Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
Story about two people with an alleged wheat allery,
and a third person ("vegan"), suing McDonald's over the content of their french fries, which apparently contain wheat and dairy products: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/1....ap/index.html The two "victims" (huh) with so-called gluten allergies probably should have their day in court. The "vegan" should have her ass kicked until her nose bleeds, and then be shot by the bailiffs. Her (figures) lawsuit is frivolous. You don't have a right to be informed if there is or isn't dairy in your food. If a ****witted "vegan" ventures out in public, she pays her money and she takes her chances. End of story. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
I agree that the mom and daughter with allergies should sue for medical
expenses. I think the vegan has just as much a right to know what is in her food, however sueing for that is a bit rash. If you are a vegan stay away from fast food restaurants because you never know what they put in your food. The BK "veggie" burger has a chicken base I just found out. The moral of the story is.. be informed don't sue, just don't eat there again. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
I agree she suffered no real damage and every veggie should ask before
ordering. (I do) About the allergy thing, I was saying they should sue based on what I know of allergies. I am an allergy sufferer as well as a vegetarian and I ask a barrage of questions before chowing down. However things can get cross contaminated and a reaction can occur. If they didn't have anti-histamines or epi pens handy, and the allergy is full blown they could die. If the case is that they went to the hospital and nearly died, I can see the law suit having some solid ground. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
McDonalds and every other fast food chain is essentially dishonest.
Any well informed Vegan should know that they fry their fries in the same oil as their chicken nuggets and fish sandwiches. Every chain has been secretive about what ingredients they use in their food, due to heavy competition from other chains. McDonalds used to fry everything in a mixture with a beef tallow base. As a vegetarian I don't eat there and any well informed person wouldn't either. There are many resources out there about the actions of fast food chains all one has to do is read it. Vegans and Vegetarians need to make an informed decision when they eat out. And I feel that she has no ground for a suit if she was naive enough to think McDonalds just serves plain fries. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
Beach Runner wrote:
> > > wrote: > >> I agree she suffered no real damage and every veggie should ask before >> ordering. (I do) >> About the allergy thing, I was saying they should sue based on what I >> know of allergies. I am an allergy sufferer as well as a vegetarian >> and I ask a barrage of questions before chowing down. However things >> can get cross contaminated and a reaction can occur. If they didn't >> have anti-histamines or epi pens handy, and the allergy is full blown >> they could die. If the case is that they went to the hospital and >> nearly died, I can see the law suit having some solid ground. >> > This ignores that fact that McDonalds was being purposely dishonest. How were they? Did they say their fries contain no wheat or dairy? You don't know that. You don't know *any* of the facts of the case. > If they didn't say anything that would be one matter but being purposely > dishonest is another. Prove they were being "purposely dishonest". > > And if Vegan is a spiritual or moral code for someone, clearly McDonalds > violated that trust and should be liable. The "vegan" has no case. You can hold whatever ****witted "spiritual code" you want; it is not "violated" by McDonald's including dairy in its products. You do not have a "right" to have your so-called "spiritual code" respected. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
Ok maybe not dishonest. Highly secretive is more like it. They don't
let out their ingredients unless they get sued. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
Rita wrote:
> Ok maybe not dishonest. Highly secretive is more like it. They don't > let out their ingredients unless they get sued. I'm sorry, I don't believe that. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
Rita wrote:
> Ok maybe not dishonest. Highly secretive is more like it. They don't > let out their ingredients unless they get sued. In fact, you are *comletely* wrong. It took me less than 30 seconds after my earlier reply to find the complete - and I do mean *complete* - ingredients list for McDonald's menu items. It's he http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_control...s.in dex.html Here's what they say about their French Frieds: French Fries: Potatoes, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, natural flavor (beef, wheat and dairy sources), dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (to preserve natural color). Cooked in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (may contain partially hydrogenated soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated corn oil and/or partially hydrogenated canola oil and/or cottonseed oil and/or sunflower oil and/or corn oil). Contains derivatives of wheat and dairy, but has been verified by the University of Nebraska to be allergen and gluten free. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
If you read the article S. Maizlich posted
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/1....ap/index.html The last line says: "Before its acknowledgment Monday, the company had quietly added "Contains wheat and milk ingredients" to the french fries listing on its Web site." |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
Leif Erikson wrote: > Rita wrote: > > Ok maybe not dishonest. Highly secretive is more like it. They don't > > let out their ingredients unless they get sued. > > I'm sorry, I don't believe that. You don't believe anything. You are an intellectual black hole. Stuff goes in but nothing *ever* comes out........nothing worth noting anyway. So just shut-up, pack up your various nyms, and bugger off. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message oups.com...
> wrote: > > If you read the article S. Maizlich posted > > http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/1....ap/index.html > > > > The last line says: > > > > "Before its acknowledgment Monday, the company had quietly added > > "Contains wheat and milk ingredients" to the french fries listing on > > its Web site." > > How long before? And why did the left-leaning CNN feel it necessary to > editorialize "quietly"? Naturally, they don't *say* how long, probably > because they don't know, but they're clearly trying to create the > impression that McDonald's did something sneaky. Maybe McD's *did* do > something sneaky, but CNN doesn't know that, and has no reason to > believe it...except for their political orientation. The last update edit that shows up on the web archive is "Mar 30, 2005 *" - http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://...s.in dex.html 'French Fries: Potatoes, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, natural flavor (beef source), dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (to preserve natural color). Cooked in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (may contain partially hydrogenated soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated corn oil and/or partially hydrogenated canola oil and/or cottonseed oil and/or sunflower oil and/or corn oil). ... This list is effective 03-21-2005. http://web.archive.org/web/200503300...s.in dex.html |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
S. Maizlich wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> I agree she suffered no real damage and every veggie should ask before > >> ordering. (I do) > >> About the allergy thing, I was saying they should sue based on what I > >> know of allergies. I am an allergy sufferer as well as a vegetarian > >> and I ask a barrage of questions before chowing down. However things > >> can get cross contaminated and a reaction can occur. If they didn't > >> have anti-histamines or epi pens handy, and the allergy is full blown > >> they could die. If the case is that they went to the hospital and > >> nearly died, I can see the law suit having some solid ground. > >> > > This ignores that fact that McDonalds was being purposely dishonest. > > How were they? Did they say their fries contain no > wheat or dairy? You don't know that. You don't know > *any* of the facts of the case. > > > > If they didn't say anything that would be one matter but being purposely > > dishonest is another. > > Prove they were being "purposely dishonest". > > > > > > And if Vegan is a spiritual or moral code for someone, clearly McDonalds > > violated that trust and should be liable. > > The "vegan" has no case. You can hold whatever > ****witted "spiritual code" you want; it is not > "violated" by McDonald's including dairy in its > products. You do not have a "right" to have your > so-called "spiritual code" respected. If you enquire whether a product is vegan and you are told that it is then you are morally entitled to expect it to be vegan. Making false claims about the products you sell is unethical and, quite rightly, illegal. Whether or not that was what happened I don't know. If the vegan simply assumed the fries were vegan without actually being told so then she has no case. Exactly the same applies to the hypochondriacs. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
pearl wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message oups.com... > wrote: >> >>>If you read the article S. Maizlich posted >>>http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/1....ap/index.html >>> >>>The last line says: >>> >>>"Before its acknowledgment Monday, the company had quietly added >>>"Contains wheat and milk ingredients" to the french fries listing on >>>its Web site." >> >>How long before? And why did the left-leaning CNN feel it necessary to >>editorialize "quietly"? Naturally, they don't *say* how long, probably >>because they don't know, but they're clearly trying to create the >>impression that McDonald's did something sneaky. Maybe McD's *did* do >>something sneaky, but CNN doesn't know that, and has no reason to >>believe it...except for their political orientation. > > > The last update edit that shows up on the web archive is "Mar 30, 2005 *" - > http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://...s.in dex.html > > 'French Fries: > Potatoes, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, natural flavor (beef source), > dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (to preserve natural color). Cooked > in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (may contain partially hydrogenated > soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated corn oil and/or partially > hydrogenated canola oil and/or cottonseed oil and/or sunflower oil and/or > corn oil). You stupid, STUPID ****ing ****: the link shown is what it was BEFORE the update. Sweet ****ing jesus in a chicken basket, you ugly **** - you really *work* at being stupid. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
In article .com>,
says... > idiot "pesco-vegan" davie blabbered: > > S. Maizlich wrote: > > > Beach Runner wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> I agree she suffered no real damage and every veggie should ask before > > > >> ordering. (I do) > > > >> About the allergy thing, I was saying they should sue based on what I > > > >> know of allergies. I am an allergy sufferer as well as a vegetarian > > > >> and I ask a barrage of questions before chowing down. However things > > > >> can get cross contaminated and a reaction can occur. If they didn't > > > >> have anti-histamines or epi pens handy, and the allergy is full blown > > > >> they could die. If the case is that they went to the hospital and > > > >> nearly died, I can see the law suit having some solid ground. > > > >> > > > > This ignores that fact that McDonalds was being purposely dishonest. > > > > > > How were they? Did they say their fries contain no > > > wheat or dairy? You don't know that. You don't know > > > *any* of the facts of the case. > > > > > > > > > > If they didn't say anything that would be one matter but being purposely > > > > dishonest is another. > > > > > > Prove they were being "purposely dishonest". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And if Vegan is a spiritual or moral code for someone, clearly McDonalds > > > > violated that trust and should be liable. > > > > > > The "vegan" has no case. You can hold whatever > > > ****witted "spiritual code" you want; it is not > > > "violated" by McDonald's including dairy in its > > > products. You do not have a "right" to have your > > > so-called "spiritual code" respected. > > > > If you enquire whether a product is vegan and you are told > > that it is then you are morally entitled to expect it to be vegan. > > Making false claims about the products you sell is unethical > > and, quite rightly, illegal. Whether or not that was what > > happened I don't know. If the vegan simply assumed the fries > > were vegan without actually being told so then she has no > > case. Exactly the same applies to the hypochondriacs. > > The "vegan" has no case. She suffered no damages. > The vegan should be thankful to be able to eat such tasty fries! |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message nk.net...
> pearl wrote: > > > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message oups.com... > > > wrote: > >> > >>>If you read the article S. Maizlich posted > >>>http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/1....ap/index.html > >>> > >>>The last line says: > >>> > >>>"Before its acknowledgment Monday, the company had quietly added > >>>"Contains wheat and milk ingredients" to the french fries listing on > >>>its Web site." > >> > >>How long before? And why did the left-leaning CNN feel it necessary to > >>editorialize "quietly"? Naturally, they don't *say* how long, probably > >>because they don't know, but they're clearly trying to create the > >>impression that McDonald's did something sneaky. Maybe McD's *did* do > >>something sneaky, but CNN doesn't know that, and has no reason to > >>believe it...except for their political orientation. > > > > > > The last update edit that shows up on the web archive is "Mar 30, 2005 *" - > > http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://...s.in dex.html > > > > 'French Fries: > > Potatoes, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, natural flavor (beef source), > > dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (to preserve natural color). Cooked > > in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (may contain partially hydrogenated > > soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated corn oil and/or partially > > hydrogenated canola oil and/or cottonseed oil and/or sunflower oil and/or > > corn oil). > > the link shown is what it was BEFORE the update. '* denotes when site was updated'. 1. Has it, or has it not been updated since Mar 30, 2005? 2. That was the last update (that shows up), but where do you see "Contains derivatives of wheat and dairy, but has been verified by the University of Nebraska to be allergen and gluten free" as in the version you posted, or as it now, since updated again 2.21.06 (correctly) states: "Contains derivatives of wheat and dairy."? (doh!) http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_control...s.in dex.html |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
pearl wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message nk.net... > >>pearl wrote: >> >> >>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message oups.com... >>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>If you read the article S. Maizlich posted >>>>>http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/1....ap/index.html >>>>> >>>>>The last line says: >>>>> >>>>>"Before its acknowledgment Monday, the company had quietly added >>>>>"Contains wheat and milk ingredients" to the french fries listing on >>>>>its Web site." >>>> >>>>How long before? And why did the left-leaning CNN feel it necessary to >>>>editorialize "quietly"? Naturally, they don't *say* how long, probably >>>>because they don't know, but they're clearly trying to create the >>>>impression that McDonald's did something sneaky. Maybe McD's *did* do >>>>something sneaky, but CNN doesn't know that, and has no reason to >>>>believe it...except for their political orientation. >>> >>> >>>The last update edit that shows up on the web archive is "Mar 30, 2005 *" - >>>http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://...s.in dex.html >>> >>>'French Fries: >>>Potatoes, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, natural flavor (beef source), >>>dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (to preserve natural color). Cooked >>>in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (may contain partially hydrogenated >>>soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated corn oil and/or partially >>>hydrogenated canola oil and/or cottonseed oil and/or sunflower oil and/or >>>corn oil). >> >> the link shown is what it was BEFORE the update. > > > '* denotes when site was updated'. 1. Has it, or has it not > been updated since Mar 30, 2005? NO, you goddamned ****ing shit4braincell moron. That link dated Mar 30 2005 is to what it was BEFORE the update. There would be no need for them to archive what it is *now*, you colossal piece of shit, until it's changed again. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
Leif Erikson wrote: > pearl wrote: > > > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message oups.com... > > > wrote: > >> > >>>If you read the article S. Maizlich posted > >>>http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/1....ap/index.html > >>> > >>>The last line says: > >>> > >>>"Before its acknowledgment Monday, the company had quietly added > >>>"Contains wheat and milk ingredients" to the french fries listing on > >>>its Web site." > >> > >>How long before? And why did the left-leaning CNN feel it necessary to > >>editorialize "quietly"? Naturally, they don't *say* how long, probably > >>because they don't know, but they're clearly trying to create the > >>impression that McDonald's did something sneaky. Maybe McD's *did* do > >>something sneaky, but CNN doesn't know that, and has no reason to > >>believe it...except for their political orientation. > > > > > > The last update edit that shows up on the web archive is "Mar 30, 2005 *" - > > http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://...s.in dex.html > > > > 'French Fries: > > Potatoes, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, natural flavor (beef source), > > dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (to preserve natural color). Cooked > > in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (may contain partially hydrogenated > > soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated corn oil and/or partially > > hydrogenated canola oil and/or cottonseed oil and/or sunflower oil and/or > > corn oil). > > You stupid, STUPID ****ing ****: the link shown is > what it was BEFORE the update. > > Sweet ****ing jesus in a chicken basket, you ugly **** > - you really *work* at being stupid. LOL!!! Why not take some time off and laze about inventing some new words Goober? You're overwrought and charging around squealing and shrieking like you've been shot. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
John Wesley wrote: > In article .com>, > says... > > idiot "pesco-vegan" davie blabbered: > > > S. Maizlich wrote: > > > > Beach Runner wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I agree she suffered no real damage and every veggie should ask before > > > > >> ordering. (I do) > > > > >> About the allergy thing, I was saying they should sue based on what I > > > > >> know of allergies. I am an allergy sufferer as well as a vegetarian > > > > >> and I ask a barrage of questions before chowing down. However things > > > > >> can get cross contaminated and a reaction can occur. If they didn't > > > > >> have anti-histamines or epi pens handy, and the allergy is full blown > > > > >> they could die. If the case is that they went to the hospital and > > > > >> nearly died, I can see the law suit having some solid ground. > > > > >> > > > > > This ignores that fact that McDonalds was being purposely dishonest. > > > > > > > > How were they? Did they say their fries contain no > > > > wheat or dairy? You don't know that. You don't know > > > > *any* of the facts of the case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If they didn't say anything that would be one matter but being purposely > > > > > dishonest is another. > > > > > > > > Prove they were being "purposely dishonest". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And if Vegan is a spiritual or moral code for someone, clearly McDonalds > > > > > violated that trust and should be liable. > > > > > > > > The "vegan" has no case. You can hold whatever > > > > ****witted "spiritual code" you want; it is not > > > > "violated" by McDonald's including dairy in its > > > > products. You do not have a "right" to have your > > > > so-called "spiritual code" respected. > > > > > > If you enquire whether a product is vegan and you are told > > > that it is then you are morally entitled to expect it to be vegan. > > > Making false claims about the products you sell is unethical > > > and, quite rightly, illegal. Whether or not that was what > > > happened I don't know. If the vegan simply assumed the fries > > > were vegan without actually being told so then she has no > > > case. Exactly the same applies to the hypochondriacs. > > > > The "vegan" has no case. She suffered no damages. > > > The vegan should be thankful to be able to eat such tasty fries! Do you think individuals should have the right to decide what they do or do not eat, John? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > John Wesley wrote: >> In article >> .com>, >> says... >> > idiot "pesco-vegan" davie blabbered: >> > > S. Maizlich wrote: >> > > > Beach Runner wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >> I agree she suffered no real damage and every veggie >> > > > >> should ask before >> > > > >> ordering. (I do) >> > > > >> About the allergy thing, I was saying they should sue >> > > > >> based on what I >> > > > >> know of allergies. I am an allergy sufferer as well >> > > > >> as a vegetarian >> > > > >> and I ask a barrage of questions before chowing down. >> > > > >> However things >> > > > >> can get cross contaminated and a reaction can occur. >> > > > >> If they didn't >> > > > >> have anti-histamines or epi pens handy, and the >> > > > >> allergy is full blown >> > > > >> they could die. If the case is that they went to the >> > > > >> hospital and >> > > > >> nearly died, I can see the law suit having some solid >> > > > >> ground. >> > > > >> >> > > > > This ignores that fact that McDonalds was being >> > > > > purposely dishonest. >> > > > >> > > > How were they? Did they say their fries contain no >> > > > wheat or dairy? You don't know that. You don't know >> > > > *any* of the facts of the case. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > If they didn't say anything that would be one matter >> > > > > but being purposely >> > > > > dishonest is another. >> > > > >> > > > Prove they were being "purposely dishonest". >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > And if Vegan is a spiritual or moral code for someone, >> > > > > clearly McDonalds >> > > > > violated that trust and should be liable. >> > > > >> > > > The "vegan" has no case. You can hold whatever >> > > > ****witted "spiritual code" you want; it is not >> > > > "violated" by McDonald's including dairy in its >> > > > products. You do not have a "right" to have your >> > > > so-called "spiritual code" respected. >> > > >> > > If you enquire whether a product is vegan and you are told >> > > that it is then you are morally entitled to expect it to >> > > be vegan. >> > > Making false claims about the products you sell is >> > > unethical >> > > and, quite rightly, illegal. Whether or not that was what >> > > happened I don't know. If the vegan simply assumed the >> > > fries >> > > were vegan without actually being told so then she has no >> > > case. Exactly the same applies to the hypochondriacs. >> > >> > The "vegan" has no case. She suffered no damages. >> > >> The vegan should be thankful to be able to eat such tasty >> fries! > > Do you think individuals should have the right to decide what > they > do or do not eat, John? ====================== Where was anybodys right to eat what they choose denied? > |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > John Wesley wrote: > >> In article > >> .com>, > >> says... > >> > idiot "pesco-vegan" davie blabbered: > >> > > S. Maizlich wrote: > >> > > > Beach Runner wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> I agree she suffered no real damage and every veggie > >> > > > >> should ask before > >> > > > >> ordering. (I do) > >> > > > >> About the allergy thing, I was saying they should sue > >> > > > >> based on what I > >> > > > >> know of allergies. I am an allergy sufferer as well > >> > > > >> as a vegetarian > >> > > > >> and I ask a barrage of questions before chowing down. > >> > > > >> However things > >> > > > >> can get cross contaminated and a reaction can occur. > >> > > > >> If they didn't > >> > > > >> have anti-histamines or epi pens handy, and the > >> > > > >> allergy is full blown > >> > > > >> they could die. If the case is that they went to the > >> > > > >> hospital and > >> > > > >> nearly died, I can see the law suit having some solid > >> > > > >> ground. > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > This ignores that fact that McDonalds was being > >> > > > > purposely dishonest. > >> > > > > >> > > > How were they? Did they say their fries contain no > >> > > > wheat or dairy? You don't know that. You don't know > >> > > > *any* of the facts of the case. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > If they didn't say anything that would be one matter > >> > > > > but being purposely > >> > > > > dishonest is another. > >> > > > > >> > > > Prove they were being "purposely dishonest". > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > And if Vegan is a spiritual or moral code for someone, > >> > > > > clearly McDonalds > >> > > > > violated that trust and should be liable. > >> > > > > >> > > > The "vegan" has no case. You can hold whatever > >> > > > ****witted "spiritual code" you want; it is not > >> > > > "violated" by McDonald's including dairy in its > >> > > > products. You do not have a "right" to have your > >> > > > so-called "spiritual code" respected. > >> > > > >> > > If you enquire whether a product is vegan and you are told > >> > > that it is then you are morally entitled to expect it to > >> > > be vegan. > >> > > Making false claims about the products you sell is > >> > > unethical > >> > > and, quite rightly, illegal. Whether or not that was what > >> > > happened I don't know. If the vegan simply assumed the > >> > > fries > >> > > were vegan without actually being told so then she has no > >> > > case. Exactly the same applies to the hypochondriacs. > >> > > >> > The "vegan" has no case. She suffered no damages. > >> > > >> The vegan should be thankful to be able to eat such tasty > >> fries! > > > > Do you think individuals should have the right to decide what > > they > > do or do not eat, John? > ====================== > Where was anybodys right to eat what they choose denied? I don't know that it has been in this case. presumably the vegan decided to sue because she felt her freedom to not eat dairy had been compromised. Although I realise John's comment was probably tounge in cheek the general tone of their posts make me wonder whether John or Maizlich really respect people's right to choose not to eat animal products. > > > |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
John Wesley wrote: > In article . com>, > says... > >>McDonalds and every other fast food chain is essentially dishonest. >>Any well informed Vegan should know that they fry their fries in the >>same oil as their chicken nuggets and fish sandwiches. Every chain has >>been secretive about what ingredients they use in their food, due to >>heavy competition from other chains. McDonalds used to fry everything >>in a mixture with a beef tallow base. As a vegetarian I don't eat >>there and any well informed person wouldn't either. There are many >>resources out there about the actions of fast food chains all one has >>to do is read it. Vegans and Vegetarians need to make an informed >>decision when they eat out. And I feel that she has no ground for a >>suit if she was naive enough to think McDonalds just serves plain fries. >> >> > > I think vegans and vegetarians should just stay home and eat. They > usually are hippies who don't bathe and they stink and I don't want to > smell them. Also the women don't shave thier legs and that is really > nasty. Like my uncle years back after Debakey did early heart surgery and sent him to the Pritikin institute? Or myself, an engineer with a major company and worked for years on a classified project. Discrimination prevents you from having to think. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Two hypochondriacs and a "vegan" sue McDonald's
S. Maizlich wrote: > wrote: > > > I agree that the mom and daughter with allergies should sue for medical > > expenses. > > It's not clear they should prevail, though. They may > have a cause of action, but it's not at all clear they > should prevail. > > > > I think the vegan has just as much a right to know what is > > in her food, > > She should ask *before* she eats. > > > > however sueing for that is a bit rash. > > She has no case. She suffered no real damage. So I could sell you a "Big Mac" and instead of hamburger I could use a similar weight of cabbage and you'd be fine with that? You suffer no real damage and it doesn't matter that what you believe you are eating isn't what you are actually eating. > > > > If you are a vegan > > stay away from fast food restaurants because you never know what they > > put in your food. The BK "veggie" burger has a chicken base I just > > found out. The moral of the story is.. be informed don't sue, just > > don't eat there again. > > |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"Dad ‘unfit parent for refusing son McDonald’s’ " | General Cooking | |||
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" | Vegan | |||
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" | Vegan | |||
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" | Vegan | |||
A exceptionally stupid "vegan", "Michael Bluejay" | Vegan |