Is selling fast food a form of murder?

[Unbeatable]

This is in reference to points made in another thread:

Obesity is one of the biggest killers in the Western World. And yet we allow fast food chains to pedal this stuff openly and freely.

...and some of you are having a moral 'hissy-fit' over theoretical consensual 'death-matches'?!

I'm sure some of the people who have died from heart attacks - due to their clogged up tubing - after their 10,000th grease-ridden hamburger had children too...


There is 'consensual' murder going on every day in our 'civilised' society.

[windsofchange]

No, it's not murder because murder is the intentional killing of a human being, and I don't think most fast-food places really intend to kill off their customers. It's kinda bad for business.

[Queen of Swords]

Fast-food places aren't the only ones which sell food that isn't good for you in large quantities. I see a lot of ice-cream and chocolates and candy at the grocery store; does that mean Sobey's is trying to kill people?

[Dlx2]

You can kill yourself on tofu, too.

It's a matter of taking an active role in determining your diet. restaurants should not be required to babysit you.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

No, it's not murder because murder is the intentional killing of a human being, and I don't think most fast-food places really intend to kill off their customers. It's kinda bad for business.


To 'kill yourself' though obesity, you have to be eating a lot. So - yeah - the dead porker won't be able to buy any more fast food. But he's already made a very 'healthy' contribution to their coffers I'd say. I don't think they'd consider it a big loss...

Fast food places (and please note, I'm only talking 'fast food' with a sufficiently bad fat <-> nutrition ratio) know perfectly well what a problem obesity is in our society, and what damage it is causing.
Yet they choose not to make their food 'healthier'. They therefore know that many, many deaths could be avoided if they chose to peddle a different product.

Are we also going to make the claim that tobacco comapnies don't know what damage they are causing?


You can kill yourself on tofu, too.


True, but much harder to do.
People can potentially be killed in regulated boxing matches, with gloves on etc., with a hard enough punch. And yet we don't block that risk.
In the end, it's all about 'reasonable' risk. If you conclude that things like tobacco and fast food are not 'reasonable' risks, then you can conclude that those who produce and sell such goods are 'murdering' people - with their consent of course.

And 'conscent' is what the original disagreement is about on this issue.


It's a matter of taking an active role in determining your diet. restaurants should not be required to babysit you.


I agree. That's why this issue is really about consent.

[general_koffi]

No. Fast food outlets don't force the stuff down your throat.

And besides, it's not lethal unless you go Super Size Me on the croud. I don't know what America's like, but personally I don't know anyone who only eats MacDonalds for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I eat fast food. I know tons of people who eat fast food. We're fine. We just don't eat it in disgusting quantities or to the exclusion of anything else.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

No. Fast food outlets don't force the stuff down your throat.


Excellent point. Again, this IS about consent.


And besides, it's not lethal unless you go Super Size Me on the croud.


The odd cigarette isn't nessesarily lethal either.
Yet we know perfectly well that - statisticially - tobacco actively kills people.
The same is true of fast food.

Burger King have just come out with a new burger in the UK (along with a new ad campain) that equates to:

5 pints of beer...
...or...
3 mars bars...

...in terms of the fat it's loaded with.

I believe in the US, BK have gone even further with some kind of 'quad-decker' burger that's even worse.

Food standards peeps have called it 'recklessly irresponsible'. Do they have a point, or are they full of s**t?

[JamesBannon]

No. Murder requires malicious intent. It may be irresponsible or even reckless but it's not murder.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

No. Murder requires malicious intent.


Oh I see. It's fine for BK to come out with a burger that they know full well will further increase the severe obesity problem, and hence will lead to more deaths.

...but because their not frothing at the mouth, their a-OK?!

Besides,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder

The definition of the word murder only includes the concept of 'malice' when dealing with law in a specific country. The more objective definition:

'to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.'

...doesn't mention 'malice' at all.


does that mean Sobey's is trying to kill people?


I think it's more accurate to say that their aim is to 'sell more product', regardless of the death it may cause.
I rememeber seeing a guy who's Dad was one of the people who started Ben and Jerry's. His dad, and much of his family, ate lots of ice-cream.

His dad has required a heart bypass.
His uncle died of a stroke at a relatively early age.
He himself had health problems early in life. That is until he cut down on his ice-cream consumption.

So yes, I do include all 'unhealthy food', proportional to how 'unhealthy' the food is. Unhealthy food is a relative term, but we can draw a line somewhere. And we have to - if we pretend to be a 'civilised' society that is...
And food standards agency's have done just that. They have clear 'baddies' and 'goodies' on this matter. Just look them up and check out what they have to say. It's not as ambigous as many here would like to beleive...

[Matty]

No. The fact that the "murder victim" plays a major role in their own demise as opposed to having it inflicted on them is the key difference IMO.

Think of it more as long term assisted suicide.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

No. The fact that the "murder victim" plays a major role in their own demise as opposed to having it inflicted on them is the key difference IMO.

Think of it more as long term assisted suicide.


You might be missing the fact that the OP specifies it as 'consensual murder'.
...do you consider 'consensual murder' a nonsense term? Bear in mind that the word 'consensual' - in this context - is refering to the victim.

Oh - and before anybody get's too excited by the poll results, please check the reasons people are giving. More than half of the people responding are giving 'consent' as the first reason why it isn't to be considered 'murder'.
And 'consent' is my main point in this issue. When you use consent as the reason for not considering it 'murder', you actually help my overall argument :)

[Matty]

...do you consider 'consensual murder' a nonsense term?

Yes i do. Murder is by definition inflicted on someone who doesn't want their life taken. If somone consents to having their life taken then i dont see how it can be classed as murder. I actually fail to see the difference between consensual murder (which to be fair, is a term i only heard this morning so am not exactly familiar with the semantic definitional points) and assisted suicide.

If fast food was purposefully missold as healthy and people were therefore having their health affected because of deception then the murder tag may (though I'm still far from sure) be justified. Someone choosing to overly intake something bad for them is a case of stupidity and irresponsibility IMO, to connect it with the term murder in any form is taking it too far, and forgoing all personal responsibility on the part of the consumer.

The main exception to this as far as i can tell is with the child directed advertising. Fast food chains in that case are pushing their wares on a demographic which is incapable of appreciating the dangers, and more to the point aiming on hooking them for life. That is much more of an insidious offence as far as I'm concerned as in many cases the exposure is forced upon kids completely contrary to the wishes of their parents and guardians. I strongly feel that such things should be covered under the same directives as cigarett advertising, and complete with major health warning on the burger box etc.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Matty,

While I don't agree that the term 'consensual murder' is non-sensical (the definition of the English word 'murder' doesn't mention consent at all in actual fact), I do completely agree with your moral reasoning.

[Dlx2]

True, but much harder to do.
People can potentially be killed in regulated boxing matches, with gloves on etc., with a hard enough punch. And yet we don't block that risk.
In the end, it's all about 'reasonable' risk. If you conclude that things like tobacco and fast food are not 'reasonable' risks, then you can conclude that those who produce and sell such goods are 'murdering' people - with their consent of course.

And 'conscent' is what the original disagreement is about on this issue.

Hardly. Most things sold can be abused so as to cause death. The issue is not consent. The issue is moderation and self-control in the customer.

I agree. That's why this issue is really about consent.

If I sell you razor blades with the expectation you're gonna shave with them, and instead you slit your wrist and bleed to death, this isn't a consent issue. This is an issue of you using the product in a manner that it wasn't intended to be used. The question of whether fast food restaurants intend people to use their product for 3 meals a day without daily exercise is another debate. As far as I'm concerned, self-destruction due to ignorance or apathy is still self-destruction.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

If I sell you razor blades with the expectation you're gonna shave with them, and instead you slit your wrist and bleed to death, this isn't a consent issue.


Agreed. But this does have relavence to the intent of the producer.
I don't think anyone can accuse razor blade manufacturers of 'intending' their use to be 'slicing open your skin and letting blood flow out'.
But fast food / unhealthy food manufacturers CAN be accused of making 'unhealthy food' for the purpose of 'eating it'!! And the mere act of eating unhealthy food causes harm.

Gilette adverts don't show people committing suicide. But McDonalds adverts do show people eating burgers...

So while I agree this is a consent issue, your attempts to take away all responsibility from the producers of said products is futile imo.
If this comes back to 'all food can be dangerous if consumed in enough quantities', what you are really saying is that food standards agency's are wasting their time.
I don't think your right there...
To do the same harm as one BK 'quad-decker' does, exactly how many celery sticks would one have to consume?!

[general_koffi]

Alright, look at it this way.

How many people who eat fast food actually die from it?

I don't know the actual number, but I'll wager that if even 5% of MacDonalds' global customers keeled over and died from MacDonalds food, MacDonalds would go out of business.

If Joe Average eats a Big Mac for lunch a few times a week, he'll be fine.

Is it murder if, "Oh... Some people out there have high colestorol, and there are some people who can't control their eating, and their are some people who are allergic to wheat and..." ?

I don't think so. Most fast food customers are not what anyone would consider sick, leave alone in mortal danger.

[engly-saxo]

This is in reference to points made in another thread:





A non sequitur.

As others have stated, murder is, by definition, homicide with [intent to kill/I].

I doubt the pimple faced geek selling you a Double Whopper [I]intends to kill you. ;)

[Christina Mirabilis]

I think that eating your way into obesity is a slow form of suicide, and perfectly within someone's rights to do if they want. Equating selling them unhealthy food with murdering them seems to me to be no more logical than blaming the building if someone jumps off one.

[Dlx2]

Agreed. But this does have relavence to the intent of the producer.
I don't think anyone can accuse razor blade manufacturers of 'intending' their use to be 'slicing open your skin and letting blood flow out'.
But fast food / unhealthy food manufacturers CAN be accused of making 'unhealthy food' for the purpose of 'eating it'!! And the mere act of eating unhealthy food causes harm.

Gilette adverts don't show people committing suicide. But McDonalds adverts do show people eating burgers...

So while I agree this is a consent issue, your attempts to take away all responsibility from the producers of said products is futile imo.
If this comes back to 'all food can be dangerous if consumed in enough quantities', what you are really saying is that food standards agency's are wasting their time.
I don't think your right there...
To do the same harm as one BK 'quad-decker' does, exactly how many celery sticks would one have to consume?!

A Ketel One advertisement is trying to convince you to drink their vodka. It's not trying to convince you to drink the entire bottle in one night, down some painkillers, only to be found by the police several days later once rigor mortis begins to subside.

The issue here is about moderation. Burgers in moderation won't cause significant problems. Booze in moderation won't cause significant problems. Hell, takiing Tylenol in moderation won't cause significant problems. However, eating 4 Big Macs a day, or drinking a handle of McCormicks a week, or downing a whole bottle of Tylenol? Yeah, THAT causes problems. It is not the vender's fault if you refuse to exert some degree of self-control over your use of their products.

I climb, and on all the equipment I buy, there is a warning label that says the company is not liable for injuries or death caused by improper use of the equipment. That's the way things are. As far as I'm concerned, eating four burgers a day is improper use of equipment.

I have no love for fast food, but you're being ridiculous.

[Matty]

I think that eating your way into obesity is a slow form of suicide, and perfectly within someone's rights to do if they want. Equating selling them unhealthy food with murdering them seems to me to be no more logical than blaming the building if someone jumps off one.

Nicely put.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I have no love for fast food, but you're being ridiculous.


I think it seems rediculous because my quote being used in the OP was not provided in context.
The reason I said what I said is because of the debate in this thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=185249

In this thread, it is being questioned whether allowing consenting adults to engage in 'death-matches' with each-other is morally viable.
My argument for saying it should be was to make the statement 'Consensual murder happens every day in our 'civilised society'.

I was talking about fast food at that point. But I could be talking about tobacco - which would be a far less ambigious example of the principle.
But anyway, I'll admit that what I said is a stretch. But the fact is I'm not quite saying what I think you think I'm saying!

My purpose in making that statement wasn't to question what the definition of 'murder' is - although the lack of context in the OP may give that impression. (And while I'm quite sure many people here are using the word 'murder' incorrectly, that is but a secondary concern...)
And my intention certainly wasn't to attempt to take away responsibility from the 'consumer'. Far from it...

My purpose in making that statement is to put forward the opinion that people have the right to kill themsevles in whatever way they may choose. Whether that be in consensual death-matches, continually eating un-healthily, or any other way you can think of - as long as it doesn't affect others against their will.

And this has been bourne out quite well in the replies in this thread.

I don't agree that fast food manufactures are blameless. Far from it imo. I think this comes down to the 'intent' angle, and I'll tackle this in a later post.
But for now, I just want to make it clear what the context of the comments quoted in the OP actually are...

And this is important because people are posting things like this:


I think that eating your way into obesity is a slow form of suicide, and perfectly within someone's rights to do if they want.


...thinking this is argumentation against the point of the OP. But in fact this backs up my opinion! Remember, while I am quoted in the OP, the OP is not my post...

[engly-saxo]

Oh I see. It's fine for BK to come out with a burger that they know full well will further increase the severe obesity problem, and hence will lead to more deaths.

Fat people aren't FORCED or coerced to eat it!

And I don't believe it's a case of socio-economics either. You can buy healthy food at any big supermarket for very little. Really, I mean how much do lettuce, tomatoes, cucumber, onions and peppers cost in the grand scheme?!

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Fat people aren't FORCED or coerced to eat it!


Again...

The whole point of the quote in the OP was to say 'If it's consensual, it's OK'.
I still dont' know why the consent of the victim means it can't be murder though. Again, consent isn't mentioned in the definition of the word 'murder'. At all.

But a lot of you like to repeat this at me like it means something, so I can only guess you go by a different definition than I do. Tell me which dictionary you are using as reference, and we'll take it from there I guess...

And to clear up any further confusion:
If someone eats so many burgers they die
...or drinks so much alchohol they die...
...or jumps off a building...

then the victim IS responsible for that action. I totally, 100% agree.
BUT, I also belevie others can be - at the very least - partially responsible. And I don't beleive the word 'murder' can be ruled out just on the basis that the victim had a choice. I don't belevie the definition of the word 'murder' counts it out.

But many of you seem to think I'm trying to say the victim is blameless, or something of this nature. I certainly don't believe this. At all...

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

OK - on the point of intent:

A person sees someone's TV through their window and fancies it for himself. So he tries to walk in the house and take it.
The owner of said TV understandably is non-too pleased and stands in his way.
The 'thief' takes a nearby household ornament, and wacks the guy round the head. Then proceedes to take the TV.

The blow ends up killing the guy.

Is the 'thief' guilty of murder?


On the point of 'I bet less then x% of McDonalds customers keel over and die..'

Do a google search on the words 'obesity killer'. Here are the first few hits in the list I was given:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-03-09-obesity_x.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4486906/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/3496918.stm

..tells it's own story. Is a company like McDonalds contributing to these kinds of statistics? Of course it is!

You've asked for figures. And I've provided them.

[EarlOfLade]

No, it's not murder because murder is the intentional killing of a human being, and I don't think most fast-food places really intend to kill off their customers. It's kinda bad for business.
Really?

Why are the products they sell total garbage when it comes to nutrition? If they had peoples best interest in mind, they would sell healthy food and not crap that will get your cholesterol level to look like a take off of the space shuttle?

[Matty]

Because they're cheap , easy to make, and easy to make taste good (opinion, i'm personally not keen on the vast majority).

There is quite the difference between intending harm, and being indifferent to it right?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

There is quite the difference between intending harm, and being indifferent to it right?


Perhaps. I've already admitted that my choice to use the word 'murder' can easiely be considered a stretch.
But my overall point is, regardless of whether you decide it can be called 'murder', 'killing' or even 'indifferent killing' - the real point is that consensual 'killing' (as in the victim consents, whether technically 'murder' or not) isn't immoral. At least imo.

Which is why I'm not suggesting that McDonalds shoudl be banned. Nor am I suggesting that McDonalds bosses should be thrown in prison.

This whole 'defintion of murder' stuff is just an interesting side-issue...

Ok - what about the famous 'German cannibal'? Murder or no?
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/05/german_cannibal.html

[Matty]

Perhaps. I've already admitted that my choice to use the word 'murder' can easiely be considered a stretch.
But my overall point is, regardless of whether you decide it can be called 'murder', 'killing' or even 'indifferent killing' - the real point is that consensual 'killing' (as in the victim consents, whether technically 'murder' or not) isn't immoral. At least imo.I fully agree, as soon as informed and rational consent is given then that should absolve the "murderer" of charges. I dont see how then it is immoral, except in a bullshit religious sense.

Of course in a legal sense (as far as i understand, I'm no lawyer) you can not give consent to be killed as by doing so that itself indicates you are not of sound mind and therefore any consent you give is moot. I've heard similar points put forward about euthanasia cases etc.

Which is why I'm not suggesting that McDonalds should be banned. Nor am I suggesting that McDonalds bosses should be thrown in prison.
Apart from the obvious slipperly slope argument that every tobacconist and bar owner would have to suffer the same fate (amongst many other proffessions), i could see McDs refusing to sell to morbidly obese people on litigation grunds. Maybe a fattir alarm which is triggered as you walk over the threshold or something.

I personally think that if you somehow cannot say no to the three throusandth burger that contributes to your massive stroke or whatever, you have no one other than yourself to blame. I smoke, if i get lung cancer its my fault, not the tobacconist down the road.


Ok - what about the famous 'German cannibal'? Murder or no?
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/05/german_cannibal.html

Not in the way i would define it no. There was a UK artist (Lenkovitch) who had similar legal wranglings about owning a body which was left to him and for which he had legalese written permission to own and do whatever he liked with.

This all boils down to the fact that i think people should be perfectly allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies. Drink, eat crap, smoke, do drugs, have it eaten, nohell eat it yourself if you see fit. Other than an obligation to provide adequate information about consequences i don't see how proprietors etc should be held accountably for what is a personal responsibility issue. That just me though, judging by some discussions we've had here recently some people would be up for making anything they find distasteful illegal.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Of course in a legal sense (as far as i understand, I'm no lawyer) you can not give consent to be killed as by doing so that itself indicates you are not of sound mind and therefore any consent you give is moot. I've heard similar points put forward about euthanasia cases etc.


Yes, this is a good point. When we say consent, we need to clarify issues such as insanity, addiction etc.
These are complex issues. But I'm clear on one thing. To say anybody that wishes to commit suicide should automatically be declared 'not of sound mind' is simply wrong....

I've got no real doubt about that.


Apart from the obvious slipperly slope argument that every tobacconist and bar owner would have to suffer the same fate (amongst many other proffessions), i could see McDs refusing to sell to morbidly obese people on litigation grunds. Maybe a fattir alarm which is triggered as you walk over the threshold or something.


Well, never been one to pay attention to 'so-called' slippery slopes. They often seem like a reason to remain conservative, rather than do the right thing.
The law currently has no problem carting all kinds of people to prison for selling all kinds of harmful drugs. And yet we have no problem with tobacco being sold on every street corner. You really think this situation has anything to do with logic? I don't.
I think it has to do with tobacco becoming 'socially acceptable' before we worked out how harmful it was...

Either it's a criminal offense to sell harmful substances, or it isn't. Right?


I personally think that if you somehow cannot say no to the three throusandth burger that contributes to your massive stroke or whatever, you have no one other than yourself to blame. I smoke, if i get lung cancer its my fault, not the tobacconist down the road.


I don't agree that 'you have no-one to blame but yourself'. Especially if we are talking about addictive substances. And even more 'especially' if these substances were first tried at a young age.
...but I will agree that it could be considered 'mainly' your fault. Depending on the circumstances...


Not in the way i would define it no.


Well, fair enough. But it'd be nice if at least one person could admit that the dictionary defintion of the word 'murder' allows the term 'consentual murder' as a valid one...

But I don't mind if personally you view it differently... I suppose you could link the term 'inhumane' to 'consent' and - job done...
But personally, I don't see why (again, according to the dictionary definition), the case of the German Cannibal shouldn't be considered murder.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder

Defintion 5 is the only objective definition we are concerned with here (Unless anybody wants to suggest that one's moral outlook should naturally change as you cross borders of countries...!). And that says:
'to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously'.

To eat someone else - alive! - is about as barbaric and inhumane as I can imagine. So as far as I'm concerned, it is murder. By definition. The fact that is was a consensual killing is besides the point...
The important point, though, is that the act hasn't suddenly altered 'morally' just because I consider it - techically - murder. Murder is just a word. And I'm just using it as accurately as I can according to it's dictionary definition. The singular fact that I call that particular act 'murder' really has nothing directly to do with it's moral standing...

In other words, I don't think murder always equals immoral. I think it depends on the particular circumstances of each instance of 'murder'.


This all boils down to the fact that i think people should be perfectly allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies. Drink, eat crap, smoke, do drugs, have it eaten, nohell eat it yourself if you see fit. Other than an obligation to provide adequate information about consequences i don't see how proprietors etc should be held accountably for what is a personal responsibility issue. That just me though, judging by some discussions we've had here recently some people would be up for making anything they find distasteful illegal.


For the most part, I agree. In almost any case, the biggest part of the blame will lie with those who take the stuff, and not those who provide it.

[JamesBannon]

Once someone is dead, it's very difficult to determine if they genuinely consented or not as it's not possible to ask them. Here's the thing, how do we prevent any person from being forced to participate in such a match through physiological or psychological pressure or otherwise? In a court of law? But any reasonable court would reject the notion of a death match.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Once someone is dead, it's very difficult to determine if they genuinely consented or not as it's not possible to ask them. Here's the thing, how do we prevent any person from being forced to participate in such a match through physiological or psychological pressure or otherwise? In a court of law? But any reasonable court would reject the notion of a death match.


It's a good point James.
I do agree that if people are being put under some kind of undue pressure to participate in these so-called 'death matches', that that's an issue. And we should think about stopping them participating, on the grounds that it's not true 'consent'.

I don't pretend to have a black and white answer on this point. I think it requires a much more indepth discussion on the whole issue of 'consent'. And we'd need to get down to some nitty-gritty detail.

But I will make one black and white comment. At least as far as I'm concerned...
...I consider it wrong to say:

'It's sometimes hard to determine what true 'consent' is. So we'll give up and not give it too much priority in 'debateble' moral senarios'...

I don't know if that's what you're saying or not. I'm just making the comment...
I'll ignore your question begging in relation to 'a reasonable court of law'...

[J842P]

Burger King have just come out with a new burger in the UK (along with a new ad campain) that equates to:

5 pints of beer...
...or...
3 mars bars...

...in terms of the fat it's loaded with.


Um, are you sure you don't mean CALORIES instead of FAT, because beer doesn't have much fat.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Um, are you sure you don't mean CALORIES instead of FAT, because beer doesn't have much fat.


Emmm - very possibly. Point taken :)

[premjan]

Calories ~= Fat (after some metabolizing has taken place for most people of moderate physical activity) no?

[Matty]

Yes, this is a good point. When we say consent, we need to clarify issues such as insanity, addiction etc.
These are complex issues. But I'm clear on one thing. To say anybody that wishes to commit suicide should automatically be declared 'not of sound mind' is simply wrong....

I've got no real doubt about that. Agreed.

Well, never been one to pay attention to 'so-called' slippery slopes. They often seem like a reason to remain conservative, rather than do the right thing.
The law currently has no problem carting all kinds of people to prison for selling all kinds of harmful drugs. And yet we have no problem with tobacco being sold on every street corner. You really think this situation has anything to do with logic? I don't.
I think it has to do with tobacco becoming 'socially acceptable' before we worked out how harmful it was...

Either it's a criminal offense to sell harmful substances, or it isn't. Right? Agreed too. Though i'd take it a more of an indictment on crappy prohibition laws than dangerous goods.

I don't agree that 'you have no-one to blame but yourself'. Especially if we are talking about addictive substances. And even more 'especially' if these substances were first tried at a young age. Yeah, good point. As i said, i think childhood targeted marketing of fast food completely abhorrent. The fact that McDs is even fucking allowed to have a kiddies fun house etc to draw them plus family in is wrong IMO. A lot of parents invariably end up with a choice between giving in and letting their kids enjoy the clown sanctioned unhealthy crap, or putting up with a tantrum fro denying it. Both of which drive more and more peopl there and the fuckers in charge know it. Pester power is well known to be a massive selling strategy to use, right.

My attempt to avoid such things with our little guy starts with not having a networked TV in the house, but I'm under no illusion that its going to get more and more difficult as friend get taken etc etc. Such companies should not be allowed to blatantly use kids for pressure IMO but it seen as a legitimate marketing ploy. One which lead to generation of burger chomping diabetic lard asses who know no different that eating crap 5 days a week.


Well, fair enough. But it'd be nice if at least one person could admit that the dictionary definition of the word 'murder' allows the term 'consentual murder' as a valid one... OK, i do. Wikipedia states that used in context with murder consenual crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_crime) most commonly overlaps with "assisted suicide" . Which is what we've been saying. An unfamiliar term to me but that's it. I still find it misleading though as the term "murder", irrespective of proviso, automatically indicates a perpetrator victim paring which in the case of informed consent isnt the case.

But personally, I don't see why (again, according to the dictionary definition), the case of the German Cannibal shouldn't be considered murder.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder

Defintion 5 is the only objective definition we are concerned with here (Unless anybody wants to suggest that one's moral outlook should naturally change as you cross borders of countries...!). And that says:
'to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously'. OK. I'm all for full freedom to do whatever to your own body, however the proviso should be that effects to surviving kin etc should be taken into account. In such a case the trauma to the people who survive the "victim" would be so great that I'd still see it as morally reprehensible, at the very least supremely selfish. However much of the same arguments are used for reasoning why attempted suicide and euthanasia is illegal in many places, and I'm all for the right of people to top themselves if they so see fit. The mental well being vs informed consent vs coercion/duress aspects of such things are a minefield but I'm sure there are cases where to class it as murder in any way is unfair to everyone and non productive in a legal sense. I guess the above definition fails most spectacularly when to leave someone alive is more cruel, even if that perceived cruelty is only in the mind of the victim.

To eat someone else - alive! - is about as barbaric and inhumane as I can imagine. So as far as I'm concerned, it is murder. By definition. The fact that is was a consensual killing is besides the point... I agree but I'd be more inclined to place a hefty charge attached to acts of cannibalism rather than the consensual killing of someone.

In other words, I don't think murder always equals immoral. I think it depends on the particular circumstances of each instance of 'murder'. Agreed.

For the most part, I agree. In almost any case, the biggest part of the blame will lie with those who take the stuff, and not those who provide it.Yup. However I'm also all for purveyors of such things being obliged to pay increased taxes etc to compensate for the additional healthcare burden caused by their products. This happens to some degree with cigarettes and booze of course (that the revenue is rarely spent on such things is another aspect entirely of course) , and is one of the main reasons I'm anti prohibition for many classes of drugs. To my mind fast food joints should be equally subject to the same criteria of warnings, advertising restrictions, heavy taxes and responsibility for their negative health effects (as well as environmental aspects such as litter etc) as tobacco companies. And tobacco companies forced to pay their share rather than simply passing tax hikes onto the consumer. I'm all for deterrently high prices on cigs, booze, fast food, drugs etc, but feel the companies should be forced to pay up as well as those daft enough to buy the stuff in the first place.

Crappy prohibitive laws take the educational aspects, quality control and tax revenue away from the country as a whole on the basis of spurious (and often old school theist) morality, which should have no place in modern society. Failing to apply it to other similar industries on the basis of business is equally destructive but not exactly surprising in a world where an 8 figure bank account and "God" are revered as much the same thing for most people.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Agreed too. Though i'd take it a more of an indictment on crappy prohibition laws than dangerous goods.


Yeah - I get what you mean. At the very least things should be consistent.
Personally, I don't believe the law should be about protecting us from ourselves. It should only be about protecting us from others, and making sure our basic rights are ensured.
I find the entire 'war on drugs' to be a complete waste of time and money. I beleive that the state has the right to reserve control of the more dangerous AND addictive substances. But I beleive it should also be responsible for dealing it out to those who want it, in a controlled and responsible manner. And I don't mean leave it to a 'non-criminal' market. I mean the goverment should take complete control and make sure there is not even a sniff of 'profitering' about the operation.

If their sensible, they can make it infinetly preferable to going to 'a criminal'.
...so instead of going to some s**t head dealer who's only interest is to f**k you over, instead you can go to someone who's main priority is to help you OFF the drug. The criminal elements that go hand in hand with the drug trade are killed off. And anybody unfortunate enough to be hooked on the most dangerous drugs have more chance of kicking the habit.

To those who think this is madness, you tell me what attempting to criminalise drugs has actually achieved?!


Yeah, good point. As i said, i think childhood targeted marketing of fast food completely abhorrent. The fact that McDs is even fucking allowed to have a kiddies fun house etc to draw them plus family in is wrong IMO. A lot of parents invariably end up with a choice between giving in and letting their kids enjoy the clown sanctioned unhealthy crap, or putting up with a tantrum fro denying it. Both of which drive more and more peopl there and the fuckers in charge know it. Pester power is well known to be a massive selling strategy to use, right.


Totally agreed. Fast food vendors targeting kids is the best example of how the companies involved are 'liable', and should be held accountable. Once we get it into our heads that obesity is becoming as much of a problem as smoking, we'll look down on icons like 'Ronald McDonald' with as much disgust as tobacco companies who kick-start their next 'Let's get the kids to think their cool' campain...

But with all that said, it's also down to parents to raise their kids right. That responsibility isn't negated because it can be hard sometimes...


My attempt to avoid such things with our little guy starts with not having a networked TV in the house, but I'm under no illusion that its going to get more and more difficult as friend get taken etc etc. Such companies should not be allowed to blatantly use kids for pressure IMO but it seen as a legitimate marketing ploy. One which lead to generation of burger chomping diabetic lard asses who know no different that eating crap 5 days a week.


Sounds like you're taking a sensible approach to the problem...


OK. I'm all for full freedom to do whatever to your own body, however the proviso should be that effects to surviving kin etc should be taken into account. In such a case the trauma to the people who survive the "victim" would be so great that I'd still see it as morally reprehensible, at the very least supremely selfish. However much of the same arguments are used for reasoning why attempted suicide and euthanasia is illegal in many places, and I'm all for the right of people to top themselves if they so see fit. The mental well being vs informed consent vs coercion/duress aspects of such things are a minefield but I'm sure there are cases where to class it as murder in any way is unfair to everyone and non productive in a legal sense. I guess the above definition fails most spectacularly when to leave someone alive is more cruel, even if that perceived cruelty is only in the mind of the victim.


This is why I like to leave the complication at 'conscent'. OK - yes - someone committing suicide can hurt their loved ones. I don't ignore that fact. But there are plenty of ways for people to hurt each-other's feelings. And you can't go legislating against all of them!

At the end of the day, it's up to the individual. Yes, by saying 'no suicide' you might be saving a lot of heart-ache and quite a few people who would have committed suicide on a 'whim' which, given the chance, they then overcame. But the fact is you are also potenntially leaving a hell of a lot of people in painful, joyless lives that they do not wish to lead. All because we think we know better.
Each of us are free to say which way WE think is the right way to go. But we don't have the right to decide that for other people...


I agree but I'd be more inclined to place a hefty charge attached to acts of cannibalism rather than the consensual killing of someone.


Hmmmm - not sure about this one. So it's ok to slowly hack another person to death, as long as you don't eat their flesh?
I see cannibalism as only bearing any relation to the 'inhumane' or 'barbaric' part. But I don't see 'cannabilism' as actually worse than just hacking someone to death - in a moral sense. Cannabalism is not worse - just freakier imo...


To my mind fast food joints should be equally subject to the same criteria of warnings, advertising restrictions, heavy taxes and responsibility for their negative health effects (as well as environmental aspects such as litter etc) as tobacco companies.


I think exactly the same thing. I once debated with somebody who agreed with me on the blame that should be set at the feet of fast food companies, but who wanted to either:

a. Ban the products altogether, or:
b. Ban their advertising.

I wouldn't do either. Because I beleive in both freedom and free speech. One of my ideal 'solutions' (specifically on the advertising issue) would be for the goverment to force warnings into all food advertising that it considers to be 'bad enough' to warrant it. And they should be clear, and intrisive.
In effect, fight free speech with MORE free speech...

I would also make every attempt to stop fast food companies specifically targeting children...


And tobacco companies forced to pay their share rather than simply passing tax hikes onto the consumer. I'm all for deterrently high prices on cigs, booze, fast food, drugs etc, but feel the companies should be forced to pay up as well as those daft enough to buy the stuff in the first place.


I agree with this too.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Fast food wouldn't taste as good if it wasn't so sinfully unhealthy. I like fast food. It is yummy and good. If this food's fat and grease content was lowered, there would be serious hell to pay. If someone so much as TOUCHES Wendy's or McDonald's, it is time for armed rebellion.

People have a right to smoke. People have a right to engange in dangerous, unprotected sex. People have a right to jog at 3 in the morning during a snown storm in shorts. People have the right to watch Oprah. People have the right to be religious fundamentalists. I'll be damned if someone has the right to steal my prescious cholesterol from my blood stream.

As long as their food's nutritional information is available, then their is no reason to blame them for everyone else's irresponisbility.

Sorry. I have very strong feeling for my fast food. :Cheeky:

[Matty]

As long as their food's nutritional information is available, then their is no reason to blame them for everyone else's irresponisbility.

Sorry. I have very strong feeling for my fast food. :Cheeky:

No worries, i agree with everything apart from this part. I think the emphasis should be on the outlets to openly display in a concise and clear manner quite how bad for you it is, such as with tobacco advertising. I'm all for freedom of informed choices as long as it is actually informed.

Currently they just have to make it available which usually means some dusty leaflets in a storeroom at the back of the shop, which they will grudgingly slope off to get for you if requested, or a request to check the website. Legally they are making the info available, but they're also making it as hard to get as they can without criticism. I think the onus should be on them to inform everyone that "yeah, have a bigmac and flurry but dont kid yourself that it is is good or even neutral as far as health goes. It is bad for you in these ways ......" Printed on the actual burger box ala cig packets would be the most effective way.

I think it highly unfair that chains are allowed to target kids with the "eat at our place, its delicious AND fun" messages but also allowed to do the minimum possible when it comes to informing quite how bad for you their products are. All that said i wouldn't be up for changing or banning anything, I'm all for people being allowed to do whatever they like as long as they are made fully aware of possible consequences. At that point personal or parental responsibility becomes the key factor as


Hmmmm - not sure about this one. So it's ok to slowly hack another person to death, as long as you don't eat their flesh?
I see cannibalism as only bearing any relation to the 'inhumane' or 'barbaric' part. But I don't see 'cannabilism' as actually worse than just hacking someone to death - in a moral sense. Cannabalism is not worse - just freakier imo...Yeah, fair point. i didnt think that one through particularly well did I?:D I'd have to revise it to a wishy washy description involving "humane" killing with consent but then we're into another whole semantic minefield of humane vs cruel and relative suffering etc etc.


You talk some serious sense about the drug laws etc btw. :thumbs: