I am no MacDonald's fan, but this lawsuit against them is just plain stupid.
AM - Decided I did not want to handle the mill again, so I ventured outside. Bit chilly (6). In fact just before I headed out I hit my typical weather site, and saw it was 29 - so I thought it was a bit warmer. Of course, that was the weather for CO, and not here. In any case, I had a wicked frozen beard that got great stares as I got back to the hotel. Ventured around the Tech Park here ... over and over again. So not much different than a mill I guess. 10 miles very easy.
HIGHLIGHT 2010: The World Championship of Burro Racing. 29 miles. 10-13k feet in terms of where you are for elevation. And a burro you can push, pull or carry. Absolutely silly. Loved it and got fourth place. Had a PBR beer handed to me by JT at about 25 miles which was heavenly.
That burro race was something. Pretty cool you were able to coax your animal to a good finish. Talk about losing control of variables. One of those variables goes by the name of Mr. Ziffel.
ReplyDeleteI remember when I passed through Fairplay the previous summer and was like... "Burro Days"? All hail the mighty burro!
You can tell I didn't go to school at Mines.
And needless to say, I'm not a fan of that Mickey D's lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteSo... a corporation is supposed to lose its right to offer a certain product for sale... simply because a parent is not able or willing to say "no" to their kids? My parents almost never let us have fast food. That's the answer people: good parenting.
Tort law in the U.S. is just totally broken, because there is no way this lawsuit should ever be filed. Our culture and legal system have just totally lost sight of individual responsibility. The same principle came up on Lou Dawson's blog the other with regard to property owners being potentially liable because a hiker/skier hurts themselves. That is just totally nuts and totally wrong.
It's a tough call, but it's not.
ReplyDeleteMcDonald's, especially in specific markets, has an unfair advantage.
I totally agree that parenting plays a big role in this. But parents are battling millions and millions of dollars that a company like MickyDs spends to reach its consumers. So, again, easy to "Just say no," but millions of dollars is spent on research to help best reach those consumers (Kids) and millions more to make the food experience super cool.
The blogger sarcastically mentions the play lands and clown. It's no joke.
Now, we might be a little jaded at this point in our history, but the fast food industry is wreaking havoc around the world.
Read the last chapter of Fast Food Nation to see what fast food companies are doing abroad. Disturbing.
I just saw a tweet recently saying MickyD's is opening 1.3 restaurants a day in China. The tweeter commented, if we can't beat them, make them obese.
I would say, just to be sure, hammer the industry. I have little trouble seeing some cause for that lawsuit. On principle and the reasoning.
That one suit filed because s/he spilled coffee on himself? That's nuts.
Summary: Parents wake up! However, it's a losing battle for the population as a whole.
No way man thats a cop out.
ReplyDeleteYou could sue anybody making anything ont hat same argument. It doesn't pass the straight face test.
McDonald's policies overseas don't have any bearing on their right to include toys with food purchases.
ReplyDeleteI really am curious (not a lawyer). Play MickyD's defense clown: let's hear a brief respone to that complaint (not a hypothetical one - "it's a free country").
ReplyDeleteMatt said:
ReplyDelete>let's hear a brief respone to that complaint
Already did: it's the parent's responsibility, not McDonald's.
But, if one regards freedom as merely hypothetical, then moral responsibility is going to seem no less so.
Parent responsibility is your defense? Warms the heart but that's pretty weak. You don't live in a little isolated village where you (parent) control the media (which is more than tv). Anything else?
ReplyDeleteFreedom, as we are all learning late, requires limits. Period.
And don't give me your latest Rush Limbaugh bull shit.
Moral responsibility means protecting ourselves, our loved ones, humanity.
Mcdonalds, for those not paying attention, doesn't give a shit about humanity.
Really?
I like mcdonalds french fries.
ReplyDeleteI love lamp.
Yes - parent responsibility and that ain't weak. In fact, endorsing this suit and the behavior that furthers encourages is weak. It only further perpetuates the thought that people are not accountable and it is not their fault.
ReplyDeleteHow about a class action lawsuit against the PPA board for making me run a race as they have an unfair advantage of having a Front Range 14er?
OMG Matt you have to be kidding.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like it, then just don't eat there. Holy moly.
How many restaurants provide crayons for kids to draw? Oh my oh my I need to sue them because my kids insist on going there so they can color.
And where did this Rush Limbaugh vomit come from? LOL.
I did notice the lady is a government employee, which helps explain a lot. I'm sure she has this type of thinking pounded into her head every day (whom she can now sue, using the same logic as her own suit).
If you don't want to live in a free country where companies have the right to advertise their products, move to some third world socialist country, run by a crack pot dictator (who by the way just LOVES your children) and quit crying. McDonalds sucks - anyone with half a brain knows it. The rest of that blather is a copout. Raise your kids right or shut your cake hole.
ReplyDeleteYou guys are hilarious. Especially you, HappyTrails.
ReplyDeleteYou're so predictable it's sad. Get it?
Brett, the Rush Limbaugh vomit came from you and the rest of your tea partyers. Read HappyTrails if you still can't see it.
GZ and Brett, drawing comparisons to mountains and crayons really secured your credibility here. I'm being sarcastic.
As if this lawsuit is some kind of novelty? It's just completely absurd? How could anyone think such a complaint would carry any legitimacy?
Santa Clara and San Francisco have already banned the happy meal because of the toy. And for the sake of your argument, even if you already knew that, you should reference those cases because it does wonders for your credibility.
Even if you said something smart like "But that's California and they're just a bunch of crazy..."
Come on, guys.
And I guess, based on your stellar logic (again, crayons and mountains do not work) you probably are very much opposed to cigarette advertising.
Good stuff.
. . that is, opposed to the BAN on cigarette advertising.
ReplyDeleteI can't really advocate smoking advert bans either. We have been educated as to what smoking does, so if they want to advert, why the hell does the govern have to protect us from that?
ReplyDeleteI never claimed to be a credible source on this stuff. I basically gave an opinion that entire "let's sue 'em" mentally, to the point of removing any degree of personal responsibility, is out of control.
Don't get me wrong - I believe the connection between big business and our government has gone way too far in many places. Happy Meal Toys ain't one of them.
I ain't got a law degree, or teach English and I was not on the debate club, so I can't get all fancy in how to argue this. But I don't think I need to. This lawsuit is DUMB. Taking off your shoes at the airport is DUMB. All road signs having to reconform to some new capitalization standard is DUMB. Aligning this with the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Barack Obama is DUMB.
Matt:
ReplyDeleteTry to simmer down your emotion a bit. Why all this rage at Rush Limbaugh, Tea Partiers, etc...jeez.
Burger King has toys. Hardees has toys. What about all the advertising Anhaeuser-Busch does on TV? I see five times as many ads by them.
I mean really, I'm not trying to be personally confrontational, I'm just saying it like it is. How many ads to you honestly see on TV from McDonald's? My guess is this lady took her kids there so many times and now she can't get out of it, lol. So my crayon example is terrible because in your eyes its not as good as a toy? Please. It only matters what the kids are demanding and what the mother cannot say no to.
What about all the ads on Nickolodean and the Disney Channel for toys and who knows what.
This lawsuit has no merit. Zero. Hopefully this lady has to pay all the opposing attorney's legal fees as well. Hopefully it will make her destitute. Then social services can come take the kids and put them with a family who knows how to raise kids correctly. It seems to me you have one kid trying to raise others. Lord knows if she is like this with them what else is she doing that is crazy.
Matt:
ReplyDeleteWhat distinguishes an advert aimed kids from one aimed at - for instance - wives? Tiffany's advertises diamond jewellery; is it their fault if I can't afford it, but am too diffident to tell my wife that it's out of our reach and therefore imperil our family finances? The two distinguishing factors seem to be the (alleged) inability of children to understand advertising, and the (alleged) unsuitability of McDonald's products.
To the first, I would simply say that it is a patently absurd claim - I can well remember being a child, and being perfectly aware from the age of four or five that advertising wasn't literally true - that it inhabited a wish-fulfilment world. I doubt that today's media-savvy kids are any less observant (or cynical); if anything they are probably more so. To the second, I suppose we just have to consider that obesity is not a new phenomenon, nor are other diet-related ills. One Happy Meal (or big Mac) every now and again isn't going to hurt any child or adult, and I have a tough time with the idea that anyone who over-consumes any product is therefore entitled to claim redress from the supplier, or interfere with their ordinary right to promote their business.
It seems that this comes down to "I don't like the product, so the government should prohibit the supplier from advertising it." There are all sorts of products that each of us don't personally like - that does not imply a right to prohibit normal commerce. I don't find the fact that San Francisco and Santa Clara have banned Happy Meals to be particularly convincing - it is not hard to find examples of government stupidity and over-reach, particularly at the municipal level.
Cheers,
Dean