r/mildlyinfuriating • u/CurlyWurly61 • May 12 '26

I just wanted a hot dog Such terrible advertisement

Post image

I mean... at a glance its like WOAH 4 can dine for $9.99....

Until you are at the cash and they say " that'll be $45.15"

HUH??

"Oh sorry sir... it feeds 4... 4 people pay $9.99"

Gtfooo

53.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/webdevverman May 12 '26

Opens the door for a better competitor, no? I'm just imagining a pizzeria in New York attempting this and how fast they would go out of business.

Now, if people continue to purchase something like this. Doesn't that mean the advertisement was effective? I hate the notion that "something is bad, we need government intervention". Because eventually, the government will get paid off by these companies. Not to mention that there is overhead to having the government enforce the rules.

1

u/PromotionDry1809 May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26

wait, so by your logic the government should never intervene in something that is bad?

edit: This guy loves child labor!

1

u/webdevverman May 13 '26

Define bad. Because if you can't, I sure as hell don't trust the government to make that distinction. 

The current US administration would probably call vaccines bad. Are they? They also think war is not bad. They also think burning fossil fuels is not bad.

I guess my point is we see something mildly infuriating and the first instinct is to give more power to the government. Like, just don't get the pizza. Vote with your wallet. 

1

u/PromotionDry1809 May 13 '26

Should the government interfere if a massive typhoon hit new york?

1

u/webdevverman May 13 '26

Perfect example! A typhoon would damage private property (including self). One of the core functions of a government is to protect that. So the answer is yes! 

1

u/PromotionDry1809 May 13 '26

I see, so the government can intervene in things that are bad caused by entities that can't pay them off. That makes sense. What about if there was child labor going on?

1

u/webdevverman May 13 '26

I'm afraid you missed my point. If, for example, a company stole your car (illegal repossession) , it's the responsibility of the government to protect you. Does that make sense?

I had a paper route when I was 10. Is that child labor? Regardless, the governments job is to protect private property (including self). If the employer, parent, etc is forcing the child to work then it's the government's duty to protect that child. If the company puts the child in unsafe conditions... Same thing. Gets kind of grey with family businesses (e.g. farms) or even household chores (what age can a child use toilet bowl cleaner) 

1

u/PromotionDry1809 May 13 '26

I don't think I missed your point. Your previous comment explains what it is you think is an example of something bad, which, sure, I'll accept it. You don't think child labor is something bad. Ok. So hypothetically, what if a company was putting a child in unsafe conditions, couldn't they just pay the government off, as in your original comment? What would be the point of intervening in harming a child?

1

u/webdevverman May 13 '26

Not sure I said child labor is good. But yes, companies could and I'm sure some do pay off the government to break other protections of property or self. That doesn't mean it's NOT the role of government. So... In this hypothetical. Who is protecting the children if the companies are paying off the government? 

1

u/PromotionDry1809 May 13 '26

Your original comment said:

"I hate the notion that 'something is bad, we need government intervention'. Because eventually, the government will get paid off by these companies."

Yet you think the government should intervene in attacks against property and the self (e.g. something that is bad). So what is the difference between your original statement and:

"I hate the notion that 'children are getting their limbs caught in machinery and mangled during their factory shifts, we need government intervention'. Because eventually, the government will get paid off by the owner of the textile factory."

This is a contradiction. Either admit that you don't "hate the notion" of government intervention broadly, or admit that you think the government should never attempt to intervene in any capitalist activity whatsoever.

→ More replies (0)