- cross-posted to:
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/2089880
Archived version: https://archive.ph/LagwN
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230830080638/https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66654440
You must log in or register to comment.
Most American lawsuit in the world lol
I've eaten the whopper like thrice ever and it is a massive burger
What I mean is "boo hoo my burger is not big enough"
It's an American lawsuit anyway
You should have read the article, then. It's about false advertising.
Unless we're talking about prostitutes, this comparison to commercial advertising is specious.
Maybe they are diferent in your country. Back before covid i somtimes had to go there and ordered 2 or 3 doble whoopers and and i remember it being way too expensive. I left hungry and feeling riped off.
THIS is what people are suing corporations over? Not climate change or wage theft?
This species is doomed.
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
Nothing matters to most Burgerlanders but the treats. Threaten the treats, and they'll get weird and maybe even get violent. We saw that during covid restrictions making sit-in restaurants less convenient.
Sometimes I'm surprised very little of them are upset about climate change and capitalism because it threatens recreation.
Oceans filled with plastic? Rent and house price alike are both too expensive to live anywhere near the beach? Hiking trails become littered with plastic? Hell, walkable cities are filled with amenities giving someone a lot of ways to spend their time. Granted, I don't think neither nature nor architecture qualifies as "treats" let alone something burgerlanders care that much about.
It isn't individually owned by some petty "middle class" asshole so they don't care if it is ruined as long as they got theirs compared to the poors.
Climate change and wage theft are very hard to prove and bring consequences for by design of the system, but if your burger is too small that's pretty easy to sue over for false advertising.
imo, the dishonesty is less about the size and more about how all the toppings look fresh on the menu, while in person they look like aged out grocery store culls and the burger always looks like someone put it between their ass cheeks and then watched a Peter Jackson movie before serving it.
i don't really really get how one articulates that in a lawsuit.
i never really noticed it besides the hack bit in Falling Down until i went to a mcdonalds in japan. every item on the menu came out like a goddamn prop for a promotional photo. surreal. kinda made me realize that unless you're willing to fork over a day's median wage or more in the US for a prepared meal or go to some mom and pop place that gives a shit, you're gonna get fuck you food from someone being paid a poverty wage to slop together utility-tier ingredients because screwing over the customer and the worker is what makes rich people more money.
Or you could eat something that's not going to kill you and the environment.
By what metric? Do you mean its far more polluting than the rest because sustainable means something different.
False equivalencies are lazy and dishonest. Less harm is still less harm, and still plausibly closer to sustainability than YOLO BURN EVERYTHING DOWN FOR BORGER.
-
I didn't disagree with plants generally being less env friendly.
-
Most CO2 emmision wrt to meat is misleading because they are part of the carbon cycle. Pumping out oil is not comparable here.
-
A lot of fossil fuel is utilised in the cultivation, storage, transportation of various seasonal crops, often across the world. Same as for meat. Generalizing plant vs meat often hides those behind moral arguments.
-
What false equivalency? Polluting is not the same as sustainable? Sustainable how? Animal husbandry has been practiced for millennias and in many places is the main food source where agriculture isn't feasible.
Making a wide general statement and nitpicking in the arument is lazy and dishonest. Atleast read what I was responding to.
Making a wide general statement and nitpicking in the arument is lazy and dishonest. Atleast read what I was responding to.
You're too high on your own farts and hypocritically ignoring what I had said to meaningfully respond to, but I'll try it anyway for anyone else reading.
moral arguments
Cultivating meat costs more energy (and generally has more carbon emissions) than using the same amount of land to grow edible plants. It's a basic rule of energy conservation, not a "moral argument."
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/ecology-ap/energy-flow-through-ecosystems/a/food-chains-food-webs
It looks more like you want your burger treats to go uncriticized until and unless some impossibly perfect alternative has absolutely zero-to-negative emissions. That way, your burger treats continue to go uncriticized for all of the forseeable future.
Your comment consisted of 2 points:
-
Calling me lazy an dishonest for asking a clarification on an ambiguous term 'sustainable'. I hadn't made any claims to be called at.
-
You again used sustainable to which i defined and responded how animal husbandry is infact sustainable.
So how have I not responded to your comment?
Its you pulling out accusations and imagining up arguments that was never made and making personal attacks rather than stick to making valid arguments and address the actual points being made.
Your argument about energy fails to distinguish between the typical carbon cycle of moving through plants animals and decomposition incontrast with the cabon introduced through fossil fuels. This was what I pointed out previously too.
And we cant just plop down plants that are human digestable in many places where we grow the feed for cattles. Correct me on that.
Spare me the claim that your sneering passive aggressive sanctimony (claiming that energy waste and environmental damage from factory meat production is a "moral argument") is somehow superior because you used more Reddit words to dress it up.
You used false equivalencies to hide your consumer-brained selfishness to try to justify the status quo. There was nothing more to it and there is nothing more worth saying to you.
-
-
Plants are part of that environment and you have to kill them to eat? *unless you are picking off fallen ripe fruits like roadkill eaters.
Also cultivation of those plants you eat are done in large cleared areas and are destructive to the environment.
You can't spell harm reduction without "harm" so why bother?
These things can be quantified in terms of co2 equivalents and water used per kg of food produced.
Eating plants (even root veggies when killing them) is magnitudes better for the planet than eating animals that eat plants.
While i agree to the points it still stands that the majority of CO2 and methane(a more potent greenhouse gas) are part of the carbon cycle that has been relatively stable.
It is not comparable to the dumping of carbon from fossil fuels. This is something many collate together and make disingenuous arguments. Correct me where I am wrong in understanding this.
One additional point(though i have no exact statistics) per kg isnt comparable between plants and meat. Large portions of plant are not edible and used as fertilizers or cattle feed at best. Meat is also energy dense and hence required in far less quantities than carbohydrates.
Not to mention water isnt equally distributed. Doing intensive agriculture in drought prone areas are far worse than cattle raised in water rich regions.
I would be interestsed in finding a study that takes a wide array of factors and calculates the effects.
I for one am shocked and appalled those who serving poisoned slop have, in fact, considered lying about it.
Finally! I have been saying this for years.
The only fast food chain meal that comes in a decent size is the kfc large chiken bucket.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=zJs9p-VNORw
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Who cares about the size?
I want a burger that doesn't taste like kerosene, with vegetables that were grown in the last decade, served by someone who isn't contemplating stabbing me.
And can I get cheese on that?
And can I get cheese on that?
Will pasteurized process cheese product do?
I mean, I can see the reasoning behind this, USA being one of the more obsess countries I can also see the irony here.
It's not about what the size is, it's about the discrepancy between the advertised size and the actual.
It was decades ago but Burger King was a bit of a staple for me for a few years when I lived close to a franchise operator that was consistent. It has been awhile and I knew things had gone downhill and some of the franchise operators are very shitty but I was shocked last time we went. The restaurant was filthy and the tables and floors were covered in food. The burgers looked to be thrown together out of bin leftovers. Can't say I blame staff for the lack of enthusiasm given their employer has a known history of wage theft. We couldn't tell the differences between the more expensive special and regular whopper so took the mess to the counter to ask what the fuck we were given and why it looked nothing like the photo. The whole family swore off them for life. Never going back.
🍔
