Harry Pollard wrote: > >Anyway, the fast-food chains are harming their customers, the other > >restaurants and the environment, so your "harm no-one" doesn't apply. > > Meantime, a billion or two hamburgers are sold giving sustenance > and pleasure to their eaters.
Taking a deep drag gives pleasure to a smoker, but doesn't it harm him? > Consumer Reports in its survey of > hamburgers said that the meat content of McDonalds was very good > - but you got less meat than from its competitors. Consumer Reports should stick to washing-machines. > There is a certain arrogance in those who want to force their > ideas on others. You are right that the Free Market is pretty arrogant. > Your fat man ate only organic food - mostly salads and no meat - > so he never enjoyed a hamburger. > > He just ate too much of it. What nonsense. You cannot get fat from mostly organic salads and no meat, because this diet has too much volume per calorie, i.e. your stomach is filled up long before exceeding your need for calories. Guess why Panda bears have to eat all day long? > In the US there are 300 deaths a year from riding bicycles. Why > don't you stop people riding these dangerous contrivances - of > course, for their own good. I don't, because bicycling is only half as dangerous as driving a car (per hour of activity). Chris _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
