***Official SUPER SIZE ME Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Paul.S]

Thx for the links to McSpotlight.org, Brian. The material about Helen Steel and Dave Morris in Fast Food Nation angered me as much as the material about Kenny Dobbins and Alex Donley saddened me.

I typed up a brilliant retort ("Oh, you were finished? Well then allow me to retort.") . . . but some of ya’ll will be pleased to know that . . . I lost it. I hit a wrong link on the page and all of the text that was in the "Your Reply" area of the page was gone when I clicked back. (Does anyone know of a remedy for this problem, which has happened to me before . . . other than composing lengthy posts in Word and then pasting it over?)

Some of you will not be pleased to see that I came back fresh 2 days later and re-created some semblance of that reply I had lost right when I was spell checking. In the words of Neil Peart, "Here we go, vertigo/Video vertigo" . . .

Ricardo, Chris et al.:

Happy to see that some of the helluva lotta folks who went to the movies this past weekend (“[This] Memorial Day weekend claimed numerous records, including the best four days ever in the movie business, the first time two pictures sold more than $80 million worth of tickets in one frame, and the holiday weekend's best take.”) opted to Super Size!

-p

 

[Brian Thibodeau]

Paul S

Had I the time to properly footnote my own posts, not to mention your repeatedly demonstrated patience when dealing with detractors, I'd have joined you in the debate these last couple pages, but as you've clearly done much the same research that I have in regards to this issue, indeed even more, I opted out simply because there wasn't much I could add to your argument as it's virtually the same as mine - only more eloquently stated.

That said, when the whole subject of the McDonald's at "Auschwitz" came up, I was at work, away from my copy of FAST FOOD NATION, and nearly spent my entire lunch hour scouring the Mcspotlight.org website for some corroborating evidence as I was absolutely certain I had read about this somewhere, but was seriously beginning to doubt my own memory. Well, now I know it's at Dachau and I did indeed read about it in Schlosser's book. Thanks for the correction, all. It's saved me a few sleepless nights.



Reading the footnotes of Schlosser's book is nearly as fascinating (and occasionally shocking) as reading the book proper. I referenced them as I read the book, then read them again in their entirety when I was finished.

-------------------

Another fun link regarding McD's sleazy tactics during the whole "McLibel Two" affair in the U.K. and one which notes McD's Global Marketing Chief David Green's witness box testimony that "Children are virgin ground as far as marketing is concerned."
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/funday.html
and another link regarding testimony from that trial that saw excerpts from the company's confidential "Operations Manual" read on the stand:
http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/tria...s1.html#manual
If anyone ever doubted the importance McDonald's attached to marketing its harmful food to children, as Spurlock ably points out in the film, this should help.

 

[Ricardo C]

I stand corrected. Thank you for offering Schlosser's sources, I will try to verify what I can.

 

[Jack Briggs]

That's nice to hear, but let's not go there, Ricardo.

Paul, your posts in this thread are very interesting.

 

[Ricardo C]

I'm sorry, Jack. Post's been edited.

 

[Paul.S]

Ricardo et al.:

My turn to be perhaps a bit cheeky: I’m “sorry,” Ricardo, but I am so not interested in your verification of Eric Schlosser’s sources.

Thanks for the comment/compliment, Jack B.

Again, getting back to the movie proper: has anyone proselytized a friend who was averse to seeing it into catching a screening only to find that they liked it? How 'bout the opposite? Anyone?

-p

 

[Ricardo C]

Well, good for you, friend. I didn't announce my intention to verify Schlosser's sources in an attempt to influence your position. I intend to do it for my own satisfaction.

 

[Paul.S]

Ricardo:

You have a tendency to over-read statements I make to suit your own argument, despite the fact that I am usually very specific in what I say.

You also are quoting way too large blocks of my comments and then making not specific enough criticisms which makes it difficult to know what exactly you're referring to (not to mention tedious for other readers).

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I think part of the problem lies in your thinking of Schlosser in the same context as Limbaugh and Moore. I do not. Limbaugh is a self-avowed conservative talk show host. Moore is a polemicist, documentary filmmaker with a self-professed agenda. For instance, he has been forthcoming about wanting Fahrenheit 9/11 in theatres before the election because he wants Bush out of office.

Again, Eric Schlosser is an independent journalist. There is a salient difference there.

-p

 

[Chris_Morris]

So because he is an 'independant' journalist, then he is unable to have bias, nor his own agenda? Being that:
1. That is a very irrational theory
2. I have never heard someone speak so much, yet say so little
3. By the end of this debate, the entire FFN book would be quoted into this thread
4. I could care less what anyone ate, where they ate it, why they ate, etc. as long as no one is telling me what I or my family has to eat.
... I leave this debate to Ricardo, have fun

And yes, I detest PETA. Their irrational, extremists actions, and actions based on scare tactics with a total disregard to scientific fact (just look at the failed "Milk made Santa impotent" campaign ), make them lower than low in my eyes.

Chris

 

[Paul.S]

Ricardo:

This is devolving into a personal "tit-for-tat," as the Admins call it. I don't have a problem with that per se, but others might.

If you wish to reply to anything else in my post #108 that is not specifically germane to the film, please e-mail me.

Thanks.

Paul

 

[Paul.S]

Chris:

Ahhhh, now we finally get the disclosure that provides context to your earlier comments. This (or, more specifically, its absence until now) is precisely what I'm referring to in the beginning portion of my post #106.

I could ask for "links" to "independent sources" regarding the "campaign" to which you refer but . . .

-p

 

[Ricardo C]

EDIT: On second thought, and even though the original version of this post has already been read by several people, I think it's best to remove it and hopefully not contribute to the padlock coming a-callin'...

 

[Mike Broadman]

Paul, PETA did actually do some Santa is impotent thing on billboards after some (very preliminary) research demonstrated a possible link to milk consumption and impotence. Of course they blew it our of proportion- impotence is a complex thing, often as much psychological as physical. Anyway, there's a big debate amongst nutritionists over whether adults should be drinking milk at all.

But, again- all this has NOTHING to do with SuperSize Me!

One of the funniest scenes is his vegan girlfriend arguing against meat, Spurlock professing his love of animal flesh, and she making an analogy to heroin. Spurlock's reply (paraphrased), "Ham isn't heroine!" Got one of the best chuckles out of the audience.

One doesn't need to be a vegan or activist to have a problem with both the fast food industry and our country's dysfunctional relationship with food in general.

Ricardo, everything I say is only about my country, I can't presume to speak for Venezuala. I would guess that the proliferation of McD's et al is far greater and more nefarious here because it is, after all, an American company. Maybe McD's isn't a problem there- I would guess it isn't. But it's different here.

We also have a serious obesity epidemic. It's not unreasonable to uncover both causes and ways to stop it.

Whether or not McD's were marketing in front of concentration camps or whatever doesn't mean they're not responsible for other damage. While those kinds of practices should be uncovered and stopped, that is just one small thing.

One thing I don't understand is why people in other countries patronise McD's. Not only is the food unhealthy, it's just nasty. Aren't people around the world sick of American infiltration around the world? Why do they support it by going to McD's? Is it just that it's cheaper or something? I would really like to conduct a survey of McD's patrons: "Why do you go there?"

 

[Jack Briggs]

Well, this thread has become an example of a controlled "argument" (not quite a "debate"). The two disagreeing parties are keeping their collars loosened and their differences polite. Let's keep it that way, while not getting bogged down in -- yep! -- tit-for-tat exchanges.

You're doing fine. I like what Mike just said in his post, that regardless of the issue of personal responsibility (as well as the social politics of the situation), there are justifiable qualms being expressed about the fast-food industry and how it proffers its wares.

 

[Brian Thibodeau]

Apropos of nothing really, I just thought of an interesting case of McDonald's infiltrating another culture within my own country (Canada)

One of my absolute favourite places to visit is a suburban Chinese mall complex called Pacific Mall in the north end of Toronto. It's actually made up of two malls, Pacific Mall and Market Square, both loaded with an eye-filling assortment of uniquely Hong Kong-style businesses, everything from clothing to gifts to rice rocket accessories to music and movies and Hello Kitty and Pucca coming out your ears. Market Square has a wonderfully aromatic food court made up of independently-run Asian "fast food" counters selling noodle and rice quickie dishes, hot pot, Korean, Vietnamese, etc.

About three years ago, McDonald's stuck a restaurant exactly opposite the food court. None of the food court businesses seem to have been seriously impacted as they're all still in business, many staffed by the same people, all these years later, but that McDonald's is always busy.

In fact, other than a couple of recognizably Canadian Bank Branches and Ontario Lottery kiosks, McDonald's is quite possibly the only purely "western" business operating in either of these malls (in fact I'm about 97% certain about this). Interestingly, I've been in and walked through many Toronto mall food courts and have only occasionally seen a McDonald's, which makes their presence in this mall, one increasingly popular with tourists I might add, all that much more devious. Not to mention the motives of the mall ownership for allowing it to happen. One can imagine the funds proffered to allow this blatant intrusion must have been very convincing.

So not only does McDonald's seek to visually poison and dietetically fatten cultures on their own turf, they also surreptitiously place outlets in popular "ethnic" destinations in North America, perhaps thinking that visitors to these "foreign" environments will be somehow relieved at the site of the comforting Golden Arches lending their stamp of legitimacy to the whole environment. Ugghh!

Still, I suppose nothing's worse than the one located in a hospital in Spurlock's film. How obscene is that?

EDIT: Any chance a moderator could change the title of this thread to Official Discussion thread as that seems to be what it has become? Wasn't sure it would last this long, or become this fascinating, when I created it.

 

[John Doran]

this is either tautological or false. that is, the reputability of a source is dispositive of non-bias only if it is not only reputable in regards to the reliability with which it can be counted on as a source of unbiased information, but also if it is considered thus by individuals (A) whose opinions matter (e.g. experts), and (B) who are themselves "reputable". which is certainly fair, but utterly unhelpful as a benchmark.

the same goes for "diverse" and "factual"; the diversity of sources for the same information matters only if each of those diverse sources are themselves unbiased; and a source can only be reliably considered "factual" if, presumably, it is also reliably considered "unbiased".

in other words, it seems to me that the concepts of the reputability, diversity, and factualness of a source are all derivative of the concept of (non-)bias, and are so far forth cannot be used to determine (non-)bias.

i think bias is most productively understood as a function of an individual's (in)ability to present (A) all the facts, (B) while relying on as few tacit assumptions and arguments as possible. basically, a work is unbiased precisely to the degree that it explicitly presents unedited facts as the premises for arguments and reasoning it also explicitly offers, and to the degree that it makes no unstated, controversial assumptions.

the problem with this standard, of course, is that it cannot straightforwardly be applied to bibliographies or footnotes; unless you actually check the sources used by a book yourself, and then check the sources used by those sources, and so on, there will always be some more or less reasonable doubt as to the credibility of those sources.

what this means, i think, where the rubber hits the road, is that it is difficult to have strongly warranted beliefs about a topic based simply on the reading of one or two books, especially if they're not books that land on the opposite sides of the partisan fence.

 

[John Doran]

this is from the interview posted by bridget here.


this is one of the most absurd, asinine, and fatuous pieces of reasoning i've ever come across. ever.

the public's interest in this movie baffles me: all he's saying is that it's bad to overeat. who on earth doesn't know that already? if you eat too much of anything, it's bad - that's what it MEANS to eat "too much".

anyone can eat 3 meals a day at mcdonald's and not gain weight - just don't eat too much. i mean, really, you could eat crisco three meals a day and not get fat as long as you consumed fewer calories of crisco than your body burns for the day.

since when did "being capable of exclusive daily consumption" become the measure of a food's healthiness?

 

[Brian Thibodeau]

I doubt this will settle any arguments, but the Dachau mcDonald's is listed on their German website at

http://www.mcdonalds.de/

At the bottom of the fancy flash page, there's a line of small gray words. Click "Restaurants" and another window comes up with three choices, one a "McFinder.: Clicking this will allow you to search for a particular location.

It's all in German, so it took me a while, and to be honest, i can't get the map to display on my Mac (which sucks as I was hoping it might show the restaurant location in relation to the concentration camp) but the address, 5-digit store number and, of course, location are:

Frauenhoferstraße 4,*85221*Dachau

So at least we know even McDonald's acknowledges its existence. If anyone else can get the map function to work and find out if Schlosser's facts are real or fudged, let us know.




The growing population of fat, grossly fat and disgustingly fat people who likely won't see this film don't appear to know it. Or if they do, perhaps they feel there's nothing they can do about it, including read an arguably biased book that's still loaded with eye-opening health facts or watching a film that, at the very least, serves best to remind them how they/we collectively got that way and illuminates the "system" (bigger than even Spurlock can truly show) that has conspired for over half a century to "revolutionize" Western and world diets, simplify mundane meal preparation and eating habits of old, and convince us all that it's a natural part of industrialized evolution in order to keep us ignorant of what really goes on in a supposed "free market."

I still firmly believe that Schlosser's book (and others like it) and Spurlock's film can be part of a balanced diet of knowledge. People can START with them, then hopefully dig further to find out what's true (for them). Sadly, I also realize, that many people will simply stop after either of these options.

 

[Paul.S]

John Doran:

Before addressing your comments, I just want to say that it's curious/noteworthy to me personally that you (but, as usual, not your Shift key ), have sort of come outta the woodwork 115 posts deep into a thread to which you've not made a prior contribution to, with mild pretention, weigh forth on points of logic (or, you would perhaps argue, my illogic) and not once mention the film Super Size Me in your post.

You're showing your hyperbole, John.

I think this is an example where the academic (in this case, logician) and the filmmaker (in this case, a former stand up comic--who didn't quite make the Conan O'Brien cut--turned documentarian) collide. Although Morgan's comment comment may have an element of fatuousness (and I also think he may be abbreviating the genealogy of the project for the sake of giving good interview; and, on the editorial tip, we of course don't know how the Valley Advocate may have edited the interview) for practical purposes, I think it makes a terrific premise for a documentary film.

Films often require (over)simplification. I challenge you, John, to make a film on this subject matter--and get it financed and distributed--that remains loyal exclusively to the principles of logic you are articulating. It probably would be longer than 96 minutes. And audiences probably would not sit for it. And it probably wouldn't gross $5M and counting.

Which brings me to my broader point: while you're "baffled" by the public's interest in this film, I'm perplexed by people who have seemingly come out of the woodwork--people such as Soso Whaley, Chazz Weaver and some contributors to this thread--to criticize Morgan's motivations, methods, conclusions . . . even his girlfriend.

-p

 

[John Doran]

i agree.