Uppity,

Lets take a good look at a few things. Your first statement "Adults are always responsible". For the sake of the discussion I am going to use a somewhat different example.

It is 1961 and General Motors has just unvieled the new first generation Corvair. It is a nice car, just what I've been looking for. Smaller than the typical American dinosaur and more economical too. Fun to drive and backed by General Motors. I want one. I make the decision and purchase one. While driving I take a turn at speed and the car flips over. I am badly injured. General Motors and you say I am responsible for my injuries.

Later on it is revealed that the design of the axles, using only one inboard universal joint which allowed the wheels to tuck under and flip the car, is the real reason that the car flipped. The design was done this way, to cut corners and save costs, in fact, General Motors really didn't want the car to filp or for people to get injured. Still, they brought a car to market that was poorly designed and inherently dangerous.

When I purchased the car I knew nothing about auto design and engineering and assumed that General Motors used good design, was a responsible auto maker, and tested the car. Still, I made the decision to purchase the car. Am I responsible for flipping the car, or perhaps, should General Motors be held responsible for bringing a car to market in good faith with the strength of their reputation behind it, knowing that its design was dangerous? Answer that question honestly and than reread your statement on responsibility.

I'm not sure where you are going with your second statement. Do you mean that the fact that advertising causes people to want the medication, and because people want the medication than it is alright for doctors to prescribe it rather than lose a patient? Or are you saying that we don't need doctors because drug companies are advertising to the public and doctors are only giving the public what it wants? Please explain.

 

Rob,

Bad example IMHO. You're referring to life and death issues and, more importantly, "unknown safety issues". With McDonalds food, everyone knows the story. It is with complete knowledge that people decide to purchase or not purchase junk food. Your Corvair example is somewhat inaccurate in that those people did not have that knowledge to make an informed decision. My respectful .02.

 

Carm

Perhaps, but I'm not sure that those eating McDonalds, or the other fast foods are aware of the health issues involved in what they are eating. I especially think that kids have no idea of what is in the food. Certainly, the vendors have led people to believe that the food that they produce is not harmful.

I hate to go back to tobacco again but for years the producers of cigarettes denied that tobacco was addictive. And in fact they stonewalled the issue of cancer. The message that they sent out was that cigarettes and other tobacco products were no more hazardous than many other products on the market. If those teenagers who started smoking believed this, isn't that the same as buying a Corvair on the reputation of General Motors?

Again, I'm not saying that people don't have to take responsibility for their actions, but I am saying that there are circumstances and actions that cloud this whole issue of responsibilty. And, I also think that the vendors, whether of cars, fast foods or medications, need to be responsible for what they bring to market, and how they bring it to market.

What I am saying is that this whole issue of responsibility is not nearly so clear or cut and dry as it would appear.

 

Rob, right on. Carmen, it seems to me that most people, especially kids, are bombarded with advertising for fast food and soft drinks... they spend way more time listening to catchy jingles and loving Ronald McDonald than they do getting nutrition information from the schools. For that matter, one of the truly nauseating things in "Super-size Me" was a foray into the state of school lunch programs...

Anyway, Rob's right. I submit to you that the issue of responsibility is not so clear cut, folks. And, forgetting the legal definition of responsibility, what about the moral one? I can just tell you this, if I were working for McDs or Coke, Pepsi or their ilk, I would would be taking a very hard look at myself right now.

In my world, stuff that's bad for you is all a matter of degree. You guys might not want to compare fast food to cigarettes, alcohol, or even drugs, but I additionally submit this to you that it's all a matter of degree.

Which, unfortunately brings me back to my political platform that all substances should be legalized... I think I'll give that a rest for tonight though.

 

I still have to respectfully disagree. Does Honda put warnings on the S2000?

WARNING: Fast Car. Not appropriate for teenagers or those who drive irresponsibly.

It's up to the individual to educate themselves and make appropriate choices. Again, with the tobacco example...That was illegally hiding medical information. McDonalds, BK, Wendys...all post nutrition info. Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows that Mc'D's is not healthy food.

 

[QUOTE=Chazmo,Jan 16 2005, 07:40 PM] Rob, right on.

 

That's AOK, Carmen. I definitely understand your position. I actually agree with you with respect to "the man" telling me what's good for me. I've said many times that law/gov't should only concern itself with people's impact on each other, not on themselves. I'm actually quite extreme on this point.

What I'm having issues with here are the advertising, promotion, and representation of the product. Obesity in today's youth is an epidemic, Carmen; that's a fact. I'm not saying McDonalds/Pepsi/etc. caused it; I'm saying they're part of the problem. So, what is their responsibility? Nothing?

 

Sure, they have some responsibility. But I want a free society. The implications of "regulating" this stuff are huge. In a free society we take the good with the bad.

 

You know, I happen to agree with you, and that is why this is such a troubling question. Not the question of shared responsibility but rather what should be done and how much. I agree that the implications are huge. This is sort of like the economy in that whatever you do to solve one problem tends to create another one.




Thats why we have this Vintage forum, so that we can put our clear minds together and work out the best solution. Excellent.

(are we finished with this controversy and ready for the next one?)

 

I'm glad this one stirred up so much interest. Yeah, what's next on the agenda, Rob?