Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
vaccinations/health care and product promotions.
Options
Replies
-
I also think we need to ask the question: Is a donut unhealthy? What is the definition of healthy and unhealthy foods?8
-
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »It's amazing this wouldn't fly in Australia, it's completely unremarkable here. We see ourselves as consumers first, and hold on let me ask google what "citizens" means.
I'm not sure what you mean by last sentence about asking google what citizens means - but amazingly though it may seem to you, this would not fly in Australia- the concept of health messages being muddied by commercial product promotion may be unremarkable in US, but I doubt it would be here.
What health message is being muddied though?
Covid vaccinations serve the public good. Krispy Kreme is using current chatter around vaccinations and offering their product as a way to 1) promote that public good and 2) get some headlines related to current vaccine publicity.
Unless the argument is that having a donut somehow cancels out the efficacy of the vaccine, I'm not sure what could possibly be muddied here.
Seems pretty obvious that the poster doesn't like the coupling of a healthy thing with an unhealthy thing even when they're not related. Mixed messages. Whether you agree or not it's clearly what's being said.
I'm sorry for being dense, but it wasn't clear to me. That's why I asked.
I can see if Krispy Kreme was tying this into some kind of healthy eating campaign, it would be potentially muddied. But these vaccines are about preventing COVID, not limiting sugar consumption.
I don't think you're being dense and I'm sorry if I came off that way. There's no tone of voice or any of that stuff on the internet. You're not the only one here puzzled as the connection that was implied. I think it's that this community is all in on the idea that there are no bad foods only bad diets, which is not universally held. A lot of people see things like doughnuts as inherently bad and unhealthy, the opposite of doing anything to improve your health.6 -
paperpudding wrote: »my debate question wasnt really about whether KK donuts are good from a weight management point of view - more about how much advertsing is allowed or acceptable to be linked to health care.
I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this.
Ok, did not see how this promotion was linked to health care in any way?
For example, I don't consider getting my flu shot to be related to my diet. If KK gave away a donut for flu shots I wouldn't think that's unhealthy so it shouldn't go together. I would, and do, think I get swag for doing something.
Health care at least in the US means provision of medical services. Being innoculated against a deadly and contagious sickness is basically the textbook definition of health care. The promotion is linked in the sense that it's its reason for being.3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »my debate question wasnt really about whether KK donuts are good from a weight management point of view - more about how much advertsing is allowed or acceptable to be linked to health care.
I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this.
Ok, did not see how this promotion was linked to health care in any way?
For example, I don't consider getting my flu shot to be related to my diet. If KK gave away a donut for flu shots I wouldn't think that's unhealthy so it shouldn't go together. I would, and do, think I get swag for doing something.
Health care at least in the US means provision of medical services. Being innoculated against a deadly and contagious sickness is basically the textbook definition of health care. The promotion is linked in the sense that it's its reason for being.
Let me rephrase. I don't see how a vaccine is related to nutrition. I get the whole body as a system thing.2 -
"I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this."
Idk they have this in Australia - I think this is worse than giving away something free tbh. I think a lot of corporations are making an awful lot of profits off the cancer industry. I would find it odd if people would accept this kind of thing, but not a free donut. Or is there backlash against this in Australia?
https://nbcf.org.au/partners/pink-products/
4 -
I also think we need to ask the question: Is a donut unhealthy? What is the definition of healthy and unhealthy foods?
I don't think we need to ask that. It's a matter of opinion. There isn't a scientific definition of "healthy" in terms of food, like if it has 9 grams of sugar it's healthy but if it's got 10, woah, that's the devil's food. If you could separate healthy and unhealthy food scientifically like you can with macros that would be different - it's not a matter of opinion not a fact.
Food is something highly personal that people pick up ideas about in their formative years. These tend to be pretty strongly held. If somebody believes a doughnut is unhealthy, it's going to be pretty hard to convince them otherwise. And a person believing doughnuts are unhealthy isn't hurting anybody, it's not like (as we've seen in these threads) people are spewing anti-vaxx propaganda that will get people killed by prolonging the pandemic.3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I also think we need to ask the question: Is a donut unhealthy? What is the definition of healthy and unhealthy foods?
I don't think we need to ask that. It's a matter of opinion. There isn't a scientific definition of "healthy" in terms of food, like if it has 9 grams of sugar it's healthy but if it's got 10, woah, that's the devil's food. If you could separate healthy and unhealthy food scientifically like you can with macros that would be different - it's not a matter of opinion not a fact.
Food is something highly personal that people pick up ideas about in their formative years. These tend to be pretty strongly held. If somebody believes a doughnut is unhealthy, it's going to be pretty hard to convince them otherwise. And a person believing doughnuts are unhealthy isn't hurting anybody, it's not like (as we've seen in these threads) people are spewing anti-vaxx propaganda that will get people killed by prolonging the pandemic.
That's my point, sort of, I don't think a donut is healthy but I also don't think it's unhealthy to eat one in moderation.
But from my understanding of what the author said, the vaccine is healthy because it prevents a disease (which I would agree with) but a donut is not healthy because (I don't know why it's unhealthy other then you can't live on donuts alone).5 -
NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »It's amazing this wouldn't fly in Australia, it's completely unremarkable here. We see ourselves as consumers first, and hold on let me ask google what "citizens" means.
I'm not sure what you mean by last sentence about asking google what citizens means - but amazingly though it may seem to you, this would not fly in Australia- the concept of health messages being muddied by commercial product promotion may be unremarkable in US, but I doubt it would be here.
What health message is being muddied though?
Covid vaccinations serve the public good. Krispy Kreme is using current chatter around vaccinations and offering their product as a way to 1) promote that public good and 2) get some headlines related to current vaccine publicity.
Unless the argument is that having a donut somehow cancels out the efficacy of the vaccine, I'm not sure what could possibly be muddied here.
Seems pretty obvious that the poster doesn't like the coupling of a healthy thing with an unhealthy thing even when they're not related. Mixed messages. Whether you agree or not it's clearly what's being said.
That's not how I read it - I thought that the OP was against a corporation taking advantage of a public health crisis in order to boost their profits - I didn't get the impression that the product (the donut) was the issue.9 -
That's not how I read it - I thought that the OP was against a corporation taking advantage of a public health crisis in order to boost their profits - I didn't get the impression that the product (the donut) was the issue.
I thought the same thing but then the author said this:paperpudding wrote: »my debate question wasnt really about whether KK donuts are good from a weight management point of view - more about how much advertsing is allowed or acceptable to be linked to health care.
I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this.
So it makes me wonder if the author would have said the same thing if instead of a donut it was a coffee mug or toy or something non-food related?0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »It's amazing this wouldn't fly in Australia, it's completely unremarkable here. We see ourselves as consumers first, and hold on let me ask google what "citizens" means.
I'm not sure what you mean by last sentence about asking google what citizens means - but amazingly though it may seem to you, this would not fly in Australia- the concept of health messages being muddied by commercial product promotion may be unremarkable in US, but I doubt it would be here.
What health message is being muddied though?
Covid vaccinations serve the public good. Krispy Kreme is using current chatter around vaccinations and offering their product as a way to 1) promote that public good and 2) get some headlines related to current vaccine publicity.
Unless the argument is that having a donut somehow cancels out the efficacy of the vaccine, I'm not sure what could possibly be muddied here.
Seems pretty obvious that the poster doesn't like the coupling of a healthy thing with an unhealthy thing even when they're not related. Mixed messages. Whether you agree or not it's clearly what's being said.
I'm sorry for being dense, but it wasn't clear to me. That's why I asked.
I can see if Krispy Kreme was tying this into some kind of healthy eating campaign, it would be potentially muddied. But these vaccines are about preventing COVID, not limiting sugar consumption.
I don't think you're being dense and I'm sorry if I came off that way. There's no tone of voice or any of that stuff on the internet. You're not the only one here puzzled as the connection that was implied. I think it's that this community is all in on the idea that there are no bad foods only bad diets, which is not universally held. A lot of people see things like doughnuts as inherently bad and unhealthy, the opposite of doing anything to improve your health.
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I can see how the thought process could be "COVID-19 is a matter of public health and obesity is a matter of public health and donuts are a cause of obesity, so giving someone a donut for getting a vaccination is mixing messages." The thing is: Americans were eating donuts way before obesity was a problem. I know you're not arguing anything different, but I think you're right that many people here don't necessarily see donuts as inherently bad in the way that, say, COVID is inherently had.2 -
"I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this."
Idk they have this in Australia - I think this is worse than giving away something free tbh. I think a lot of corporations are making an awful lot of profits off the cancer industry. I would find it odd if people would accept this kind of thing, but not a free donut. Or is there backlash against this in Australia?
https://nbcf.org.au/partners/pink-products/
American here, but I find pink-washing (which is what is happening in that link and is also prevalent in the US) way more problematic than giving someone a free donut for something they were going to do anyway.6 -
Meh...I couldn't give a rats *kitten* either way and it really wouldn't be worth my time or effort to do or say anything even if I did care...I have way bigger goings on in my life than KK giving out free doughnuts for whatever reason they choose to give away free doughnuts.
I mean, if it was McDonalds or KK giving out free goodies for getting your annual physical and having a blood panel done in an effort to prevent heart disease or diabetes or something, I might have a sideways eye as that being weird and a little off as those foods can have an impact on the very things being mitigated by annual exams...but having a free doughnut has no health implications either way as far as a vaccine goes...it's not like a doughnut affects the efficacy of the vaccine. But even then (McDonalds example) I really wouldn't care...adults are adults and can do their own adulting and make their own decisions, it's not really anything I would have the time or energy to care about.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »"I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this."
Idk they have this in Australia - I think this is worse than giving away something free tbh. I think a lot of corporations are making an awful lot of profits off the cancer industry. I would find it odd if people would accept this kind of thing, but not a free donut. Or is there backlash against this in Australia?
https://nbcf.org.au/partners/pink-products/
American here, but I find pink-washing (which is what is happening in that link and is also prevalent in the US) way more problematic than giving someone a free donut for something they were going to do anyway.
Yeah me too.2 -
That's not how I read it - I thought that the OP was against a corporation taking advantage of a public health crisis in order to boost their profits - I didn't get the impression that the product (the donut) was the issue.
I thought the same thing but then the author said this:paperpudding wrote: »my debate question wasnt really about whether KK donuts are good from a weight management point of view - more about how much advertsing is allowed or acceptable to be linked to health care.
I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this.
So it makes me wonder if the author would have said the same thing if instead of a donut it was a coffee mug or toy or something non-food related?
Well, let's say Kroger or Safeway offered a free $10 certificate for fruits and veg for anyone who showed they got their annual check up, to encourage that. Would that be bad? I don't think there would be any backlash in the US although there might well be complaints from some groups who would claim it was classist, etc, since we don't have universal health care. If there would be a backlash in AU, then that's definitely a difference. (And I see nothing wrong with such a promotion personally.)2 -
That's not how I read it - I thought that the OP was against a corporation taking advantage of a public health crisis in order to boost their profits - I didn't get the impression that the product (the donut) was the issue.
I thought the same thing but then the author said this:paperpudding wrote: »my debate question wasnt really about whether KK donuts are good from a weight management point of view - more about how much advertsing is allowed or acceptable to be linked to health care.
I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this.
So it makes me wonder if the author would have said the same thing if instead of a donut it was a coffee mug or toy or something non-food related?
Don't believe so IMO. Nobody needs that worthless crap around their house or some food item they would not have purchased on their own as an incentive for doing something remotely worthwhile. The Red Cross calls all the time asking me to donate blood and tells me this month there are going out some $1.50 t-shirt to all those who donate. Just do me a favor and send the shirt directly to the 3rd world country that will get it when I put in a donation box.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »"I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this."
Idk they have this in Australia - I think this is worse than giving away something free tbh. I think a lot of corporations are making an awful lot of profits off the cancer industry. I would find it odd if people would accept this kind of thing, but not a free donut. Or is there backlash against this in Australia?
https://nbcf.org.au/partners/pink-products/
American here, but I find pink-washing (which is what is happening in that link and is also prevalent in the US) way more problematic than giving someone a free donut for something they were going to do anyway.
In spades. It's not unusual for some of these pink items just to be a pop pure-profit rip-off, but some also give a portion of profits to a charity . . . that is a creation of their own organization, and that gives them tax or PR benefits. It's scurrilous. (Yes, some do give a portion of profits to legit organizations . . . and still get benefits.)
That's without even getting into what percentage of the products (in general, not at the link specifically) are sickly-sweet cutie-poo angel-bedecked teddy-bear 'dorbs crapitude. As an actual grown-up who's a breast cancer survivor myself, so much of this just makes me gag, in diverse ways.10 -
That's not how I read it - I thought that the OP was against a corporation taking advantage of a public health crisis in order to boost their profits - I didn't get the impression that the product (the donut) was the issue.
I thought the same thing but then the author said this:paperpudding wrote: »my debate question wasnt really about whether KK donuts are good from a weight management point of view - more about how much advertsing is allowed or acceptable to be linked to health care.
I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this.
So it makes me wonder if the author would have said the same thing if instead of a donut it was a coffee mug or toy or something non-food related?
That's the impression I got - but maybe the OP can clarify.0 -
That's not how I read it - I thought that the OP was against a corporation taking advantage of a public health crisis in order to boost their profits - I didn't get the impression that the product (the donut) was the issue.
I thought the same thing but then the author said this:paperpudding wrote: »my debate question wasnt really about whether KK donuts are good from a weight management point of view - more about how much advertsing is allowed or acceptable to be linked to health care.
I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this.
So it makes me wonder if the author would have said the same thing if instead of a donut it was a coffee mug or toy or something non-food related?
That's the impression I got - but maybe the OP can clarify.
That is the impression I got as well -- thus my hypothetical above. I'd be curious for clarification just because there does seem to be some disagreement on what was meant.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I also think we need to ask the question: Is a donut unhealthy? What is the definition of healthy and unhealthy foods?
I don't think we need to ask that. It's a matter of opinion. There isn't a scientific definition of "healthy" in terms of food, like if it has 9 grams of sugar it's healthy but if it's got 10, woah, that's the devil's food. If you could separate healthy and unhealthy food scientifically like you can with macros that would be different - it's not a matter of opinion not a fact.
Food is something highly personal that people pick up ideas about in their formative years. These tend to be pretty strongly held. If somebody believes a doughnut is unhealthy, it's going to be pretty hard to convince them otherwise. And a person believing doughnuts are unhealthy isn't hurting anybody, it's not like (as we've seen in these threads) people are spewing anti-vaxx propaganda that will get people killed by prolonging the pandemic.
That's my point, sort of, I don't think a donut is healthy but I also don't think it's unhealthy to eat one in moderation.
But from my understanding of what the author said, the vaccine is healthy because it prevents a disease (which I would agree with) but a donut is not healthy because (I don't know why it's unhealthy other then you can't live on donuts alone).
Yeah I think we agree, I'm kind of riffing off what you said about it being an opinion not a thing you can define. I'm also trying to clarify things I'm seeing because my one task at work today has been to fix some stuff when the computer is done chewing on some data, and it's still going, so I need a way to entertain myself and I like you guys.
I think the thought process is a doughnut is unhealthy because (1) it has a lot of calories and obesity is also pandemic and (2) they're empty calories. Matter of you want to get really esoteric (3) because eating hyperpalatable foods and still being hungry throws your expectations about food out of whack.
Personally I think you'd have to be crazy to eat doughnuts in a world where Hagan Daaz exists.
Not that my opinion matters, but if I was pressed I'd say doughnuts aren't healthy, maybe unhealthy. And we have some amount of unhealthy that we can deal with and still be healthy and fit. It's also my opinion that for people who don't have a weight problem the stress of worrying about it is probably more unhealthy than the doughnut.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »It's amazing this wouldn't fly in Australia, it's completely unremarkable here. We see ourselves as consumers first, and hold on let me ask google what "citizens" means.
I'm not sure what you mean by last sentence about asking google what citizens means - but amazingly though it may seem to you, this would not fly in Australia- the concept of health messages being muddied by commercial product promotion may be unremarkable in US, but I doubt it would be here.
What health message is being muddied though?
Covid vaccinations serve the public good. Krispy Kreme is using current chatter around vaccinations and offering their product as a way to 1) promote that public good and 2) get some headlines related to current vaccine publicity.
Unless the argument is that having a donut somehow cancels out the efficacy of the vaccine, I'm not sure what could possibly be muddied here.
Seems pretty obvious that the poster doesn't like the coupling of a healthy thing with an unhealthy thing even when they're not related. Mixed messages. Whether you agree or not it's clearly what's being said.
That's not how I read it - I thought that the OP was against a corporation taking advantage of a public health crisis in order to boost their profits - I didn't get the impression that the product (the donut) was the issue.
You know, I think you're right and somehow the conversation veered from corporate overlords to horrific crap they're feeding these kids today. 🤬 🙂1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions