NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems like Carl's Jr. and Hardee's aren't just going against the lower-fat, more-fruits, cut-the-calories trend in fast food, but are throwing a supersized Caesar salad with extra anchovies in the face of the food police:

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/01/13/CKE-Hardees-Profile/?TID=advert/drudge/Hardees#page1

(an older article but I just saw it on Drudge today)

So, who's ordering?

Hey as long as they don't take out the real food, what do I care. At least it's not as stupid as the whole diet coke stuff, the only thing that does is make a disgusting tasting coke.

Hey as long as they don't take out the real food, what do I care. At least it's not as stupid as the whole diet coke stuff, the only thing that does is make a disgusting tasting coke.

Double Six Dollar Burgers and Monster Thickburgers aren't something I'd want to eat all the time, but if I've been chopping wood all morning or I'm extra hungry, I want the option to do so. Food nannies should mind their own business.

Sounds disgusting, but I don't care.

I believe it is the right of every person to eat what they please, but not their right to complain when they get sick/fat/die from it. If I want a Thickburger and curly fries, I'm going to pay for it in some way or another and I can accept that. The world needs to remember personal responsibility and take their lumps when they screw up.

I do love me some Hardee's. Too bad the nearest one is about 40 miles away, which is bogus.

I live in a town of 12,000, and the two major chain restaurants we have not been able to support despite repeated attempts (seriously, each of these have come and gone at least three times) are Arby's and Hardee's.

Also, holy crap, "fnord" is still funny?

I can't stand the wannabe-machismo culture to which these companies appeal, but no reason to outlaw their food. In moderation, immoderate meals can be nice.

I live in a town of 12,000, and the two major chain restaurants we have not been able to support despite repeated attempts (seriously, each of these have come and gone at least three times) are Arby's and Hardee's.

Also, holy crap, "fnord" is still funny?

Hehe, Fnord is a funny word. :wink:

I live in a town of 12,000, and the two major chain restaurants we have not been able to support despite repeated attempts (seriously, each of these have come and gone at least three times) are Arby's and Hardee's.

As a fan of beef, this breaks my heart.

Also, holy crap, "fnord" is still funny?

Hell, I don't even get it.

I haven't been to a Hardee's since I was about 10. I didn't like their food then and I probably won't now.

Hell, I don't even get it.

You do not see the fnords.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fnord

Fnord seems like a good answer.

And who's going to end up paying for the real costs of this ridiculousness? Tax them! says an editorial in [NEWSPAPERNAME]. [NATIONNAME] cannot afford any more upswings in the rate of cardiac arrest!

Salad dodgers

I'll eat what I damn well please.

This does not however mean I'll be eating at Hardees

*munches carrot*

And who's going to end up paying for the real costs of this ridiculousness? Tax them! says an editorial in [NEWSPAPERNAME]. [NATIONNAME] cannot afford any more upswings in the rate of cardiac arrest!*Throws editors in the dungeon for insulting the Dictator*

I'll eat what I want. Arby's for me though. Hardees, yech.

Eat what you want, but don't complain when you die of being a fatarse.

Hardees is awesome, but it isn't something you would eat all the time because the food is insane.

Ok, isn't it up to the consumer to decide what they will put into their mouth and what they won't?

That Fourth of July burger in the article sounds absolutely revolting -- so as a consumer, I won't buy it.

Isn't it enough that the caloric counts are now posted, by law, in many states? Are we going to legislate no salt next? No meat? Are we only going to be able to get apple salads and cheddar chunks next? Not that there's anything wrong with either, but I don't want to eat celery, or poached fish, or grilled skinless chicken for every meal.

People should just mind their own fucking business about what other people eat, already.

What's depressing is that California and New York City are actually being applauded for banning certain ingredients in foods.

Ok, isn't it up to the consumer to decide what they will put into their mouth and what they won't?

That Fourth of July burger in the article sounds absolutely revolting -- so as a consumer, I won't buy it.

Isn't it enough that the caloric counts are now posted, by law, in many states? Are we going to legislate no salt next? No meat? Are we only going to be able to get apple salads and cheddar chunks next? Not that there's anything wrong with either, but I don't want to eat celery, or poached fish, or grilled skinless chicken for every meal.

People should just mind their own fucking business about what other people eat, already.

The problem is the US legal system, as currently constituted. As long as some loser thinks he can hit the jackpot by alleging some idiotic cause of action like "McDonalds made me eat it, so now I'm fat!", and some attorney thinks he can grab a percentage of that jackpot by filing the suit, and some judge thinks he can remold society by allowing the suit to go forward instead of throwing it out of court, and some activist with nothing important to do in her life figures she can get her face on TV by protesting what the loser ate and demanding Congress "do something," and some Congressman thinks he can get an extra vote or two by "doing something," we're going to be plagued by food nannies.

The problem is the US legal system, as currently constituted. As long as some loser thinks he can hit the jackpot by alleging some idiotic cause of action like "McDonalds made me eat it, so now I'm fat!", and some attorney thinks he can grab a percentage of that jackpot by filing the suit, and some judge thinks he can remold society by allowing the suit to go forward instead of throwing it out of court, and some activist with nothing important to do in her life figures she can get her face on TV by protesting what the loser ate and demanding Congress "do something," and some Congressman thinks he can get an extra vote or two by "doing something," we're going to be plagued by food nannies.
Good shout.

Ok, isn't it up to the consumer to decide what they will put into their mouth and what they won't?

That Fourth of July burger in the article sounds absolutely revolting -- so as a consumer, I won't buy it.
Did you see the BUrger King Loaded Steakhouse burger? Burger King and Hardees are fighting for who can put the most meal on a bun.

What's depressing is that California and New York City are actually being applauded for banning certain ingredients in foods.
They're fucking bullshit ingredients that are no good for you at all.

Whether the benefits outweigh the risks is my decision to make and mine alone; it's not the government's.

Ok, isn't it up to the consumer to decide what they will put into their mouth and what they won't?

You would think so, but the government has a history of trying to legislate what is or is not allowed inside one's orifices.

Just wondering: has anyone actually ordered a Monster Thickburger, Philly Cheesesteak Burger, Double Six Dollar Burger or any of the others mentioned?

Whether the benefits outweigh the risks is my decision to make and mine alone; it's not the government's.

is the question of whether the benefits outweight the risks of injecting tar heroin into your veins have nothing to do with the government either?

Ok, isn't it up to the consumer to decide what they will put into their mouth and what they won't?

To an extent, yes, but there's a line. Let's say, for the sake of arguing, that a fast food joint discovers an ingredient that will act as a very good preserver for their food. It won't really make any change in taste, or quality, and the "end consumer" won't really know it's there or not, but using it will save the fast food company a lot of money from avoiding spoilage. Let's call this ingredient "fast food preserver"

That ingredient, however, is highly carcenogenic. Do you still hold the same argument that it's up to the consumer to decide whether or not to eat a cancer causing burger, just as long as the label states "contains fast food preserver"?

Or do we recognize some line that when an ingredient is unhealthy, and serves no other purpose than to help the company's bottom line, than we're kinda ok with legislating it? In which case, how is the cancer burger different from, say...trans fats?

Which I can largely gaurentee you that you can't tell the difference between fries cooked with trans fats and fries without. Its use is budgetary only.

How about adding heroin to the burgers? Maybe it would help slim down the monster thick people.

To an extent, yes, but there's a line. Let's say, for the sake of arguing, that a fast food joint discovers an ingredient that will act as a very good preserver for their food. It won't really make any change in taste, or quality, and the "end consumer" won't really know it's there or not, but using it will save the fast food company a lot of money from avoiding spoilage. Let's call this ingredient "fast food preserver"

That ingredient, however, is highly carcenogenic. Do you still hold the same argument that it's up to the consumer to decide whether or not to eat a cancer causing burger, just as long as the label states "contains fast food preserver"?

Or do we recognize some line that when an ingredient is unhealthy, and serves no other purpose than to help the company's bottom line, than we're kinda ok with legislating it? In which case, how is the cancer burger different from, say...trans fats?

Which I can largely gaurentee you that you can't tell the difference between fries cooked with trans fats and fries without. Its use is budgetary only.

Why don't they do what they do with cigarettes, and put a huge label on saying "you will motherfucking DIE if you eat this you fat BITCH!", or something like that.

Never went to Hardee's and Carl Jr didn't impress me. so meh!

To an extent, yes, but there's a line. Let's say, for the sake of arguing, that a fast food joint discovers an ingredient that will act as a very good preserver for their food. It won't really make any change in taste, or quality, and the "end consumer" won't really know it's there or not, but using it will save the fast food company a lot of money from avoiding spoilage. Let's call this ingredient "fast food preserver"

That ingredient, however, is highly carcenogenic. Do you still hold the same argument that it's up to the consumer to decide whether or not to eat a cancer causing burger, just as long as the label states "contains fast food preserver"? isn't that how Big Tobacco does it?

Or do we recognize some line that when an ingredient is unhealthy, and serves no other purpose than to help the company's bottom line, than we're kinda ok with legislating it? In which case, how is the cancer burger different from, say...trans fats?

Which I can largely gaurentee you that you can't tell the difference between fries cooked with trans fats and fries without. Its use is budgetary only. I can. After they switched away from Trans Fat... I stopped ordering fries. Just doesn't taste the same.

Just wondering: has anyone actually ordered a Monster Thickburger, Philly Cheesesteak Burger, Double Six Dollar Burger or any of the others mentioned?

I had a Monster Thickburger once, and it was fantastic. Hardee's is one the best of the major fast food burger chains, in my opinion.

is the question of whether the benefits outweight the risks of injecting tar heroin into your veins have nothing to do with the government either?

Precisely.

My body = my business.

That ingredient, however, is highly carcenogenic. Do you still hold the same argument that it's up to the consumer to decide whether or not to eat a cancer causing burger, just as long as the label states "contains fast food preserver"?
Not to speak for him/her, but I certainly do.

Precisely.

My body = my business.

Ergo, if a fast food place puts cyanide in its food products and labels it accordingly, anyone who dies from eating it is not the fast food place's fault, but the one doing the eating.

Who else could be to blame?

You know there's cyanide in it, you know the effects of cyanide, yet you choose to eat it anyway.

The provider isn't responsible for the choices made by the user; that's absurd.

Ergo, if a fast food place puts cyanide in its food products and labels it accordingly, anyone who dies from eating it is not the fast food place's fault, but the one doing the eating.

Assumption of the risk by the customer generally clears a company of any liability. However, given that the risk would have to be disclosed and the person would have to sign a waiver or otherwise give their express consent to consume something laced with cyanide, it's a rather outlandish example.

For example, when I buy a pack of cigarettes, I assume the risk of the health damages due to smoking now that the government has mandated the disclosure of that risk on the packs and in media. The taxes collected on cigarettes should be proportionate to the costs shouldered by the government to treat smoking-related illnesses. Previously, those companies failed to disclose the risks of smoking (even if they were pretty clear as far back as the 1920's) and so many people were presumably misled as to the danger cigarette smoking could pose to their health. That was one of the underpinning arguments behind the Master Settlement Agreement in 1998.

Government's responsibility lies in making sure consumers are aware of the risks of a product and ensuring products are not defective or dangerous. If a person wants to endanger their health, the only restriction on them should be that they pay for any externalities that have to be shouldered by the public. If the externalities are so great it would be impossible to do so, the product should be banned or otherwise regulated. Beyond that, they can do whatever the hell they want.

Government's responsibility lies in making sure consumers are aware of the risks of a product and ensuring products are not defective or dangerous.
No, it's the consumer's responsibility to find out for himself. If he's unable to do that, tough for him--if he doesn't want to deal with unknown risks, he's free to do without.

No, it's the consumer's responsibility to find out for himself. If he's unable to do that, tough for him--if he doesn't want to deal with unknown risks, he's free to do without.

Ah, but does it apply both ways? Should the seller also beware the fraudulent actions of buyers, or is it just the consumer who can be screwed over?

Either way, you are not only inflicting undue harm on others, violating their rights, but fundamentally weakening the entire basis of private property rights through eroding a major protection for contracts. Without transparency and a strong system of protection for individual rights and contracts the free market will not work. Government's purpose is to protect rights, and the lack of an implied warranty of fitness does nothing but trample on the rights of everyone. We've already seen this before, when the lack of strong individual rights allowed companies to abuse their workers and prevented the existence of a free and competitive market for labor. That is so antithecal to the free market and individual freedom that it is little better than any form of statism.

You know there's cyanide in it, you know the effects of cyanide, yet you choose to eat it anyway.


As 80% of Americans didn't read a book in the last year are you sure?

I suspect you could quite clearly label a burger as containing 'castor bean extract" and people would eat it.

Ergo, if a fast food place puts cyanide in its food products and labels it accordingly, anyone who dies from eating it is not the fast food place's fault, but the one doing the eating.
Correct.
(Yes, considering the low intellect level of some Americans, it would also be necessary to describe the effects and require a confirmation.)


The right to suicide is the essential complementary to the right to life.

Government's purpose is to protect rights, and the lack of an implied warranty of fitness
The concept of implied warranty of fitness has been officially eliminated the moment an unparalleled level of protection was granted to software sellers, all of which expressly refuse to recognize such a warranty.