door for legal blurring and fudging.

Im about to have some pizza. Any warnings that i should adhere to?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Im about to have some pizza. Any warnings that i should adhere to?

enjoy

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Isnt that the job of an advertiser? to encourage people to buy the product? Cars pollute and transit is a better choice. Shall we sue carmakers next?

The entire time, my points have not been about the lawsuits. Even in my first post, I mention that there's not enough of a case in my arguement to win. My arguement was strictly on laws of morality and whether or not companies like McDonalds are doing the ethical thing. Car makers, although not fully (Hummer H2), are taking steps into creating products that are cleaner, and more environmentally friendly (Honda Hybrids, Hydrogen powered cars). They really don't have to do this, but pressure from various groups, as well as government regulation is forcing car makers to think twice about emissions. I guess you would say "if you don't want to be a part of the problem, don't drive" but when SOCIETY makes for cars being almost a necessity, it's not practical to simply rely on public transit, especially if you live in a suburb or a smaller city than toronto.

But like somebody else mentioned about making ends meet and never having time to cook, this may be the ONLY way for many people, especially during times of depression, where a larger portion of the population than you think, have to deal with overtime work, multiple jobs and dual income families in order to make rent or mortgage payments. Although developed countries have the highest obesity the wealthy people of these countries are generally in better shape:

Developed countries have high obesity rates, food deprivation is unusual, and physical activity levels have decreased greatly. Lower income households are reported to feature diets composed of foods that tend to be high in calories and fat - contributors to overweight and obesity - since vegetables, fruits and whole grain cereals are more expensive.Source

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 So now you are comparing fast food to cigarette addiction? Hahahahahah Thats choice. I wont even delve into why that is a pathetic comparison.

Studying the brain mechanism involved in feeding behaviors, obesity researcher Gene-Jack Wang of Brookhaven National Laboratory has found that food stimuli�sights, smells and sounds�trigger the brain regions that are also associated with addictive responses to cocaine and other drugs. Pathetic? Source

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Ok well based on that diagnoses then we are addicts when it comes to ANYTHING we enjoy doing and thus should only do things we don't like to do.

Common sense tells us that it's not good to eat too much fast food, and since many are already addicted to fast food (see point above), than the ads and marketing tactics of some corporations toys with the addicted mind, pushing it to succumb. Will power can only take so much psychological torture, and like I said, addiction VARIES.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 I quite often see hot young women eating fast food.

In the history of fast food advertising, a vast majority of the people in the ads have been in shape, and attractive. Look at the lineup of the majority of mcdonalds, 50-60% could be considered clinically obese. Where's that 50-60% in the ads? Quite often see models? Maybe, or maybe you just notice hot girls more. I know I do, but I certainly don't go to McDonalds for the ladies.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Again buyer beware. The nutritional information is there if you really care to read it. Otherwise its your own fault for not educating yourself. If the information were not available and deliberately hidden then you might have a case but not so here.

It's there, you're right, but hard to find according to Supersize Me and my own hunt one time at my local McDonalds. Also, the question of ethics comes into play. I'm convinced that McDonalds knows very well that their use of the words "healthy choices" is a step away from the truth. In comparison to the big macs and the McFlurries, yeah, they probably are a healthier choice, but calling them the "healthy choice" is deceiving and immoral. Anytime there's a need for a buyer beware caption, its proof that many people do get duped into believing they're making a healthy choice, just because they chose not to be at 100% guard all their time, and entrusted the words of a company that knew very well they could abuse your trust. They figure if the healthy choice menu tasted like crap, it'd be a failing addition to their menu, nobody would buy it, profits lost.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 NO advertising's goal should be and is to make one aware, demonstrate and tell you why you would want to choose their product over the competitors.

Does that make it ok to use deceptive tactics?



Find me a case where a man, eating a sandwhich from McDonalds, loves it so much, that he feel his life would be better parading the streets with a sign to cheesy music. For christs sake, I just saw one of those McDicks Sign ads with a BABY IN A CRIB wearing a sign with a look of content on his face and the grown up looking over with a look of pride. The message they are trying to show is that the sandwhiches are so good, they drive people nuts. Sure it can be taken with a grain of salt and appreciated for its humour, but how many people would make that connection?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Great, then dont ever apply for a job holding a sign since there are lots of people willing to do it anyways. Then everyone will be happy. (cruel??? degarding?? huh???? I didnt know we made them do it naked! LOL)

So many people are willing to do it, not because it's their dream career, it's the way the system, especially with todays job market, shits on the little guy putting them into a job that anybody can do degrading their sense of self worth. I don't think it's a job that many truly want to do, I think it's a job that many people are "willing to settle for" because there ain't much else out there.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Sure just like its the organic farmers dream for the same profits. Just that you happen to agree with one food choice but not the other. If people didnt buy mcdonalds then mcdonalds wouldnt exist. Like i said, mcdonalds has actually closed restaurants in the past 2 years for the first time ever because consumers ARE making a choice. But you chose to ignore that point.

McDonalds closures are open to speculation. Analysts say competition due to aggressive marketing by the other big fast food players is what hurt McDonalds more. Here's an article, nowhere in it does it mention people making conscious decisions to eat healthy is what hurt its business. It does mention quality of food, but that's because the competition was beefing up it's menu with higher quality foods (Wendy's - Grilled Chicken Sandwhiches, BK's - steak burgers) leaving the classic, shitty ass McDonalds beef patties in the dust. Source

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 They are. Its called the board of health and it's strict reglations regarding food handling and safety. It's called the CFIA which is the government agency that ensures food safety. These places are held accountable for reasons that diginut describe above.

I'm talking about accountability in not aiding in the reduction of widespread food addiction that is considered by many to be a leading cause of American Obesity. Their ads are simply misleading.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 you say this but then go on about how other's should be held accountable for those decisions and not the actual person who made that decision.

Accountability can be split up into shares. 2 sides can share a blame in different proportions. My points show that the people are at fault to an extent, and the corporations are at fault to an extent. Your arguement is that the corporations have simply done NOTHING wrong and widespread obesity has nothing to do with the surge in fast food over the last few decades.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 You say that individuals are driven to eat fast food without control of their own behaviour because they are "idiots" who don't know any better and need to be protected.

Because they are weaker minded individuals without the ability to control willpower. Who knows, maybe many could hold off if their senses weren't exposed constantly to the images, sounds, and smells (drive by a KFC) of fast food. Fast food chooses to ignore the potentially hazardous consequences of these marketing actions knowing very well that there's a potential hazard in it.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 I think i understand your point of view quite clearly

No you don't.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 None taken. Different points of view are what make the world go round, even if you are wrong LOL

If I were to be wrong, which I'm not. Neither extreme side is right. The consumer is not 100% to blame, and the corporations are not 100% to blame. The truth lies in the middle, which is what I've been trying to say this entire time. The bottom line is that fast food chains use the human weakness of food addiction, which is proven above scientificially, to their advantage to turn a profit using deceptive and deliberate marekting tactics to achieve this. Which is where they are at fault. And people should be able to control their addictions through will power, which is where the people are at fault, but we as humans are not perfect, and it's IMMORAL for corporations to take advantage of that.


Karim

Damn, don't u sleep dude?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Huh? I'm sure Microsoft had very good lawyers on the antitrust case, but they still lost it. Civil cases let the judge decide singlehandedly instead of having a trial by jury (which I think is a big mistake). When you have crackpot judges, the cases have ridiculous outcomes. That is the problem, not junior lawyers.

Re Microsoft...are you saying you disagree with the outcome? I think perhaps you are letting your personal bias cloud your judgement on this one. That ruling was equitable on all merits. Besides that's the USA...that's different from Canada.
Re crackpot judges...My friend I'd be very cautious about calling any judge a name. Just about every one I've met is articulate and asstute. Though some may appear to be mistaken (in your eyes) I assure you they do use the law as the basis for a ruling...it's up to the opposing...(using precedents)to change an outcome.

quote:

Again... huh? The term "reasonable doubt" generally only applies to criminal court cases - tort law is just on the balance of probability. But the restrictions for tort law on what can pass as a lawsuit are pretty clear, and the judges really have not been following them. One particularly important requirement is foreknowledge. In order for a suit to be successful, there had to be foreknowledge that the complainant could or would be harmed. Now you tell me, how would a fast food franchise come to expect that somebody would eat the most unhealthy items on their menu once a day or more and never excersize? That's not a *reasonable* expectation. The foreknowledge requirement isn't even close to being fulfilled. You might as well sue your electrician for putting electrical sockets in your house after you stick your finger into one of them, because that amounts to the same thing. What do you want them to do... put a big sign up in the store saying "CAUTION: EATING HUGE AMOUNTS OF FAST FOOD EVERYDAY WITHOUT EXERCISING MAY MAKE YOU OBESE"? Doesn't that strike you as common sense? Do you really think having that sign would even change anyone's mind?

Correct RD does apply to criminal cases and Tort on prob. And your correct, to some degree, about not following restrictions. However, the overall foundation for decision making still applies the burden of reasonable doubt or reasonable cause to reach a judgement.

Re Foreknowledge....it most definately is there. It wasn't the corporation's choice to put out pamphlets about their food. It was an obligation set out by Health Canada. And yet you can go to a micky D and still not find it visible or accurate. Micky D only completes it according to requirements and still fails to include every menu item. Look for a chicken fajita calorie or carb next time your there to block your arteries.

Would a sign really hurt? No! As a matter a fact, it would help the corp's defence (provided it wasn't in small print somewhere in the back or blocked by another sign). Not only would it be a clear indication of making a buyer beware, but it could also prove that a buyer knowingly ignored the signs-->therefore ipso facto-->their case of deliberate harm will have no merit.

quote:

To be honest, I think the whole concept of "liability" is bullshit no matter what you apply it to. All it does is open the door for legal blurring and fudging.

Well then if you think this...perhaps you should do something about it. I challenge you to find a way to change it. You might be surprised at how strong a ties the Monarchy still has on us.

quote:

Originally posted by b4k-oz Damn, don't u sleep dude?

I had a bunch of people over for poker last night and the game dragged on. That and an early morning of class.


Karim

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Im about to have some pizza. Any warnings that i should adhere to?

Ya....don't forget to chase it down with a colon blaster

With the cheap pizza dough, tomatoe sauce and cheese, your gonna need it. Yum, bleached flour, sugar and yeast topped with pasturized, sugar preservative and injected vitamins in the tomatoe sauce along with some processed (not real) cheese.

Cheese is a good, high-protein food IF (I repeat, IF) it is real cheese, without added color or extra junk. Also, the best cheese by far is from raw milk, which you can only get at a health-food store or a good food co-op. Cheese spreads and "pasteurized, processed cheese products" act as plastic clogging your arteries that can later develop into gald stones or colon cancer if consumed excessively.

If the pizza comes from a fast food place then your eating processed cheese---can you feel the constipation yet?

The tomatoe sauce comes from a supplier who pasturizes it(boils and kills all the nutrients) and adds preservatives like sugar, citric acid (better add your name to the diabetic foundation of Canada) and may even inject back the vitamine C and calcium lost during pasturization.

Traditional pizzas are not made like the fast food pizza's....they actually use real ingrediants. But since fast food is cheaper...it drove away all the business of keeping pizza's wholesome (loss of value and quality).

Did you make that Will yet?

quote:

Originally posted by b4k-oz Damn, don't u sleep dude?

Who goes to sleep before midnight?

quote:

Re Microsoft...are you saying you disagree with the outcome? I think perhaps you are letting your personal bias cloud your judgement on this one. That ruling was equitable on all merits. Besides that's the USA...that's different from Canada.

Ah yes, the dreaded "equitable". Equitable for who? There is nothing moral about punishing success.

And of course it's in the USA - this whole thread is referring to U.S. law, not Canadian.

quote:

Re crackpot judges...My friend I'd be very cautious about calling any judge a name. Just about every one I've met is articulate and asstute. Though some may appear to be mistaken (in your eyes) I assure you they do use the law as the basis for a ruling...it's up to the opposing...(using precedents)to change an outcome.

No, actually, they don't use the law as a basis for a ruling, and that's what this whole legislation is about. For years now, judges have been REWRITING the law with their rulings. I don't even understand your objection - it's up to the opposing *what* to change an outcome? Opposing judge? There's only one judge in a trial.

Crackpot doesn't imply that they're stupid or can't string together a complete sentence - it means that they're imposing their personal values on people by abusing the law instead of enforcing it. Liberal judges hate the big faceless corporations so they always side with the little guy. Almost ALL of those liability cases should have been thrown out and the complainants given a steel-toe law boot in the ass, but instead these judges award them millions of dollars solely on the basis that the corporation has billions (and since they have lots of money, it's okay to take from them!) and they felt sorry for the dumb shits who filed the suits.

quote:

Correct RD does apply to criminal cases and Tort on prob. And your correct, to some degree, about not following restrictions. However, the overall foundation for decision making still applies the burden of reasonable doubt or reasonable cause to reach a judgement.

Are we getting philosophical here or something? Yeah, every decision anyone makes in life has something to do with reasonable doubt or probable cause. In a civil trial, it's stated simply as whoever the judge believes.

But once again, the problem isn't that the judges are believing the wrong people; I'm sure the judges have all the facts straight. The problem is the way they "interpret" these facts as actual harm done when the civil guidelines clearly show that they aren't.

quote:

Re Foreknowledge....it most definately is there. It wasn't the corporation's choice to put out pamphlets about their food. It was an obligation set out by Health Canada. And yet you can go to a micky D and still not find it visible or accurate. Micky D only completes it according to requirements and still fails to include every menu item. Look for a chicken fajita calorie or carb next time your there to block your arteries.

Really, I've found them both visible and accurate, and I'd like you to show me where Health Canada sets out that obligation (none of the other fast food restaurants I'm aware of provide this information).

And suppose we were to agree that this information is not right in everybody's face - so what? Everybody in their right mind knows that a bacon double cheeseburger every day is not healthy for you. Complain all you want about the lack of funding in public schools but we're taught about the 4 food groups in grade 2.

quote:

Would a sign really hurt? No! As a matter a fact, it would help the corp's defence (provided it wasn't in small print somewhere in the back or blocked by another sign). Not only would it be a clear indication of making a buyer beware, but it could also prove that a buyer knowingly ignored the signs-->therefore ipso facto-->their case of deliberate harm will have no merit.

I honestly can't believe you said that. But I suppose now we all know whose fault it is that Tim Horton's needs to put a "CAUTION: HOT" label on their coffee cups and 3M has to put "WARNING: DO NOT RUB ON ANUS" on superglue.

Manufacturers and distributors aren't responsible for the safety of every lame-brained braying jackass that buys their product, and it is a very sick society who says that they are. I say again, we had the right idea 30 years ago: LET THE BUYER BEWARE.

quote:

Well then if you think this...perhaps you should do something about it. I challenge you to find a way to change it. You might be surprised at how strong a ties the Monarchy still has on us.

Again, we're talking about the USA here, not Canada.

Pff...Hey DigiNut....If I say the sky is grey....what'll you say?

quote:

Originally posted by b4k-oz Pff...Hey DigiNut....If I say the sky is grey....what'll you say?

And the point of that comment is?

quote:

Originally posted by b4k-oz Pff...Hey DigiNut....If I say the sky is grey....what'll you say?

Uh... it must be a cloudy day?

quote:

Originally posted by b4k-oz Ya....don't forget to chase it down with a colon blaster With the cheap pizza dough, tomatoe sauce and cheese, your gonna need it. Yum, bleached flour, sugar and yeast topped with pasturized, sugar preservative and injected vitamins in the tomatoe sauce along with some processed (not real) cheese. Cheese is a good, high-protein food IF (I repeat, IF) it is real cheese, without added color or extra junk. Also, the best cheese by far is from raw milk, which you can only get at a health-food store or a good food co-op. Cheese spreads and "pasteurized, processed cheese products" act as plastic clogging your arteries that can later develop into gald stones or colon cancer if consumed excessively. If the pizza comes from a fast food place then your eating processed cheese---can you feel the constipation yet? The tomatoe sauce comes from a supplier who pasturizes it(boils and kills all the nutrients) and adds preservatives like sugar, citric acid (better add your name to the diabetic foundation of Canada) and may even inject back the vitamine C and calcium lost during pasturization. Traditional pizzas are not made like the fast food pizza's....they actually use real ingrediants. But since fast food is cheaper...it drove away all the business of keeping pizza's wholesome (loss of value and quality). Did you make that Will yet?

Thanks mom!

Shit im going to die from that pizza? OH NO! I guess they made it with rat poison.

Actually i believe ontario law says that real cheese must ALWAYS be used on pizzas (to protect the dairy farmers) so there goes that conspiracy theory.

Dude, im not going to die from eating a pizza so give up! And to Karim, market forces did not coerce me into buying the pizza. I happen to LIKE pizza.

Coercion is defined by the use of force or the threat thereof. Force is used only by the State. TV ads can only make weak suggestions, nothing more.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.