Support NeoGAF

[Fahrenheit]

So what now? Let people sue burger joints for being bad for them? Place is called Heart Attack Grill, no one is confused about what they are getting. Same mentality that put a size limit on a a fucking coke in NYC. If people want to be fat fucks then thats their right. Same way if someone wants to smoke a pack a day and they have COPD.


EDIT Another fucking thing, if a business owner wants to offer free food to someone over 350lbs then thats on fucking them. Were you all at when the thin girls are getting into the club for free and get free drinks. Clubs do that shit all the time to get women in.

 

[Tagyhag]

On one hand, no one is forced to eat there, and it's not like they hide just how bad these burgers are for you.

On the other, If I managed the restaurant, I would feel guilty about letting people over 350lbs eat for free because generally, those people aren't going to have self-control, and you're not really helping.

I do wonder how they make their money from the free food in the long run. Publicity?

 

[retrogamer84]

So what now? Let people sue burger joints for being bad for them? Place is called Heart Attack Grill, no one is confused about what they are getting. Same mentality that put a size limit on a a fucking coke in NYC. If people want to be fat fucks then thats their right. Same way if someone wants to smoke a pack a day and they have COPD.

Not to mention, all that size limit really did was increase profit for those selling sodas. People could easily just buy multiple smaller soda's.

 

[WorldStar]

the restaurant didn't kill them

years and years of shitty lifestyle choices did

 

[Pelydr]

None. As an alcoholic, bars that run 2for1's, free first drink etc aren't responsible for my drunk ass drinking myself to death. Non-addicts can enjoy these things just fine just as most people can go to this place once as an "experience" and then never go back. Is it sad that people over 350 lbs are may be gorging themselves in their addiction because this place offers free burgers? Yes, yes it is. But it is impossible to regulate everything bad because addicts like myself exist.

 

[tokkun]

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?

Depends on how much stock you put in Utilitarianism. It is up to you to decide which ethical theories you want to follow. You are personally free to reject Natural Rights completely if you feel like it is bogus.

People do make arguments of Utilitarianism trumping Natural Rights all the time. The entire criminal justice system is based on the concept of depriving criminals of their freedom in order to protect society.

On the other hand, there are plenty of cases where Natural Rights trump Utilitarianism, such as the story I heard on the radio this morning about Medicare agreeing to cover some new medicine that costs $150K.

 

[nateeasy]

Eating one burger is going to kill you.

 

[BigJonsson]

Last time I was in Vegas 2 of my friends went, they survived, but they aren't obese

People have to take personal responsibility but in extreme cases the government should be able to step in if a product is actually unsafe

Whether heart attack grill is unsafe is another question, it's not like they are putting cyanide in the food

 

[Eusis]

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.

Admittedly I overlooked that angle, but there's still something to be said for when a promotion explicitly takes someone whose already having health issues further down a bad path, not unless there were some catches to balance it out. I do believe the whole place is alerted to your weight once weighed and going by the site you DO need to buy a drink, can't take it out with you, and can't share it. I actually now just noticed it mentioned a specific burger, so it seems you can't even get TOO unhealthy in your choice of food, but even if they're not being quite as bad as feared I don't think what IS feared is something that should just be casually allowed.

 

[BigJonsson]

What about a junk food tax in places with social healthcare; when someone's overeating, smoking etc... puts them in the hospital everyone ends up paying for it

 

[caesar]

Wow, only in America.

 

[Eusis]

What about a junk food tax in places with social healthcare; when someone's overeating, smoking etc... puts them in the hospital everyone ends up paying for it

I think they really need to look into whether it's an actual deterrent or just an irritation. I think it'd be more an irritation so I don't see much point to it.

 

[NullPointer]

I've learned on the internet that its always OK to sit and watch or even help your fellow man fuck themselves over, as long as its for a buck. Getting paid is like the church absolving you of your sins, so everything is OK as long as its driven by profit.

I can't speak to specific legal obligations but I find the people who would run a place like this to be pretty fucking sick in the head. Just as those who find social darwinism to be a delightful idea aren't the kind of people I'd look to for wisdom when it comes to moral or ethical values, much less base social responsibility.

Survival of the fittest, bro? Seriously?

 

[retrogamer84]

What about a junk food tax in places with social healthcare; when someone's overeating, smoking etc... puts them in the hospital everyone ends up paying for it

Taxes are not a good solution to a problem like this. Besides food is already too expensive as is.

 

[ShadowkillXNA]

Shouldnt the name "Heart Attack Grill" be enough to tell you that you shouldn't eat there?

 

[railGUN]

Free meals for overweight people is a bit... Um... Shady, I guess.

I'd imagine there would be outrage at a liquor store that gave away free booze to alcoholics, especially if a few ended up dying outside the store with the bottle in their hand.

 

[LocknessMobster]

My parents told me about this place,they said when they drive by its always busy. Might check it out next time I visit,dat orange frozen dreamsicle drink is calling my name.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Speaking morally:

The only dubious actions of the Heart Attack Grill is their policy of providing certain individuals free meals. Now that is neither profitable nor ethical in most moral frameworks.

 

[Eusis]

Honestly, you remove that free food bit and it's just a place that seems more a cheap novelty at best, an absolutely disgusting place to eat at at worst, it's so blatantly unhealthy and ADVERTISED as such you wouldn't be going all the time unless you really had a death wish or actually liked the food that much. It seems they're mainly just trying to maximize the unhealthy factor of many foods rather than trying to make something obscenely decadent, rich, and delicious, nevermind that if the beer selection is really THAT limited it's just offensive from basically any angle but "I only care about mainstream beers but hate those light ones." Geez, even going with their gimmick throwing in a few stouts and the like would probably end up going with that theme more.

Still, some of those dessert items don't look too bad.

 

[kevm3]

People know what they are getting into when they go there. It's in the NAME of the restaurant. If you go there and pig out, the consequences are yours to bear alone. Now if they were advertising being super healthy and altering the nutritional information and the such, and people were getting sick off of it, yes, they're liable... but in this case they are letting you know ahead of time they are extremely unhealthy.

 

[starchild excalibur]

The reason why people that have eaten there have had heart attacks is because fatter people are more likely to eat there and fatter people are also more likely to have heart attacks due to their body weight.

A restaurant will not cause a heart attack. An overall lifestyle that includes regularly eating at these types of restaurants does.

And there are other restaurants like Carl's Jr which are pretty honest about not trying to pretend their food is good for you. I respect that compared to the alternative.

 

[kirby_fox]

Self-control is never easy, but it's not like this place is a huge chain. It has one store, they're very upfront about what they sell, and it's all for marketing. The 350+ lb people are likely not going to change their habits, and are making their own choices.

Really, it's a theme restaurant with the idea to make high calorie food because- let's face it- it's usually delicious. Over the top stuff like the 8 patty and 40 pieces of bacon isn't any worse than the 100 patty burger you can get at In-N-Out. Hell, if you wanted you could buy 4 baconators at Wendy's and probably eat just as many calories if not more.

The only reason we see fast food chains going healthy is because the market wants them to. If the market tomorrow was down because we all decided kale chips and eating fresh fruit was the shit-- you'd see McD's coming out with their own kale chips and fresh fruit. But our bodies want fat and sugar naturally, so instead they pump that out.

 

[Eusis]

Well, I'd say it's more accurate our bodies want carbohydrates rather than JUST sugar, sugar actually wasn't as commonly eaten in the past as it is now, it's just a cheap easy way to satisfy our bodies and taste buds while better sources of carbs work better for us and I imagine could wholly displace sugars for us. Then there's fruit, which not only has better sugars but a lot of fiber generally so you get more with your sugar to make it all work out better.

 

[injurai]

It's the taste of freedom.

 

[maomaoIYP]

Correct me if I'm wrong, cigarette companies aren't obliged to put "smoking causes cancer" tags on their ads or product boxes in the US right?

 

[Eusis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, cigarette companies aren't obliged to put "smoking causes cancer" tags on their ads or product boxes in the US right?

We were the first to have it.

Although that's ended up less prominent than other countries, and attempts to be more prominent have been slowed down (but not halted.)