Scarlet_Buckeye
Posts: 5,264
Feb 10, 2012 11:59am
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/08/news/la-heb-bacon-milkshake-jack-in-the-box-20120208Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new contestant in the who-can-top-this outrageous new fast food item: the bacon milkshake from Jack in the Box.
The bacon shake is made with no actual bacon, just real vanilla ice cream, bacon-flavored syrup, whipped topping and a maraschino cherry, according to the website.
A 16-ounce bacon shake weighs in at 773 calories, 28 grams of saturated fat, 2 grams of trans fat and 75 grams of sugar. Hankering for a 24-ounce size? That'll be 1,081 calories, 37 grams of saturated fat, 3 grams of trans fat and 108 grams of sugar. Mmmmm. We're saying that ironically.
Where's the corporate social responsibility?
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
Feb 10, 2012 12:05pm
They tried this on the Jason Ellis Show, there were mixed reviews about it. Said it didn't really taste like bacon. I'd try it, but definitely wouldn't want 24oz of it. Too bad it doesn't use real bacon.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Feb 10, 2012 12:15pm
Where's the personal accountability to say "no thanks"? Why is it the business world's place in our society to act as a parent/nanny? The "nutritional" information you provided tells me that I should pass, or at worst, try it once for the sake of curiosity but never make it a staple of my diet.Scarlet_Buckeye;1082149 wrote:http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/08/news/la-heb-bacon-milkshake-jack-in-the-box-20120208
Where's the corporate social responsibility?
See what I did there?
Scarlet_Buckeye
Posts: 5,264
Feb 10, 2012 12:23pm
Again. Yet another person who fails to understand what corporate social responsibility truly is/means. No one is saying that Jack in the Box shouldn't be selling bacon milkshakes. Instead, corporate social responsibility would suggest that IF Jack in the Box wants to sell some bacon milkshakes, let's try to produce one that's say 500 calories as opposed to 1,000 calories when we know that's not going to be good for anyone.queencitybuckeye;1082171 wrote:Where's the personal accountability to say "no thanks"? Why is it the business world's place in our society to act as a parent/nanny? The "nutritional" information you provided tells me that I should pass, or at worst, try it once for the sake of curiosity but never make it a staple of my diet.
See what I did there?
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Feb 10, 2012 12:28pm
What the term appears to mean to you is that it's somehow OK for people to be too lazy or stupid to be bothered with doing even a minimal amount of work to make an informed decision on some simple matter in their lives, and that because those of us who produce products for these dullard masses are neither lazy nor stupid, we have some moral requirement to not only think for ourselves, but for everyone.Scarlet_Buckeye;1082183 wrote:Again. Yet another person who fails to understand what corporate social responsibility truly is/means. No one is saying that Jack in the Box shouldn't be selling bacon milkshakes. Instead, corporate social responsibility would suggest that IF Jack in the Box wants to sell some bacon milkshakes, let's try to produce one that's say 500 calories as opposed to 1,000 calories when we know that's not going to be good for anyone.
Seriously, how difficult is it to know that an 800 calorie milkshake isn't something that should be a regular part of one's diet. Are people actually being physically forced to consume them?
Early Cuyler
Posts: 1,097
Feb 10, 2012 12:29pm
Simply put, if your a fat ass and worried about getting fatter than don't have one. Hope this helps.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Feb 10, 2012 12:30pm
Why is it Jack in the Box's responsibility to regulate the diet of its consumers? If no one buys the shake, that signals JITB that the market rejects its heavy calorie/unhealthy shake. CSR would only be affected, if say, JITB was hiding either hiding the nutritional information or lying outright about it(although the later may be a matter of ethics not CSR).Scarlet_Buckeye;1082183 wrote:Again. Yet another person who fails to understand what corporate social responsibility truly is/means. No one is saying that Jack in the Box shouldn't be selling bacon milkshakes. Instead, corporate social responsibility would suggest that IF Jack in the Box wants to sell some bacon milkshakes, let's try to produce one that's say 500 calories as opposed to 1,000 calories when we know that's not going to be good for anyone.
Early Cuyler
Posts: 1,097
Feb 10, 2012 12:31pm
+1sleeper;1082189 wrote:Why is it Jack in the Box's responsibility to regulate the diet of its consumers? If no one buys the shake, that signals JITB that the market rejects its heavy calorie/unhealthy shake. CSR would only be affected, if say, JITB was hiding either hiding the nutritional information or lying outright about it(although the later may be a matter of ethics not CSR).
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Feb 10, 2012 12:47pm
How do you know that their initial attempts at the product weren't more than the 773 calories and that they didn't make the decision to refine the product to make it a little less unhealthy? That's correct, you don't know.Scarlet_Buckeye;1082183 wrote:Again. Yet another person who fails to understand what corporate social responsibility truly is/means. No one is saying that Jack in the Box shouldn't be selling bacon milkshakes. Instead, corporate social responsibility would suggest that IF Jack in the Box wants to sell some bacon milkshakes, let's try to produce one that's say 500 calories as opposed to 1,000 calories when we know that's not going to be good for anyone.
chicago510
Posts: 5,728
Feb 10, 2012 12:53pm
Its a bacon milkshake damnit, not a side salad. Of course its loaded with calories.
McDonalds doesn't make people fat, people are fat because they choose to eat at McDonalds.
McDonalds doesn't make people fat, people are fat because they choose to eat at McDonalds.
Heretic
Posts: 18,820
Feb 10, 2012 12:58pm
Corporate social responsibility? Lol...if anyone gets one of these things thinking they're getting anything other than a fat/sugar-filled shake, they're too dumb to live anyway. If something like this needs this responsibility, what about 90 percent of the average fast food place's menu? Since most all of it's shit, but it's easier to pretend/delude yourself that you're getting some actual degree of nutrition from a lot of things. Not this product.
T
thavoice
Posts: 14,376
Feb 10, 2012 12:58pm
Personal reponsibilit should trump corporate responsibility ever time.
See no problem with this milkshake. It isnt like kids are gonna want this and beg their parents to get one. It MAY be diff if they come out with a 800 calorie food and their full marketing campaign is towards kids. Even in this case.....it wouldnt be the invention of the product that would be poor corp responsibility, but the marketing of said product to kids.
See no problem with this milkshake. It isnt like kids are gonna want this and beg their parents to get one. It MAY be diff if they come out with a 800 calorie food and their full marketing campaign is towards kids. Even in this case.....it wouldnt be the invention of the product that would be poor corp responsibility, but the marketing of said product to kids.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Feb 10, 2012 1:01pm
Never thought about the public service aspect of this. Make some money, thin the herd. Reps.Heretic;1082216 wrote:Corporate social responsibility? Lol...if anyone gets one of these things thinking they're getting anything other than a fat/sugar-filled shake, they're too dumb to live anyway.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Feb 10, 2012 1:09pm
The best question is Scarlet Buckeye going to come back to this thread and admit he was wrong. That's what a real man does.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Feb 10, 2012 1:11pm
Since I own a corporation, I probably should do it for him.sleeper;1082231 wrote:The best question is Scarlet Buckeye going to come back to this thread and admit he was wrong. That's what a real man does.
I'm sorry, I was wrong.
Scarlet_Buckeye
Posts: 5,264
Feb 10, 2012 1:12pm
No one is saying that people are completely innocent in this matter.queencitybuckeye;1082186 wrote:OK for people to be too lazy or stupid
Seriously, how difficult is it to know that an 800 calorie milkshake isn't something that should be a regular part of one's diet. Are people actually being physically forced to consume them?
I guarantee you there are a # of people who will consume these without knowing they contain 800 calories. GUARANTEE IT.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Feb 10, 2012 1:13pm
+1 reps, lol'dqueencitybuckeye;1082232 wrote:Since I own a corporation, I probably should do it for him.
I'm sorry, I was wrong.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Feb 10, 2012 1:14pm
I guarantee it too. I guarantee people will actually go to the polls and vote for Barack Obama. Stupidity is the problem, not JITB.Scarlet_Buckeye;1082235 wrote:No one is saying that people are completely innocent in this matter.
I guarantee you there are a # of people who will consume these without knowing they contain 800 calories. GUARANTEE IT.
Scarlet_Buckeye
Posts: 5,264
Feb 10, 2012 1:14pm
I'd agree with this actually, but sadly the majority of the society wouldn't.Heretic;1082216 wrote:if anyone gets one of these things thinking they're getting anything other than a fat/sugar-filled shake, they're too dumb to live anyway.
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
Feb 10, 2012 1:17pm
since when is a dessert suppose to be healthy?
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Feb 10, 2012 1:18pm
If I make this information available (which is required by laws I support, BTW), should I really have to constantly hammer it home to people? Doing so adds real and significant costs to the business. Do you want to pay higher prices for the sloth of such people?Scarlet_Buckeye;1082235 wrote:No one is saying that people are completely innocent in this matter.
I guarantee you there are a # of people who will consume these without knowing they contain 800 calories. GUARANTEE IT.
Early Cuyler
Posts: 1,097
Feb 10, 2012 1:51pm
This.Raw Dawgin' it;1082244 wrote:since when is a dessert suppose to be healthy?
Also, I'm gonna guess that the OP is 300+ lbs.
chicago510
Posts: 5,728
Feb 10, 2012 2:08pm
So do we blame the gun companies for murders?
Car companies for auto accidents?
Beer companies for DUIs?
Car companies for auto accidents?
Beer companies for DUIs?
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
Feb 10, 2012 2:12pm
Fat people like to put the blame for them being fat anywhere but on themselves.
Iliketurtles
Posts: 8,191
Feb 10, 2012 2:15pm
God there is so much I wish I could rep on this thread. I pretty much love everything that was said by everyone except for the OP.
As for the milkshake itself I would try it. And I wouldn't even think, care, or try to find out how many calories it has. I don't pay attention to that stuff.
As for the milkshake itself I would try it. And I wouldn't even think, care, or try to find out how many calories it has. I don't pay attention to that stuff.