Crafty old McDonalds.

We keep coming back to this. If you don't want to hear people advocating vegetarianism, then the veggie forum is a pretty strange place to be.

Where are these laws written down and signed by nature exactly?

No, but it doesn't make it preaching, either.

Yup. The big difference of course was that Hitler was advocating killing. Veggies are advocating life.

Yup. The conversation was about mcd's. You hijacked it and turned it into a general discussion about vegetarianism (again).

Because it comes down to whether you believe vegetarianism is a positive thing or not. So we inevitably end up raking over the same old arguments, with you complaining about preaching veggies and telling us how it's none of our business what you eat, and that vegetarianism isn't progress etc etc. Or are you seriously saying that you haven't brought this stuff up frequently in the past?

No, it was you who were rude by effectively interrupting a conversation and taking it off topic. Again.

Loaded where? IRL? Where you keep telling us what a minority we are? Or do you mean in the VEGGIE forum, which exists for US to talk with EACH OTHER?

Only if you choose to take it that way. It's our opinion. Get over it. You're not obliged to agree with us.

Unfortunately though, you seem to interpret someone expressing an opinion as them putting you down. Just because we believe their is a moral case for vegetarianism, it doesn't mean that that's a personal insult to you. You need to learn to deal with people having moral perspectives which aren't the same as your own.

 

Because i think it degrades humans and everything we have done for the past few thousand years. I do value human life over animal life, any animal life. I dont see that as wrong, if i am biased against my own race, so be it. Now i dont think this gives any human the right to go out and kill any animal it wants, it doesnt, and those people should be charged with animal cruelty. But when you are talking about people eating, i hardly see that as right. It'd be one thing if we were breeding animals to fight each other or something like that, but it is TO EAT. Sure you dont need to eat meat to survive anymore, however, not everyone loves a nice big bowl of tofu. Is that selfish? Probably, but i hardly find life worth living if you're required to do or eat something you dont enjoy. I guess that makes me a slave to my tastebuds.

 

Yes, when you advocate something, you are preaching to another. No matter what the cause.

Really? I hijacked it? by asking what progress was? Funny, you seem hell bent on making me out to be the destroyer of threads, and yet it always seems to be you who comes crusading against me. Please, tell me what other threads i have thrown terribly of course. I have posted in 14, so please make a list of which ones i have.

here, let me quote you.

"It's a forum. We can express serious opinions and debate issues if we wish. We can also express flippant opinions and be humorous. What's your problem with this?

so whats your problem with tihs? Am i not allowed to post when someone makes a ridiculous statement about progress?

You have a very perculiar sense of what hijacked means. In a thread that has dealt with the meat industry, my 'jumping' to another line of thought by RESPONDING to someone talking about progress. Wow, i really did jump from a to z. Excuse me. Personally, i think you hvae hijacked the thread with your attacks on me and how i have hijacked the thread, ironically enough.

Do you not know what a 'loaded statement is?

An opinion about progress is by definition PUTTING SOMEONE DOWN. You can say, its not, but you would be wrong.

 

Then you have a very wide definition of preaching. By that definition (seeing as you find preaching offensive), nobody should be free to express an opinion that runs contrary to your own.

I find this statement pretty incredible. I've defended you a number of times in the past, but I certainly take issue with your continued hijacking of threads. If you want to discuss the rights and wrongs of vegetarianism, then start a new thread. I'd have no problem with that.

Ummmm..... no. I've got a life, dude, and I don't have time to go searching through all your posts. I think you'll find this opinion is shared by others though.

Huh? This comment was regarding whether flippancy was appropriate... not thread hijacking. Even so, the problem is not you expressing an opinion, it's about you pulling threads off topic.

Shall we take a vote? Also, let's get one thing clear. I'm not attacking you. I believe that your posting is disruptive, but I'm sure it's not intended that way, so I'm not attacking you personally.

Well that's not a particularly well-argued statement, is it? Can you explain to me why you believe an opinion about progress is putting someone down?

 

nope, just the standard definition of preach..

preach ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prch)
v. preached, preach·ing, preach·es
v. tr.

1. To proclaim or put forth in a sermon: preached the gospel.
2. To advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or compliance with: preached tolerance and peaceful coexistence.
3. To deliver (a sermon).

right, and i posted your statement because you said this is a forum, we can express what we want.


I dont get how you think i am pulling something off thread by responding to another person.

Here let me paraphrase for you again.

Pablo: Society can progress

Megara: Progress, what the hell do you mean?

Yeah, seriously, thats the most hijacked thread and illogical statement iv'e ever seen.

Sure, have a vote, i dont care. In a forum full of veggies that hate me. By all means, go for it.

Progress implies becoming better. Otherwise its not progress. I dont see whats so hard to understand about that. If one person believes something is better, then inherently the belief contary to that is inferior. Here we can bring back your slave analogy. Slavery is wrong, slaver owners are iinferior to non slave owners. There is no middle ground. Whether you want to call it progressing, developing, advancing or whatever, you are implying that you are improving. Do you disagree? Can you talk about progress not in the terms of being better?

 

So, if you want to use that definition, then we again come back to the same point: it would be therefore impossible to advocate any moral philosophy without being accused of preaching. Indeed, you yourself "advocate and urge acceptance or compliance with" the notion that nobody should preach to you. You are therefore, by your won definition, preaching.

Ummm... no. You took an unrelated comment out of context and attempted to twist it to suit your own ends. I certainly agree though that we can express what we want. Start a new thread, and I'd have no issue with that.

Firstly, the thread was about mcd's. Secondly, seeing as it's a veggie forum, I think it's safe to assume that most people here would consider vegetarianism to be progress. If you want to debate that, then a new thread would be the suitable place.

I don't hate you. I disagree with your opinion, but I'm not so foolish as to hate people with whom I disagree.

Not necessarily. I prefer to see it as becoming different. Do I believe it's better? Yes, I guess I do. But that doesn't imply that I think it makes me better than you..... just different. As I've said before, I have no idea what you do in your life. You might do charity work or something. For all I know, you are a better person than me. But then I don't tend to think in terms of people being better or worse than one another.

No. I disagree strongly with this. You're attempting to split hairs over language to create an inference that I believe that I'm better than you.... which I've clearly stated that I do not.

The problem with this analogy though is that if we accept your interpretation, then it would be impossible to advocate any moral position without implying superiority. You take offence at veggies supposedly believing themselves to be 'better' or 'superior' to you, and yet if we follow your logic, it would be impossible to advocate our moral position in any other fashion. So what you're basically saying is "shut up. You don't have the right to advocate your moral position".

 

Mcdonalds is a fine organisation because of the charitable work in does around the world , and the job opportunities it proveides to communities.

http://www.rmhc.org/

http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/values/wcd.html

http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/franchise.html

I personaly think they are a good company because of the information within the links i have provided. Those links have taken me too more information (not connected to the mcdonalds coporate site).

The last time i went to Mcdonalds the place was clean and tidy and the floor was not sticky...the decor was horrible sort of mexican (i think) anyway the people did not all smile (behind the counter). They looked like they were doing a job , not promoting the 'happy happy' image. They were very profesional and quick and the person serving me even managed a smile as i was pushed out of the way by another customer , probably found that funny i suppose

Mcdonalds is never going to get a michelin star for food quality... and i very much doubt they want one...the food is ok , not brilliant but ok.

BREAKING LAWS...sure they get taken to court every now and again...quite rightly. They do not break business related laws that every company has to abide by... if they were that bad they would be out of business.


QuoteoktorAtomik
Are you suggesting therefore that any company that's never been shut down by the courts is a paragon of moral righteousness?


No...why do they need to be , this whole thread works on the notion that mcdonalds is evil....its not.




QuoteoktorAtomik
Yes, but you were criticising my argument.



That maybe how i ended up but like you i just put my 2 pennys worth in. Nothing more nothing less. I could and probably should have asked from the start what makes people think Mcdonalds is so bad..Thus giving me information . Silly as i am i did not do that and instead i feel like i am at the salem wich trials for speaking out of turn.

http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/pretrial/factsheet.html

Thats all i wanted...it not a very good one but it will do

And its from the same darn people i used as a refrence...i don't no.

And its all about 'meat is murder' does not tell me anything i don't already know...


QuoteoktorAtomik
I was expressing a flippant opinion!!!
Why make it in the first place , whats wrong with your own real opinion. We would not have got into the pickle we were in .


QuoteoktorAtomik
I wasn't even debating the pros or cons of mcd's, I was simply expressing a feeling. By your logic, it'd be impossible to ever make a humorous or flippant comment about something without it automatically meaning that you had no knowledge of a subject. How can you possibly draw such a huge inferance from a passing comment? That's a very rude and patronising thing to say.
It works both ways ... like i said i was doing the same thing as yourself , apart from mine not being so flippant.

I did not initialy question you reasoning and for some reason your STILL questioning mine.


DoktorAtomik

Erm did i not post links wich summarise my case ... therefore it comes down to wich source you choose to beleive. DoktorAtomik this is precisely what i was doing in the first place. I have expanded my point over several posts (of wich i have pulled together here).

 

oktorAtomik

Is that all i get ?? well:

When a company switches from buying domestic goods to importing the same products from overseas producers, tempers often fly. When the suspected culprit is an e-mail chain letter darling like McDonald's, the result is almost always Armchair Activism. Here are three examples of the hits Mickey-D's is taking now.


SAMPLE CHAIN LETTER TEXT
Folks

I have never done anything like this before, so bear with me. Most of you have probably heard that McDonalds is testing the importation of Australian and New Zealand beef for a portion of it's Domestic hamburger operations. Right now the beef industry is having a pretty tough go of it with dramatically falling prices and this doesn't help. Please make an effort to avoid going to a McDonalds restaurant at all costs. This hopefully will make a statement and cause their test to fail and they will again purchase 100% U.S. beef. If you need to go out and eat at a fast food chain, please use Wendys, they use 100% U.S. beef and poultry and intend to stay this way.

Thanks for the help.

Jeff Heldt

Jeff Heldt
Beef Consultant






Land O'Lakes Farmland Feed

​

It is true that McDonald's is conducting an experiment to import less than one percent of its total beef purchases from Australia and New Zealand. Unfortunately, later and longer calls to boycott Mickey-D's mistakenly identify South America as the source of the foreign beef:



SAMPLE CHAIN LETTER TEXT

Subject: Consumer alert!

Consumer alert!

All American Beef producers that sell cows at a livestock auction barn had to sign a paper stating that we do NOT EVER feed our cows any part of another cow. South Americans are not required to do this.

McDonalds has announced that they are going to start importing much of their beef from South America. The problem is that South Americans aren't under the same regulations as American beef producers and the regulations they have are loosely controlled. They can spray numerous pesticides on their pastures that have been banned here at home because of residues found in the beef. They can also use various hormones and growth regulators that we can't.







The American public needs to be aware of this problem and that they may be putting themselves at risk from now on by eating at good old McDonalds. American ranchers raise the highest quality beef in the world and this is what Americans deserve to eat. Not beef from countries where quality is loosely controlled. Therefore I am Proposing a boycott of McDonalds until they see the light. I'm sorry but everything is not always about the bottom line, and when it comes to jeopardizing my family's health. That is where I draw the line. I hope you will too.

END CHAIN LETTER TEXT





​

SAMPLE CHAIN LETTER TEXT

McDonald's beef please read this

Subject: Re: [Fw: must share this email - consumer alert]

We as cattle producers are very passionate about this. McDonald's claims that there is not enough beef in the USA to support their restaurants. Well we know that is not so. My opinion is they are looking to save money at our expense. The sad thing of it is that the people of the USA are the ones who made McDonalds successful in the first place, but we are not good enough to purchase beef from. We personally are no longer eating at McDonalds, which I am sure does not make an impact, but if we pass this around maybe there will be an impact felt. Please pass on your opinion.

**** This has Me just fighting mad. Just to add a note, all Americans that sell cows at a livestock auction barn had to sign a paper stating that we do NOT EVER feed our cows any part of another cow. South Americans are not required to do this as of yet.

**** McDonalds has announced that they are going to start importing much of their beef from South America. The problem is that South Americans aren't under the same regulations as American beef producers and the regulations they have are loosely controlled. They can spray numerous pesticides on their pastures that have been banned here at home because of residues found in the beef. They can also use various hormones and growth regulators that we can't. The American public needs to be aware of this problem and that they may be putting themselves at risk from now on by eating at good old McDonalds. American ranchers raise the highest quality beef in the world and this is what Americans deserve to eat. Not beef from countries where quality is loosely controlled. Therefore I am proposing a boycott of McDonalds until they see the light. I'm sorry but everything is not always about the bottom line, and when it comes to jeopardizing my family's health that is where I draw the line.

I am sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 =3D 300) ... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 =3D 3,000) ... and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers! If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!!







Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all, I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you? Acting together we can make a difference. If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on.

END CHAIN LETTER TEXT






​

discrepancies in these three calls for boycotts demonstrates. We're led to believe that McDonald's motivation ranges from saving money to a supposedly non-existent shortage of quality domestic beef. Interestingly, the last few paragraphs of the third example above appear to be adapted from another ill-advised boycott chain letter.

So are any of these claims true? Here's what we do know:

• McDonald's is the largest buyer of domestic beef.
• There is a documented shortage of lean beef in the U.S.
• Many fast food chains buy some foreign beef.
• All foreign beef is still subject to USDA inspection and approval upon importation. McDonald's only purchases and uses 100% USDA approved beef and poultry.

In a letter to Donald Patman, President of the Texas Farm Bureau, McDonald's Supply Chain executives explain the importation test and their company's commitment to domestic farmers:



SAMPLE CHAIN LETTER TEXT

McDonald's buys almost 1 billion pounds of beef from U.S. producers each year-thus making us the largest purchaser of U.S. beef. That's not all. McDonald's also purchases 500 million pounds of chicken each year; 156 million dozen eggs; and 60 million gallons of milk. In no way whatsoever will we ever lessen our dependence on the U.S. farmer. In fact, we are aggressively working with farmers and ranchers, on a state and national level, to strengthen our relationship.

With that said, there is a well-documented shortage of lean beef in the U.S. because of the declining number of breeding and dairy cows going to market. These animals are a significant source of lean ground beef. At the same time, consumer demand for ground products is increasing dramatically; ground beef now accounts for nearly 50 percent of total red meat consumption, and lean ground beef is clearly preferred by the retail customer. That's the reason McDonald's is conducting a small test in the Southeast U.S. In the test, McDonald's is only supplementing dwindling supplies of U.S. lean grinding beef with a small supply of beef from Australia and New Zealand.

Even so, the vast majority of every hamburger, even in the Southeast, is made with U.S. beef, as this small McDonald's test involves less than 1 percent of the beef we sell in restaurants. Meanwhile, all national hamburger chains have used or are using a significant percentage of imported beef; as much as 50 percent of their beef is imported.

The amount of beef that enters the U.S. is governed by a strict quota system. Whether McDonald's uses imported beef or not, the same amount of beef will be imported. We are committed to the industry-and remain steadfast-that we advocate keeping this quota the same.







In closing, we'd like to reiterate that McDonald's only uses those products that meet or exceeds the highest standards. Imported beef must meet the same requirements as the products produced domestically including our requirements for feed certification and animal welfare. Our stringent specifications are the reason McDonald's is known worldwide for consistency and quality.

END CHAIN LETTER TEXT



​

It does come down too wich information you wish to beleive...

 

Matthew, this is really getting us nowhere. You seem to be incapable of comprehending the simple point that third party information does not constitute an opinion... it constitutes a source. If you don't grasp that point, then I'm just wasting my breath trying to explain it to you yet again.
I'm also getting sick and tired of your little digs.... implying that my opinion of mcd's is as simplistic as 'meat is murder'...... dismissing my analogy as ridiculous without even bothering to qualify that statement. Frankly, if you can't be bothered to communicate like an adult, then there's little more to say.

 

OK enough already! Now when was the last time someone on this thread ate at McDonald's, Burger King, Wendys, Jack in the Box, or Carl's JR? What did you order?

 

I realise this is going nowere i think i said this ages ago...i gave an opinion just like yourself...you asked me too explain..hopefuly by the last couple of posts i have explained how much and how that compares to yours.

You asked me too explain myself ... you should not be disputing my opinion (just yet)

All you had to do is say ok i see were your comeing from and i would have stopped explaining myself. you did not do this.

THEN we can debate like adults because if you answered me with the flimsy post

Quote:
The reason for this is because mcd's are a large multinational organisation, with a particularly bad track record for exploiting the third world, maintaining poor standards in sourcing the meat that they buy, and promoting an unhealthy lifestyle.


Thats terrible ... worse than me.

Ok so i responded with outside information not from myself..

But continueing to explain myself plus defend myself and also question what your saying takes more energy than posting the above .

No i was hoping that your point of view just did not boil down to that ...if you read the post again i am hoping we have more to discuss than 'meat is murder' . Lets take away that element and see were we go..just lets talk about Mcdonalds as a business .

 

But I don't see where you're coming from. I think you're taking information provided by a couple of websites at face value, rather than evaluating information from a wider number of sources. And I never asked you to stop explaining yourself.

Right. So if you don't think my posts are flimsy, that gives you license to be rude? Added to which, I refuse to take the time to provide you with further information when the vast majority of your own reply has constituted little more than links. If all you want is third-party information, then go visit a search engine.

But that's not what you said at all. What you actually said was that you suspected that this was what my opinion boiled down to.

OK. Provided we can do it without making it a war of links. You tell me what you think is so good about mcd's (other than them being clean and breaking no laws, which is pretty much the same as most companies), and I'll tell you a little more about what I object to. Deal?

 

Deal...

I did not type into Google 'Mcdonalds is good' and then randomly pick anything within..i did put effort into it , somewhat dismissing this is not fair. There was ample within for you to take me to task and i would have responded.

The links were explaining MY point better than myself.

I was going bye what i was reading from you (not directly talking too me) and i maybe i was being presumptios..if this is not the case then i am glad.

OK.... but if it helps i will , i will just explain my reasoning a bit better.

You forgot the charitable contributions , job creation around the world. Sponsorship deals . those points are all here alredy.

come on i have done a lot so far a bit from yourself please...you can't dismiss all that i have done as somewhat meaningless.

 

So you agree with every word of every page on those links? Surely if you have a critical mind, there'll be some with which you agree, and some with which you disagree? By just posting the links, this isn't clear. This is why it's best to express your own personal opinion.

Charitable donations and sponsorship details are standard PR. A company does not do this out of the goodness of its heart. It does it to improve its public image. They look at the bottom line and make the equation that spending money in such a way will ultimately lead to more profit.

Job creation is usually of the very low paid variety. If you take the 'restaurants' themselves, they have a massive turnover of staff. This is because working conditions are shite and pay is poor.

 

I will be as bold as too say yes i do.. my critical mind dispensed with any information (links) that i did not agree with....there is nothing that i do not think is not within my reason of 'good' or any information that dismisses the other point . i stand bye it all.

Maybe , and maybe thats an ethical point that you do not agree with , it does not trouble me.

Like i said would a child who is touched by the charitable hand of mcdonalds care .does that make them selfish.

Your not going too get rich...its better than the dole. Most people treat it as a stepping stone..if they don't this is not mcdonalds problem.

 

It's not a case of whether it troubles you or not. It's a case of whether it objectively makes mcd's an admirable company, which I believe was the point we were discussing.

He would if the rest of his family had been exploited for cheap labour.

On the contrary. I know many, many people who'd rather be on the dole than work for mcd's (including meat-eaters). And to dismiss ethical considerations as 'not mcd's problem' is simplistic in the extreme.

 

I don't admire mcdonalds...objectivly i don't see them as a downright bad company. i see the need for some too put an ugly face on them ... but its a bit over the top...taking them too task at every opportunity is a bit daft , if the main aim is not realy that rational.

So McdonaldS exploits children now..the plot thickens.

Its there choice..but i was not being a snob or anything , it is better than the dole. do you mean choosing not too work for McD for ethical reasons is wrong , they can choose any reason they like. I don't drink coke for my own ethical reasons . Probably complety wrongheaded of me and just buying into the myths . But thats my choice. Does McD need to justify itself to people that don't find them ethical. thats kinda selfish of them and there under the notion there right , and there ethics are superior. If they wish not too work there fine.

 

Well clearly it isn't, as many people choose to sign on rather than work there, simply because it's such such a shit place to work.

 

Correct, when you are putting forth your own opinion you are preaching. I am preaching against intrusion into ones personal life. Others are preaching to intrude into ones personal life. This is where the difference is. I see preaching as a means to end personal intrusion, others preach to intrude. Hypocritical yes, but thats life.

I dont get why you are insisting that i derailed this thread. I merely asked a question from something that another poster said, a clarification. It was not non sequitur. I didnt just hop into some random thread and throw out some attack on vegetarianism. I disagreed with a statement that was made and asked for further clarification. You have a problem with this, why i dont know.

Now this is where you are intruding into my debate with pablo. You take a remark i said to him, and somehow act as if im saying it to you. Where have i ever accused *YOU* of thinking you were better than me?

Of course in the slave analogy you can take a superiority stance! Owning slaves is wrong and against natural law, therefore it IS inherently evil, inferior if you will.

Now, if you want to extend that logic onto vegetarianism, it would fail. There is no conception that eating meat is wrong, except by a small, small minority. There is no law that is being broken, natural or man made that protects cows and chickens from being slaughtered for food. There is no room for judgment except by a few people who want to make themselves feel superior(note, this doesnt include ALL veggies. Most i've met dont care(atleast overtly) that others eat meat).

 

Now thats naive and simplistic