Forum Topic: Moderation warning, on candy

(572 views • 34 replies)

This topic is 2 pages long. [ 1 | 2 ]

<< < > >>
None

stafffighter

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/8/06 04:51 PM

stafffighter NEUTRAL LEVEL 38

Sign-Up: 04/17/03

Posts: 12,748

I was getting ready to enjoy a hershy bar today. I found a contest entery on the inside of the wrapper, which is normal enough. When I read down the text I found the final line which seemed to have no realation to my ebay code. Those words were "Candy is a treat. Please consume in moderation." Have we reached the point in american society where we're so insulated from the basic life ideal of action having consequence that we need this? Chocloate will make you fat, alcohal will make you drunk and smokes will cause cancery goodness. We get it. In fact I think that is is the ciggerette industry that's to blame. We've become so complacent with the warning labels there that any destructive behavior can be excused away, no one wakes up untill the results, and anything without a warning is still fresh for the sueing! It's called personal responcibility you fat, drunked balls of cancer

I have nothing against people who can use pot and lead a productive life. It's these sanctimonius hippies that make me wish I was a riot cop in the 60's

BBS Signature

Happy

SevenSeize

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/8/06 05:03 PM

SevenSeize LIGHT LEVEL 31

Sign-Up: 12/10/05

Posts: 6,037

I agree 100%, but we live in a lawsuit nation where people who dump boiling coffee on their laps can sue and get a million dollars. Fat people are starting to sue doritos for being too fat. Everyone is covering their ass.

(In reading this post you agree that the author assumes no responsibilty for anything. Please use your computer in moderation.)


None

BigBlueBalls

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/8/06 05:07 PM

BigBlueBalls EVIL LEVEL 32

Sign-Up: 11/08/02

Posts: 6,466

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." - Kay (MIB)


None

Begoner

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/8/06 05:08 PM

Begoner NEUTRAL LEVEL 10

Sign-Up: 10/10/04

Posts: 3,064

You're supposed to consume candy in moderation!? That's why I've been getting so morbidly obese lately -- because no candy seller has been telling me the possible side effects of overdosing on candy! How should I know that candy is unhealthy if it doesn't say so on the label? Must we assume people have an IQ greater than 50? Blasphemy!


None

Gunter45

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/8/06 05:20 PM

Gunter45 NEUTRAL LEVEL 17

Sign-Up: 10/29/01

Posts: 11,911

You should watch "Thank You For Smoking." This is exactly one of the points the movie was trying to make. And I don't think the cigarette industry is to blame. It's the people looking to cash in on their own stupidity through litigiousness.

Think you're pretty clever...

BBS Signature

None

Redbob86

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/8/06 05:44 PM

Redbob86 NEUTRAL LEVEL 21

Sign-Up: 12/07/03

Posts: 2,233

I wouldn't be surprised. As previusly said, we live in a nation full of irresponsible people who have no honor. They'll sue anyone if the opportunity presents itself. So now all of these companies have to put everything in writing to try and avoid getting sued.


None

poxpower

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/8/06 06:09 PM

poxpower DARK LEVEL 47

Sign-Up: 12/02/00

Posts: 25,573

But why do they write it in such a place?
Who the hell will read that?
well... besides you...

I'd like to see warning labels on a gun too, that would be sweet.

WARNING: GUNS CAN KILL. DO NOT CHEW THE BULLETS.


None

Redbob86

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/8/06 06:14 PM

Redbob86 NEUTRAL LEVEL 21

Sign-Up: 12/07/03

Posts: 2,233

At 4/8/06 06:09 PM, -poxpower- wrote: But why do they write it in such a place?
Who the hell will read that?
well... besides you...

I'd like to see warning labels on a gun too, that would be sweet.

WARNING: GUNS CAN KILL. DO NOT CHEW THE BULLETS.

For liability purposes, it doesn't really matter if they read it or not, all they have to do is print it. I mean, it's absurd enough that they have to warn people to eat in moderation, now they need to make it painfully obvious?


None

MarkyX

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/8/06 06:57 PM

MarkyX NEUTRAL LEVEL 05

Sign-Up: 12/18/05

Posts: 665

Once I saw instructions on a shampoo that said "Wet hair"

Yes, our society has become quite dense.

As for that mcdonald mishap, she wasn't suing for spilling the coffee, but the coffee had the temperature of MOLTEN FUCKING LAVA. She actually got third degree burns from a cup of coffee...


None

Gunter45

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/8/06 07:07 PM

Gunter45 NEUTRAL LEVEL 17

Sign-Up: 10/29/01

Posts: 11,911

At 4/8/06 06:57 PM, MarkyX wrote: As for that mcdonald mishap, she wasn't suing for spilling the coffee, but the coffee had the temperature of MOLTEN FUCKING LAVA. She actually got third degree burns from a cup of coffee...

YES! Holy shit, I think you're the first e-person I have met who knows that. The expert witness in the case is a good friend of mine, he's brilliant with thermodynamics and stuff. You're absolutely right, coffee should not give you third degree burns, that's asinine; it's dangerous to the point of absurdity to heat your coffee to that level.

Think you're pretty clever...

BBS Signature

None

Elfer

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/8/06 07:07 PM

Elfer EVIL LEVEL 35

Sign-Up: 01/21/01

Posts: 12,302

If I was the government, I'd just put out warnings that said "Fifty of anything is probably too many"

What would YOU do for a presidential Klondike bar of electoral defeat? HUH? PUNK?
If you're havin' girl problems, I feel bad for you son. I got 99 problems, with bitches < 1%

BBS Signature

None

stafffighter

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/9/06 05:37 PM

stafffighter NEUTRAL LEVEL 38

Sign-Up: 04/17/03

Posts: 12,748

point in calling on the tobacco industry was that when those warnings were put on the packs people say that as them tkaing responcibility which of course meant they could glaze over and not so much take responcibility, and then this extended to innocent things

I have nothing against people who can use pot and lead a productive life. It's these sanctimonius hippies that make me wish I was a riot cop in the 60's

BBS Signature

None

Manikan

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/9/06 05:47 PM

Manikan NEUTRAL LEVEL 05

Sign-Up: 02/15/06

Posts: 15

I agree with the fact that Americans are just plain dumb now a days, but sueing is a smart way to earn money without actually doing anything, so we can't be completely stupid for finding cracks in the government's system, the candy makers are just adapting to an environment of complete stupidity, nothing more.

Insults just don't bother me anymore.


None

Elfer

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/9/06 07:05 PM

Elfer EVIL LEVEL 35

Sign-Up: 01/21/01

Posts: 12,302

The thing I love about Canadian law is how much the phrase "reasonable" and/or "reasonable person" is used.

So for example, it isn't reasonably forseeable that there will be a coffee drinker out there who is unaware that coffee is hot, so the liability for the owner of the establishment is greatly reduced.

What would YOU do for a presidential Klondike bar of electoral defeat? HUH? PUNK?
If you're havin' girl problems, I feel bad for you son. I got 99 problems, with bitches < 1%

BBS Signature

None

Me-Patch

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/9/06 07:07 PM

Me-Patch EVIL LEVEL 14

Sign-Up: 04/18/05

Posts: 5,609

I hate these people who make millions suing ciggarrett companies for not having warnings on their labels in the fucking 30's. Like they didn't realize that ciggarretts are unhealthy, your'e breathing fire for christs sake.

I'm hi right now. If I'm on here, I'm stoned.

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides

BBS Signature

None

smith916

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/9/06 07:15 PM

smith916 NEUTRAL LEVEL 01

Sign-Up: 10/07/05

Posts: 834

At 4/8/06 04:51 PM, stafffighter wrote:

Moderation warnings on candy and other things are so that buisnesses arn't considered liable for charge if a person endangers themself by mis-using a product. now, as for ciggaretts, i hate the ciggarett company because they make it so EASY for a person to become addicted to their products that it should be their fault that people are misusing them even WITH a warning lable. But you have people who load up on bad foods and then blame the companies for making them fat, and try to sue them. The warning lables are so that the company can say that


None

T-H

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/9/06 07:20 PM

T-H LIGHT LEVEL 38

Sign-Up: 01/07/04

Posts: 4,903

At 4/8/06 04:51 PM, stafffighter wrote: Have we reached the point in american society where we're so insulated from the basic life ideal of action having consequence that we need this?

Well being near the most obese nation in the world I guess they have to pull out all the stops for you guys :P


None

stafffighter

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/9/06 07:20 PM

stafffighter NEUTRAL LEVEL 38

Sign-Up: 04/17/03

Posts: 12,748

I'm torn between thinking the new guy is a cute little puppy and just hating him for the ignorance of EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN FUCKING DISCUSSING. We know all about liable law, we know all about smokes being back for you. We know all about people being idiots but the issue here is that the company is preparing for the idiot behavior and thus accepting it rather than making adults take responcibility as adults.

Also guns are bad too lol:P

I have nothing against people who can use pot and lead a productive life. It's these sanctimonius hippies that make me wish I was a riot cop in the 60's

BBS Signature

None

smith916

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/9/06 07:32 PM

smith916 NEUTRAL LEVEL 01

Sign-Up: 10/07/05

Posts: 834

At 4/9/06 07:20 PM, stafffighter wrote: I'm torn between thinking the new guy is a cute little puppy and just hating him for the
Also guns are bad too lol:P

That's what the jews in russia and germany thought too, so they never armed themselfs, then hitler and his cronies come in and they have nothing to fight back with. oh dear...


None

stafffighter

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/9/06 07:39 PM

stafffighter NEUTRAL LEVEL 38

Sign-Up: 04/17/03

Posts: 12,748

At 4/9/06 07:32 PM, smith916 wrote:
At 4/9/06 07:20 PM, stafffighter wrote: I'm torn between thinking the new guy is a cute little puppy and just hating him for the
Also guns are bad too lol:P
That's what the jews in russia and germany thought too, so they never armed themselfs, then hitler and his cronies come in and they have nothing to fight back with. oh dear...

Russia had guns, and used them. Now either get back on the topic or go find something with a moreration warning and overuse it.

I have nothing against people who can use pot and lead a productive life. It's these sanctimonius hippies that make me wish I was a riot cop in the 60's

BBS Signature

None

T-H

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/9/06 07:40 PM

T-H LIGHT LEVEL 38

Sign-Up: 01/07/04

Posts: 4,903

At 4/9/06 07:20 PM, stafffighter wrote: I'm torn between thinking the new guy is a cute little puppy and just hating him for the ignorance of EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN FUCKING DISCUSSING.

Sorry, I did kindof skimread it abit (1am) . Good point though, you do get people claiming to be physically addicted to sweets and chocolates in a similar manner to cigarettes or alcohol dont you? so I guess it could be regarded as dangerous to an extent (snigger), but true I don't see any "chocoholics annonymous" meetings happening yet.

And yeah the irony of the warning being on the inside of the wrapper tastes pretty good :D considering it would probably be aimed majorly towards the parents buying candy for their kids.

I'm not sure what to conclude really, warning labels, or what else? TV propaganda maybe? I personally find the UK tv anti smoking ads really hit hard, the ones with real families that have suffered losses due to this terrible habit. Maybe running something about morbid obesity during primetime would work? do they do this sort of thing at the moment?


None

smith916

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/9/06 07:43 PM

smith916 NEUTRAL LEVEL 01

Sign-Up: 10/07/05

Posts: 834

At 4/9/06 07:40 PM, T-H wrote:
At 4/9/06 07:20 PM, stafffighter wrote:
but true I don't see any "chocoholics annonymous" meetings happening yet.

beleive it or not, there is such a thing as chocoholics annonymous...


None

stafffighter

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/10/06 11:46 AM

stafffighter NEUTRAL LEVEL 38

Sign-Up: 04/17/03

Posts: 12,748

Basically, anything that feels good can be considered an addiction. The real question here is at what point do you draw the line between a substance itself being hazerdous and just allowing natural selection to do her thing and remove these people from breeding? My guess, this line is somewhere between cigs and video games

I have nothing against people who can use pot and lead a productive life. It's these sanctimonius hippies that make me wish I was a riot cop in the 60's

BBS Signature

None

Proteas

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/10/06 12:53 PM

Proteas NEUTRAL LEVEL 30

Sign-Up: 11/03/03

Posts: 8,610

I think it's sad that they have to put warning labels on products at all. If you don't understand that coffee is hot or that you shouldn't operate machinery after taking sleeping pills, your a sorry excuse for a human being.

I wish that companies would make their warnings more explicit though. Like have Marlboro and all the other U.S. cigarette companies do with their packaging what Pall Mall does with the packaging of their cigarettes. They litterally put a picture of a diseased heart/lung on the package with a little warning that says "Buy using this product, this could happen to you!"


None

Pandaman64

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/10/06 01:25 PM

Pandaman64 NEUTRAL LEVEL 01

Sign-Up: 11/28/05

Posts: 153

setup for Worst lawsuit:

Woman gets millions from Mcdonalds begause she burned her lip on a pickle from the fast food giant.

Actual worst lawsuit:
The mentioned woman's boyfriend sues the restaurant for 'mental anguish' because he is no longer able to make out with his girlfriend due to the burnt lip. He also makes millions.

Worst warning:

On a copy of sonic and knuckles for the sega genesis, it said 'do not lick'.


None

MarkyX

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/10/06 02:38 PM

MarkyX NEUTRAL LEVEL 05

Sign-Up: 12/18/05

Posts: 665

The mentioned woman's boyfriend sues the restaurant for 'mental anguish' because he is no longer able to make out with his girlfriend due to the burnt lip. He also makes millions.

THE FUCK?

Can someone FUCKING tell me how the hell does a PICKLE burn someone?

Seriously, while we know big ass corporations aren't usually friendly, shit like this deserves a lawsuit.

If you can't even kiss your girlfriend because of a pickle...

wow jesus fucking christ...that's just messed up.


None

reviewer-general

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/10/06 04:49 PM

reviewer-general LIGHT LEVEL 19

Sign-Up: 09/20/05

Posts: 3,953

At 4/8/06 07:07 PM, Gunter45 wrote:
At 4/8/06 06:57 PM, MarkyX wrote: As for that mcdonald mishap, she wasn't suing for spilling the coffee, but the coffee had the temperature of MOLTEN FUCKING LAVA. She actually got third degree burns from a cup of coffee...
YES! Holy shit, I think you're the first e-person I have met who knows that. The expert witness in the case is a good friend of mine, he's brilliant with thermodynamics and stuff. You're absolutely right, coffee should not give you third degree burns, that's asinine; it's dangerous to the point of absurdity to heat your coffee to that level.

McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

Everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention "the McDonald's lawsuit." Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the "problem" with our civil justice system.

The business community and insurance industry have done much to perpetuate this case. They don't want us to forget it. They know it helps them convince politicians that "tort reform" and other restrictions on juries is needed. And worse, they know it poisons the minds of citizens who sit on juries.

Unfortunately, not all the facts have been communicated - facts that put the case and the monetary award to the 81-year old plaintiff in a significantly different light.

According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation.

The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

Obama's Blueprint
"Why semicolons?", you ask?
PM me if my sig offends you. PMs so far: 66 (100th PM wins prize!)

BBS Signature

None

reviewer-general

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/10/06 04:50 PM

reviewer-general LIGHT LEVEL 19

Sign-Up: 09/20/05

Posts: 3,953

Oh and before i get sued:
Source:http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

Obama's Blueprint
"Why semicolons?", you ask?
PM me if my sig offends you. PMs so far: 66 (100th PM wins prize!)

BBS Signature

Happy

SevenSeize

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/10/06 05:37 PM

SevenSeize LIGHT LEVEL 31

Sign-Up: 12/10/05

Posts: 6,037

At 4/10/06 02:38 PM, MarkyX wrote:
The mentioned woman's boyfriend sues the restaurant for 'mental anguish' because he is no longer able to make out with his girlfriend due to the burnt lip. He also makes millions.:

Isn't that called loss of consortium or something? Sometimes it's justified, but it is easily abused. My sister got in a car accident and the woman brused her ankle and her spouse sued for loss of consortium. Give me a break.


None

mofomojo

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 4/10/06 05:51 PM

mofomojo EVIL LEVEL 16

Sign-Up: 04/06/04

Posts: 6,200

At 4/8/06 05:07 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." - Kay (MIB)

This has been said a billion times, nothing new was said in Men In Black. It takes a few minutes of witnessing a crowd to realize that a person can act in incredulously stupid and ethically wrong ways if encouraged by a larger group of people.

It's not much work to say no to them, but you might have a good few of people upset at you. Independent thought is the future, I guarantee it.


All times are Eastern Standard Time (GMT -5) | Current Time: 01:23 PM

<< Back

This topic is 2 pages long. [ 1 | 2 ]

<< < > >>
You need a Grounds Gold Account to post on the NG BBS! If you don't have one, click here to sign up now! It's fast, free, and easy — and opens up tons of great NG features!