More reasons not to support McDonald’s.

[jall55]

lardarses and cola seem to me to be connected. Never noticed much of it in the 1960s.

Cola - my achillies heal ! - Love it

 

[Apthorpe]

Whatever, whether you like my analogy or not it matters not.

With regards to my observation about corporate entities, i am unsure why you would take any issue with that at all, factually it is correct, nothing more.

I may well have misinterpreted what you meant. I'd presumed, apparently wrongly that you were implying that there was something systematically ethically objectionable about the way corporations behave beyond the usual variability of behaviour found in all other walks of life. In which case, there is no difference of opinion and we both believe that they are a massive force for good.

You think its extreme to ask the question about the ethics of corporate entities, seems like an odd thing to take issue with, but if i had said all corporate entities are morally bankrupt you'd have a point, i didn't but gave examples (there's that word again) of some industries which have had their share of scandals.

If you are being impartial about this, an industry which has had its share of scandals is no worse than anything else, which makes your point superfluous. Either you're saying that corporate entities have some structural moral failing, which I disagree with, or you're not, in which case everything above you'd written about them has no point.

Im not ideologically negative about any particular industry, recognising that some companies (in some cases many companies within a particular industry) have behaved in a morally reprehensible fashion, is not demonstrating any particular ideology. Unless that is, being ideologically against the kind of practices some of those companies have engaged in, is being ideologically negative.

It is negative, if you're focussing entirely, as you have been here, on the negative and not accepting the positive.

Asking whether there is evidence one way or the other is not deliberate stupidity.

That is true, but also a straw man fallacy again.

On the other hand not asking if there is evidence and simply believing something is so in the absence of any evidence either way, is stupidity.

On that we agree. Although, given that, I'm slightly at a loss to see why you'd started on quite a lengthy bout of criticising what I wrote, when you're now saying that the comment I'd questioned was stupid.

 

[sauer]

My whole point of mention UPF,s
Was as follows
Definition is of it contains something that you wouldn’t have in an every day home kitchen larder then it’s a UPF
Emulsifiers stabilisers artificial flavourings etc
Now when 60 to 80 % of population get 80% their daily calorific Intake from UPF,s
We see problems we have now obesity diabetes etc
Less folk eating whole food or a more natural diet
I’m not saying cut them out completely that’s nigh on impossible but in my own opinion we have a problem
Les sprinkle cook for themselves
Look at mega rise of just eat & delivaroo etc

As an occasional treat as many say in grand scheme of things fine
But not when yer getting most of your intake from it as many are

Paul

 

[Bavarianbrit]

Cola - my achillies heal ! - Love it

But it will not heal you if you drink too much of it, same as too much water kills.

 

[GlennUK]

Either you're saying that corporate entities have some structural moral failing, which I disagree with, or you're not, in which case everything above you'd written about them has no point.

Being grey doesn't make all grey things elephants, however some are and those that are have the inherent trait of being large as adults.

Corporate entities have structures which imho give them certain traits, one of which is to protect the 'corporation' at almost all costs, not because the law says they must but because of the failings of some (many?) human beings.

We see this routinely and the companies eventually have to deal with the impact of their failings, e.g. the tobacco industry, car manufacturers, banking, etc.

Even public bodies which share some similarities to corporate entities behave in the same manner, e.g. the Post Office Scandal, the Lucy Letby scandal, the blood transfusion scandal, Hillsborough, etc where they do something inherently stupid and then compound it by trying to protect the corporation.

We see similar failings in politics too.

It is difficult to see why food manufacturers are immune to these issues, and if it means selling more of their product by altering the ratios of sugar, salt, any other additives you like, which (arguably) induces consumers to consume more than is healthy, they will be adjusted to increasing consumption, irrespective of the wider health concerns.

This is arguably what is happening today,

 

[Apthorpe]

Corporate entities have structures which imho give them certain traits, one of which is to protect the 'corporation' at almost all costs, not because the law says they must but because of the failings of some (many?) human beings.

Which structures? Of course directors hasve a duty to protect the corporation. It is a legal duty. They have the duty to not only protect the company but also the effect it has on protecting the employment of the overwhelming majority of all people who are not subsistence farmers or nomadic-hunter-gatherers.

We see this routinely and the companies eventually have to deal with the impact of their failings, e.g. the tobacco industry, car manufacturers, banking, etc.

Companies do have to deal with wrongdoing. Public sector bodies don't and never learn as per your next point. In the post office scandal a pseudo-corporate state controlled business, knew it was doing wrong and continued with a whole range of aggravating actions which largely occurred because it wasn't a normal company and the controls which apply to private sector companies didn't have the same effect. The Lucy Letby scandal, whatever the truth of that matter turns out to be,and the enormous plethora of other NHS scandals are also aggravated by the fact of it being state-owned rather than private. The leadership does not have the same responsibilities and to the extent that they do, they continually fail to match up to the standards in the private sector.

Even public bodies which share some similarities to corporate entities behave in the same manner, e.g. the Post Office Scandal, the Lucy Letby scandal, the blood transfusion scandal, Hillsborough, etc where they do something inherently stupid and then compound it by trying to protect the corporation.

The similarities being restricted to the fact that lots of people work there. If public bodies are behaving in the same manner, then the problems you're describing are not particular to companies. Your argument has been that there is something rotten about the way companies work which is particular to companies and outweighs the good they do. This shows that even you don't believe the former point if you actually think about it.

We see similar failings in politics too.

It is difficult to see why food manufacturers are immune to these issues, and if it means selling more of their product by altering the ratios of sugar, salt, any other additives you like, which (arguably) induces consumers to consume more than is healthy, they will be adjusted to increasing consumption, irrespective of the wider health concerns.

It is difficult to see why you even think this is an issue worth commenting on, let alone misrepresenting as a systematic corporate failure. As shown above, failures in human nature are universal, and therefore food manufacturers are effectively immune because you don't have a better alternative model of providing food. Failures would still apply if food supply was controlled by the state - in fact, we know that far greater failures exist when food supply isn't done by the current set of food manufacturers.

This is arguably what is happening today,

Arguably...IF you are taking an extremely biased view of them. Throughout this, you have not taken any account at all of the the positive effects of corporate entities. Car manufacturers have been caught fiddling emission test results, yes this is negative, as is the (actually modest) pollution caused by cars. On the other hand, they have also created perhaps the greatest source of diversified wealth and wellbeing right around the planet, they have, often indirectly, spectacularly improved, safety, the provision of food, healthcare, access to work, and caused massive economic growth. You're ONLY considering the negative and still refusing to consider the overall picture.
I'm going to leave this here, because apparently nothing can induce you to recognise that what you're writing is spectacularly biased.

 

[GlennUK]

Which structures? Of course directors hasve a duty to protect the corporation. It is a legal duty. They have the duty to not only protect the company but also the effect it has on protecting the employment of the overwhelming majority of all people who are not subsistence farmers or nomadic-hunter-gatherers.

Companies do have to deal with wrongdoing. Public sector bodies don't and never learn as per your next point. In the post office scandal a pseudo-corporate state controlled business, knew it was doing wrong and continued with a whole range of aggravating actions which largely occurred because it wasn't a normal company and the controls which apply to private sector companies didn't have the same effect. The Lucy Letby scandal, whatever the truth of that matter turns out to be,and the enormous plethora of other NHS scandals are also aggravated by the fact of it being state-owned rather than private. The leadership does not have the same responsibilities and to the extent that they do, they continually fail to match up to the standards in the private sector.

The similarities being restricted to the fact that lots of people work there. If public bodies are behaving in the same manner, then the problems you're describing are not particular to companies. Your argument has been that there is something rotten about the way companies work which is particular to companies and outweighs the good they do. This shows that even you don't believe the former point if you actually think about it.

It is difficult to see why you even think this is an issue worth commenting on, let alone misrepresenting as a systematic corporate failure. As shown above, failures in human nature are universal, and therefore food manufacturers are effectively immune because you don't have a better alternative model of providing food. Failures would still apply if food supply was controlled by the state - in fact, we know that far greater failures exist when food supply isn't done by the current set of food manufacturers.

Arguably...IF you are taking an extremely biased view of them. Throughout this, you have not taken any account at all of the the positive effects of corporate entities. Car manufacturers have been caught fiddling emission test results, yes this is negative, as is the (actually modest) pollution caused by cars. On the other hand, they have also created perhaps the greatest source of diversified wealth and wellbeing right around the planet, they have, often indirectly, spectacularly improved, safety, the provision of food, healthcare, access to work, and caused massive economic growth. You're ONLY considering the negative and still refusing to consider the overall picture.
I'm going to leave this here, because apparently nothing can induce you to recognise that what you're writing is spectacularly biased.

The key point is that your faith in food manufacturers is just that, and as far as i can tell, there is no reasons to believe that corporate food manufacturers are any more (or less) honest than any other sector of business society.

Society places its trust in such organisations, including entities who's specific role it is to provide care and support for us at the most demanding times, and often find that those entities are not acting in the best interests of their 'customer base'.

It is not a one off event, but a frequent occurrence, in some cases affecting whole industries (e.g. the tobacco, and car manufacturing), in other cases its a single corporate entity...

It may be that the food industry are entirely immune to such actions, that is an act of faith imho.