|
Laws like this are ones that need to get passed: (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| b4k-oz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
buying food from third world countries is a good thing. Why? Because even if the farmer makes 1/3 of what they make here its comparing apples to oranges. WHY? because perhaps that farmer's cost of living down there is 1/3 of what it is here? I always shudder when people compare countries using solely income and exchange rates. I was able to earn 1500 pesos a month and pay 150 for rent on an apartment twice the size of the one i pay 800 for in canada. Work that 1500 out into US dollars and i was making $500US a month. money for here but amazing to live on in argentina. |
So what your saying is that you support keeping third world countries around and getting rich off of others. I suppose ethics has no meaning or value in your life.
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.
It seems your values are only based on money? Tell me...what are you going to do when you die? Have you figured out that you can't take that money to your grave? I hope you have your Will in place and that some day you'll have a responsible executor, b/c if you die intestate....you can kiss that money goodbye....the govt. (queen) claims ownership to it then. Here's some free legal advise....also get a power of attorney...b/c if you ever go into a coma b/c you got food poisening which affected your brain then your outta luck too....they'll have to pull the plug b/c that money belongs to the crown....your family will have to sue for it.
Hopefully one day...you will feel the need for equitability....and you'll understand why it's essential to change your view, but if your only basis for argument is money and profit...then lets not run in cirles....
Asta luego, que pases buena noche |
|
|
| Spam |
| No no no, you don't get it. Liberty is all about equal rights, NOT equal treatment. There's a difference. |
|
|
| b4k-oz |
| 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. |
|
|
| karim |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Ok so lets get this straight.
You believe that
- mcdonalds should taste like 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 . 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 :rolleyes:
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 |
|
|
| karim |
Wooo, now I'm a JUNIOR tranceaddict. :tongue2
:)
Karim |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| 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. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| 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 |
|
|
| b4k-oz |
| 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? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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. |
|
|
| b4k-oz |
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. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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 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, 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. |
|
|
| b4k-oz |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Courts are supposed to operate within constitutional boundaries, not override it because they feel sympathy for some dumb lazy 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, 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 |
|
|
|
|
