Shalashaska
Member
Can't hold them more or less responsible than companies who sell cigarettes.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Heart Attack Grill: What obligation (if any) do restaurants have to their patrons?
- Thread starter KidGalactus
- Start date
- Status
They sell cigarettes there too. But, just jokes maybe!
Teehee.
He's not anymore wrong than any other restaurant, ethically speaking. Yes, this is exaggerated. As others have stated, you can go to many a place and over eat yourself. It's a choice. Obviously there's a market for it or he wouldn't be in business.
Furthermore, the menu names tells everyone how bad this food is for you. He's doing everything in his power to tell you this is some downright shitty food to consume, yet there are people doing so.
KidGalactus
Member
Fair enough, but what kinds of things do you think would actually make a difference?
Well, don't misunderstand me. I'm not advocating that SWAT kick the doors down and clean the place out. There are kinds of (responsible) actions that can be taken if you are morally incensed by something a business is doing without ever getting the state involved, right?
I mean, my question is should they be stopped, but I don't see why the government would need to be the government.
Actually never knew this. Yikes.
I'm fine with almost all aspects of this restaurant. I could not care less if you want to stuff yourself with these 5000+ calorie burgers. You're an adult. You know the consequences and I ain't your mom.
Leaving aside the OP's absolutely nonsensical fixation about whether or not this restaurant is a joke (lolwut), let's address something I do have a problem with:
Which is the restaurant offering free meals to those over 350 lbs. At this point, I think the restaurant is explicitly or implicitly taking advantage of people who clearly lack the control to take care of themselves.
We're not just talking about occasional lapses, we're talking about potentially serious eating disorders. It'd be in our vested interest to take care of these individuals and prevent them from harming themselves. For the rest, they can go stuff themselves for all I care.
I went there last year while out in Vegas hung all the way the fuck over. It was not even a great burger at all... We all had to wear hospital gowns and if you didn't finish your meal you were spanked by one of the waitresses. That was cool.
Also the milkshake was made with fat or something... I'll probably never go again
Also the milkshake was made with fat or something... I'll probably never go again
bronkonagurski
Member
At least the Heart Attack Grill lacks pretense. I see KFC has brought back the Double-Down sandwich and advertises it with 3 fairly normal looking dudes all mowing down on a little piece of artery blocking heaven while exclaiming they could just eat that garbage every day...or something to that effect. I just get incredibly annoyed every time that commercial is on.
outunderthestars
Banned
Delta Assault
Member
So if you're 349 pounds... it's fine, you can do whatever you want with your life... but once you hit the magic 350, you're clearly out of control and we're gonna need to step in and take your freedom of choice away from you?
Doesn't sit well with me. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
Eh, the only thing worse than the double down compared to most fast food stuff is the sodium. Otherwise two chicken breasts are healthier than a burger bun, though less so seeing that it's deep fried.
Count Dookkake
Member
You should get a special t-shirt or hat if someone dies while you are eating there.
I guess exploiting them for marketing purposes?
Because cats that fat (unless your Shaq/Yao-ming size) should, uh, not be eating fast-food anything? I mean, feel free to go eat it if you really, really want to kill yourself (because I'm not one to advocate babying adults).
But at the same time, it's likely for individuals at that extreme end of the weight-scale to not be able to control their eating habits (legit eating disorder). It's (bear with the analogy here) kind of like offering free cigarettes to chain-smokers. They can't control themselves, and you're essentially egging them to their death for the shits 'n giggles.
But yeah. I guess, in the end, I'm not sure where I fall on the scale of let idiots Darwin themselves, or taking care of the vulnerables by removing some of their liberties. Neither seems very palatable to me.
terrisus
Member
That... Doesn't make any sense at all...
I mean, do casinos allow people with over $10,000 in losses to gamble for free?
bronkonagurski
Member
Sodium is nothing to mess with though, it is pretty much the main reason my dad has had two heart procedures. I just think in general, you watch all these fast food advertisements and it is mostly healthy-looking people acting all excited to eat crap. I find these ads a lot more offensive than a place like Heart Attack Grill.
batteryLeakage
Neo Member
Personally, I find the honesty to be very refreshing. The guy is very upfront about the health risks that can occur if you eat this type of food regularly nor is he minimizing it. He isn't deceiving anyone and they are eating there because they want to. He is simply providing a product that people that is clearly in demand. If they didn't get it from his restaurant they would get it from somewhere else.
I agree. That is another part of what makes the Heart Attack Grill so refreshing. They aren't trying to hide or minimize the effect of their product. Their spokespeople aren't models or athletes or healthy-looking dudes all having fun. They are fat, unhealthy people.
I agree. That is another part of what makes the Heart Attack Grill so refreshing. They aren't trying to hide or minimize the effect of their product. Their spokespeople aren't models or athletes or healthy-looking dudes all having fun. They are fat, unhealthy people.
Here are some ethical defenses:
Natural Rights - People have the established right to make choices concerning their own health, including choices that may shorten their lifespan.
Utilitarianism - Most of the people who eat there simply enjoy their food and don't have heart attacks.
Virtues - The desire to strip autonomy from others 'for their own good' is a sign of arrogance.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Yeah, this part is messed up. The rest of the stuff is fine since the novelty is about the unhealthiness, much like that monstrosity that KFC puts out every now and then (double something)
echoshifting
Banned
You should eat free for life
It's really more like no one should be offered the food for free, not on weight based ground anyway. Safe uniform policy, if you want to eat there you pay regardless of your weight. There does seem to be some need unfortunately for regulation in areas like this for the sake of society, the problem is where to draw the line. Excluding free deals based on weight that can further promote a weight problem, however, is probably a safe one.
Absolutely. What is the purpose of their 'charity' towards extremely obese patrons?
Normally these would be among your more profitable customers if they come... but to forgo that profit - and essentially provide a feeder service for obese people, plus an incentive for people near that weight range to get up beyond that mark... there's an ulterior motive which is relatively transparent to see.
They basically *want* these people to die of a heart attack; so that it drums up publicity for their business.
"Heart Attack Grill Kills Again! An obese patron that dined regularly under their free food for 350lb and over rule died due to a massive coronary, blah blah blah"
Reader: Oh shit... well, it's not like these guys were selling anything but a heart attack burger. It's his own damn fault really. Those burgers look pretty good now that I think about it.
No....... -.-
I could not care less about some arbitrary number chosen by Heart Attack Grill, and you know I know that.
But I'll humor you and say that I'm talking about the spirit of the idea: offering free, unhealthy food to people who should probably be controlling their diet more than anything.
I'll preface with saying that I'm not so keen on limiting any adult's options. Yet, what happens if they have absolutely no sense of self-control? Do we egg them on by offering free burgers?
I dunno. As it stands, I don't think that part of Heart Attack Grill is so cool. Everything else is alright with me. If someone wants to eat themselves dead... well, more power to them. For those who can't control themselves, have addictions, disorders, mental illnesses, I'm on the side of being less laissez-faire.
You should be able to eat there irrespective of your weight. But you shouldn't be specifically encouraged to eat there if you're part of an at risk group.
Delta Assault
Member
I don't see why. The restaurant is offering a form of charity. Just as needy orphan kids get charities that cater to their plight, this restaurant is providing charity to those who qualify. There's no reason why they have to provide a uniform policy.
Count Dookkake
Member
A t-shirt that says you get to eat free would be the best.
retrogamer84
Member
The problem with regulations are that they inevitably punish perfectly responsible adults in order to "save" a few who cannot control themselves. That is not fair to the rest of us.
echoshifting
Banned
Apparently, OP says this might make people mistake the restaurant as a joke. That what they're eating could actually not be all that unhealthy (even though it is).
Uh, yeah. I'm not sure where OP was trying to go with this.
terrisus
Member
But taking all their gambling money from them.
Where would the restaurant make money back in this case? Drinks?
Krappadizzle
Member
My thoughts exactly.
If someone provides Krokodil to drug addicts, is that charity?
I'm very, very, very curious as to what your answer to this question will be (if you answer it at all).
Now, before you jump me as making a strawman or a non-sequitur, I'm just going to state that I don't think providing free "heart attack burgers" to 350+ lbs people is charity. I think it's doing more harm than good.
Delta Assault
Member
Krokodil seems much more dangerous. But at the end of the day... People are informed and make their own choices. Nobody forces anyone to do drugs.
The sort of promotion they're offering seems pretty similar to other restaurant policies. I've heard of veterans getting a free meal on Veterans Day. Or getting a free meal if it's your birthday. So again... don't see why it has to be a uniform policy for all patrons.
terrisus
Member
Also, my way of looking at this:
Food is expensive.
Very expensive.
If someone told you that you could get free food but had to maintain a weight over 200 pounds, I imagine most people here would take it.
Think about how much money you would save on groceries per week.
The issue is, of course, that it's not at 200 pounds, but at 350 pounds.
But the point still remains - when one is faced with a budget and food is eating (so to speak) a significant portion of that budget, getting free food is pretty darn appealing.
Food is expensive.
Very expensive.
If someone told you that you could get free food but had to maintain a weight over 200 pounds, I imagine most people here would take it.
Think about how much money you would save on groceries per week.
The issue is, of course, that it's not at 200 pounds, but at 350 pounds.
But the point still remains - when one is faced with a budget and food is eating (so to speak) a significant portion of that budget, getting free food is pretty darn appealing.
I do agree that eating and doing drugs could be a voluntary action (assuming no coercion). As an adult, you should own up to the consequences of actions that may bring you harm.
What about those who have spun off the deep end and can no longer control themselves (i.e. really rationalize the pros and cons and affirmatively state, "yeah, this is gonna screw me up and I'm willing to deal with the consequences" vs "I'm addicted, I can't stop myself")?
They should make their burgers free for those <175lbs.
The supposition that people are perfectly rational and in control of their decision making has allowed American corporations in the past century to run roughshod over society through the use of marketing.
The real irony though is that a lot of drugs aren't available to us because of the influence of American corporations on political decision making keeping competing options at bay.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
This is just one of those things that hopefully won't exist in the future when we develop a bit as a society, but, until then, people have to take responsibility and stay away.
Crazy_Sunshine
Banned
Hmmmm. I don't think a restaurant takes any hippocratic oath stating that they will do no harm to their customers. (maybe they do, and if so its about to make my points mute. But whatever! lol)
People that make the self governing choice to eat at his restaurant run that possibility of dying from his food. It's not like he's hiding the fact that his food may be the cause of death. The last time i checked, you don't need a 22,000 cal meal in one day.
So I'll try to go down the line with your questions OP
1. No, the fact that the public still chooses to eat at his restaurant and risk their own lives is proof enough.
2. I would think it would be unreasonable to assume anything from a restaurant in regards to health. You're an adult capable of making self governing decisions . When I order, they don't ask me if i'm healthy enough to eat whatever I'm ordering. Or hyperbole it a little, When i buy a gun, it is assumed that i know it can kill a someone. I don't go back to the store owner and complain that i killed someone with that gun.
3. No. Anything in excess can kill you. Such as, drinking too much water, too much alcohol. I'm pretty sure that it is objective fact no matter how you look at it.
4. None, it's vote with your money type of deal ( well in my mind). If the customer wants the food and he has the money to pay for it, is it wrong to assume that he can take care of himself when he tries to eat the food. And they should not assume any responsibility if that person is so unhealthy enough to eat their food. Because I'm assuming here, that there maybe other underlying issues if you die from eating one burger, no matter how unhealthy it is.
KidGalactus
Member
Haha. Didn't intend it to come across as a fixation, but I guess it does. I was trying to re-explain something I felt I did a bad job of explaining in the OP.
To your point: I agree, but how do you propose anyone do that? I mean, just in this thread there was a huge response to asking whether this business should be stopped. So, how is anyone going to either prevent vulnerable individuals from harming themselves, or prevent the restaurant from helping them do so?
Sorry about your dad, dude.
Is the idea here to keep them at this specific casino to enable their habit?
Good post, though, doesn't Utilitarianism have the potential to override Natural Rights, since if most people are unhappy with the experience, then the right to choose to have that experience needs to be removed?
It's cool, dude. I was just ribbing you.
Also, I phrased that bolded part in your quote pretty badly. You meant more like, "What if people mistake all this as a joke", not whether the restaurant is a joke.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll