|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 1, 2010 13:07:43 GMT -5
New York Judge rules 6-year-old can be suedReuters) - A girl can be sued over accusations she ran over an elderly woman with her training bicycle when she was 4 years old, a New York Supreme Court justice has ruled. The ruling by King's County Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten stems from an incident in April 2009 when Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn, both aged four, struck an 87-year-old pedestrian, Claire Menagh, with their training bikes. Menagh underwent surgery for a fractured hip and died three months later ( BC edit: she died of unrelated causes, as specified in the rest of the story). In a ruling made public late Thursday, the judge dismissed arguments by Breitman's lawyer that the case should be dismissed because of her young age. He ruled that she is old enough to be sued and the case can proceed. in.reuters.com/article/idINTRE6A03RY20101101------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge: McDonald's must pay obese employee $17,500SAO PAULO — A Brazilian court ruled this week that McDonald's must pay a former franchise manager $17,500 because he gained 65 pounds while working there for a dozen years. The 32-year-old man said he felt forced to sample the food each day to ensure quality standards remained high, because McDonald's hired "mystery clients" to randomly visit restaurants and report on the food, service and cleanliness. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39897648/ns/business-world_business/
|
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Nov 1, 2010 13:28:21 GMT -5
New York Judge rules 6-year-old can be suedReuters) - A girl can be sued over accusations she ran over an elderly woman with her training bicycle when she was 4 years old, a New York Supreme Court justice has ruled. The ruling by King's County Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten stems from an incident in April 2009 when Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn, both aged four, struck an 87-year-old pedestrian, Claire Menagh, with their training bikes. Menagh underwent surgery for a fractured hip and died three months later ( BC edit: she died of unrelated causes, as specified in the rest of the story). In a ruling made public late Thursday, the judge dismissed arguments by Breitman's lawyer that the case should be dismissed because of her young age. He ruled that she is old enough to be sued and the case can proceed. in.reuters.com/article/idINTRE6A03RY20101101------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge: McDonald's must pay obese employee $17,500SAO PAULO — A Brazilian court ruled this week that McDonald's must pay a former franchise manager $17,500 because he gained 65 pounds while working there for a dozen years. The 32-year-old man said he felt forced to sample the food each day to ensure quality standards remained high, because McDonald's hired "mystery clients" to randomly visit restaurants and report on the food, service and cleanliness. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39897648/ns/business-world_business/ Asinine....outrageously, asinine. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 1, 2010 13:54:44 GMT -5
As asinine as it sounds, if you can sue a pet owner for damages caused by their animals, why not children?
My neigbors spawn broke my patio door glass. He paid, not the spawn.
How would you like it if a bunch of 10 year olds broke into your house and then the law would say "they're just kids"?
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 1, 2010 14:20:41 GMT -5
Ah, but the judge is allowing the lawsuit to go against the child AS WELL as the family...
He ruled that she is old enough to be sued and the case can proceed.
The decision also will allow for the lawsuit to proceed against the Kohn family for the incident.
In a way its a double lawsuit against the parents; they'll get hit for damages for not paying enough attention to their kid, and the kid herself will be hit for damages for running over last-legs-grandma... damages which will also be paid for by the parents.
I can ALMOST understand suing the parents in this case. Almost. Not quite there, but almost. But suing the parents AND a four year old girl?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 1, 2010 19:05:49 GMT -5
I think the intent of the ruling is to stop parents or gaurdians from using trust funds as a shield. Or placing assets in childrens names to avoid payment for liability.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2010 19:57:30 GMT -5
I've grown sick reading these articles. Maybe I can sue the news reporters.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 1, 2010 20:33:55 GMT -5
McDonald's et al should pay "obese" fees to our health care system, as far as I'm concerned.
In the face of what's known about nutrition and heart disease, diabetes, etc., there should be warning labels on unhealhty food, IMO. Tobacco gets the big warnings, after years of denial. Alcohol has nothing except "Please drink responsibly". And food that coats your arteries with goo has ZERO accountability in that regard.
Lobby groups are that powerful, folks. And don't get me started on the pharmaceuticals.
People are free to choose, of course. And that's the way it should be.....but let's put the warning labels on there. Let's make it official.
Never happen. And that continues to be a non-sign of our own apocalypse.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 1, 2010 23:53:23 GMT -5
Lobby groups are that powerful, folks. And don't get me started on the pharmaceuticals. Can't think of any other reason our health care system doesn't cover the Zamboni method for MS sufferers. Proven technology, not overly expensive, seems to improve quality of life in well over half the cases. Sounds like a slam dunk, huh? It's win-win, right? Oh wait, there is a loser. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Nov 2, 2010 6:05:33 GMT -5
McDonald's et al should pay "obese" fees to our health care system, as far as I'm concerned. In the face of what's known about nutrition and heart disease, diabetes, etc., there should be warning labels on unhealhty food, IMO. Tobacco gets the big warnings, after years of denial. Alcohol has nothing except "Please drink responsibly". And food that coats your arteries with goo has ZERO accountability in that regard. Lobby groups are that powerful, folks. And don't get me started on the pharmaceuticals. People are free to choose, of course. And that's the way it should be.....but let's put the warning labels on there. Let's make it official. Never happen. And that continues to be a non-sign of our own apocalypse. If you don't know that eating at fast food places will make you fat, then you deserve to die of a massive heart attack. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 2, 2010 7:11:56 GMT -5
Ah, but the judge is allowing the lawsuit to go against the child AS WELL as the family... He ruled that she is old enough to be sued and the case can proceed.
The decision also will allow for the lawsuit to proceed against the Kohn family for the incident.In a way its a double lawsuit against the parents; they'll get hit for damages for not paying enough attention to their kid, and the kid herself will be hit for damages for running over last-legs-grandma... damages which will also be paid for by the parents. I can ALMOST understand suing the parents in this case. Almost. Not quite there, but almost. But suing the parents AND a four year old girl? Sounds to me it is simply a case of vicarious liability ... you sue everyone and anyone to close the loop holes that lawyers may find. Like HA said, the judge may be allowing the child to be sued because the parents have more money tied up in her name (I know I do with my children). I really don't think the courts will use it as a double whammy on the parents. Either the child is at fault and the parents pay, or the parents are found to be vicarious liable (for not watching the girl more closely, neglectful if you will, for want of a better term) and the parents pay. I'm not sure of the legal ramifications, but let's say for instance a family has a modest income but has ($100,000) tied up in the child's RESP. Can that be used as an asset in a civil case? |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 2, 2010 7:52:02 GMT -5
McDonald's et al should pay "obese" fees to our health care system, as far as I'm concerned. In the face of what's known about nutrition and heart disease, diabetes, etc., there should be warning labels on unhealhty food, IMO. Tobacco gets the big warnings, after years of denial. Alcohol has nothing except "Please drink responsibly". And food that coats your arteries with goo has ZERO accountability in that regard. Lobby groups are that powerful, folks. And don't get me started on the pharmaceuticals. People are free to choose, of course. And that's the way it should be.....but let's put the warning labels on there. Let's make it official. Never happen. And that continues to be a non-sign of our own apocalypse. If you don't know that eating at fast food places will make you fat, then you deserve to die of a massive heart attack. Yeah, people should know. But obesity, heart disease, diabetes...all on the rise. I’m not trying to outlaw or vilify fast food or any other company/establishment that makes food like that. Eating it once in a while likely won’t do much harm if you have a healthy lifestyle otherwise. But heart disease is the #1 cause of death in North America....and by and large, it’s what goes into your mouth that causes it. Tobacco companies still make and sell cigarettes...and people still willingly smoke and take up smoking. But the warnings are there. At least there is admission/disclosure on the part of the company. People have a informed choice, and that’s the way it should be. Nutrition breakdowns/charts, ingredients lists....that’s fine. But I think those companies should be forced to deliver a clear-cut message with a label. THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF CHOLESTEROL, FAT, SODIUM (list them all) WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO CONTRIBUTE TO HEART DISEASE. Is that too much to ask? ======================================================== If somebody sold inferior gasoline that slowly caused your engine to act up and rendered your vehicle useless after a year, it’d be nationwide headlines. Lawsuits would follow, and that brand of gasoline would be off the market. The company would likely go out of business amid cries of, “How dare you ruin my vehicle?” Yet, these establishments/corporations continue to pump out products that clog our "fuel lines" and render us useless way before our time.....with zero accountability. How long before the next bacon, cheese, deep fried pork burger with hash browns for a bun hits the market? |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Nov 2, 2010 9:26:10 GMT -5
Yeah, people should know. But obesity, heart disease, diabetes...all on the rise. I’m not trying to outlaw or vilify fast food or any other company/establishment that makes food like that. Eating it once in a while likely won’t do much harm if you have a healthy lifestyle otherwise. But heart disease is the #1 cause of death in North America....and by and large, it’s what goes into your mouth that causes it. Tobacco companies still make and sell cigarettes...and people still willingly smoke and take up smoking. But the warnings are there. At least there is admission/disclosure on the part of the company. People have a informed choice, and that’s the way it should be. Nutrition breakdowns/charts, ingredients lists....that’s fine. But I think those companies should be forced to deliver a clear-cut message with a label. THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF CHOLESTEROL, FAT, SODIUM (list them all) WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO CONTRIBUTE TO HEART DISEASE. Is that too much to ask? ======================================================== If somebody sold inferior gasoline that slowly caused your engine to act up and rendered your vehicle useless after a year, it’d be nationwide headlines. I know what your are saying and I kinda agree. I just find that we should be using common sense instead of having to have everything spelled out for us. We're not children, we have to take some of the responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 2, 2010 9:49:00 GMT -5
we should be using common sense instead of having to have everything spelled out for us. We're not children, we have to take some of the responsibility. what alternate universe are you from? common sense? responsibility? thanks for the chuckle to start my day. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 2, 2010 9:54:24 GMT -5
Yeah, people should know. But obesity, heart disease, diabetes...all on the rise. I’m not trying to outlaw or vilify fast food or any other company/establishment that makes food like that. Eating it once in a while likely won’t do much harm if you have a healthy lifestyle otherwise. But heart disease is the #1 cause of death in North America....and by and large, it’s what goes into your mouth that causes it. Tobacco companies still make and sell cigarettes...and people still willingly smoke and take up smoking. But the warnings are there. At least there is admission/disclosure on the part of the company. People have a informed choice, and that’s the way it should be. Nutrition breakdowns/charts, ingredients lists....that’s fine. But I think those companies should be forced to deliver a clear-cut message with a label. THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF CHOLESTEROL, FAT, SODIUM (list them all) WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO CONTRIBUTE TO HEART DISEASE. Is that too much to ask? ======================================================== If somebody sold inferior gasoline that slowly caused your engine to act up and rendered your vehicle useless after a year, it’d be nationwide headlines. I know what your are saying and I kinda agree. I just find that we should be using common sense instead of having to have everything spelled out for us. We're not children, we have to take some of the responsibility. I've heard the term that 'people will sue for anything in the USA' too much. But, I think it's an accurate statement. I think it's because of that, that many companies will A-B-C us to death just to shut as many doors as possible. The problems occur when people feel they've found a "D" or "E" option. And there are many lawyers who will jump on that not necessarily because it's the right thing to do, but rather for personal gain; publicity, reputation and money. But, that's just an opinion buds. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Nov 2, 2010 10:28:50 GMT -5
I know what your are saying and I kinda agree. I just find that we should be using common sense instead of having to have everything spelled out for us. We're not children, we have to take some of the responsibility. I've heard the term that 'people will sue for anything in the USA' too much. But, I think it's an accurate statement. I think it's because of that, that many companies will A-B-C us to death just to shut as many doors as possible. The problems occur when people feel they've found a "D" or "E" option. And there are many lawyers who will jump on that not necessarily because it's the right thing to do, but rather for personal gain; publicity, reputation and money. But, that's just an opinion buds. Cheers. All you have to do is watch Judge Judy and company to see what Americans are all about when it come to suing people. we should be using common sense instead of having to have everything spelled out for us. We're not children, we have to take some of the responsibility. what alternate universe are you from? common sense? responsibility? thanks for the chuckle to start my day. You Welcome!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 2, 2010 10:48:17 GMT -5
McDonald's et al should pay "obese" fees to our health care system, as far as I'm concerned. In the face of what's known about nutrition and heart disease, diabetes, etc., there should be warning labels on unhealhty food, IMO. Tobacco gets the big warnings, after years of denial. Alcohol has nothing except "Please drink responsibly". And food that coats your arteries with goo has ZERO accountability in that regard. Lobby groups are that powerful, folks. And don't get me started on the pharmaceuticals. People are free to choose, of course. And that's the way it should be.....but let's put the warning labels on there. Let's make it official. Never happen. And that continues to be a non-sign of our own apocalypse. The shareholders of McDonalds stock grabbed her arms while the CEO stuffed big macs down her unwilling throat. It wasn't her fault for working there, collecting paychecks and eating their food. Inside every fat woman is a lawsuit waiting to get out. Warning labels: "Frequent use of HabsRus can lead to carpal tunnel syndrom." "Watching leafs games can lead to frustration and depression for Torontonians." |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 2, 2010 11:25:01 GMT -5
I'm not sure of the legal ramifications, but let's say for instance a family has a modest income but has ($100,000) tied up in the child's RESP. Can that be used as an asset in a civil case? If the child is also liable, there is no shield. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 2, 2010 11:31:24 GMT -5
If you don't know that eating at fast food places will make you fat, then you deserve to die of a massive heart attack. I'm reporting you to the PC police. Expect to spend at least two years of hard labour in re-education camp.  |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 2, 2010 14:58:51 GMT -5
The shareholders of McDonalds stock grabbed her arms while the CEO stuffed big macs down her unwilling throat. It wasn't her fault for working there, collecting paychecks and eating their food. Inside every fat woman is a lawsuit waiting to get out. I’m not saying she should be awarded anything. I’m saying warning labels should be put on such food. That way, they won’t get sued. Not too many people suing tobacco companies any longer....because it’s right there in black and white...mostly black. We told you....you took the risk. I’m not against people eating whatever they want. I’m certainly not the poster boy for healthy eating/drinking. But high sodium, cholesterol, fat content should constitute a warning, IMO....based upon what science knows about heart disease. Love your other warning labels.  |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 2, 2010 18:35:03 GMT -5
If you don't know that eating at fast food places will make you fat, then you deserve to die of a massive heart attack. Yeah, people should know. But obesity, heart disease, diabetes...all on the rise. I’m not trying to outlaw or vilify fast food or any other company/establishment that makes food like that. Eating it once in a while likely won’t do much harm if you have a healthy lifestyle otherwise. But heart disease is the #1 cause of death in North America....and by and large, it’s what goes into your mouth that causes it. Tobacco companies still make and sell cigarettes...and people still willingly smoke and take up smoking. But the warnings are there. At least there is admission/disclosure on the part of the company. People have a informed choice, and that’s the way it should be. Nutrition breakdowns/charts, ingredients lists....that’s fine. But I think those companies should be forced to deliver a clear-cut message with a label. THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF CHOLESTEROL, FAT, SODIUM (list them all) WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO CONTRIBUTE TO HEART DISEASE. Is that too much to ask? ======================================================== If somebody sold inferior gasoline that slowly caused your engine to act up and rendered your vehicle useless after a year, it’d be nationwide headlines. Lawsuits would follow, and that brand of gasoline would be off the market. The company would likely go out of business amid cries of, “How dare you ruin my vehicle?” Yet, these establishments/corporations continue to pump out products that clog our "fuel lines" and render us useless way before our time.....with zero accountability. How long before the next bacon, cheese, deep fried pork burger with hash browns for a bun hits the market? Will you put warnings on eggs too? A single egg yolk has more cholesterol than the abomination (tasty, tasty abomination) that is KFC's double down sandwich. What about milk and cheese (and hang on a minute - isn't milk and cheese on the Canada's food guide to healthy eating). Red meat? What about fish? I remember not too long ago fish was bad for you. Then it was good for you. Then it was bad for you again. Now I think it's good for you, but for how long. The fact of the matter is that nutrition is an inexact science. Actually - that's a lie. It's a guessing game that they try and dress up as a science. A science has legitimate, reproducible results. Chemistry is a science - hence why we would take such umbridge at having our gas lines clogged with bad gas. Nutrition has none of those traits. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting it's in any way good for anyone to go out and live on McDonalds, KFC, Burger King and all the rest. However blaming McDonalds for obesity is a bit much. It's a number of things - including genetics - that's leading to the "epidemic". And speaking of so-called numbers - you should check some of those. Heart Disease is no longer the leading cause of death in the USA. While "diseases of the heart" (including rheumatic fever and the like) hold a slight edge heart disease (as I presume you are defining it) dropped back into second place some time in the early 2000's behind cancer. what's more, deaths due to heart disease have dropped more than 50% since 1981. Deaths due to cancer had dropped close to 20% in the same time period - not enough to keep pace with heart disease. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 2, 2010 19:08:37 GMT -5
Will you put warnings on eggs too? A single egg yolk has more cholesterol than the abomination (tasty, tasty abomination) that is KFC's double down sandwich. Why not? If it proves to be harmful.... Lobby groups/corporate interests have a lot of power. Read "The China Study" by T. Colin Campbell, PhD.....and you'll get a scientific response. I can't even attempt to either summarize or do it justice here. And not once have I blamed McDonald's for obesity (unless you're referring to the woman in the article). I said all such purveyors should put warning labels on such food. I also said that people should be free to make the choice. But full disclosure should be made, so consumers can make a knowledgeable choice. Still lots of misinformation and outright lies going on in the food industry as a whole. Plenty of “health scams”, too. I mean, something has to take us out of this world, but it shouldn’t be because we were in the dark about breakfast, lunch, and dinner.....that’s at least something we can control if those in control own up to the truth, instead of perpetuating the status quo for the sake of the almighty $$. Like I said earlier, it’ll likely never happen. But the knowledge is out there....at least a better road to take, if one so chooses. To quote Forrest Gump: That’s all I have to say about that. I apologize for the thread derailment..... |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 2, 2010 21:20:35 GMT -5
The shareholders of McDonalds stock grabbed her arms while the CEO stuffed big macs down her unwilling throat. It wasn't her fault for working there, collecting paychecks and eating their food. Inside every fat woman is a lawsuit waiting to get out. I’m not saying she should be awarded anything. I’m saying warning labels should be put on such food. That way, they won’t get sued. Not too many people suing tobacco companies any longer....because it’s right there in black and white...mostly black. We told you....you took the risk. I’m not against people eating whatever they want. I’m certainly not the poster boy for healthy eating/drinking. But high sodium, cholesterol, fat content should constitute a warning, IMO....based upon what science knows about heart disease. Love your other warning labels. I'm thinking that all hookers should be required to have a belly button tattoo warning that repeated use can cause blindness. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 3, 2010 11:34:08 GMT -5
I'm thinking that all hookers should be required to have a belly button tattoo warning that repeated use can cause blindness. Could you use a larger font size next time please? I'm having a hard time reading your posts.  |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 3, 2010 16:54:00 GMT -5
New York Judge rules 6-year-old can be suedReuters) - A girl can be sued over accusations she ran over an elderly woman with her training bicycle when she was 4 years old, a New York Supreme Court justice has ruled. The ruling by King's County Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten stems from an incident in April 2009 when Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn, both aged four, struck an 87-year-old pedestrian, Claire Menagh, with their training bikes. Menagh underwent surgery for a fractured hip and died three months later ( BC edit: she died of unrelated causes, as specified in the rest of the story). In a ruling made public late Thursday, the judge dismissed arguments by Breitman's lawyer that the case should be dismissed because of her young age. He ruled that she is old enough to be sued and the case can proceed. in.reuters.com/article/idINTRE6A03RY20101101------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge: McDonald's must pay obese employee $17,500SAO PAULO — A Brazilian court ruled this week that McDonald's must pay a former franchise manager $17,500 because he gained 65 pounds while working there for a dozen years. The 32-year-old man said he felt forced to sample the food each day to ensure quality standards remained high, because McDonald's hired "mystery clients" to randomly visit restaurants and report on the food, service and cleanliness. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39897648/ns/business-world_business/ I have two questions. 1. Did the arresting officer read the children their rights or did he question them without their lawyers being present? 2. Was a breathalyzer administered immediately to verify the sobriety of the drivers? 3. Were the children victims of harrasment by their friends? 4. Were the cyclists using steroids and how often were they tested by Le Tour officials? 5. If this is more than two questions feel free to pick your two favorites? Sometimes the judges have to put away the law books and precidents and rely on old fashioned common sense. Is the objective to deter other 4 year olds from engaging in this kind of behaviour, to rehabilitate these hardened criminals, penalize the guilty parties or extricate them to protect society. Moderators, feel free to move this thread to the "Death penalty" thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 4, 2010 11:10:14 GMT -5
Yeah, people should know. But obesity, heart disease, diabetes...all on the rise. I’m not trying to outlaw or vilify fast food or any other company/establishment that makes food like that. Eating it once in a while likely won’t do much harm if you have a healthy lifestyle otherwise. But heart disease is the #1 cause of death in North America....and by and large, it’s what goes into your mouth that causes it. Tobacco companies still make and sell cigarettes...and people still willingly smoke and take up smoking. But the warnings are there. At least there is admission/disclosure on the part of the company. People have a informed choice, and that’s the way it should be. Nutrition breakdowns/charts, ingredients lists....that’s fine. But I think those companies should be forced to deliver a clear-cut message with a label. THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF CHOLESTEROL, FAT, SODIUM (list them all) WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO CONTRIBUTE TO HEART DISEASE. Is that too much to ask? ======================================================== If somebody sold inferior gasoline that slowly caused your engine to act up and rendered your vehicle useless after a year, it’d be nationwide headlines. Lawsuits would follow, and that brand of gasoline would be off the market. The company would likely go out of business amid cries of, “How dare you ruin my vehicle?” Yet, these establishments/corporations continue to pump out products that clog our "fuel lines" and render us useless way before our time.....with zero accountability. How long before the next bacon, cheese, deep fried pork burger with hash browns for a bun hits the market? Will you put warnings on eggs too? A single egg yolk has more cholesterol than the abomination (tasty, tasty abomination) that is KFC's double down sandwich. What about milk and cheese (and hang on a minute - isn't milk and cheese on the Canada's food guide to healthy eating). Red meat? What about fish? I remember not too long ago fish was bad for you. Then it was good for you. Then it was bad for you again. Now I think it's good for you, but for how long. The fact of the matter is that nutrition is an inexact science. Actually - that's a lie. It's a guessing game that they try and dress up as a science. A science has legitimate, reproducible results. Chemistry is a science - hence why we would take such umbridge at having our gas lines clogged with bad gas. Nutrition has none of those traits. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting it's in any way good for anyone to go out and live on McDonalds, KFC, Burger King and all the rest. However blaming McDonalds for obesity is a bit much. It's a number of things - including genetics - that's leading to the "epidemic". And speaking of so-called numbers - you should check some of those. Heart Disease is no longer the leading cause of death in the USA. While "diseases of the heart" (including rheumatic fever and the like) hold a slight edge heart disease (as I presume you are defining it) dropped back into second place some time in the early 2000's behind cancer. what's more, deaths due to heart disease have dropped more than 50% since 1981. Deaths due to cancer had dropped close to 20% in the same time period - not enough to keep pace with heart disease. Isn't obesity one of the leading contributors to cancer .... then again, they have linked everything to cancer. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 4, 2010 11:50:58 GMT -5
Yeah, people should know. But obesity, heart disease, diabetes...all on the rise. I’m not trying to outlaw or vilify fast food or any other company/establishment that makes food like that. Eating it once in a while likely won’t do much harm if you have a healthy lifestyle otherwise. But heart disease is the #1 cause of death in North America....and by and large, it’s what goes into your mouth that causes it. Tobacco companies still make and sell cigarettes...and people still willingly smoke and take up smoking. But the warnings are there. At least there is admission/disclosure on the part of the company. People have a informed choice, and that’s the way it should be. Nutrition breakdowns/charts, ingredients lists....that’s fine. But I think those companies should be forced to deliver a clear-cut message with a label. THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF CHOLESTEROL, FAT, SODIUM (list them all) WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO CONTRIBUTE TO HEART DISEASE. Is that too much to ask? ======================================================== If somebody sold inferior gasoline that slowly caused your engine to act up and rendered your vehicle useless after a year, it’d be nationwide headlines. Lawsuits would follow, and that brand of gasoline would be off the market. The company would likely go out of business amid cries of, “How dare you ruin my vehicle?” Yet, these establishments/corporations continue to pump out products that clog our "fuel lines" and render us useless way before our time.....with zero accountability. How long before the next bacon, cheese, deep fried pork burger with hash browns for a bun hits the market? Will you put warnings on eggs too? A single egg yolk has more cholesterol than the abomination (tasty, tasty abomination) that is KFC's double down sandwich. What about milk and cheese (and hang on a minute - isn't milk and cheese on the Canada's food guide to healthy eating). Red meat? What about fish? I remember not too long ago fish was bad for you. Then it was good for you. Then it was bad for you again. Now I think it's good for you, but for how long. The fact of the matter is that nutrition is an inexact science. Actually - that's a lie. It's a guessing game that they try and dress up as a science. A science has legitimate, reproducible results. Chemistry is a science - hence why we would take such umbridge at having our gas lines clogged with bad gas. Nutrition has none of those traits. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting it's in any way good for anyone to go out and live on McDonalds, KFC, Burger King and all the rest. However blaming McDonalds for obesity is a bit much. It's a number of things - including genetics - that's leading to the "epidemic". And speaking of so-called numbers - you should check some of those. Heart Disease is no longer the leading cause of death in the USA. While "diseases of the heart" (including rheumatic fever and the like) hold a slight edge heart disease (as I presume you are defining it) dropped back into second place some time in the early 2000's behind cancer. what's more, deaths due to heart disease have dropped more than 50% since 1981. Deaths due to cancer had dropped close to 20% in the same time period - not enough to keep pace with heart disease. What eggs really need is a fragile warning. "Dropping this egg from a height of greater than 6 inches onto a surface with a hardness coefficient of greater than 0.375 may result in premature failure of the shell" Dropping onto an irregular surface greatly enhances the likelihood that the container will rupture and the contents will escape. This may result in damage to the surface but improvement in the health of the owner. Whatever happened to ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you are so stupid that you eat six big macs instead of a salad and glass of milk (oops... milk may be dangerous too), you deserve the results. Now, the McRib is an exception. I know it's bad for me but it tastes so good and only comes around for a short time. Not only does it taste good, but it gives me a chance for a lawsuit. Warning, coffee is hot and you can't fix stupid. "Warning: the above remark is not a personal reference to any specific HabsRus poster or their descendants" |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 4, 2010 12:23:13 GMT -5
Moving along... Mom happy that her daughter, 10, gave birthNew grandmother, who appears to be in her 30s, wonders what the fuss is about MADRID — A Romanian Gypsy woman whose 10-year-old daughter just gave birth in Spain says she's delighted to have a new granddaughter and doesn't understand why the birth has shocked anyone — let alone become an international sensation. Spanish authorities have released few details about the case to protect the girl's privacy. But in comments published Wednesday, her mother told reporters that the baby's father is a 13-year-old boy who is still in Romania and is no longer going out with her daughter. The 10-year-old girl and her baby daughter plan to stay in Spain because the young couple separated, said the girl's mother. She identified herself only as Olimpia and appeared to be in her 30s but did not give her age. She also said she didn't understand the attention the case was generating because she and her daughter are Romanian Gypsies, or Roma, and their custom is to allow girls to marry young even though that's against the law in Romania. "That's the way we get married," the girl's mother told reporters Tuesday outside the modest apartment building in the southern town of Lebrija where the family lives. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39989341/ns/world_news-europe/ |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 4, 2010 13:23:07 GMT -5
It may be "news" and shock to North Americans but it's common knowledge in Greece. I have seen with my own four eyes Roma children carrying children.....and they weren't baby sitting. I use to have a favorite little seaside peninsula that I wanted to buy and retire there. When I went back there two years ago, this is what it looked like....with rats and snakes, yes snakes crawling all oer them. Care for a side order of Bubonic plague anyone?  This is in EVERY Roma "camp". I love to see a huge Roma immigration into Canada. It will be an eye openener.  |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 4, 2010 13:36:49 GMT -5
Moving along... Mom happy that her daughter, 10, gave birthNew grandmother, who appears to be in her 30s, wonders what the fuss is about MADRID — A Romanian Gypsy woman whose 10-year-old daughter just gave birth in Spain says she's delighted to have a new granddaughter and doesn't understand why the birth has shocked anyone — let alone become an international sensation. Spanish authorities have released few details about the case to protect the girl's privacy. But in comments published Wednesday, her mother told reporters that the baby's father is a 13-year-old boy who is still in Romania and is no longer going out with her daughter. The 10-year-old girl and her baby daughter plan to stay in Spain because the young couple separated, said the girl's mother. She identified herself only as Olimpia and appeared to be in her 30s but did not give her age. She also said she didn't understand the attention the case was generating because she and her daughter are Romanian Gypsies, or Roma, and their custom is to allow girls to marry young even though that's against the law in Romania. "That's the way we get married," the girl's mother told reporters Tuesday outside the modest apartment building in the southern town of Lebrija where the family lives. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39989341/ns/world_news-europe/WARNING: "Sex with underage girls may result in your member getting severed!" |
|
|
|
Post by ValkyrieNS on Nov 4, 2010 20:15:03 GMT -5
Mom happy that her daughter, 10, gave birth At her age, I had no clue what boys were. Thank you God! Amazingly (or disgustingly, since they never did find out who the father was), the youngest girl to give birth to a live baby was 5 years and 8 months old. www.damninteresting.com/historys-youngest-mother |
|
