"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> Nexis wrote:
>>
>> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>
>> > But it still comes back to taking responsibility for your own actions.
>> Yes,
>> > I eat fast food once in a while, but no one forces me to. I have
>> > alternatives but sometimes I take the easy way out. When the movies
>> > was
>> > being made, if the server asked "do you want it supersized?" the answer
>> was
>> > yes. What is wrong with saying NO? It makes a better movie to say
>> > "yes"
>> so
>> > that is what he did.
>> >
>>
>> The movie never claimed anyone is forced. However, advertising, and the
>> fact
>> that the food is addictive, play a big part. Just because we can say no,
>> doesn't mean they shouldn't take responsibility for their part in the
>> decline in fitness and health. It's attitudes that excuse them that are
>> partly to blame for their lack of responsibility.
>
> That was my point, they are not responsible for me. I can buy
> complete crap almost anywhere they sell food. It's my job to
> decide what to buy. Burger King is not in charge of me.
>
> nancy

I fully support right to choice. At the same time I am not discounting the
incredible power of combining psychology with imaging, i.e. multi-media
advertising. As I mentioned before, a very interesting study is to follow
American fast-food effects around the globe, especially on children in other
cultures. Remember, there are some places where a swift meal at a
reasonable price is about the only criteria a parent might use, when
considering what to feed their children, especially if both parents work
and/or commute long hours. And, there are many children, as well as adults,
who eat fast food for more than five meals per week.

Right to choice, and the responsibility for it, sort of assumes you are at
least informed about the safety of the choices at hand.