# Public Health vs Fast Food



## Sammy Jankis (Jun 1, 2004)

Just recently, a documentary entitled “Super Size Me” found it’s way into cinemas. The film by Morgan Spurlock has sparked discussion over the impact of not just McDonald’s, but fast food in general, upon our health and lifestyle.

The film centres around Morgan’s mission to eat nothing but 3 square meals a day of McDonald’s for 30 days straight, and focuses on the effects upon his health and general well being. As one would expect, by the end of this arduous journey, he feels a little worse for wear.

Not surprisingly, McDonald’s has criticised the film, insisting that their restaurants “offer a wide variety of high-quality food choices” and that they are “working with *real experts** on nutrition and fitness”.

*My emphasis – obviously, the many nutritionists and doctors interviewed or consulted during the documentary aren’t real experts – perhaps because they come to the wrong conclusions about fast food.

As an interesting side issue, MTV has refused to screen advertisements for the film because it is "disparaging to fast food restaurants".

The documentary has brought back memories of the famous McLibel case in Britain, where McDonald’s took a postman and a gardener to court for libel after circulating pamphlets critical of McDonald’s labour practices, nutritional standards, advertising methods and environmental impacts. The court action backfired on McDonald’s, setting of an anti-McDonald’s campaign and generating mountains of unfavourable press coverage.

Discussion points

*Is the explosion of fast food outlets having a negative impact on our health and lifestyles? If so, what should we do about it? (I’m thinking more along the lines of community organising here – not just “Stop eating Macca’s”)

Is activism aimed at large food chains, such as the www.mcspotlight.org website, fair?

Do documentaries such as “Super Size Me” help raise an awareness of obesity and other health problems, or do they, as McDonald’s suggests, fail to “be part of the solution?”*


----------



## joxy (Jun 1, 2004)

Sammy Jankis said:


> ....the famous McLibel case in Britain....an anti-McDonald’s campaign and generating mountains of unfavourable press coverage.


It can't be that famous; I've never heard of the case, or the campaign, and I haven't seen even as little as an ant-hill of press coverage of the campaign! People don't go in for campaigns like that over here.
That's not to say that I would want anyone to live on nothing but hamburgers - though surely these places sell other things? I've never been in one.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 1, 2004)

I personally don't believe in suing free enterprise, even in drastic cases. I don't believe in eating at them if I don't want to, however. I haven't been in a MacDonalds in two years. Everytime I went they'd mess up my order which is NOTHING BUT KETCHUP and either give me everything but ketchup or leave the cheese on or something, so I've stopped speaking to them. 

I don't care if someone has a documentary on it. I don't care if this documentary makes people stop eating there. I do care if anyone tries to force MacDonalds through legislative-judicial means to serve other types of food or to put a disclaimer on their advertising, or anything like that. There are enough other options that no one has to eat at MacDonalds. 

The Fast Food Explosion, as you put it, has been around for forever in a day in America. I don't know what percentage of the factor it is in our obesity problem, but I know that it isn't the whole problem. Excercise is big. Self-Control is huge. Etc. People will eat at MacDonalds if they want to eat at MacDonalds. Law suits against it aren't going to stop it. 

Activism isn't meant to be fair. As long as it is private activism and goes through private means, I don't care what they do, as long as the group they are activating against has equal rights to defend themselves, which they do, and probably more resources. 

I don't think a documentary (which I also have not heard of though I have heard of similar research) isn't going to do a lot of good. What would do good is what is already happening. Aware that the public is on to the fact that eating hamburgers can make you fat (one of the few things that can actually induce me to say "duh"), MacDonalds and other chains are starting to advertise healthier options. You can get comparisons on their websites, calorie lists, etc, all motivated by the fact that they don't want to lose your business. 

The "stepometer" campaign for MacDonalds seems to be very popular with those who come through the espresso drive through (I watch the trash in the backs of the cars and check out where they've been going drive thru at. . .a very sophisticated form of research.). Etc. 

Americans eat out too much. It's a national problem that needs to be dealt with on a personal level. Activism to stop personal issues is usually a waste of time.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jun 1, 2004)

Sammy Jankis said:


> ...Do documentaries such as “Super Size Me” help raise an awareness of obesity and other health problems, or do they, as McDonald’s suggests, fail to “be part of the solution?”[/B]



There are some Old Sayings I've made up over the years. One of them is "Just when you need it they stop making it." Another one is — more to the point — "The more it's advertised the less you need it."

Those who are determined to be healthy make it their business to find out how to eat and exercise properly and then apply it. The rest is the advertising confusion — "the fog of the health wars" if you will — created by those who sell fast foods, vitamin/mineral supplements, weight loss programs and exercise machines.

Barley


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Jun 2, 2004)

I know of very few people who frequent "fast food" places because they love the food (except some fish & chips places which have pretty good stuff). The reason that these places are "big" is _CONVENIENCE_! In and out, little or no hassel and a bill that doesn't break the budget. Given that in most families both parents work - that is where a family HAS both parents - and where children's schedules (soccer, karate, school, scouts etc.) is more hectic than the average CEO, meal times where the everyone sits down and eats together has become more precious than gold and scarcer than hen's teeth. Also, these places become "hangouts" for teens (gone are the old "malt shops" of yesteryear!) and everyone knows that the appetite of a teenager is greater than that of the average tyrannosaurus. So, "junk food" becomes the diet of the culture - but not because of the food! 

Alas, until we return to a time when families made it their business to eat at least ONE "home cooked" meal together a day, not to mention a sit down repast on the sabbath, I don't think they're going to make much headway in changing things. I believe that it's time to "rethink" our priorities in this culture at least. Kids should be given time to be kids and not have their days, weeks and years scheduled for them with activity after activity. One parent at least should be at home with youngsters while they are at home. Even teenagers need the presence of a parent in the home. If you have to give up the BMW, so be it. If it is a matter or survival to have both parents work, then other creative arrangements can be made. For instance "working from home" is becoming quite the thing for moms with small children. Cybernetic commuting is something that should be closely considered in a family setting.

Finally, in the end, it's all a matter of priorities. What is most important - and what one has to do to insure that what is most important is put "first" on the list of things that must be done. I think if the American family ever puts it back together, McD's and all the others will be far less problematic.


----------



## Thorin (Jun 2, 2004)

I don't get why McDs is so upset about the movie. It is not telling us anything we or the fast food companies don't already know: eating too much fast food is unhealthy and much of it contains saturated fat which can cause heart disease and high cholesterol. The fact that all the fast food companies are jumping on the "healthy eating" band wagon proves that they obviously know there is need for improvement in the health area. What are they honestly saying by complaining about the movie? "What? You are telling us that our king size fries and greasy burgers are bad for your health?? We're going to sue!"

The fact is, is that nobody cares. If they do care they make a personal choice to change their lifestyle. Why should the fast food places change? They will always have customers. Our society doesn't care about the obvious. Have you seen the cigarette packages these days? How much more obvious can it get? 'WARNING: Smoking will kill you and rot your organs causing you to die a slow and painful death as your skin and bones eventually melt away" Smokers' responses? "Thanks. I guess I should buy the extra light, then! Two packs, please!"

What bothers me is that warnings are ignored because people will do what they want regardless of the consequences. However, when they get sick because of it, they want millions spent on health care to accomodate them.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 2, 2004)

I'm just posting this because it is the first I've read of the issue really. I hope you all appreciate it because (being more of a consumer of print and radio news than internet news) I had to type the dang thing up. It's from World, an admittedly Conservative, openly Christian magazine, but it does seem to be a fair bit of reporting.

_Big Mac Attack
Andrew Coffin in World_
_Morgan Spurlock spends a month proving that it's possible to pickle one liver on Big Macs in a new documentary now in theaters. In Super Size Me (unrated; contains some bad language, disturbing images, and frank discussion of sexual activity), Mr. Spurlock takes McDonald's to task, employing a Michael Moore approach to documentary filming--crafting the film as a personal mission. Thankfully, Mr. Spurlock is a much more affable guide than Mr. Moore._
_After describing American's growing obesity problem, Mr. Spurlock takes McDonald's as iconic of the cheap, unhealthy, heavily marketed food eaten by most Americans. He commits himself to eating, for 30 days, nothing but McDonald's food. He tries everything on the menu at least once, and Super Sizes his meals when asked to do so at the counter. The results suprise even the team of doctors he assembled to track his progress. In 30 days, Mr. Spurlock gains 25 pounds, raises his cholesterol, becomes prone to dramatic mood swings, and loses his sex drive. The huge increase in fat intake also, as mentioned, beings to "pickle" his liver, producing the same results as a month of binge drinking._
_Mr. Spurlock's journey is alternately funny and disgusting, and it is likely to encourage viewers to watch what they eat. But as an indictment of McDonald's the documentary is less convincing. As McDonald's points out, Mr. Spurlock's diet is way over the top. He consumed more than 5,000 calories a day, which means he had to eat quite a bit more than a standard Extra Value Meal at each sitting. He also dramatically limited his exercise level, compounding the diet's effects._
_And, with all the talk about children as victims in the film, what comes through most clearly (although left unstated) is not the culpability of McDonald's but the culpability of hands-off, irresponisble parents._

Anyway, I think the second to last paragraph is why I think McD's is probably upset. They feel they've been treated unfairly by the analysis and want to get out their message in anyway possible. . .perhaps by countering any obesity suits they fear this will spark (a 600 pound man in the theater deciding he might have a case, for instance, and going at the company) with a pre-emptive suit for liable against the film maker. I don't think they'll do that, however. For one thing, its free speech, for another, it would just get the documentary a lot more publicity than it already has.


----------



## Sammy Jankis (Jun 3, 2004)

joxy said:


> It can't be that famous; I've never heard of the case, or the campaign, and I haven't seen even as little as an ant-hill of press coverage of the campaign! People don't go in for campaigns like that over here.



I suppose I mean ‘famous’ to people who take an interest in corporate ethics, activism, libel cases etc. I agree with you – it wasn’t all over the front page of every daily newspaper, but many who take an interest in McDonald’s social conduct may well have heard of the case.


----------



## Sammy Jankis (Jun 3, 2004)

HLGStrider said:


> The Fast Food Explosion, as you put it, has been around for forever in a day in America.



No one’s saying that fast food is a recent invention – I suppose it refers more the fact that people opt for take-out instead of home cooked meals these days.




> I don't know what percentage of the factor it is in our obesity problem, but I know that it isn't the whole problem. Excercise is big. Self-Control is huge.



And these are major points made within the documentary – people are not only eating too much junk food, they’re not exercising either. The film focuses on the lack of nutritious foods served in school cafeterias, and how hardly anything is freshly prepared. Spurlock also expresses a grave concern in the reduction of physical activity in schools. At the end of the film Spurlock states that it is _us_ who need to change, because the fast food chains won’t (well, not enough).




> …the public is on to the fact that eating hamburgers can make you fat (one of the few things that can actually induce me to say "duh"), MacDonalds and other chains are starting to advertise healthier options.



And that’s a welcome change. Unfortunately, not too many people will be opting for the healthier stuff (let’s be honest – how many people will give up their Big Mac for a salad?) but at least it’s there.




> You can get comparisons on their websites, calorie lists, etc, all motivated by the fact that they don't want to lose your business.



I think McDonald’s & Co. are banking on the fact that not too many people will know how to use the nutritional information provided. If the fat and calorie figures were accompanied with ‘recommended daily intake’ figures it would be a little more useful. It comes down to consumer awareness – something activism can achieve.




> > _Mr. Spurlock's journey is alternately funny and disgusting, and it is likely to encourage viewers to watch what they eat. But as an indictment of McDonald's the documentary is less convincing. As McDonald's points out, Mr. Spurlock's diet is way over the top. He consumed more than 5,000 calories a day, which means he had to eat quite a bit more than a standard Extra Value Meal at each sitting. He also dramatically limited his exercise level, compounding the diet's effects.
> > And, with all the talk about children as victims in the film, what comes through most clearly (although left unstated) is not the culpability of McDonald's but the culpability of hands-off, irresponisble parents._
> 
> 
> ...



Mr Spurlock has stated in numerous interviews, and within the documentary itself, that the 30 day _McDiet_ is extremely unrealistic. He’s also stated that he has nothing against McDonald’s specifically – the documentary mentions several other fast food chains. His main concern is the change in the eating habits of American’s over the past few decades.

Unfortunately, critics have instantly assumed that the film is just part of an ‘anti-McDonald’s’ agenda, when the message throughout is that it is _us_ who can change things. Personal responsibility is advocated throughout, and Spurlock makes a point in the beginning of the film that attempts to sue McDonald’s for obesity are just plain silly.


----------



## Snaga (Jun 3, 2004)

Just for information, the McLibel case was an a lawsuit under the UK libel laws against a group of activists who had distributed leaflets criticising MacDonalds. The judge ruled that although many of the claims made by the activists WERE true, they had not proven every point they made. Therefore they lost the case.

This way of dealing of your critics is pretty counter-productive IMO. It also makes me unsympathetic who say that MacDonalds should not be legislated against on health grounds. Those who live by the sword....

I haven't seen 'Supersize Me'. But MTV's action is pretty transparent: they want McDonald's advertising revenue!


----------



## joxy (Jun 3, 2004)

Snaga said:


> ....McLibel case....they lost the case.


Thanks for the information about that.
What judgement was made against them?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Jun 3, 2004)

joxy said:


> What judgement was made against them?



The judge awarded ₤60,000 to McDonalds.

More info can be found here, and at McSpotlight.org


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 6, 2004)

I agree with Snaga in that the counter suit is the wrong way to handle it. The activists have their rights, and as long as they don't try to force anything on MacDonalds' or consumers, they're free to continue. 

I think what terrifies MacDonald's however is the obesity suit ideas. They know that the tabacco companys lost suits very similar in nature to this, and with obesity now a big killer in America, probably bigger than tobacco ever was, they are going to do everything possible to cover their rear ends. Unfortunately, what comes to everyone's minds to cover their rear ends is government-civil action. 

Such action on both sides is pointless. Look at the tobacco cases. States won money, got into legal battles over how they could spend it, levied taxes. . .people still smoke. The reason it is less is probably information, not law suits, and as I said, everyone knows that hamburgers aren't health food. They simply aren't willing to change their lifestyles.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Jun 6, 2004)

The United States is a litigious society. We have more lawyers per population than any other nation. The tobacco suits were a godsend to these people and if you look at the monies awarded by the courts, you will find that most of it wound up in the pockets of lawyers. Class action suits (such as the suits against the tobacco companies and now being considered against the fast food industry) leads to very little finding its way into the pockets of the "victims", more going to government and still more going to lawyers.

However, the difference between the two situations is that smoking is somthing that one can do or not; eating is a requisite for everyone. Yet, smoking has not been made illegal (despite all the hoopla about its dangers) and that's because it's a great "tax fund raiser" for government. Fast food, like smoking, is a person's choice yet both of these "choices" are not politically incorrect and every possible lever of government and the culture is being brought to bear to prevent people from making that "choice". However, at the same time in the United States, we kill over 1.6 million children a year in the name of "choice". One _might_ die as a result of smoking. One _might even_ die as the result of a fast food diet. But in fact, many _do die_ - and not just unborn children - as the result of abortion and that doesn't include such "side effects" such as a tremendous increase in the risk for breast cancer and suicidal depression. 

Isn't it odd how the government and the culture will permit absolutely no interference with a demonstrably dangerous and deadly "choice" while at the same time, decrying other "choices" that are just as "legal" and just as "personal"? Go figure.


----------



## Snaga (Jun 6, 2004)

In both cases, since you want to make the dubious comparison, the effect of making something illegal would be totally counterproductive. Banning smoking or abortion would not stop either practice, it would merely drive it underground. In the case of smoking, like prohibition in the 30s, would only give a thriving new line of business to organised crime. In the case of abortion it would be continued in secret, in unclean facilities, without sterile instruments, without properly traine healthcare professionals. So all the dangers that the anti-abortionists purport to care about would be magnified enormously. But then, as is well known, the in the eyes of the anti-abortionist, the right to life extends only to the moment of birth.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Jun 6, 2004)

Snaga said:


> In both cases, since you want to make the dubious comparison, the effect of making something illegal would be totally counterproductive. Banning smoking or abortion would not stop either practice, it would merely drive it underground. In the case of smoking, like prohibition in the 30s, would only give a thriving new line of business to organised crime. In the case of abortion it would be continued in secret, in unclean facilities, without sterile instruments, without properly traine healthcare professionals. So all the dangers that the anti-abortionists purport to care about would be magnified enormously. But then, as is well known, the in the eyes of the anti-abortionist, the right to life extends only to the moment of birth.


If you are putting all of your efforts to stop something like smoking by pressuring people not to do it but you continue to subsidize tobacco farmers and collect taxes from cigarettes then you are not only sending very mixed messages, but, in fact, you are totally hypocritical. 

As for abortion, your "well known" statement ("in the eyes of the anti-abortionist, the right to life extends only to the moment of birth") reminds me what the late Ronald Reagan used to say about liberals: that they “know” so much that isn’t so. That statement is an ideal example of something that is not only incorrect but demonstrably false. However, I don’t suppose even proof from unimpeachable sources would help those who are determined to believe it. 

In the same way, the _myth_ of a ‘safe, legal’ abortion – and it _is_ a “myth” - is also something that even incontrovertible proof of the opposite would not change the minds of those who cling to it as a matter of dogma.

However, in fact, abortion and its morality is _not_ the issue here. Rather, it is one of population - numbers of people and how they impact the country involved. There can be no doubt that large numbers of Muslim "guest workers" living in Europe seriously impact those countries' involvement in the war against terrorism. European governments believe (and rightly so) that they have a knife to their throats. We have already seen that a terrorist attack in Spain caused that country's government to fall and the new government to promise that Spanish forces will be removed from Iraq. The terrorists (and any other thinking person) considered that a "victory" for their side! 

I fail to see why it is difficult to put one and one together and come up with two in this situation! Large numbers of Muslims in a reasonably small non-Muslim country will make the government of that country hesitant to respond strongly to terrorism! All the evidence points in that direction and nothing has been shown that would contradict that conclusion. A significant number of Muslims living within a country - given the fact that they neither contracept nor abort their children - _is going to become even larger over time_. On the other hand, because the native population of Germany or France or any other Western nation _DOES_ contracept and abort its children, that “native population” is only going to grow _smaller_ over time. In fact, _there isn’t ONE Western nation except perhaps Ireland, with a *replacement birthrate!*_It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the eventual outcome of that equation - and “morality” and/or "rights" _has nothing whatsoever to do with it!_ 

You may not _like_ this conclusion, but you cannot escape it. Of course, you can continue to believe what you wish even in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. That certainly _is_ your "right". But it doesn’t change either the facts or their eventual outcome however unpleasant.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Jun 6, 2004)

Point of order on relevance.

Mrs Maggott's blind hatred of Muslims now blinds her to the topic of the thread. Unless she's about to direct us towards incontrovertible evidence of "sleepers" infiltrating the staff of McDonalds stores--waiting amidst the many calls for Big Macs and Quarter Pounders for the "call to jihad"--I don't see how Muslim-bashing is relevant to a discussion of the fast food industry.


----------



## Thorin (Jun 6, 2004)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> Point of order on relevance.
> 
> Mrs Maggott's blind hatred of Muslims now blinds her to the topic of the thread. Unless she's about to direct us towards incontrovertible evidence of "sleepers" infiltrating the staff of McDonalds stores--waiting amidst the many calls for Big Macs and Quarter Pounders for the "call to jihad"--I don't see how Muslim-bashing is relevant to a discussion of the fast food industry.


Oh, come on, Arthur. "Blind hatred" and "Muslim bashing" is obviously overblown and highly over-reacting. What Maggot is saying is nothing anti-Muslim but merely about countries who have false views on Muslims and how they react to those views or possibly shape foreign policy over them. It is nothing different then Western citizens taking a second look at any Arabic person boarding their plane. Countries have always catered to minorities. If a country doesn't want to offend any Muslims thinking that they (falsely) will associate an attack on terrorists as an attack on Muslims, that is their ignorance and has nothing to do with the Muslims of that country. Maggot was simply stating that fact. At the most, you should be getting on Maggot for downplaying the intelligence of countries because her post had nothing to do with "blind hatred" and "muslim bashing".

Sounds like you are trying to get an argument started where there isn't any.  

Nonetheless, you are correct that this has nothing to do with the topic at hand and I would encourage Maggot and any others who might respond to some of the exaggeration on this thread to forget this line of thinking and get back on topic.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 7, 2004)

Also to add in Mrs. M's defense, I don't see that as Muslim bashing at all, though expressed a bit hotly for Mrs. M. It's similar to something I once saw posted in a debate involving American support of Isreal about a year and a half. . .oh, gosh. .that might've been two years ago. The poster said that since America had more Jews than Isreal it obviously had a huge effect on our support (which he expressed. . .or was it a she. . .that was ages ago. . .rampant disapproval of). Same sort of logic: Jews in your country so you support Isreal. Muslims in your country so you don't support wars on Muslim extremists. 


But it is off topic. 


Mrs. M said:


> However, the difference between the two situations is that smoking is somthing that one can do or not; eating is a requisite for everyone


But eating at MacDonalds is something one can do or not do. Despite dollar menus, etc, it is actually cheaper to eat home cooked as well as healthier. The issue isn't money but time for most families. . .and I have a feeling most have the ability to make the time but are simply unwilling to. . .so it does come down to choice.

The only difference I see in the two suits is possibly the arguement that the Tabacco companies lied or hid the information from public view. MacD's may have attempted to mislead the public as to health information, but the idea of hamburgers as fattening is simply and has always simply been public knowledge. So rather than lie about it, they've just ignored it. I don't really mind this. I'm not a huge fan of obvious warning labels.


----------



## Inderjit S (Jun 14, 2004)

In my opinion if you 1. have no self control and/or 2. cannot be bothered to make your own food or 3. like McDonalds then what on earth do you have to complain about? You have to be pretty damn naive to think that eating fast food frequently is healthy and cheap....as HLG said making your own, nutritious food at home is the far better alternative...A lot of my friends work in Fast Food restaurants, the hygiene (they tell me) is not too good, they have instances of rats in the kitchens and people spitting in the food. Things such as documentaries, pamphlets etc. are quite good as they educate people about the dangers of eating fast food, and I fully support any such measures. But you can cook a pretty cheap meal at home. Pasta, chicken, rice, lasagne….all tasty (well more so then fast food) they all offer, cheap tasty and easy to cook alternatives…make a packed lunch if you are going to work, you can put an apple, a kiwi fruit an orange and many other tasty fruits in your packed lunch, as well as a healthy non-fizzy drink…..giving up fast food and fizzy drinks is easy if you have the willpower, I go out a lot and my friends do go to fast food restaurants, but that doesn’t mean that I have to eat there, no body puts a gun to your head and forces you to eat…you could eat a chicken pasty or a sausage roll instead, they are much cheaper. 

And as for kids wanting to go to McDonalds, well, some of the blame may well lie with company, they may advertise excessively etc. but if parents cannot exert some control over their kids or if they cannot educate them as to the dangers of fast food then that is well....pathetic....the parents must also set an example to their kids by giving them fruit etc. and telling them that McDonalds is pretty bad for your health.

on smoking-I am against it. My uncle died because he smoked too much and so it really does make me sick to see people smoke....I know it is their right but that doesn't take away my feeling of disgust at people who smoke, I have recently lost my father to cancer, leukaemia, and knowing that some of these people may be killing themselves by smoking, and this affecting their wives, kids and friends angers me....they have a choice about whether to smoke or not....peer pressure is certainly a big factor, some are brought up in a smoking environment (i.e. parents smoke) or in which smoking/drugs are the norm, which is unfortunate, again people must be told about the vices of smoking, I remember a good few years back, four I think, when my friends were first introduced to smoking, I never ever, EVER came close to smoking, but some of them did, some of them even moved on to things liked weed etc. our school toilets reek of various smoked drugs, its pretty damn annoying when you want to take a pee and all you can hear a group of guys asking for a drag in the cubicle, though it is funny, if you find such things funny. The tobacco companies are of course taxed through the roof, whilst working in my uncle’s shop he was telling me about how much profit he made on a packet of cigarettes and it was like 5p, I decided NOT to give him a moral verbatim speech on the voices of smoking which I had prepared earlier. 

Hmph...and what’s with the homogenising of "liberals"? The liberals are not some kind of ubiquitous group of narrow-minded, socialist clods with nothing better to do then sprout egalitarianistic crap all day....nor are the liberals always preaching some kind of Muslim loving catechism, you make some very good points Mrs. Maggot, but there is no reason to say things like


> what the late Ronald Reagan used to say about liberals: that they “know” so much that isn’t so


 and I see no reason as to why you have to pluralise Snaga or make him out to be some kind of paragidm of liberalist thought...."liberals" stretch from individualistic liberals such as Ayn Rand, J.S Mill, Locke, Rousseau etc. some point out for example that during the civil war, Davis's government was more "liberal" then Lincoln's government, Lincoln was a tad heavy-handed at times in his use of the war powers (i.e. the Vallandgihiam (hehe, I must have spelt his name wrong, but never mind) case, though some even labelled the south as a Socialist state which is quite paradoxical given Davis's tax concessions to the rich farmers) oops....I am going on about something which has nothing to do with the aforementioned topic again...sorry...well, my point is don't tarnish everyone with the same brush, though I understand that may have not been what you were doing and that I am taking your statement a tad too far...sorry if I am.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Jun 14, 2004)

I am a conservative Orthodox (with both a capital and lower case "O") Christian and proud of it. I would assume that any liberal would be equally proud of his or her ideological beliefs and therefore calling someone a "liberal" is no more an insult than identifying them by sex or ethnicity or race (always providing that none of these are said in such a way as to denote an insult). I am a conservative woman of mixed ethnic background (Celtic, English and Castilian Spanish on my mother's father's father's side of the family!). I would not be insulted by someone alluding to any of these facts if they were speaking about me. 

I used the term "liberal" because much of what has been said certainly comes directly from the philosophical "play book", if you will, of those who are liberal. If the persons making these statements are _conservative_, then I cannot imagine from whence they are getting their positions since they are certainly _not_ conservative points of view. However, again, I do not use the term "liberal" as an insult, merely as a "position marker". It may be that the person is _not_ liberal, but merely has come to believe a particular piece of erroneous liberal propaganda - and yes, there is conservative propaganda as well. The problem is the "erroneous" part, _not_ the "liberal" part. 

Lies and half-truths are wrong and damaging no matter _which_ side of the political spectrum uses them to further their ideology. If one cannot make one's point using the truth, one should seriously consider rethinking one's point! If a person or a political party or an ideological position has to lie or fabricate or "leave out" facts in order to further its agenda, then that agenda isn't worthy of being furthered. 

I consider it a tremendous disservice to my philosophical point of view when people or groups who claim to share it indulge in deliberate untruths and/or prevarications. I would hope that liberals of good faith feel the same way. It is one thing to be mistaken or to disagree, but quite another to deliberately mislead and misinform people in order to prove a point because in the end, the truth always comes out.


----------



## joxy (Jun 14, 2004)

Snaga said:


> ....as is well known, the in the eyes of the anti-abortionist, the right to life extends only to the moment of birth.


You've lost me there. Care to expand on the idea?


----------

