: : The exhortation was to 'get a life and some facts', yet anyone can see that the response contained no facts at all. Now whether you call it 'exploitation of children' or not, the type of advertising that McDonalds employs is no different to virtually all advertising to children. So McDonalds is certainly no more 'disgraceful' in this regard than the rest of the world. So there is no point to be made in the first place.
: I think it is fairly easy to tell when exploitation of children is occuring and when it is not. I've read a few of your posts and I've noticed that whenever you want to debunk a specific claim, you label it "subjective" and therefore not worthy of debate. There is a logic error here, "faulty premise." Dismissing claims not to one's liking is the sign of a weak mind.
: As to the original message, one of the first things I read the first time I visited this site was "We don't tell you what to think: We give you information and let you decide for yourself." Certainly, there is much editorial work on this site, but isn't about half of this site court transcripts? Besides, if your mind is as sharp as you think it is, shouldn't you be able to make an informed opinion in spite of propaganda?
: McSpotlight: For the vast majority of this site; yes, we are definitely anti-McDonald's; it's our reason for existing. However, we do not create facts; everything here has been reported or said somewhere else; for the major points we cite references.
: (In the Debating Rooms, we try to moderate everything in as unbiased a way as possible.)
Kilroy's criticism that my posts on the subject of McD rely on an assertion that the issue is 'subjective' is fair enough, and warrants some extra words. My point is that several of the alleged libels related to claims that McD, for instance, "exploit children", among other things. This type of claim is simply not one that cannot be settled by evidence. You can present the facts that are relied on eg pay rates, working conditions and so on, but even if the facts are not in dispute, it still will not necessarily be so that there is no dispute about whether that equates to "exploitation".
This is not the sign of a weak mind. It is a plain enough observation that the allegations where the claim of libel was not proven by McD were allegations of this sort, ie ones that could never have been settled by things that would generally be called 'facts'. It is not a "faulty premise", and in fact i dont really see what that is supposed to mean as used by Kilroy. I dont think, however, that i am simply "dismissing claims not to my liking". I am not suggesting that, because i dont personally view McD as, say, exploiting children, that there is not an issue to debate. I am only saying that the presentation of facts will never settle the issue, because the meaning of the word "exploitation" is so subjective. It is therefore not possible to 'prove' that such an allegation is 'wrong'. One can only state ones opinion. The fact finder in the court, of course, has to find one way or the other, but that finding will never settle the issue either.
To the extent that the pamphlet made allegations involving subjective terms like 'exploitation', my position is that neither side of the argument can claim to unequivocally right.
Now, as the comment from McSpotlight. I definitely am not intending to sound in any way critical of the website. I can see you are anti-McD, and you can see that i am not, but i can see that you have provided tons of good information (it was from your site that i read the judges summary), and i love the layout of the site. All top notch. Above all, it is a forum for opinion, like mine and everyone elses, and that is definitely a good thing. So dont defend your site from anything ive said! I am only disagreeing with some of the things said, and respectful of the opportunity to put em up for show and comment.