• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's [W:40]

Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Dr. Chuckles said:
there was also the case I cited earlier with similar concerns among hindus, that netted a 10 million dollar settlement
Click to expand...

Yeah, there are tons and tons of examples.

Bottom line is that when, as a business, you say you're going to do something (or are doing something) you're expected to keep your word.

Personally, I think that's a good standard.
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Dr. Chuckles said:
because they apparently advertised it as Halal
Click to expand...

Not all mcdonalds just this mcdonalds advertised it as hala . It is pretty rare to find a mcdonalds that deivates from the menu so it is pretty strange .
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Ray410 said:
They're not supposed to do that either. Must be a rogue McDonald's.
Click to expand...

what are they going to do serve actual "beef" and " chicken "
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Dr. Chuckles said:
without getting into the issues with reducing every form of bigotry to "racism", I was clearly addressing your claim that "muslim" was an ethnicity. Which you even tried to defend, when I first addressed the issues with it.

So it's rather silly to now act as if we were discussing something else
Click to expand...
Again, if you want to IGNORE what was said SPECIFICALLY by the poster and then try to IGNORE the CONTEXT of MY argument and IGNORE how the last definition APPLIES, then I think we are done. It wasn't "something else", it was the central point....and it goes to the broader point that certain people decide when events occur they can post threads to display their attitude toward certain religious/ethnic groups......and others decide to cover for them...rather badly.
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Un biased said:
what are they going to do serve actual "beef" and " chicken "
Click to expand...

They could serve little Muslim Unhappy Meals, with little plastic Jihad toys in them.
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Ray410 said:
They could serve little Muslim Unhappy Meals, with little plastic Jihad toys in them.
Click to expand...

some people still dont know the difference between islamist and muslim and never stop insulting all muslims
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Medusa said:
some people still dont know the difference between islamist and muslim and never stop insulting all muslims
Click to expand...

Not to mention Salifi Qtubists!
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Gimmesometruth said:
Again, if you want to IGNORE what was said SPECIFICALLY by the poster and then try to IGNORE the CONTEXT of MY argument and IGNORE how the last definition APPLIES, then I think we are done. It wasn't "something else", it was the central point....and it goes to the broader point that certain people decide when events occur they can post threads to display their attitude toward certain religious/ethnic groups......and others decide to cover for them...rather badly.
Click to expand...

No, I clearly looked at the context of use and what was specifically written by the person you were replying to. But none of that changes that you asserted "muslim" was an ethnicity and that you even attempted to defend this position later on.

I'm sorry life is so devoid for you that the simple act of being wrong on the internet is giving you such trouble, but that isn't my problem
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

soot said:
Yeah, there are tons and tons of examples.

Bottom line is that when, as a business, you say you're going to do something (or are doing something) you're expected to keep your word.

Personally, I think that's a good standard.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it always amazes me when people make hay about this type of stuff
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Medusa said:
some people still dont know the difference between islamist and muslim and never stop insulting all muslims
Click to expand...

It is really no different than what people do with Christianity when they try to lump everyone together with the part they do not like. I think it more as stupidity than insulting, but to each their own.
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Fisher said:
It is really no different than what people do with Christianity when they try to lump everyone together with the part they do not like. I think it more as stupidity than insulting, but to each their own.
Click to expand...

l am not one of them l hope
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Dapper Andy said:
$700K because sandwiches were not prepared as advertised just seems excessive to me regardless of how many people ate them.

Plus, I just don't believe many kept halal so thoroughly as to make this a real offense.
Click to expand...

Well it is suppose to act as a deterrent for companies. You can't hit them up for 20,000 and expect them to change their business practices.
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

soot said:
When I said (above) that this settlement "sounded fair" to me I meant in relation to other false advertising settlements/judegements.

Just as a single example, Sketchers (the shoe company) settled for $45 million dollars because their "Shape Up" sandals didn't live up to the advertising claim that wearers would lose weight "without stepping foot in the gym".

You might find that excessive too, and I guess as far as it goes there's really nothing wrong with that, it's just your opinion after all so no big deal.

But I think we have a pretty clear standard in this country that if you market a product, and in doing so make claims that the product does not live up to, you're going to be held accountable for that (or at least, the potential exists that you will).

I simply think that $700K when we're talking about a relatively small population suing over a relatively inexpensive product is "fair" in comparison to a larger class suing over a more expensive product and getting $45 million.
Click to expand...

I think there is a pretty big difference between a product which doesn't do at all what is advertised and another that is simply made differently than advertised. I'm not saying that this franchise should be let off the hook completely but I think $700K is excessive and doubt if anyone was really hurt by it in the end.


soot said:
McDonald's market research had to have told them that advertising the food as halal was advisable otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

Whether or not people actually kept halal, or whether they simply told the folks running the focus group, polls, and surveys that they kept halal because it made them feel good about themselves is kinda immaterial.

Once McDonalds made that promise to consumers (that their food was halal), regardless of how they came to make the decision, they were obligated to live up to it.
Click to expand...

Each McDonald's location is privately owned and I find it pretty doubtful that this franchise did any market research but that's not really the point.

You have to prove damages in any lawsuit. The damage in this case would be the customers' strict halal lifestyle interrupted because of false advertising and I'm just not sure how much I believe that actually happened.
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

iliveonramen said:
Well it is suppose to act as a deterrent for companies. You can't hit them up for 20,000 and expect them to change their business practices.
Click to expand...

The law shouldn't differentiate between people and organizations based on wealth.

It should set a standard and enforce that based on the severity of the crime.

It seems to me you're less concerned with the actual circumstances and more concerned with how much the McDonald's Corporation makes.
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Dr. Chuckles said:
No, I clearly looked at the context of use and what was specifically written by the person you were replying to. But none of that changes that you asserted "muslim" was an ethnicity and that you even attempted to defend this position later on.
Click to expand...
If you want to make the argument that Muslims are not a group sharing holidays, food, language, and custom, be my guest.

I'm sorry life is so devoid for you that the simple act of being wrong on the internet is giving you such trouble, but that isn't my problem
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that you cannot understand that racism includes discrimination against cultures/ethnic/religious groups
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Dapper Andy said:
Post.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I disagree but it's probably better that we agee to disagree than to keep going back and forth on this 'til we get to the point that we're bickering.

It really isn't that big a deal.
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Dapper Andy said:
The law shouldn't differentiate between people and organizations based on wealth.

It should set a standard and enforce that based on the severity of the crime.

It seems to me you're less concerned with the actual circumstances and more concerned with how much the McDonald's Corporation makes.
Click to expand...

Well first of all this was a class action lawsuit so I'm not sure why this is excessive. There's a population of 150,000 Muslims in the area.

Second of all yes wealth does matter. In this case not really but in other cases yes...punative damages are based on the wealth of the defendant.
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Gimmesometruth said:
If you want to make the argument that Muslims are not a group sharing holidays, food, language, and custom, be my guest.
Click to expand...

I already outlined my argument and specifically referenced how some shared holidays doesn't amount to shared culture (I used coptic christians observance of x-mas and indian-muslim observance of dewali to underline it).

I'm sorry that you cannot understand that racism includes discrimination against cultures/ethnic/religious groups
Click to expand...

what does this have to do with you going through obvious contortions due to being wrong?
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Dr. Chuckles said:
I already outlined my argument and specifically referenced how some shared holidays doesn't amount to shared culture (I used coptic christians observance of x-mas and indian-muslim observance of dewali to underline it).
Click to expand...
It is a false comparison, I wasn't saying that different religions are of the same group, you are making the the false equivalence.



what does this have to do with you going through obvious contortions due to being wrong?
Click to expand...
I find it funny how you create false narratives, assign them to others, and then claim they are "wrong", you do this a lot.

Again, if you don't understand that "Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes" and how that is the bottom line of my point, then this is hopeless.
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Gimmesometruth said:
Again, if you want to IGNORE what was said SPECIFICALLY by the poster and then try to IGNORE the CONTEXT of MY argument and IGNORE how the last definition APPLIES, then I think we are done. It wasn't "something else", it was the central point....and it goes to the broader point that certain people decide when events occur they can post threads to display their attitude toward certain religious/ethnic groups......and others decide to cover for them...rather badly.
Click to expand...
Where did you get your original definition for the Word racism? You didn't post a link.From dictionary.com the definition is as follows.
[h=2]rac·ism[/h] /ˈreɪ
thinsp.png
sɪz
thinsp.png
əm/ Show Spelled [rey-siz-uh
thinsp.png
thinsp.png
m] Show IPA noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.



There is no mention of religion in the definition anywhere.
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Gimmesometruth said:
If you want to make the argument that Muslims are not a group sharing holidays, food, language, and custom, be my guest.

I'm sorry that you cannot understand that racism includes discrimination against cultures/ethnic/religious groups
Click to expand...

I don't think it does, by definition.
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Un biased said:
So Kosher is okay but hala is not
Click to expand...

No, halal is bad and barbaric and I don't know the details of how kosher is made. If it is true, as some say, that kosher is just like halal, then kosher too, is bad and barbaric.
 
Re: Deal approved in Muslims' suit against McDonald's

Rainman05 said:
No, halal is bad and barbaric and I don't know the details of how kosher is made. If it is true, as some say, that kosher is just like halal, then kosher too, is bad and barbaric.
Click to expand...

How the pig is killed swiftly I trust a kosher hotdog more than the normal kind , and its safer to eat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom