09/20/2004 Archived Entry: "Super Sized"
Super Size Me has, amongst other things, a man so large he decided he needed surgery to overcome his weight problem. The portly fellow in question put himself there by drinking over 50 gallons of pop a week. 50 GALLONS! Thats like a bathtub full. Then there are the two hugely overweight teenage girls who sued McDonald's for their condition. Their case was thrown out because there was no clear evidence that McDonald's food could be THAT harmful.
Which led to the filmmaker going on his little "experiment". But seriously, anyone with more brain cells than a catfish knows that eating that much salt, sugar, and fat is not good for you. Those fat fuckers had no one to blame but themselves for the state they were in. Instead of suing other people they should be looking in the mirror. In fact, had they been looking in the mirror at all, they may have realised that they were doing something wrong. The lawsuit is completely of the mentality that "Someone else is the cause of my problem. Probably someone with money." What a ridiculous notion.
McDonald's dropping their Super Size option is like movie studios censoring themselves. It's a choice they have to make because the public is too stupid to take responsibility. Because of some super sized morons who constantly over indulge on super size fries, the rest of us can't choose to do so once in a blue moon anymore. Jumping off a bridge has been proven to be fatal but you don't see us not building bridges anymore because some fools decided to throw themselves over.
I understand that some people are bigger than others and there are some who can eat all the McDonald's they want and still look like God's gift to me, but people who have no self-control, who drink more pop in a week than I have my entire life deserve every heart, liver, and blood disease they get and should probably go up a size or four.
Incidentally, my boss abandoned pop completely about 2 months ago and has lost 6 inches off of his waist line. All the money he saved is going towards new pants.
Replies: 20 comments
i thought mcdonald's dropping the supersize menu had something to do with cost-savings ... i can't remember how this was a cost-saving ... but it was supposed to be
or maybe that's what they were hailing it as so they didn't have to admit that there were problems b/c of supersize me
coincidentally, mcdonald's has actually endorsed the movie in its uk release ... and said that the movie is right and you shouldn't eat mcdonald's every day
Posted by melpie @ 09/20/2004 10:00 PM EST
As for the supersize thing, I thought they just changed the name and still offer the same size just now called large.
Posted by Mike @ 09/21/2004 12:38 AM EST
I think that it is actually just a large now. Instead of a super size. 'cause they awlays ask if you want to large size ur meal instead of super size
Posted by Anonymous @ 09/21/2004 05:06 PM EST
I wouldn't mind them dropping that option, I haven't been able to eat that quantity of fast food in quite a while.
I wish the food industry in general would move towards a greater variety of sizes; when I go to East Side's and have the dinner portion of any pasta (+bread+salad), I generally find I don't finish either the salad or the main course.
And of course, the purpose of suing McD's is for the money, not because they actually believe McD's is the cause of their problems, but because they might get rich easily.
Posted by Arshwana @ 09/21/2004 06:38 PM EST
All Europeans are under the impression that in America you can sue for anything...
Posted by dAN @ 09/21/2004 06:40 PM EST
and most of those Europeans seem to be correct.
Posted by sbdep @ 09/21/2004 10:29 PM EST
I'm sure all Canadians are under the impression that you can sue for anything in the U.S. as well. Sbdep, for example.
The movie says they removed the Super Size thing, I don't know anything beyond that.
Arsh and I have the opposite problem, I find portions in most places to be too small.
Posted by Rayne @ 09/22/2004 12:39 AM EST
apparently, eastside's portion sizes are strategic - as is the bottomless salad / bread thing (do they still do that? i haven't been to the restaurant in a few years)
they want to fill you up enough before your entree that you'll have to take part of it home - if someone you know sees you carrying your leftovers, they're bound to ask where you were eating, what it is and how it was - and ta da, you have word-of-mouth advertising and positive word of mouth advertising (people won't take home the food if they don't like it, so then no one iwll be prompted to ask them about their negative eastside experience)
very clever if you ask me!
Posted by melpie @ 09/22/2004 03:29 PM EST
RE: Dan's comment
In Amercia you CAN sue for anything. I read in a journal article that a man in the states was driving his brand new RV. He set the thing to cruise control and got up to go to the back. Given the existence of the laws of nature, the RV crashed. The man sued the manufacturer of the RV and won. He got like $2.3 million in a settlemnt and a new RV. Now if you read the manual in an RV, (at least in the states) theres a section informing the owner that "cruise control" does not mean you can leave the wheel and go make sausages.
Posted by Doug @ 09/23/2004 05:41 PM EST
Sorry, but the RV story is a fake. Not only that, but a well-documented fake.
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_9570.shtml
http://www.dcmsoft.com/rumor/story/stella.htm
If you want to read real lawsuits, the website that the author of the RV story claimed to come from has real lawsuits:
http://www.stellaawards.com/
Posted by ian @ 09/23/2004 06:47 PM EST
My comment included Canada...:P
Posted by dAN @ 09/23/2004 10:12 PM EST
Canada's not part of Europe. No wonder you lost at Risk...
Posted by Rayne @ 09/24/2004 12:45 AM EST
DUDE!...look back at my original comment. At no point do I insinuate that.
As for Risk, I won as many times as you. Were it not for your brother, you wouldn't have won at all...he is better than you, you know.
Posted by dAN @ 09/26/2004 09:10 AM EST
I like this.
Posted by Rayne @ 10/20/2004 01:46 PM EST
I'm impressed.
Posted by dAN @ 10/20/2004 02:56 PM EST
I guess the gov't is finally trying to crack down on obesity. Will American schools be soon to follow? I think not.
Posted by Mike @ 10/21/2004 12:13 AM EST
If parents start being responsible about they feed their kids too, we'll be good to go. Go where? I dunno.
Posted by Rayne @ 10/21/2004 01:02 AM EST
but really, it's convenience vs. health. time vs. health. time right now vs. time in the future.
unfortunately, we tend to focus on the present with no view to the long-term.
Posted by melpie @ 10/21/2004 03:34 PM EST
Eating healthy doesn't necessarily make it more time consuming. Granted fast food is FAST but not significantly faster than some other means.
Check out this guy. Over 1000 lbs he was!
Posted by Rayne @ 10/27/2004 03:49 PM EST
but ... look at all the not so healthy food we eat these days ... all the pre-processed, pre-packaged stuff. in a hurry ... i'm likely to throw some pizza pockets in the microwave rather than make something from fresh vegetables and meat ..
Posted by melpie @ 10/28/2004 10:01 AM EST