Super Size Me

[LordOfNarf]

I just saw it, I was completely disgusted toward the end, when he was so close to dying. It was sad, I'm glad he recovered fully though.

Has anyone else seen it? What are your thoughts, comments, and most/least favorite parts?

[Spuddly]

McDonald's is delicious.

Stop hating on blue collar food, you elitist prigs.

[BelkarsDagger]

Isnt this the doc. when the guy ate nothing but McDonalds food for 30 days?

If so: YUUUCK! McDonalds is good is you have a little extra cash and a grumbling belly, but I wouldn't want to eat that for 30 days straight.

[ChubsMcGee]

Caught half of it, and was disgusted by it. Yes people are getting fat on it, but trying to lay blame on the companies bothers me. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. And I found the movie to just be a little bit, I can't find the right word, not hype, sensationalism! That's the word. But just my opinion.

Edit: I might also note that doing a lot of okay things would not be good for you doing solely that for 30 days straight. Like eating nothing but applesauce for 30 days. Or heck, maybe eating nothing but a rather basic salad. Many things need to be done in moderation. I'm not saying that McDonalds is healthy in the least, but I am just saying a lot of things done for 30 days straight will result in some interesting results.

[The_Logic_Ninja]

I'm so glad it's all personal decisions. Companies will be glad to know they can stop spending all that money on advertising, since it can never influence people, who all make up their own minds!

[Sophistemon]

Hear, hear!

[ChubsMcGee]

Despite influence of advertising no one is making you buy McDonalds. They spends fortune on advertising to hopefully get you to buy their product, but that doesn't remove the responsibility from the consumer.

I see lots of commercials, some catch my attention, and I look into them, but the ads didn't make me do anything.

[LordOfNarf]

McDonald's is delicious.

Stop hating on blue collar food, you elitist prigs.

I'm not hating on it, just saying that some of the meals were somwhat disgusting, and his liver was in almost the same state as that of a serious alcholics by the time he was done. I like Micke D's, once in a while, less than once every two months probably.

Doing anything like that for 30 days straight could amount to interesting results, granted, but it dosent discount valid scientific results gained from the experiment.

And before you whine, he did use the scientific method.

[Spuddly]

Oh yeah, and his sample size was astounding.

[LordOfNarf]

Oh yeah, and his sample size was astounding.

When I hear things like this I remember what my science teacher told me in high school.

"Science is the only lalss that you can get a completely wrong answer in, and still get an A if you got the wrong asnswer in the right way, and can explain why you got what you got."

That is to say, even if your experiment is flawed, its still correct as per the scientific method.

[ChubsMcGee]

I admit, I don't like documentaries that start out with an agenda. Usually it just makes me want to disagree with it, even if I can see the point of it. It just leaves a bad taste. I do need to see it all the way through, my originally estimate was a little short, I think I watched a good amount of it, just missed the beginning.

[Spuddly]

And you really have no idea what you're talking about.

That dude in the movie could have had Flaw: weakness Burger, or an exceptionally crummy constitution score.

Non-adequate sample size pretty much negates any real conclusion one may draw from an experiment. A sample size of one guarantees you unacceptable levels of experimental error. Somewhere around, I dunno, 95% or so.

Go ask your teacher if you don't believe me.

[LordOfNarf]

OK, flawed experimental design, glad you just volenteered to be part of round 2, have phun with the phat.

but, as i said, a flawed experiment is still data, it tells you what went wrong

The scientific method does not gaurentee good data, it simply regulates procedure. The experiment is repeatable and not unfeasable to create.

Also, he was monitoerd and tested beforehand, he was in exeptionally good health, so that rules out low CON and weakness burger flaw would give him a bonus feat, he didn't seem to exercise any special abilities to me.

[Beleriphon]

And you really have no idea what you're talking about.


Perhaps true, but the idea was that McDonalds was claiming that their food wasn't bad for you. By that logic one should be able to do something that isn't bad without any negative results.

There are also a few neat things about the doc. He only took an upsized meal if offered, and its the upsizing that makes things that much worse. Up until the doc was released the policy at McDonald's was to always offer the upsize, now they don't unless the customer asks first.

[Spuddly]

he didn't seem to exercise any special abilities to me.

Maybe he got the feat "Land movie contract".


Perhaps true, but the idea was that McDonalds was claiming that their food wasn't bad for you. By that logic one should be able to do something that isn't bad without any negative results.

He also stopped exercising. Caloric intake goes up, output goes to what, walking a mile day? Not too hard to understand what happened, is it?

[ChubsMcGee]

I don't agree with data from a flawed experiment is still data. Trust me, if I tested a device at work, and the experiment had a flaw, like not calibrating the test setup, then we would still have the data. But the data would be close to worthless. We would know that the device worked, and no way to correlate the output to anything else.

And one data point is really quite useless a lot of the time. You can't draw much in the way of conclusions from it.

I mean a lot of things say they aren't bad for you, but could be if you have too much. Like too many carrots actually poisoning you. I am pretty sure most people would agree that carrots are good for you. So by the same logic, if its not bad for you you can do it as much as you want without any negative results.

[TinSoldier]

Good point. I test electronics for a living and if the software (procedure) isn't correct then how do I know whether the data is valid or not? I don't.

[Spuddly]

I work in a genetics lab. If at any point data becomes questionable (contaminated samples, confused samples, lost samples) whole data sets can be pretty much nulled. It's especially crucial that all data points are considered accurate and precise, as we work with population data. Confusing two samples could give radically different, and spurious, results.

And small population sizes are pretty much useless, as who's to say that the one individual you looked at is simply a mutant? Lord knows there's variability in microsats ;)

[Trog]

My favorite part was "The Smoking Fry" bonus feature on the DVD. It did an experiment to see how long it would take McDonadl's food to rot. The fries never did.

As far as sample size on that one goes, I'm willing to bet that everone in America (& probably elsewhere) has cleaned out their car at some point and found a perfectly preserved McDonalds fry in it.

I agree with Chubbs on the sensationalism part.

[Zaggab]

I saw it one evening. While I watched it, I ate half a bag of Cheeze Doodles (125 g), half a bag of chips (150 g), drank approximately 2 liters coke, an icecream, and some pie.

The next day, I saw the repeat with some friends. We were 3, and we ate 2 liters ice-cream, a whole package of white bread, with about 1,5 cm cheese on top of each of them, and drank some half liter of coke each, and then we ate a cake meant for 6 people whose primary ingredients are sugar and butter.

I wonder what he was trying to say with that documentary?

[Soniku]

I wonder what he was trying to say with that documentary?

That you have to be a complete and utter idiot to eat the same food day in day out for a month?

Seriously, if your going to kill yourself via stupidity, at least find a mildly amusing way to do it.

[Roland St. Jude]

That you have to be a complete and utter idiot to eat the same food day in day out for a month?

Seriously, if your going to kill yourself via stupidity, at least find a mildly amusing way to do it.

Yeah, like this guy who eats nothing but monkey food for a whole week. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juwvwu3Z5HI) Now that's an experiment I find amusing!

[Spuddly]

I got a wicked urge to buy a Double Cheeseburger, Large Coke and Fries after that movie.

[fwiffo]

When you know which conclusion you are going to reach before you start (and I somehow doubt that he really didn't start with the end result and then figured out how to arrive at it), you kinda lose your power to persuade people. You might be completely right but you have not demonstrated it, except perhaps to some people who agree with you in the first place and will overlook your methods.

There was that other recent documentary that was doing same thing in the news lately.

[Tom_Violence]

For me McDonalds has always been one of those places that I tell myself I should steer clear from. But then after a while I forget why I should steer clear of the place and get an urge to go there. So I do. Then I leave feeling quite ill and tell myself I ought never return.

That said though, this thread is making me quite peckish.

[Krade]

I decided to stop eating at McDonald's before Super Size Me was even made. I just realized one day that McDonald's is nasty, so I stopped. The last time I ate at McDonald's was March 1, 2002. Don't ask why I remember the exact date.

[Soniku]

I go to burger king anyway ;D

I'm still not sure what he was trying to prove, "Eating some of the most unhealthy food ever for a month will have negetive effects!" well duh...

[Thes Hunter]

McDonald's is delicious.

Stop hating on blue collar food, you elitist prigs.


I do sense sarcasm, but I am going to call you on it.


So you tell me what makes a cesaer salad, french fries, and milk shakes any more blue collar than asparagus, oatmeal and tea? ???

[Annalia]

My favorite part was "The Smoking Fry" bonus feature on the DVD. It did an experiment to see how long it would take McDonadl's food to rot. The fries never did.

As far as sample size on that one goes, I'm willing to bet that everone in America (& probably elsewhere) has cleaned out their car at some point and found a perfectly preserved McDonalds fry in it.

I agree with Chubbs on the sensationalism part.

A friend and I decided to test ''The Smoking Fry''. We wanted to see how true that was and how fast it'd rot compared to the cafeteria's fries and the Ashton's (local fast-food chain).

The result? The Ashton's fries rotted first, the McDonald's after and the cafeteria's fries last. And two week after the beggining, everything was rotten.

I don't know if it's because I live in Canada and I rather doubt the location has some influence. The McDonald's fries rot. Withing two weeks. ;)

[Spuddly]

I do sense sarcasm, but I am going to call you on it.


So you tell me what makes a cesaer salad, french fries, and milk shakes any more blue collar than asparagus, oatmeal and tea? ???

I can get away with saying I love McDonalds since I'm fit. The blue collar bit was about the majority of McDs frequenters middle to lower class individuals. It's a pretty solid poor persons place to go. Too whooped from 10 hours of minimum wage work to fix dinner? Hellooooooo dollar menu.

Overseas McDonalds is an uppermiddle class eatery.

Salads are culturally the domain of wealthy, especially since they require fresh ingredients which are more expensive to come by in an industrialized society, as food production is so far away from where people consume it. Asparagus is expensive. Tea isn't coffee or beer or coke, and tends to also be culturally viewed, in America, as an expensive item. It's marketed as such. Similar thing with wine; an American wouldn't know a good wine if it took him out to dinner unless he got to see the price tag. France has trouble unloading its bumper volumes of quality vintage in the States. Americans see expensive wine and equate it with good wine, regardless of how quality it is. Same with teas.

Of course, all the fun here is making a class struggle where many would claim either doesn't exist or too convoluted to be meaningful. :)

[Mattaeu]

Overseas McDonalds is an uppermiddle class eatery.I'm inclined to agree. The only place I saw a McDonalds in Ecuador was in a very renovated shorefront in Guayaquil. The biggest eatery place I saw was instead a two story KFC; it was attached to the mall, so maybe it was just two of them for each floor(?).

[Dhavaer]

It was lower-middle class when I was young, and seems to be rapidly transmuting into upper-middle class, what with McCafe, the salads, and so on.

[Spuddly]

It used to be a solid middleclass restaurant when they first started selling burgers. Now there's a huge push to get it back there by marketing and stuff. More market share.

Of course, when the Interstate was put in, it got its real boost. People have a tendency to eat what their familiar with, and now you could drive across the country and always know exactly what a cheeseburger was gonna look like.

[Trog]

A friend and I decided to test ''The Smoking Fry''. We wanted to see how true that was and how fast it'd rot compared to the cafeteria's fries and the Ashton's (local fast-food chain).

The result? The Ashton's fries rotted first, the McDonald's after and the cafeteria's fries last. And two week after the beggining, everything was rotten.

I don't know if it's because I live in Canada and I rather doubt the location has some influence. The McDonald's fries rot. Withing two weeks. ;)

The chain must not add the formaldahyde (just a touch of formaldahyde, for flavor) up there like the do here. ;)

[Charity]

Overseas McDonalds is an uppermiddle class eatery.


Where? It's always been pretty down market anywhere I've been.

and as to all you guys going on about sample size.
America has the highest level of morbid obesity in the world... by a long way.

Not that I don't agree with those of you who say it's personal choice and all, frankly any adult who thinks Mc D's is healthy wants their head examined, even the salads are covered with dressings that are full of salt and fat.

Though is it right to aim their advertising at children? It's rather like handing out Malboro in the playground and saying it's their choice if they spark up.

[Democratus]

Though is it right to aim their advertising at children? It's rather like handing out Malboro in the playground and saying it's their choice if they spark up.

There's nothing wrong with advertising to children. If parents are giving cash to their kids and telling them to eat wherever they want - then they are at fault.

The chain of responsibility is quite clear. An adult is completely responsible for his own actions. A parant is completely responsible for the actions of his child.

Blaming anyone else (schools, corporations, the government) is just foolish.

[Charity]

Seeing parents as the only influence on their children is of course entirely sensible.

http://www.confectionerynews.com/news/news-ng.asp?id=59333-pressure-to-dump


edit and

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0607/S00035.htm

http://www.edu.fi/english/page.asp?path=500,571,46961

[Mattaeu]

Though is it right to aim their advertising at children? It's rather like handing out Malboro in the playground and saying it's their choice if they spark up.Given this is an okay comparison(kinda), I've really not seen very many McD commercials aimed at kid kids; mainly it's been 20-30 somethings playing 'absolutely thrilled' about getting to eat there: the only ones that spring to mind are the salad ones, that one with the spicy chicken, and those two exceedingly clever(::)) chums that order a taxi to go through the drive through.

hmm, though i'm realizing that maybe i just don't remember their ads.

[Charity]

Well I must confess I know nothing about American ads, over here they have been restricted by the advertising standards agency.

But lets face it they do advertise with a clown as their corporate image it's hardly aiming at adults is it?

[Democratus]

Seeing parents as the only influence on their children is of course entirely sensible.


Never said anything about influence. I spoke of responsibility. As a child, I wanted all kinds of things that were advertised on the TV - but my parents could, and often did, simply tell me "no".

That simple.

[Midnight Son]

Never said anything about influence. I spoke of responsibility. As a child, I wanted all kinds of things that were advertised on the TV - but my parents could, and often did, simply tell me "no".

That simple.
Hear, hear! I get really fed up with the attitude that a child's development/needs/learning is the responsibility of the schools/government/TV. The proper raising of a child is solely the responsibility of the childs parent(s). If they need help, there are plenty of programs available to them for such help, but it is their job to seek out such programs, not the program's job to seek them out. The only time an entity should actively step in for the parent is if said parent is completely negligent in their duty as a parent. IE abusive behavior

[BandGeek]

Similar thing with wine; an American wouldn't know a good wine if it took him out to dinner unless he got to see the price tag.

Reminds me of a line from 'Firewall"

"how will I know if it's good wine"
"it'll be covered in dust"

back on subject, I have never seen that movie, nor do I intend to. Anyone could tell you it's bad for you by looking at the calories (http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.index1.html). I don't mind eating there, I try to stay away from fast food as much as possible though.

The ads are aimed at children because, well, most people realize that the burgers don't taste good by the time their 11. They've started marketing towards younger adults also, but lets face it, with the playpen and the happy meals, it's for younger children.

[Tarnag40k]

Charity what you said about knowing nothing about the american ads may be true but they do Aim at kids a lot of here in America, actually they have been trying to "cure" the Pain of the Movie Super Size Me by their so called "healthy Choices" which are the equivualent of "light" cigarettes, which are just as bad as normal ones. Still even with the "healthy choices" such as Milk, the burger and french fries are bad enough.

[Tom_Violence]

I've also never really noticed the uppermiddle class-ness of McDonalds. Over here in the UK (at least the places that I've spent any good amount of time in) its always seemed the pretty scummy option. Cheap, and often not all that cheerful. Its quite usually the emergency choice.

As for the fat kids debate, I generally land on the side that says its all the parents' fault, but there's a few things that need to be thought about. Once the kid reaches a certain age the parents can't be expected to know what its doing every single minute. So the best they can do is try and teach the kid good habits. What advertising does in situations like this is the exact opposite - try and teach kids bad habits, like stuffing their little faces with junk food. Compound that with how things can be at school (crap school lunches, tuck shops, etc.) and the parents' job seems a lot harder.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I have probably had less than five trips to McDonald's in my entire life. I see no reason not to eat at home... Maybe if I leave home I will eat more fast food but I'll probably try to avoid McDonald's...

Incidentally I had a nice hamburger today. In a non-franchised Dinah in London that was playing old fashioned music.

'Mac' means "son of" in Scotts Gaelic, you should not put it infront of everything you sell. Oh, this is a "SON OF MILKSHAKE!!!"

Come on.

Really.

Perhaps one day I'll go in and order a Cambell Burger...

[ChubsMcGee]

The ads are aimed at children because, well, most people realize that the burgers don't taste good by the time their 11.


Uhhh. False. ;D There are some serious good burgers out there. But there are limits to it. I don't much care for most of the standard burger places. Like McD and BK. But In n Out makes a darn good burger, as does Islands, but Islands is a restaurant, so you have to expect that.

I'm going to have to agree with my brother though, Mattaeu, I personally can't remember too many commercials actually targetting kids directly. But I think at this point I don't know how much advertising they need to get the little kids. It's kind of self-perpetuating. All little kids just know they should like McD's. So now its just a matter of convincing the slightly older people to keep going to McD's.

At this point, I only go to McD's when I take my littlest sister out for lunch. Even then it's not so great. But I do enjoy In n Out, and some Wendy's. A nice D&D break at midnight to go grab some Jr. Baco and a Chili, yeah, throw some Dew into the mix and you have the recipe to play all night. ;D

[Midnight Son]

Uhhh. False. ;D There are some serious good burgers out there. But there are limits to it. I don't much care for most of the standard burger places. Like McD and BK. But In n Out makes a darn good burger, as does Islands, but Islands is a restaurant, so you have to expect that.

I'm going to have to agree with my brother though, Mattaeu, I personally can't remember too many commercials actually targetting kids directly. But I think at this point I don't know how much advertising they need to get the little kids. It's kind of self-perpetuating. All little kids just know they should like McD's. So now its just a matter of convincing the slightly older people to keep going to McD's.

At this point, I only go to McD's when I take my littlest sister out for lunch. Even then it's not so great. But I do enjoy In n Out, and some Wendy's. A nice D&D break at midnight to go grab some Jr. Baco and a Chili, yeah, throw some Dew into the mix and you have the recipe to play all night. ;DI think he was talking specifically about McDonald's burgers.

For a really good burger, try Fuddruckers. Best restaurant burger I've ever had. Home made is usually the best, though.

[ChubsMcGee]

Yeah, homemade is darn tasty. Put lots of fresh chopped onions, and pepper. And I finally tried some worcestershire sauce in one. Good stuff. I still need to figure out how to make the burger to end up more flat. Usually then end up a little too round for my taste.

[Midnight Son]

Yeah, homemade is darn tasty. Put lots of fresh chopped onions, and pepper. And I finally tried some worcestershire sauce in one. Good stuff. I still need to figure out how to make the burger to end up more flat. Usually then end up a little too round for my taste.Also, Gouda or Muenster cheese. Yummy!

[Charity]

I've also never really noticed the uppermiddle class-ness of McDonalds. Over here in the UK (at least the places that I've spent any good amount of time in) its always seemed the pretty scummy option. Cheap, and often not all that cheerful. Its quite usually the emergency choice.

As for the fat kids debate, I generally land on the side that says its all the parents' fault, but there's a few things that need to be thought about. Once the kid reaches a certain age the parents can't be expected to know what its doing every single minute. So the best they can do is try and teach the kid good habits. What advertising does in situations like this is the exact opposite - try and teach kids bad habits, like stuffing their little faces with junk food. Compound that with how things can be at school (crap school lunches, tuck shops, etc.) and the parents' job seems a lot harder.

Thanks Tom this is really pretty much my view on the matter.
Yes of course parents are responsible but it is not as simple as that. As I said before children are bombarded with a great deal of advertising. They also spend more time at school being influenced by that environment than they do at home. If you cast your minds back to your own childhood, and really honestly look at what influenced you between the ages 11-16, was it your parents? Well it wasn't for me that's for sure, my poor mum couldn't tell me anything after I was about 12.
I am guessing that few of you have children (if any) though I won't try to tell you this invalidates your arguments, it does mean that you are only experiencing the parent child relationship from one side. There are a lot of pressures on parents these days, and peer pressure is a very strong force among children.
"Much research has shown that peer pressure has a much greater impact on adolescent behavior than any other factor. Think about it. Your teenager spends many more of his or her waking hours with peers than with family members" from here (http://www.aspeneducation.com/factsheetpeerpressure.html)
Just think parents are busy worrying about drugs, sex, delinquency, crime, grades, et all, it is pretty easy to let eating habits slide off the radar screens given all this.

[sapphail]

Remember also that fast food chains also have frequent tie-ins with whatever kid's movie is hot at the time. McDonald's, I believe, has a running promotional deal with Disney, and they get to sell the toys from the film. If that's not targeted at kids then I don't know what is. Same goes for Ronald and all the other McD characters.

Does anyone remember the Dollarmites? In Australia in the late 80s-early 90s McDs had a deal with the Commonwealth Bank for kid's savings accounts (presumably to save enough pocket money to go to Maccas afterwards). They featured - guess what? - cartoon character aliens called Dollarmites, with a range of colouring books etc. Kiddie marketing.

That said, I do feel the responsibility for making sure kids eat right falls on the parents. But at the same time McDs promotes itself as a 'family' restaurant, and that means a target demographic of children. In terms of establishing brand loyalty, the idea is to get them roped in as kids so they'll choose the company's product throughout their lives. Cradle-to-grave marketing.

[The_Logic_Ninja]

As for the fat kids debate, I generally land on the side that says its all the parents' fault, but there's a few things that need to be thought about. Once the kid reaches a certain age the parents can't be expected to know what its doing every single minute. So the best they can do is try and teach the kid good habits. What advertising does in situations like this is the exact opposite - try and teach kids bad habits, like stuffing their little faces with junk food. Compound that with how things can be at school (crap school lunches, tuck shops, etc.) and the parents' job seems a lot harder.

Sooo... the parents are responsible for NOT influencing their kids, but McDonalds ISN'T responsible for actually influencing kids?

[sapphail]

Sooo... the parents are responsible for NOT influencing their kids, but McDonalds ISN'T responsible for actually influencing kids?

I think he's saying that parents need to enforce their own influence better than they often do. I would fail to see how McDs advertising influence is not a bad thing for kid's dietary habits.

[Democratus]

The peer pressure argument is weak at best. What kind of responsible parents would allow a school to be an unhealthy place for their child? They shouold be actively involved in the affairs of the school. And if they are unable to insure a positive environment, they should not have their children there.

How far should a parent be willing to go for the sake of their children? That's a question each parent must answer for themselves. But any parent who simply dumps their children into a school as a form of "unsupervised childcare" is not being responsible at all.

Though children do spend a lot of time at school compared to time with the family; the parents can still provide 2 out of 3 meals for the child every day (breakfast, dinner). If the schools are serving McDonalds for lunch in the cafeteria - then there are much bigger issues here than commercials and corporations.

[Charity]

The peer pressure argument is weak at best. What kind of responsible parents would allow a school to be an unhealthy place for their child? They shouold be actively involved in the affairs of the school. And if they are unable to insure a positive environment, they should not have their children there.

The 'choice' of schools will be based largely on academic achievement, rather than dietary concerns.
peer pressure comes from your peers not the academic facility, if you read the article above it makes a persuasive argument that peer pressure is in fact a strong influence on children's behavior


How far should a parent be willing to go for the sake of their children? That's a question each parent must answer for themselves. But any parent who simply dumps their children into a school as a form of "unsupervised childcare" is not being responsible at all.

Though children do spend a lot of time at school compared to time with the family; the parents can still provide 2 out of 3 meals for the child every day (breakfast, dinner). If the schools are serving McDonalds for lunch in the cafeteria - then there are much bigger issues here than commercials and corporations.

And when they visit friends? when they go to the mall? Parties? holidays? No parent could or should exert the degree of control over their children that you are alluding to
All children rebel against their parents wishes, it is part of growing up. Honestly I think you are approaching this using an overly simplistic model of parent/child dynamics.

I am by no means suggesting a parent can relinquish their responsibilities for their childs diet.

I appologise for quoting in full
"The Nag Factor
Food marketing expenditures aimed at children increased from $6.9 billion in 1992 to $15 billion in 2002. This includes advertising for such items as cheese crackers, pasta, cereal, sweetened snacks, Oscar Mayer "Lunchables," and Kellogg's Pop-Tarts, as well as fast food restaurants. One in three visits to a fast food restaurant in 2003 may be attributed to the nag factor, up from one in ten in 1977." from here (http://www.cox.smu.edu/article/research/research.do/114)

"McDonald's McSpellit Club rewards perfect scores on spelling tests with coupons for free hamburgers, cheeseburgers, or Chicken McNuggets. [44] Local McDonald's restaurants provide schools with coupons redeemable for french fries and soft drinks. [44] Food industry-sponsored classroom nutrition education materials are widely available." from here (http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/1/1/3)
and
"No wonder children's advertisers often portray parents as obstacles to fun. Watching TV-kids playing with consumer products in the face of parental cluelessness fuels the fire of a child's consumerism. Pestering, sneaking, and lying to Mom and Dad are parts of the advertisers' Big Sell. If a child wants to have as much fun munching on the newest snack or playing with the latest soap as the kids on TV do, then pulling the wool over Mom's eyes will be part of the play." is here (http://www.wheaton.edu/CACE/resources/onlinearticles/childrenadvertising.htm)

A quick look here may also be worthwhile
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/24/2527

[Tom_Violence]

Sooo... the parents are responsible for NOT influencing their kids, but McDonalds ISN'T responsible for actually influencing kids?

I'm not really pointing the finger at anyone. I was mainly just trying to say that the simple "Blame the parents!" attitude is very blinkered. No one's ever going to be daft enough to say that its entirely the fault of the advertisers, but to claim that its entirely the fault of the parents is just as wrong.

So, I guess to answer your question, I would say that parents are responsible for their influence over their kids. At the same time, McDonalds is responsible for any influence it asserts over the kids. In fact, anyone is responsible for any influence they have over a child. After all, this is why children aren't allowed to smoke/drink/have sex before a certain age because they're expected to not be able to make an informed rational decision and thus can be easily swayed into making the wrong decision (to very very much oversimplify the whole thing).


The peer pressure argument is weak at best. What kind of responsible parents would allow a school to be an unhealthy place for their child? They shouold be actively involved in the affairs of the school. And if they are unable to insure a positive environment, they should not have their children there.

This seems to imply a near-unlimited amount of choice for parents as to which school their kid goes to. As Mr. Charity mentioned, academic achievement is a big factor. But then so are even more obvious concerns such as geographical location. Would you really expect an entire family to relocate just to be near one of the very rare schools that serves healthy meals?

And I think you may possibly be being overly-optimistic about how much influence a parent can have over the running of a school.

[ChubsMcGee]

Until the kids are at least 12 the parents are providing 2 out of 3 meals for their kids. Up until then the kids have neither the transportation nor the money to get to McD's on their own. And to go even farther, the parents also pay for school lunch. They could pack their childs lunch as well. There are other times when they will get to McD's without their parents helps, birthday parties and such. But most kids aren't going to 3 parties a week or anything. And I may be wrong on this part, but I don't see kids getting fat as soon as they have transportation to fast food. Kids that are fat when they are teenagers tend to be the same as small children, myself included. I wasn't really ever "the fat kid" but always had a little extra weight. I would say mostly from lack of running around, not from my diet so much. But I know I didn't get extra fat as soon as I could get out on my own. By that time the child will have some sort of eating habits, and it seems it would be shaped much more by the parents than by commercials.

[Starla]

How many of you people accusing the parents of not doing enough are actually parents? I know a lot of parents and I am one. I am fortunate enough to be able to work at home right now and it has been my goal and my husband's goal for four years now to be able buy a house to live in for the rest of our lives and have as many children as possible and I get to be a full-time mommy to them.

That will be an unusual circumstance in this day and age. 50 years ago it was not unusual to see a 2 parent family with the mom at home but now it is. I know a lot of single parents paying alimony or child support or trying to get alimony or child support that barely have enough money to pay the rent, they work from 7am to 7pm to make ends meet and they are tired and they get a nanny or relative to watch their kids while they are trying to earn enough to pay the bills. The government may feel responsible because these are the future leaders of our nation and their family can barely raise them to make good choices.

The parents that have the time and energy to spend being more involved in their kids' education and influencing them take them out of public school more often than not. Which means less funding for the school from the government and minus another motivated parent in the PTA. I think the government would want to prove to those kinds of parents that their kids would be better off in public schools if given the chance.

Also, cigarettes used to be advertised on Tv and they no longer are commercialized directly, but you still see people smoking on TV and movies because that is another way for advertisement.

Also, I remember McDonalds advertising having breakfast, lunch, and dinner there. They show a busy business man picking up a breakfast with coffee, a mom on the cell phone with work papers in her lap and kids in the back seat for lunch and, they show a large man savoring french fries in a hammock swinging over a freshly mown lawn for dinner.

I also remember when one company started advertising salads they all suddenly did. I remember noticing the change in commercials when I was pregnant 3 1/2 years ago.

Finally KPBS, which the only channel we watch now, advertises as many healthy foods as they can and remind parents to make good choices to avoid obesity in their children.

[Charity]

How many of you people accusing the parents of not doing enough are actually parents?

I'll go out on a limb here and say none.

[Starla]

I agree that parents should be responsible, but if they really were a lot of them would not be parents yet. They would have waited until they were done with school themselves and married to someone committed to having a family and offered the same commitment themselves and then had kids.

Considering how many aunts and uncles in my family that have gotten a divorce after their kids were raised, shows that even "responsible" parents have a hard time keeping the committment to marriage and family. The number one cause of divorce is selfishness. And the level of maturity one has to reach to overcome selfishness has to be repeated on a regular basis.

[Argent]

For those of you who've said, "Well, of course he got fat and almost died, he ate fast food for thirty days!", you're missing part of the point of the movie. Yes, anyone with half a brain would realize that eating fast food (and the quantities of it that he did) is horrible for you and will take a toll on your body. Most folks who exhibit a pulse could tell you that.

It was the ancillary information provided in the movie that made it at all worthwhile -- the demonstration of just how much sugar is in a super-size Coke, the message about just how insidious advertising to children is, how Chicken McNuggets are made (and what's in them), et cetera. Those are the pieces of information that were worth getting from the movie -- it wasn't just ninety minutes of "OH MY GOD FAST FOOD MAKES YOU FAT".

[The_Logic_Ninja]

The number one cause of divorce is selfishness.
Funny, I'd've thought it was incompatibility.

[Ulicus]

McDonalds = A nicer place to take a piss than the scummy street toliets

If I want to fill myself up on junk, I'll head to BK. Fries are nicer.

[Soniku]

Fries are nicer.

I hear that! The only thing that is better at McDs than BK is the deserts. I would much prefer one of their ice cream things to BKs "diddy doughnuts" aka, tiny bits of bread and a jam dip.

[Midnight Son]

For real fry goodness at a fast food joint, see Arby's Curly Fries. Mmmm-Mmm Good!

[Starla]

Funny, I'd've thought it was incompatibility.

That is funny. I can say a lot about that but I don't want to bore you. I stand by what I said, the number one cause of divorce is selfishness. It is a big weakness in human beings.

[The_Logic_Ninja]

Y'know, if someone was fine with being married to someone selfish, I bet they'd stay married.
Sounds like incompatibility to me.

[Tom_Violence]

Funny, I'd've thought it was incompatibility.

Isn't that pretty much the same as the saying that the main reason for people getting divorced was them not wanting to be married to each other anymore? In which case, I dare say you're probably 100% correct.

[Starla]

My dad stole money and had affairs and even though we told him he could stay and my mom was willing to work it out he left. He decided to live with his current girlfriend for a while. A few months later he wanted to leave his girlfriend because "she is crazy" and come back to my mom and she let him. They went to counseling, but then she found out that he was still in contact with the other woman, so he left again and stayed with her again. Now he is jobless and looking for handouts wherever he can get them. He almost ruined my sister's credit with one of his business ventures, and when he came to visit me for a week and when I didn't make dinner for him one night because I was tired from working all day his excuse for expecting it was: "Well I am used to being waited on." He is selfish. He had multiple affairs throughout his 27 years of marriage to my mother that he hid. He would have to continued to hide these things because he wanted to be on both sides.

My dad's sister and her husband divorced after 25+ years too. My uncle was rude to my aunt and treated her like a child sometimes and he was the parent. When she decided she wanted a divorce he asked for one more chance to change. She said no. They were both selfish in that case.

My dad's brother and his wife have divorced but are living together again though my aunt has another lover and he is okay with it :P. (They have 2 sons that are convicted murderers and a daughter who is happily married and living far away from them)

Every time a person comes in to rent an apartment and they tell me they are divorced they blame it on their spouse. Many times they also have bad credit because their spouse ran up the credit cards for revenge or didn't pay the bills they agreed to pay, etc. It is a selfish attitude that creates that kind of tension in a relationship. Everytime I get really mad at my husband when i step back and look at the situation I am being selfish. I am thinking more about how I feel and how I have been wronged rather than asking what motivates him to act as he has acted. Every example that I can think of when I was truly upset about something my husband did or did not do I was caring more about my happiness than his happiness. Example: pitiful as it is I was upset that my husband wouldn't swim with me one time because he is self-conscious about how he looks in swimshorts and he didn't feel comfortable swimming when my family is present. I want him to let go of that feeling and just come swimming but he is content not participating. Notice that "I want" not "He wants." Selfishness can creep in unnoticed and become the wedge that keeps a couple from reconciling their differences.

Yes incompatibility can play into it, but marriage is full of compromises. Our differences make marriage more fufilling. I would never have considered playing DnD if it weren't for my husband's love of the game. I knew and talked to guys and learned in a few minutes that I was "incompatible" with them because they liked stuff that I abhorred. I also know several young men from my dating years that I would have been compatible with so I don't think "incompatibility" holds water as and excuse for divorce. They should be finding out about compatibility when they are dating before they spend several thousands of dollars getting married and then getting a divorce.

I know couples that have been divorced 4-6 times because they think it is easier to get a divorce than to change their behavior. Changing behavior requires selflessness. You are motivated to change though if you are thinking more about your spouse's happiness than your own.

When my husband and I were dating he asked me to read Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, and that gave me a new perspective on how men think versus how women think. Then I wasn't offended when he explained that he didn't want my unsolicited advice on driving directions. At first I was because my thought was "I want to help you," but then I thought about it from his perspective and i want his happiness more than my own so I changed my behavior. I bit my tongue many times before I could stay silent without thinking about it. Then we came up with a question I could ask that didn't offer unsolicited advice and it has worked very well.
My point is that selfishness is the number one cause of divorce. My husband and I work to be selfless toward one another because we love each other and if we are both thinking more about how to help the other person we have a greater chance for happiness.

[Thes Hunter]

And now back to the previously scheduled topic....




I can get away with saying I love McDonalds since I'm fit. The blue collar bit was about the majority of McDs frequenters middle to lower class individuals. It's a pretty solid poor persons place to go. Too whooped from 10 hours of minimum wage work to fix dinner? Hellooooooo dollar menu.

Overseas McDonalds is an uppermiddle class eatery.

Salads are culturally the domain of wealthy, especially since they require fresh ingredients which are more expensive to come by in an industrialized society, as food production is so far away from where people consume it. Asparagus is expensive. Tea isn't coffee or beer or coke, and tends to also be culturally viewed, in America, as an expensive item. It's marketed as such. Similar thing with wine; an American wouldn't know a good wine if it took him out to dinner unless he got to see the price tag. France has trouble unloading its bumper volumes of quality vintage in the States. Americans see expensive wine and equate it with good wine, regardless of how quality it is. Same with teas.

Of course, all the fun here is making a class struggle where many would claim either doesn't exist or too convoluted to be meaningful. :)


Ok, in my haste I didn't make my point clear enough? (Or perhaps I did not clearify my own thought enough before trying to write something on the internet. Yeah, like that doesn't ever happen.)

I concede that fast food resturaunts may have certain socio-economic distinctions. But I tend to not be very judgemental on places due to socio-economic hierarchies.

However, that was totally not my point. You can't get much more blue collar that Lipton tea. However, that tea is way more healthy that a milk shake. Super-Size Me was pointing out that McDonald's (especially at that time) was highly un-healthy. You certianly do not have to be blue-collar to eat an un-healthy diet, nor do I feel that having a lower income forces you to eat a diet full of processed sugar, with fat laden empty carbs.

So I still fail to see how Super Size Me and Fast food nation 'hate' on blue collar food.

[Trog]

I don't think "incompatibility" holds water as and excuse for divorce.

Well being one of the incompatible divorced people here I am going to have to respectfully say that I think you're wrong. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, as am I.

My ex and I had fallen out of love with one another long ago (after several years of marriage) but stayed together and were still best friends, though little else romantically. We wanted to stay together for the kids and raise them right. After a couple of years of this we both started to feel very restricted by our marriage to one another and felt it beginning to put a strain on our relationship.

Deciding that it would be better for the children to be with parents that had loving relationships for them to model their behavior after (as opposed to the essentially loveless marriage that could have served as their guide if we had stayed together) we got divorced. No lawyers, no messy trial, no crying, shouting screaming scenes. Not your typical divorce. We were the only ones to both attend the couciling sessions necessary to get a divorce (which included sessions on putting the kids first, which we had always done). There were a lot of bitter divorcees at that session, let me tell you.

Anyway. We split our things. She kept the house, I moved into a duplex just up the street. The kids were excited to get to have two rooms and we still to this day, almost three years later, have a dinner a week, just the four of us. For their sake.

There you have it. Incompatibility with responsibility. QED. :)

Oh. Also, I do take my kids to McDonalds on occasion. Their food is only all right, though their fries are good sometimes. I have been going there since I was a little kid. Sure it's fattening, and bad for you, but I don't think an occasional indulgence in horrible food is going to be that bad for me, or my kids, in the grand scheme of things.

I did once get moved to a different location for my job and ate McDonalds everyday for lunch for a week as I did not know the town and had no lunchable items to pack at home until my next grocery trip. I gained a little weight and did feel pretty cruddy by the end of the week. Long term use definetely not recommended. Just like any bad for you thing, really.

[NEO|Phyte]

*cough*

I was told today by a classmate that the #1 cause of divorce was marriage.

[RecklessFable]

*cough*

I was told today by a classmate that the #1 cause of divorce was marriage.

Marriage is not a cause of divorce. Marriage is a necessary condition for a divorce to be able to occur.

Just like life does not cause death just because you generally are expected to have been alive in order to be able to die...

[Tom_Violence]

Yes incompatibility can play into it, but marriage is full of compromises. Our differences make marriage more fufilling. I would never have considered playing DnD if it weren't for my husband's love of the game. I knew and talked to guys and learned in a few minutes that I was "incompatible" with them because they liked stuff that I abhorred. I also know several young men from my dating years that I would have been compatible with so I don't think "incompatibility" holds water as and excuse for divorce. They should be finding out about compatibility when they are dating before they spend several thousands of dollars getting married and then getting a divorce.

Just a couple of things to say here. I'm not going to deny that marriages can and very often do fall apart because one or both parties are acting selfishly. But the point that Logic Ninja made, and that I agree with, is that it is possible for two selfish people to be married to each other and be happy with it. Being selfish doesn't necessarily lead to unresolvable conflicts. There's a significant differnce between being incompatible with someone, and not having everything in common with that person. I know they say opposites attract and you said that differences make marriage more fulfilling, but that only works if there's something more fundamental that allows the two people involved to be compatible with each other.

The other point is to do with what you said about people dating, and incompatibility not being an excuse for divorce. Well, that may well be true, but the focus of this discussion is about actual reasons for/causes of divorce, not just the things that people might say they get divorced over. Its a debate about how things are, not a normative question of how they should be.

Oh, and PS: It sounds like if anyone ever gets the chance to meet Starla's family, run, run like the wind!!

[ChubsMcGee]

Well, that may well be true, but the focus of this discussion is about actual reasons for/causes of divorce, not just the things that people might say they get divorced over. Its a debate about how things are, not a normative question of how they should be.

Yeah, and Frech Fries too! ;D

(Just kidding. I really don't mind the shift in topics, its how conversation goes. :P)

[Tom_Violence]

Yeah, and Frech Fries too! ;D

(Just kidding. I really don't mind the shift in topics, its how conversation goes. :P)

Hehe, yes, you're probably right. I can't be bothered to look back over the entire thread but I think I remember something about a film and possibly a popular chain of 'restaurants' being mentioned. :P

[Steward]

Hehe, yes, you're probably right. I can't be bothered to look back over the entire thread but I think I remember something about a film and possibly a popular chain of 'restaurants' being mentioned. :P

We're having a serious discussion of the factors that contribute to divorce here so could you please take your French fries and your McNuggets, and your warm...juicy...beefy...mouth-wateringly delicious...oh...

...I gotta go.

[Gerrtt]

I saw it, my favorite part was the part on the DVD with the french fries and sandwiches at the end. If you didn't see that part, basically they left a bunch of burgers and stuff and fries from McD's and a real restaurant in jars for months on end, and after a few weeks the burgers melted away. After 6 months, the fries still looked fresh out of the fryer cause they are so loaded with preservatives...yuck.

[Chump_and_William]

yeah, i saw that. it didn't exactly do good for my appetite, though.

[Jack Squat]

I saw it, my favorite part was the part on the DVD with the french fries and sandwiches at the end. If you didn't see that part, basically they left a bunch of burgers and stuff and fries from McD's and a real restaurant in jars for months on end, and after a few weeks the burgers melted away. After 6 months, the fries still looked fresh out of the fryer cause they are so loaded with preservatives...yuck.

Not true, they're loaded with oil not preservatives. They're potatoes, salt, and cooking oil.

Besides, someone on here posted that they tested it, and the fry got moldy after 2 weeks.

[Midnight Son]

You could stick anything in a jar and make it stay preserved for as long as you want. They just didn't show the part where they sucked out all of the air in the fry jar.

That said, I had a friend who bought a Big Mac on his way to a construction site, threw it in the back of his pickup, then forgot about it. Two weeks later he finds it and takes it back and complains that it's cold. They gave him a new one. That's possibly due to the refrigerating capabilities of Alaskan weather, but it makes a good story.

[Chump_and_William]

yup, but still, the movie may be a tad amplified from the real facts, but i still dont like mc donalds. :P

[Democratus]

Not true, they're loaded with oil not preservatives. They're potatoes, salt, and cooking oil.


Salt is a preservative.

[Jack Squat]

Salt is a preservative.

No, salt preserves. it's not a preservative, it's a spice. You can put all the salt you want into meat and still market it as "no preservatives" because the FDA doesn't classify it as a chemical preservative.


When an approved chemical preservative is added to a food, the ingredient list must include both the common or usual name of the preservative and the function of the preservative by including terms, such as "preservative," "to retard spoilage," "a mold inhibitor," "to help protect flavor," or "to promote color retention."
from here (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/flg-4.html)

since it doesn't say "to retard spoilage" or the like after salt, it's not a preservative.

[Democratus]

No, salt preserves. it's not a preservative, it's a spice. You can put all the salt you want into meat and still market it as "no preservatives" because the FDA doesn't classify it as a chemical preservative.


Yes. Salt is a preservative.

From Webster's Dictionary: Preservative, n., "A substance or additive used to preserve"

The point I was making had nothing to do with the USDA. It is that the fries in the jar would rot more slowly because they had salt. And salt is a preservative.

It is falacious to claim that the fries should rot more quickly because there are no preservatives in them, only salt. Salt inhibts rotting.

QED.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

Comrade Gorby: The discussion about divorce is completely off topic for this thread. Please discontinue it.

[Dudukain]

No offense, but this doesn't prove anything. If you ate only resturaunt food [Decent resturaunt, not a fancy resturaunt where a "portion" is about 1 ounce of food and 3 pounds of parsley] you'd be pretty hefty to. This is like suing KFC, It's stupid. It's their own fault for not eating some healthy food.

Also, this whole thing was one thing I truly hate about our media: an Overhyped, junky, spittle-spewing, irrelevant, ADD, overreaction. It's like the identity theft "epidemic" -Hardly important given all the other things going on. ONCE EVERY NINETEEN MINUTES? ANY IDEA HOW MANY CHILDREN DIE OF PREVENTABLE DISEASES IN THAT TIME? OH BOOHOOHOO! MY CREDIT IS NOT RUINED! BUT THOSE KIDS ARE DEAD!

ERRRGGH...

But yes, mcdonalds is actual rather nice in Germany. Big, had a balcony, even served stuff like beer.

Also, isn't this bordering on politics?