fade
Staff member
I don't think CG is trying to say that everyone who says they hate fast food is secretly eating it.
Escuchion, I've lived all over this country, and I don't think I've ever once had a single McDonald's fry that was wet or watery. In fact, I would go so far in the opposite direction as to say the one problem I've had with them is when they are over-fried. I can't even really envision what you're talking about. Like a steak fry? Because those things are nasty. There are two big problems I have with your arguments. 1) you assume everyone who says something positive about fast food are doing it in extremis (CG), and 2) the assumption that if you like fast food you can't possibly like anything else. Why? I like the idea of hot butt-naked sex and a protracted, tragedy-laced romance. I also refuse to deny myself the hot butt-naked sex on the premise that it's somehow lower-class. Indulging in hot-naked sex doesn't dilute my appreciation of the Shakespearian romance.
I call total rationalization on the "convenience" argument. This is the argument that has been put forth by a lot of watchdogs. I don't buy it because there are lots of convenient healthy food options. Given those, people still choose the McDonald's. Why? It's not necessarily cheaper or faster. Not to mention the five minutes it takes to slap together a sandwich in the morning.
For the record, I trace my own argument back to one I had in college with a friend of mine who to this day I consider a superb debater. And this is from someone who loves to argue. I made the same disingenuous comment that McDonald's was disgusting, and his reply, though much more elegantly worded, was "Bull. It tastes good and you know it. They've made it their business to make it taste good. They appeal to all the fundamental flavors your body craves. Now, it's terrible for you, but you can't in all seriousness deny its appeal, if for nothing else than your simple human biology is designed to seek out this very combination."
Since then, I've tended to look at people who say that it's nasty with a skeptical eye, because he had good points. Maybe it's one of those attempts people make to down something they used to be addicted to in order to avoid re-addiction?
Escuchion, I've lived all over this country, and I don't think I've ever once had a single McDonald's fry that was wet or watery. In fact, I would go so far in the opposite direction as to say the one problem I've had with them is when they are over-fried. I can't even really envision what you're talking about. Like a steak fry? Because those things are nasty. There are two big problems I have with your arguments. 1) you assume everyone who says something positive about fast food are doing it in extremis (CG), and 2) the assumption that if you like fast food you can't possibly like anything else. Why? I like the idea of hot butt-naked sex and a protracted, tragedy-laced romance. I also refuse to deny myself the hot butt-naked sex on the premise that it's somehow lower-class. Indulging in hot-naked sex doesn't dilute my appreciation of the Shakespearian romance.
I call total rationalization on the "convenience" argument. This is the argument that has been put forth by a lot of watchdogs. I don't buy it because there are lots of convenient healthy food options. Given those, people still choose the McDonald's. Why? It's not necessarily cheaper or faster. Not to mention the five minutes it takes to slap together a sandwich in the morning.
For the record, I trace my own argument back to one I had in college with a friend of mine who to this day I consider a superb debater. And this is from someone who loves to argue. I made the same disingenuous comment that McDonald's was disgusting, and his reply, though much more elegantly worded, was "Bull. It tastes good and you know it. They've made it their business to make it taste good. They appeal to all the fundamental flavors your body craves. Now, it's terrible for you, but you can't in all seriousness deny its appeal, if for nothing else than your simple human biology is designed to seek out this very combination."
Since then, I've tended to look at people who say that it's nasty with a skeptical eye, because he had good points. Maybe it's one of those attempts people make to down something they used to be addicted to in order to avoid re-addiction?
