Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
My position is simple: there are many things that are imperfect in this world. There are many things that could be changed. There are other things that perhaps don't need changing. There are even some things that are just fine, thank you very much.
I admire people who take a stand, especially when that stand goes against the popular wisdom, or the popular way of doing things.
I include some of the posters here in that group.
However,I believe that the best, and for me the only, action to be taken, is considered action.
In other words, action taken after reflection and thought.
If it's a group, and serious or large scale action is to be taken, then debate and consideration should preface any action.
Ihaven't defended McDonalds here, aside from Ronald McDonald house.
I will defend the right of people to eat there if they so choose.
I will defend the right of mcd to exist as a company.
I will question the motives of those who vehemently attack that company, but I do it out of interest, not out of any axe I might have to grind on behalf of McD.
I agree with the things Nano says about truth in advertising, and about advertising to children. I have borne the brunt of the effects of Saturday morning cartoon advertising. Believe it or not, McD is neither the most effective, nor the most insidious.
I have had difficulty with the tone taken by those who disagree with me.
I'd put it this way. They are vehemently opposed to McD. I am no lover of the company, but I will eat there on occasion, and I am not calling for its destruction.
For the record, I have now read the synopses of the McLibel decision. I'd like to say more about it when I have more time, but for the record, it's my opinion that the actions of McD in instituting and carrying on with this lawsuit are asinine and ridiculous in the extreme.
The image of a corporate behemoth attacking a couple of protestors is disgusting. Also, it's a terrible business practice.
So I have mixed feelings about McD.
But those who have argued with me take an extreme position.
An analogy. In the 60s, in the heat of the civil rights struggle, there were a core group of extremist whites who hated blacks and were violently opposed to integration or civil rights of any kind.
The rest of the white population, including those in the south, stretched along a spectrum from that extreme position, to the other, liberal end.
There were lots of whites who would agree with the vote for blacks, but didn't want whites and blacks marrying, for example.
Others agreed with equal access to education, but not neighborhood integration.
A fucked up situation, I agree, but my point is that there were lots of opinions and positions, and many whites who would agree with some form of civil rights.
The racist extremists had a powerful tool to use against these 'middle of the road' whites.
It was the word 'nigger lover'.
If any white showed the least inclination towards agreeing with black civil rights, they were branded a nigger lover by the extremists.
For many of the especially Southern whites, this went too far. They were afraid of the social ostracism, etc, that went along with this appelation.
So they kept quiet, afraid of their fellow whites who were more extreme than they were.
How does this relate?
Nano, myself, and a couple of others have said things that are not full fledged love of mcdonalds, but a questioning of all the anti mcd sentiment.
For our troubles, we in essence get labeled "mcdonlalds lovers".
I've been told I'm an apologist for the company, that I wholeheartedly support them ,etc.
None of that is true, if you take the time to read the posts.
However, like the good old boys of the south, people attempt to belittle us, and our arguments, by using essentially the same tactic.
"If you don't agree with us, I guess you're a mcdonalds lover"
Not a very good argument.
It bugs me to see otherwise intelligent people stoop to that kind of a tactic.
I admire people who take a stand, especially when that stand goes against the popular wisdom, or the popular way of doing things.
I include some of the posters here in that group.
However,I believe that the best, and for me the only, action to be taken, is considered action.
In other words, action taken after reflection and thought.
If it's a group, and serious or large scale action is to be taken, then debate and consideration should preface any action.
Ihaven't defended McDonalds here, aside from Ronald McDonald house.
I will defend the right of people to eat there if they so choose.
I will defend the right of mcd to exist as a company.
I will question the motives of those who vehemently attack that company, but I do it out of interest, not out of any axe I might have to grind on behalf of McD.
I agree with the things Nano says about truth in advertising, and about advertising to children. I have borne the brunt of the effects of Saturday morning cartoon advertising. Believe it or not, McD is neither the most effective, nor the most insidious.
I have had difficulty with the tone taken by those who disagree with me.
I'd put it this way. They are vehemently opposed to McD. I am no lover of the company, but I will eat there on occasion, and I am not calling for its destruction.
For the record, I have now read the synopses of the McLibel decision. I'd like to say more about it when I have more time, but for the record, it's my opinion that the actions of McD in instituting and carrying on with this lawsuit are asinine and ridiculous in the extreme.
The image of a corporate behemoth attacking a couple of protestors is disgusting. Also, it's a terrible business practice.
So I have mixed feelings about McD.
But those who have argued with me take an extreme position.
An analogy. In the 60s, in the heat of the civil rights struggle, there were a core group of extremist whites who hated blacks and were violently opposed to integration or civil rights of any kind.
The rest of the white population, including those in the south, stretched along a spectrum from that extreme position, to the other, liberal end.
There were lots of whites who would agree with the vote for blacks, but didn't want whites and blacks marrying, for example.
Others agreed with equal access to education, but not neighborhood integration.
A fucked up situation, I agree, but my point is that there were lots of opinions and positions, and many whites who would agree with some form of civil rights.
The racist extremists had a powerful tool to use against these 'middle of the road' whites.
It was the word 'nigger lover'.
If any white showed the least inclination towards agreeing with black civil rights, they were branded a nigger lover by the extremists.
For many of the especially Southern whites, this went too far. They were afraid of the social ostracism, etc, that went along with this appelation.
So they kept quiet, afraid of their fellow whites who were more extreme than they were.
How does this relate?
Nano, myself, and a couple of others have said things that are not full fledged love of mcdonalds, but a questioning of all the anti mcd sentiment.
For our troubles, we in essence get labeled "mcdonlalds lovers".
I've been told I'm an apologist for the company, that I wholeheartedly support them ,etc.
None of that is true, if you take the time to read the posts.
However, like the good old boys of the south, people attempt to belittle us, and our arguments, by using essentially the same tactic.
"If you don't agree with us, I guess you're a mcdonalds lover"
Not a very good argument.
It bugs me to see otherwise intelligent people stoop to that kind of a tactic.
, i looked at what mr cannuck has to say, and its interesting.
