Comments on: To all who loved ‘Super-Size Me!’ http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/
Warning: call_user_func_array() [function.call-user-func-array]: First argument is expected to be a valid callback, 'podPress_feedblogdescription' was given in /home/content/j/o/h/johnwright/html/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 166
 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:40:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: John http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/comment-page-1/#comment-2267 John Fri, 09 May 2008 18:00:50 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/#comment-2267 Julia- Now <strong>that's</strong> the epitome of a good comment. I've reproduced it <a href="http://www.john-wright.net/2008/05/09/julias-comment-on-super-size-me/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Thanks! Julia-

Now that’s the epitome of a good comment. I’ve reproduced it here. Thanks!

]]> By: Julia http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/comment-page-1/#comment-2266 Julia Fri, 09 May 2008 17:32:18 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/#comment-2266 I'd say your post talks this socialist, anti-prosperity romp of a documentary right under the table. I saw the movie with my friends, and I found it so inane, insulting, scientifically flawed, and motivated by political bias that I didn't even know where to begin to burst my friends' bubble-headed "amens." I must have sounded like a total idiot to them, and I am very glad to find my opinion very well articulated in your post. Perhaps I should pass it on to them. This happened when I was in high school, and eating one french fry meant you had no self-respect. Excessive dieting, hating your figure--now, THAT's self-respect. I must say, I miss Supersize. Nowadays I'll approximate it by ordering a large and a small together (and I'll throw in a salad to cancel some of the guilt). McDonald's is a weekly treat for me. -- Julia, a "heavy user" weighing 120 lbs at 5'5". $100 says my BMI is lower than that of our own Sensible Spurlock. Wanna know how I stay thin? I simply don't stress about my weight! I do what my body says, and refuse to give "experts" any power over my life! I’d say your post talks this socialist, anti-prosperity romp of a documentary right under the table. I saw the movie with my friends, and I found it so inane, insulting, scientifically flawed, and motivated by political bias that I didn’t even know where to begin to burst my friends’ bubble-headed “amens.” I must have sounded like a total idiot to them, and I am very glad to find my opinion very well articulated in your post. Perhaps I should pass it on to them.

This happened when I was in high school, and eating one french fry meant you had no self-respect. Excessive dieting, hating your figure–now, THAT’s self-respect.

I must say, I miss Supersize. Nowadays I’ll approximate it by ordering a large and a small together (and I’ll throw in a salad to cancel some of the guilt). McDonald’s is a weekly treat for me.

– Julia, a “heavy user” weighing 120 lbs at 5′5″. $100 says my BMI is lower than that of our own Sensible Spurlock. Wanna know how I stay thin? I simply don’t stress about my weight! I do what my body says, and refuse to give “experts” any power over my life!

]]> By: John http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/comment-page-1/#comment-2013 John Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:46:27 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/#comment-2013 Rita- "Consumer education." What were consumers informed about in Super-Size Me? That they'll get sick if they stuff themselves with nothing but hamburgers and fries for a month? You're right; Spurlock did us a public service. :S Rita- “Consumer education.” What were consumers informed about in Super-Size Me? That they’ll get sick if they stuff themselves with nothing but hamburgers and fries for a month?

You’re right; Spurlock did us a public service. :S

]]> By: Rita http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/comment-page-1/#comment-2012 Rita Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:30:32 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/#comment-2012 I think it was a great movie. The corporate interests in this country flood the media with consume, consume, consume messages. It was great to see the movie and see consumer education done in an entertaining way. I'm a consumer specialist and write the blog The Survive and Thrive Boomer Guide. I think it was a great movie. The corporate interests in this country flood the media with consume, consume, consume messages. It was great to see the movie and see consumer education done in an entertaining way.

I’m a consumer specialist and write the blog The Survive and Thrive Boomer Guide.

]]> By: John http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/comment-page-1/#comment-1739 John Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:17:55 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/#comment-1739 Guys- Interesting. But doesn't it beg the question of where individual responsibility ends and a manufacturer's responsibility begins? It's certainly the responsibility of a manufacturer to be truthful about the safety of their product (and that is independently verified in the case of cars for each and every model). Frankly, if a consumer fails to read about the product they're buying, why should the manufacturer pay for that negligence? Education is an important part of this, of course, because we live in a society where the law sends mixed signals about who exactly IS responsible. I love the 'Pinto Principle', though, what a name. Guys- Interesting. But doesn’t it beg the question of where individual responsibility ends and a manufacturer’s responsibility begins? It’s certainly the responsibility of a manufacturer to be truthful about the safety of their product (and that is independently verified in the case of cars for each and every model). Frankly, if a consumer fails to read about the product they’re buying, why should the manufacturer pay for that negligence? Education is an important part of this, of course, because we live in a society where the law sends mixed signals about who exactly IS responsible. I love the ‘Pinto Principle’, though, what a name.

]]> By: Liam http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/comment-page-1/#comment-1737 Liam Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:23:34 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/#comment-1737 Dave It was the Ford Pinto if I recall. I think the type of cynical cost/benefit analysis you refer to actually became known as 'The Pinto Principle'. Dave

It was the Ford Pinto if I recall. I think the type of cynical cost/benefit analysis you refer to actually became known as ‘The Pinto Principle’.

]]> By: Dave Powell http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/comment-page-1/#comment-1736 Dave Powell Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:00:55 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/#comment-1736 "If so, do you also believe that the manufacturers of cars are responsible for the deaths caused while driving them?" There was a widely reported case of General Motors (i think) producing a car with the fuel tank near the rear bumper which led to some horrific crashes. When they did a cost benefit analysis they decided it was cheaper to pay the compensation claims to the familys of the dead drivers than change the whole design of the car - so in that case yes, perhaps the manufacturers should take some responsibility - this could even be argued for cars with high bonnets that are more likely to kill a pedestrian or cyclist in an accident. But i'm generally with you on super size me - you might find this podcast on skeptoid.com interesting http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4088 “If so, do you also believe that the manufacturers of cars are responsible for the deaths caused while driving them?”

There was a widely reported case of General Motors (i think) producing a car with the fuel tank near the rear bumper which led to some horrific crashes. When they did a cost benefit analysis they decided it was cheaper to pay the compensation claims to the familys of the dead drivers than change the whole design of the car - so in that case yes, perhaps the manufacturers should take some responsibility - this could even be argued for cars with high bonnets that are more likely to kill a pedestrian or cyclist in an accident.

But i’m generally with you on super size me - you might find this podcast on skeptoid.com interesting
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4088

]]> By: John http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/comment-page-1/#comment-1726 John Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:13:37 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/#comment-1726 Frank- I've never managed to catch his 30 Days series (thankfully). But I agree that his agenda on 'Super-Size Me!', if not clear enough from the movie, should be patently obvious from 30 Days. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing; a leftwing zealot disguised as an average American guy without a horse in the race. He's the spawn of Michael Moore in regard to his effort to deceive, certainly. I agree with you that the Osama film won't be any different. Liam- Love it. You've made my point perfectly. I look forward to seeing your postings during this important experiment! Frank- I’ve never managed to catch his 30 Days series (thankfully). But I agree that his agenda on ‘Super-Size Me!’, if not clear enough from the movie, should be patently obvious from 30 Days. He’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing; a leftwing zealot disguised as an average American guy without a horse in the race. He’s the spawn of Michael Moore in regard to his effort to deceive, certainly. I agree with you that the Osama film won’t be any different.

Liam- Love it. You’ve made my point perfectly. I look forward to seeing your postings during this important experiment!

]]> By: Liam http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/comment-page-1/#comment-1724 Liam Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:43:29 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/#comment-1724 Did you not like the film then John? Haven't seen it myself. However I will be conducting a similar experiment myself, based in what are known in local circles as 'pubs'. This will commence Monday and will consist of me consuming nothing but beer and whisky on every visit. When asked if I want a double measure for an extra pound sterling, I will make it my solemn duty to say 'yes', no matter what the cost to myself. I will report my progress as the great experiment unfolds. Please bear with me if the quality of my posts takes a temporary nosedive, I'm doing thisfor YOU! Did you not like the film then John?

Haven’t seen it myself. However I will be conducting a similar experiment myself, based in what are known in local circles as ‘pubs’. This will commence Monday and will consist of me consuming nothing but beer and whisky on every visit. When asked if I want a double measure for an extra pound sterling, I will make it my solemn duty to say ‘yes’, no matter what the cost to myself.

I will report my progress as the great experiment unfolds. Please bear with me if the quality of my posts takes a temporary nosedive, I’m doing thisfor YOU!

]]> By: Frank Carillo http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/comment-page-1/#comment-1713 Frank Carillo Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:10:19 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/#comment-1713 Have you seen his 30 days documentaries, he pretty much proves his agenda with Supersize me when you look at 30 days, and I'm sure the Osama one coming up won't be any different. Have you seen his 30 days documentaries, he pretty much proves his agenda with Supersize me when you look at 30 days, and I’m sure the Osama one coming up won’t be any different.

]]> By: John http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/comment-page-1/#comment-1709 John Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:08:26 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/#comment-1709 Thanks Stephen, Rosalita, glad you liked this. Greg- Your response to this is based on a premise; "What happens when individuals don’t act responsibly?" is your suggestion that a responsibility is created for McDonald's because its customers have been negligent in that regard. Thus when party A does not act responsibly, the responsibility shifts to party B automatically, and there is then a burden on party B to act on party A's behalf simply because party A is deficient. You may want to think harder about that. Your premise (which is one of utilitarianism btw) is flawed. Responsibilities aren't dynamically shifting in whichever directions happen to create maximum good (or as the ethical theory goes, maximum utility) - responsibilities either inherently exist from the beginning or they don't exist at all. I maintain that McDonald's has no responsibility whatsoever for the health of the individuals who eat there (unless it is misrepresenting its product, and not even Spurlock alleges that). If that sounds outlandish, I assume you also believe that the manufacturers of guns are responsible for the murders committed utilising their products? If so, do you also believe that the manufacturers of cars are responsible for the deaths caused while driving them? Just how fully do you want to implement your ethic? And isn't it actually more utilitarian and less convoluted, in the end, simply to govern by individual responsibility in the first place? We're either a society made up of rational individuals with our own self-governing properties, or we're a society of mindless lemmings with no ability to form our own will or intentions. I maintain we're the former, and if we are, we're responsible for ourselves and what we eat is our business. Thanks Stephen, Rosalita, glad you liked this.

Greg- Your response to this is based on a premise; “What happens when individuals don’t act responsibly?” is your suggestion that a responsibility is created for McDonald’s because its customers have been negligent in that regard. Thus when party A does not act responsibly, the responsibility shifts to party B automatically, and there is then a burden on party B to act on party A’s behalf simply because party A is deficient. You may want to think harder about that.

Your premise (which is one of utilitarianism btw) is flawed. Responsibilities aren’t dynamically shifting in whichever directions happen to create maximum good (or as the ethical theory goes, maximum utility) - responsibilities either inherently exist from the beginning or they don’t exist at all. I maintain that McDonald’s has no responsibility whatsoever for the health of the individuals who eat there (unless it is misrepresenting its product, and not even Spurlock alleges that).

If that sounds outlandish, I assume you also believe that the manufacturers of guns are responsible for the murders committed utilising their products? If so, do you also believe that the manufacturers of cars are responsible for the deaths caused while driving them? Just how fully do you want to implement your ethic? And isn’t it actually more utilitarian and less convoluted, in the end, simply to govern by individual responsibility in the first place?

We’re either a society made up of rational individuals with our own self-governing properties, or we’re a society of mindless lemmings with no ability to form our own will or intentions. I maintain we’re the former, and if we are, we’re responsible for ourselves and what we eat is our business.

]]> By: Rosalita Paglia http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/comment-page-1/#comment-1705 Rosalita Paglia Mon, 18 Feb 2008 01:28:56 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/#comment-1705 John you crack me up. A few of these sentences and your anger about it had me busting a gut. And, you happen to be right so that makes it even better!! John you crack me up. A few of these sentences and your anger about it had me busting a gut. And, you happen to be right so that makes it even better!!

]]> By: Stephen http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/comment-page-1/#comment-1702 Stephen Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:42:29 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/#comment-1702 Greg... Since this is John's article I'll leave it to him to tear you to shreds for that comment. In the meantime I'll grab some popcorn (not too much in case it makes me fat) and watch the show. Enjoy! S Greg…

Since this is John’s article I’ll leave it to him to tear you to shreds for that comment. In the meantime I’ll grab some popcorn (not too much in case it makes me fat) and watch the show.

Enjoy!

S

]]> By: Greg, Sacramento http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/comment-page-1/#comment-1700 Greg, Sacramento Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:38:10 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/#comment-1700 John this is a well-written and yet inflammatory article, and I think I owe it to you to point out where you've made your mistake. While I agree his method was silly, and you've proven that adequately, Spurlock was pointing out the fact that McDonald's does in fact have a responsibility for the health of people who go there. You say it's individual responsibility, but what happens when individuals don't act responsibly? The fact remains after all your rhetoric that people do go to McDonald's and get fat and unhealthy by going there. If you owned the company wouldn't you feel some responsibility for giving people the means to kill themselves, and packaging it so appealingly? John this is a well-written and yet inflammatory article, and I think I owe it to you to point out where you’ve made your mistake.

While I agree his method was silly, and you’ve proven that adequately, Spurlock was pointing out the fact that McDonald’s does in fact have a responsibility for the health of people who go there. You say it’s individual responsibility, but what happens when individuals don’t act responsibly? The fact remains after all your rhetoric that people do go to McDonald’s and get fat and unhealthy by going there. If you owned the company wouldn’t you feel some responsibility for giving people the means to kill themselves, and packaging it so appealingly?

]]> By: Stephen http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/comment-page-1/#comment-1697 Stephen Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:02:37 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/16/to-all-who-loved-super-size-me/#comment-1697 Enjoyed this piece John...especially: "Come to think of it, the whole thing has a very religious feel to it. He went to McDonald’s in your place and took the full wrath of the burgers for you so that you wouldn’t have to, and now He wants to come into your heart and live within you through His political philosophy as you spread the Good News in his wonderful film and bring others to know Him too, thus saving them from the burgers and, eventually, replacing even the desire to eat them in the first place. Welcome to the Church of Spurlock!" :) I wrote a short article about it some time ago on my old Grumpy Young Man website: http://grumpy-young-man.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_archive.html Scroll down to the fifth article: "Fries with That?" S. Enjoyed this piece John…especially: “Come to think of it, the whole thing has a very religious feel to it. He went to McDonald’s in your place and took the full wrath of the burgers for you so that you wouldn’t have to, and now He wants to come into your heart and live within you through His political philosophy as you spread the Good News in his wonderful film and bring others to know Him too, thus saving them from the burgers and, eventually, replacing even the desire to eat them in the first place. Welcome to the Church of Spurlock!”

:)

I wrote a short article about it some time ago on my old Grumpy Young Man website:

http://grumpy-young-man.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_archive.html

Scroll down to the fifth article: “Fries with That?”

S.

]]>