honest or further glossing to diffuse the usual 'Falling Down' complaint :)
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 7:58, Reply)
'cos a friend needed a shit.
True story.
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 9:11, Reply)
Surely it would have been better if your friend went in?
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 10:57, Reply)
That's the best you can do? After almost two hours thinking?
You're only adding to my midweek sadness.
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 11:02, Reply)
Edit, oh great now you finished the sentence I look like the crazy one.
I'm ignoring the Amy thing btw Tabitha
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 11:03, Reply)
Saucy minx.
I admire McDonalds though. Since that 'super size me' film (which i admit, ive not seen), everyone's always busting their balls about their food and slagging off their employees for supposedly having the shittest job in the known universe.
Theyre really trying to make healthier food (its all salad this, and fruit that now), do more environment-y stuff, and make their jobs seem more appealing. Heck - the last time i went to a mcdonalds, my placemat read like some giant 'DONT HATE US!' essay.
Not many other places put this much effort into stuff. Not many other companies would dare to post an honest video like this either.
Their burgers arent to my tastes (too grey and flavourless), and their fries are too salty, but i dont think theyre the anti-christ like many folks make out to be, and i do like their chickenses - perhaps more than KFC.
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 8:15, Reply)
McD's is alright every now and then, nobody is suggesting that a super size big mac and fries is healthy to eat every day, neither is battered cod and chips, or kebabs, or cornish pasties for that matter.
Its just a tasty (matter of opinion of course, but a large majority would agree) convenient occasional meal.
And McD's offers employment (and advancement opportunities) to practically anyone, more so that virtually any other employers. I don't know what all these twatty food snobs think McD's employees should be doing instead, sweeping their chimneys perhaps?
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 8:24, Reply)
And their "healthy foods" ("salad this, fruit that") AREN'T.
Stupid fat people are buying 'em without realising the salad dressings make it as bad as some of the burgers and their fruit drinks have been slammed for containing so much sugar (& targeted at children).
And it's fairly disgusting that they're still producing burger meals that are well over women's recommended calorie intake. They're not responsible for the obesity epidemic in the western world, but they continue to take advantage.
[edit] Actually, yeah, they probably ARE responsible in part for the obesity problem- as they've been loading their food with cheap high fructose corn syrup for years, so that now the typical westerner is addicted to sweet food..... christ, I sound like that vile scottish hunchback *sad*
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 9:19, Reply)
its not like theyre misleading people these days.
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 9:28, Reply)
But the fast food industry IS deliberately taking advantage of stupid people. And nutritional tables aren't ever going to win against a billion-dollar ad campaigns.
An occasional burger as a treat isn't going to make you fat, in the same way that studies have shown the negative effects of an occasional cigarettes are negligable. But I reckon the junk food industry is as responsible as the tobacco industry is for smoking-related illness & death.
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 9:37, Reply)
one way or another, that's just life, from the person who pushes supermarket trolleys around the car park to the person who sweeps your road to the person who serves your burger. They work to their ability and get paid a minimum wage and we all enjoy the benefits.
When it comes down to what someone puts in their own body, they are the only one 100% responsible.
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 9:51, Reply)
Basically we got shiteloads of fructose to shift and food manufacturers need a nice cheap way of making their over processed under nutritious shite taste good, however fructose actually doesn't taste of much at all so you need to put craploads of it in, and that pushes up the calories.
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 13:12, Reply)
"Fast Food Nation" That got me. Although about fast food in general, it used mcDonalds case studies an awful lot. It's not so much the food, it's the business model which gets me; the ruthless profit chasing and poor treatment of local producers and workers. McDonalds isn't about food, it's about real estate and profit.
I would rather goto Gourmet Burger Kitchen ( www.gbk.co.uk/ )or Byrons ( www.byronhamburgers.com )
Having said that, food photography is quite an art, I think.
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 9:22, Reply)
They do my fave burger EVER - the halapeno one.
I dont even consider mcdonalds to be in the same league as GBK, byron etc
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 9:30, Reply)
It's called being a business
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 9:53, Reply)
Business is evil to the same degree. This isn't the case. A profitable business model does not have to exclude worker, local economic & planetary welfare.
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 10:04, Reply)
but the more profitable business does. If it is actually more profitable to include worker, local and planetary welfare, that's what all businesses would have, and still would be, doing. But they don't, and business doesn't care, that's not it's purpose, the purpose of business is to generate profit.
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 10:13, Reply)
Many believe the purpose of business is to provide stability & improve the socioeconomic status of those affected by the business. In general terms ones, socioeconomicness is only, at best one quarter defined by 'wealth'.
There are also those who believe that you shouldn't use a business' 'independent entity' status as an excuse for dropping ethics or a means for carrying out morally questionable actions.
Of course, if the only way to obtain investment for a business idea is to offer nothing but wealth in return, hence receiving backing from those who wish only wealth, then the entire business will be reliant on creating profits to maintain backing; this could (and often does) mean that the ideals of the business will quickly become undermined as fundamentals are gnawed away at in order to provide the profits.
There are plenty of businesses which don't require such capitalist backing and so don't have to comply with a blind thirst for cash.
Some people prefer wealth over all else, some people like to think (and hope) that their investments and purchases do not contribute to the bad things on the planet.
There are plenty of ethical investment firms (even the co-op) and also ethical shopping options (and portals); the fact that these exist, even during the current climate, suggest that many people do have values which are not limited to the collection and hoarding of money.
You can't take money with you, and your kids and grand kids may appreciate more than just cash left behind.
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 10:36, Reply)
many people do, as you say, believe in purposes of business other than profit. But, in general, these people are not in business, or not a successful one anyway (at least as defined by the making of profit, without which it is almost impossible to stay in business).
What are the 'ideals' of a business? Can a business even have 'ideals'? I don't think so. People can, and the people involved in the business can, but the business itself cannot, anymore than a lightswitch can be melancholy or a potato peeler feel unloved.
I don't know of any way that a business can be established or run without capital investment, even if, in some way, the capital investment is repaid in other non-monetary ways. It's not so much that the ideals of a business become undermined, rather that the business had no ideals in the first place, only the people involved in the business find that it's actions do not agree with their personal values.
I think it's misleading to say that plenty of businesses don't require capital backing, when in truth it is a tiny minority that do not. Again, with ethical investment firms, they form a tiny minority or investment firms, and do not and cannot match the returns offered by the overwhelming majority of investment options not constrained by personal values or ethics. Speaking as someone with a financial investments background, with experience of ethical funds, you'd be surprised what they can and do actually invest in (tobacco, arms, etc.) when the investment is at a remove (for instance, and ethical fund purchasing units in another fund, which itself holds investments in further funds, that themselves hold shares in unethical companies).
A business is not a person, and corporate personhood should, in my opinion, be unnattainable. The consequences of that would be dire for us all, but the idea that a business can have ethics and values is the first step on that road.
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 11:08, Reply)
'Business' is a wide term, I think neither of use will be happy whilst we try and snapshot everything from sole traders through publicly traded enterprises...
Hopefully a balance will be struck: I think if we are going continue heading down the Ferengi route; we should at least start ensuring our women are naked.
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 11:52, Reply)
which boils down to; "We have heard of this health thing of which you speak. Behold: the triple Whopper."
That said, I wouldn't eat in either given the choice.
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 12:35, Reply)
the upwards inflection at the end of every single sodding sentence is slightly irritating
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 8:18, Reply)
"PUTTING SOME SAUCE ON THE BURGER, YEAH? FUCKING LOOKS LIKE IT AN ALL"
I love "drive by abuser". My favourite modern toss creation.
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 8:29, Reply)
My wife wasn't amused. It didn't help that she has never seen Modern Toss.
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 8:39, Reply)
It's just a way of talkING.
She probably isn't even aware she does IT.
Yeah...
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 8:34, Reply)
I stopped eating there, i think it was last year, on account of having to spent a day on the loo due to a bad cheese burger. It's not so much a statement as it is me not wanting to bore myself to death in the bathroom.
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 11:57, Reply)
(, Wed 20 Jun 2012, 20:45, Reply)