Saturday Afternoon (Because I Was Up At 5 AM Writing About CNN’s Unethical “Town Hall”) Ethics Warm-Up, 2/24/18: Generic Packaging Scams, Goodbye Molly, Polls, And Welcome Student Commenters!

Good Afternoon!

1 The kids are all right! Ethics Alarms has recently been graced with comments by some intrepid and articulate high school students on the guns and schools issue. I salute all of them, as well as the teachers who sent them our way. Some of the students also encountered the tough debate style and sharp rhetoric that our regulars also engage in. One of the students who found himself in a particularly spirited exchange, mostly with me, just sent me a long, self-flagellating and abject apology. My response in part..

Relax. Apology accepted, and I am grateful for it, and admire you for writing it. But you impressed me in many ways. I wish I could meet you.

When I was growing up, there was no internet. I just managed to earn as reputation as a clown, a master of sarcasm and insults, and someone who would never back down from an argument the old-fashioned way—by talking. I made a million gaffes along the way. I made an ass of myself. I hurt people. I also scared some people, but eventually I learned some boundaries. Meanwhile, the skills I acquired being a jerk sometimes have served me well, in college, in law school, in management, in theater, in ethics. (I’m still a jerk sometimes. You have to keep that edge.)

You are welcome to comment on Ethics Alarms any time, my friend. Just remember we’re all human beings, nobody hates anyone, and no mistake is final.

I do hope that any time young readers who identify themselves as such come here to argue, Ethics Alarms commenters will keep in mind that the best result, no matter what they might say while testing the waters here, is to keep them coming back.

2. Packaging designed to make you feel stupid…I’d do a whole essay on this again, but there have been a lot of “yelling at clouds” posts lately. The common practice of generics intentionally imitating the packaging of the original product they derive from is per se unethical. (I’m sure I have written about this before, but cannot find it. I know I criticized the practice of cheap kids animated videos of  stories like “Beauty and the Beast” copying the artwork and color scheme of the corresponding Disney version to fool inattentive purchasers.) My wife just got caught by a CVS scam—the company is a long-time offender—that fooled her into buying for my use an inferior knock-off of Pepcid A-C which I need because the Parkland shooting deception and agitprop is giving me ulcers. It is intentionally packaged with a red fez-shaped cap to look sufficiently like the good stuff to deceive consumers.

See?

Of course, as with the video, it isn’t exactly like the original: the shade of red is different, the cap shape isn’t quite the same, giving them plausible deniability.

There should be some kind of law or regulation to discourage this. I’m going to go into the store and complain to some nice clerk or manager, who will shrug and say she’s sorry, which is to say that, once more,  I will be yelling at clouds .

3.  Animal empathy test. A British Columbia resident adopted a potbellied pig named Molly from the SPCA. Molly was one of 57 potbellied pigs to be seized following an animal cruelty investigation on Vancouver Island a year ago. The SPCA staff  spent months nursing the formerly pet pigs back to health before they could be adopted. Once she was healthy, Molly  was adopted by what the Animal Planet channel now calls “her forever companion,” who then cooked and ate her.

The horrified SPCA has banned the individual from future adoptions, which, the organization says, is the only punishment legally available.

Now here’s your test:

 

4. Confirmation bias or mindreadingt? In his CPAC speech yesterday, President Trump told the assembled conservatives,

“Year after year, leaders have stood on this stage to discuss what we can do together to protect our heritage, to promote our culture, and to defend our freedom.”

Ann Althouse wrote,

“[T]his I said out loud (to my audience of one): “That’s a dog whistle. White power.” Questioned, I said, “heritage… culture… freedom…” Even freedom? “Yes, in context with our heritage, our culture, and then our freedom. Our freedom.”

Ann may be right, but her conclusion is ironic given a recent post in which she inveighed against “media mind-reading.” That’s exactly what she’s doing, isn’t it?I could see myself writing about the importance of protecting our heritage [and not capitulating to efforts to airbrush history, demonize our forebears, and embrace the radical Left’s anti-American propaganda] , to promote our culture [of individualism, Western values, and the traditions and standards that have made the United States successful and strong] and to defend our freedom [ meaning individual liberty and freedom from government dominance, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights.] The President of the United States, whoever he is, should be accorded the benefit of the doubt. FDR and John F. Kennedy made similar statements; many Presidents have.

Here’s another poll:

 

58 Comments

Filed under Animals, Around the World, Business & Commercial, Childhood and children, Education, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, language, Leadership, Marketing and Advertising, Race, The Internet, U.S. Society

58 responses to “Saturday Afternoon (Because I Was Up At 5 AM Writing About CNN’s Unethical “Town Hall”) Ethics Warm-Up, 2/24/18: Generic Packaging Scams, Goodbye Molly, Polls, And Welcome Student Commenters!

  1. Rick M.

    1. You described me.

    2. Packaging? How about labeling? I love ice cream….I really love ice cream, but take a look at the packages. Almost every brand now has some labeled “frozen dairy dessert.” Translation: They do not meet the minimally acceptable standards for ice cream (at least 10% butterfat). And, yes, they charge the same price as the “real” ice cream. But, alas, I go to a local dairy for most of my ice cream – 22% butterfat! Thanks for the soapbox.

  2. Phlinn

    I only see the second poll, and in the wrong spot.

  3. philk57

    Jack – what thread were the students commenting on – there have been several GC threads lately – I would like to go and read their contributions.

  4. John Glass

    Our HOA agreement has a clause prohibiting such animals from residences. I always assumed as pets, but maybe the farsighted lawyer was closing off a loop in the food chain.

  5. jan chapman

    Maybe the President made this comment right after reading “The Snake,” and giving his interpretation of the poem.

  6. JLo

    The BC story reminds me of a film … Pets or Meat … by one of this site’s favourite directors – Michael Moore. Favourite only by way of number of mentions of course.

    I mention this because for some it’s just a matter of perspective and some are quite fluid with this issue. Others have compartmentalized and rationalized their thought to allow them to see some animals in one light and others in a different light. Anything that challenges those compartments is threatening.

    Arguably the new owner has a right to do anything that is Legal, absent an agreement, with their property. It is not unethical in my view. It is poor behaviour and insensitive given where the animal was obtained. Maybe a contract would help in the future?

  7. “[T]his I said out loud (to my audience of one): “That’s a dog whistle. White power.” Questioned, I said, “heritage… culture… freedom…” Even freedom? “Yes, in context with our heritage, our culture, and then our freedom. Our freedom.”

    I hope that he and all people of European descent will come to a point inside themselves where what they think and what they understand and say about themselves, their culture, the accomplishments of that culture, do not require and will not be communicated through ‘dog-whistles’. Rather I hope that it is communicated in direct open speech, as a statement of fact, and one of pride.

    In order to get to that point, the countervailing resentment-based anti-‘whiteness’ discourse, and all the emoted underpinning in it, needs to be confronted, addressed and defeated. That means an end to the attack on white identity, whiteness, Europe and the various cultures that are offspring of Europe, especially America.

    So, I vote for bringing the entire conversation out in the open. And I vote for a White Identity Movement to gain ground in the US.

    I am also vitally interested in the question of ‘white power’. But only in the sense of gaining, or regaining is perhaps more accurate, the power to understand oneself, respect oneself, and avoid the damaging blows which are, quite noticeably, psychological attacks, attacks with poisonous emotional darts, focalized anger and hatred

    The Occident —- and no other culture at any time, ever —- is the culture that defined freedom and also liberty. Fact. And it came about through a long chain of causal events that can be traced and explained. And even when these cultural models were brought to others through imperialism, and imperialism is always deeply entrenched in self-interestedness, still it is ‘our traditions’ that have provided the patter for modern civilized life.

    Now, in our present, here in America and in Canada, Australia, New Zealand —- in all the English colonies —- and also in Europe, the open attacks against us must be brought to a stop. But we are a loooonnggg way from arriving at the inner platform where that will be possible. Now, we cower like scared children, terrified by what others think and say.

    • luckyesteeyoreman

      Alizia,

      I submit that a fundamental problem with promoting a “white identity movement” is the inherent diversity among “whites,” – or, among people who identify as white. I think you have to presume that a certain amount of uniformity of thinking must exist among persons of a particular skin color. But, so far, in my experience, I have observed NO correlation between skin color and ways of thinking (or acting), among people of all skin colors whom I have observed.

      • I see your point. There is a problem, this is true, and it is the problem of ‘European identity’. In order to establish European identity one has to define Europe. But in order to do that one has to define the history of the community of peoples that became the various nations of Europe. One has to grasp 100-1500 years of dynamic and important historical accomplishment.

        Among many useful references (of which I might be ignorant) there are three titles I have found very useful all by Christipoher Dawson. 1) The Making of Europe (1932) and 2) Understanding Europe (1952). I would also suggest 3) The Historic Reality of Christian Culture (A Way to the Renewal of Human Life) (1960).

        I am certain that you, and most if not all others, fundamentally misunderstand me simply because I have defended what in our present cannot be defended: White Identity. By mentioning the term I am perceived as a danger. But then I tend to be open to the exploration of ideas that are seen as off-limits in an intellectual present dominated by PC groupthink. (And by mentioning groupthink I am seen as deliberately insulting which adds insult to injury resulting in punishing silence). Everything that *you* tell me not to consider important, or to see as *evil*, I question. (This is a factor of my personality).

        However, my position is tied to the premise that social regeneration must take place or death ensue. And that regeneration can only occur, and will only occur, through recovery of spiritual ground. The spiritual ground of Europe is Catholicism and Greco-Christian categories.

        The recovery of a specifically white identity is best expressed through a recovery of European identity. And America is an extension of Europe as are its institutions and its ‘guiding ideas’. But America has (IMO) hit a postmodern wall. I would argue that it has significantly lost the sense of who it is, what it is. It does not know what to be, nor where to go, nor what to do. In a significant sense that can be talked about America is ‘lost’ to itself.

        European identity within the context of America is problematic, indeed it is. It is a question, obviously, of undoing what has been done within the American postwar. What has been done over 50-60 years must be undone over a similar time-frame. This requires ‘historical will’.

        The idea here becomes thoroughly intolerable to you-plural when you analyse what this must mean. Because what it means is a reassertion of the dominance of the original population. Or put another way keeping the original population from becoming a minority or losing political control. It means the reanimation of the will of European America not to be over-swamped by other demographics. Fact. So, in the face of that difficulty (I suggest) you lose your nerve. It is simply easier and involves you in less immediate pain to ‘relinquish self’.

        If you follow the cultural and social analysis of someone like Dawson you will agree that the crisis of Europe, the two devastating civil wars (his term) has come about through specific causes that can be seen and named. He points in the direction of renewal and regeneration, that is, proposes it as a possibility. To arrest European dissolution will require a significant social and cultural movement. That may not come about. It is certainly not guaranteed.

        In America, I suggest, just exactly the same thing is needed, though it is not understood as being needed, among its European-descended population. But their situation is, in certain senses, more desperate, more dangerous. But to talk about that means to talk about America in its postmodern condition, and in the grip of global enterprises and multicultural fallacies. To understand what happened, one must take a very long and hard look at Cultural Marxism and its ‘march through the institutions’.

        The first order of business is recovering the power to self-identify. It is in fact an aspect of the will. One has to address what keeps one from that, what inhibits that identification. And every European-descended person, every white person, can instantly name what operates against this self-identification. But they are lost when it comes to the question of ‘recovering self-identification’.

        The position that you describe is essentially an expression of postmodern American condition. And you are in many senses right. Yet to understand the argument for European recovery, and the re-valuation of Europe and European categories, requires a sort of awakening. That awakening is variously described but I suggest a good description is ‘taking the Red Pill’. But in my view, which extends beyond mere ‘memes’ and superficial nonsense, the entire issue become larger and more complex as well as meaningful the more that it is probed.

  8. Re: Molly
    While I’m not sure it is a crime, it’s getting close. The volunteers who spend the time and care to heal the pigs from abuse, the SPCA who arranged for the adoption were pretty much defrauded by the liars who wanted a cheap piece of meat. I suspect there would have been other people who wanted to adopt these pets as well.

    Some jerk(s) just wanted to put one over on animal lovers just because they could. They bought them under false pretenses, like the people who ‘buy’ a suit or dress for an event and then return it for full refund.

    Yes, they are pigs, and most are raised toward food, but these jerks made a mockery of ALL the people who cared for those pigs. A pet skunk may be funny, but that doesn’t excuse delibrate cruelty to the skunk or owner. And these pigs were a pet breed, no risk, unlike snakes, spiders, or skunks. It may not be a crime, but there should be a social cost for the cruel fraud. It was a betrayal to the SPCA, its volunteers, and the community even if not a crime.

    • The pig quiz is quite the conundrum. There is a real criss-cross of considerations here, some are Ick, some are value added, some are symbolic meaning, etc.

      Hm.

      I am remarkably wavering between two seemingly opposite answers:

      “Meh, a pig is a pig”

      AND

      “Horrible betrayal”

      I want to back off of “a pig is a pig”, because we DO as a society impute a certain value on “pets”, and that value reflects a little bit of ourselves. If we’ve imputed value onto any particular pig as a “pet”, then the wanton destruction of that “pet” says something about our ethics…I think…maybe.

      But then I also recognize that for the most part, pigs are pretty much food. So, meh.

      But, if I am going to take that stance, than can I rightfully say its wrong for any particular person of any dog-eating culture to eat dog in our culture, where we highly esteem dogs? Because dogs, at the end of the analysis also only benefit from having been imputed a great deal of value as “reflections” of ourselves…

      Hm.

      I’m not sure where I land in the final analysis, though if I had to put a percentage on it, I’d say 51% “Meh, a pig is a pig” and 49% “This is betrayal”.

      I’m sensitive to Marie Dowd’s line of reasoning. That all the value added and effort put into each pig before “final purchase” creates some consideration. But is it ethically compelling consideration? I’m not sure. This is akin to the “I can destroy whatever famous Pablo Picasso painting that I want to because I paid for it” conundrum. Yes you can because it is your property. But does that make it ethical? Or is that just a situation that is neither ethical or unethical?

      • I settled on “horrible betrayal.” I didn’t think about it very much.

        • I wanted the ‘horribly funny’ option, but alas! It was a funny point being made.

          We raised our animals for food, did not name them, and killed them ourselves growing up, so a lot of the emotionalism is lost on me.

          I tell my family that our beloved dogs are ‘scooby snacks’ in the event of a Zombie Apocalypse. They laugh…nervously.

  9. JutGory

    I am not sure I would cut your wife slack on this; you, on the other hand, may have no choice.

    The one marked CVS is obviously a generic.

    Consider this: the red cap is not designed to fool. It is designed to say, “i’m like the other one with the red hat.” Usually, genetics are located near the name brand, but, without some visual cue, it can be difficult to find the comparable generic. Sometimes it’s hard just to find what you want. Within the last few weeks, I spent longer than I wanted looking for baby acetaminophen when all I could see was ibuprofen. From there, identifying the generic was pretty easy.

    -Jut

    • And that’s the CVS plausible demiability position. I don’t buy it. They know it deceived consumers, and thus have an obligation to take steps so they aren’t deceived. “Generic” isn’t an accurate description. There is a brand, and they are imitating a brand, a trademark, and a package.

      I just told our CVS manager that all he had to do was instruct the staff to ask “Is this what you want to buy? You know that’s not the brand version?” And that he had an ethical obligation to do so.

      He also refunded—without my asking— the cost of the fake Pepcid, even though I had taken one of the tablets.

      • Is this a situation where there’s no right answer because it’s an already unethical situation the companies all have to deal with? I’m still undecided about the nearly eternal patent/intellectual property rights debate, but does this issue not arise somewhat out of this?

  10. Mr. Marshall and Ethics Alarms’ Commentators:

    I am the (a?) teacher who has directed my students to Ethics Alarms. I teach an Expository Reading and Writing Course to 12th grade students. Part of the high school English curriculum, the course was developed by the California State University system in response to an influx of students who were not prepared for the rigors of college reading and writing, most notably the inability to recognize, respond, and develop argument.

    I have directed them to Ethics Alarms because of the opportunity for them to engage in real world discourse on significant, relevant, and important issues, many of which challenge their world views.

    I do not endorse nor do I condone inflammatory, immature, and inaccurate commentary. They know better – or, at least, I hope. As Mr. Marshall posted (under another post), I agree that their age should not excuse them from the challenges they encounter in this forum (“they will not be coddled”). I encourage it. But they must also handle the challenges of the forum with maturity, decorum, and respect. To do otherwise is a sad testament to their preparation for life after high school.

    Here are the guidelines I have instructed my students to use when examining and writing argument:

    When responding to argument, in writing or verbally, please keep in mind the following.

    Be passionate! Reason originates in emotion, but must be tempered by logic and ethos.

    Read (listen to) through the text you responding to, including comments, if any. Before you respond, consider the following aspects of rhetoric:

    -Think about the essential question posed in the text/conversation.
    -Think about writer’s rhetorical aim in the passage/text.
    – Identify the subject the writer addresses. What his/her/their attitude (tone) toward the subject?
    -Identify the writer’s main argument.
    -Identify the evidence the writer uses to support his/her/their subject.
    -Examine the techniques the writer uses to develop his/her/their argument, including:
    >Word choice (diction)
    >Figures of speech
    >Syntax
    >Use of rhetorical questions, and Rhetorical appeals.
    >>>What is the author’s attitude (tone) about the subject he/she/they is addressing in the passage?
    >>>What specific word choice (diction) clues the reader in?
    >>>What figures of speech are used? Does the imagery/analogies/allusions conjure positive/negative/angry/melancholy/activist feelings in the reader?
    >>>What type of syntax is used? (short, abrupt, choppy; lengthy, thoughtful, questioning) Are there any rhetorical questions?
    >>>What kinds of rhetoric does the author employ? (ethos, pathos, logos, inductive/deductive reasoning, syllogisms)

    Questions about Logic (Logos)
    -Locate major claims and assertions and ask, “Do you agree with the author’s claim that . . .?”
    -Look at support for major claims and ask “Is there any claim that appears to be weak or unsupported? Which one and why?”
    -Can you think of counter-arguments that the author doesn’t consider?
    Do you think the author has left something out on purpose? Why?

    Questions about the Writer (Ethos)
    -Does this author have the appropriate background to speak with authority on this subject?
    -Is this author knowledgeable?
    -What does the author’s style and language tell your students about him or her?
    -Does this author seem trustworthy? Why or why not?
    -Does this author seem deceptive? Why or why not?
    -Does this author appear to be serious?

    Questions about Emotions (Pathos)
    -Does this piece affect your students emotionally? What parts?
    -Do you think the author is trying to manipulate their emotions? In what ways? At what point?
    -Do their emotions conflict with their logical interpretation of the arguments?
    -Does the author use humor or irony? How does this affect your students’ acceptance of his or her ideas?

    Then, prepare your response and remember that others will examine – and challenge – your use of rhetoric.

    Questions about Logic (Logos)
    -What are my major claims and assertions
    -What support do I have for major claims and ask “Is there any claim that appears to be weak or unsupported? Which one and why?”
    -Have I considered possible counter-arguments? How will I address them?

    Questions about the Writer (Ethos)
    – Do I have the appropriate background to speak with authority on this subject?
    – Am I knowledgeable? IF NOT, HAVE I CONDUCTED SUFFICIENT RESEARCH TO RESPOND?
    -What will my style and language tell others about me? Will I come across as a serious commentator?
    – Will I seem trustworthy? Why or why not?
    – Will I seem deceptive? Why or why not?
    – Will others take me seriously?

    Questions about Emotions (Pathos)
    – Will my response affect others emotionally? What parts? Why?
    – Will others think I am trying to manipulate their emotions? In what ways? At what point?
    – Will my emotions conflict with my logical interpretation of their arguments?
    – Do I use humor or irony? How will this affect others’ acceptance of my ideas?

    If in doubt, remember these key points:
    – Identify argument
    – Establish your position
    – Consider the degree to which you agree/disagree
    – Make concessions
    – Name your naysayers or opponents >>>>Introduce your rebuttal
    -Establish why your claims matter

    I look forward to ongoing dialogue. I thank Mr. Marshall for the wonderful teaching opportunity Ethics Alarms provides.

    Should you want to contact me directly, I can be reached at amyette@sandi.net

    With respect,

    Andrew Myette

  11. Very interesting outline, Mr Myette. I hope that your class and those who participate here (and wherever else) gain a great deal. Ethics Alarms is a wonderful blog. No better time to jump into ethical debates than now!

    Because my mind works this way, and I think sometimes I must irritate people for this reason (and likely others), I have been thinking of this statement since I read it:

    “Be passionate! Reason originates in emotion, but must be tempered by logic and ethos.”

    I suppose how I could see how it might be proposed that reason originates in the emotions. I suppose that this idea is a fairly modern one and one that derives from more modern scientific theory? I think you could possibly get that from certain readings of Aristotle.

    Yet I would respectfully suggest that it could be mistaken. Especially since you refer to ‘logos’ and if this is the Greek logos it can have no part in emotions and emotionalism. Logos in its metaphysical sense would be ‘idea’ whereas ‘emotions’ and such are associated with mutability and the sensual realm. In our physiological present, of course, there can be no other origin point for any idea or thought except in the biological frame …

    Yet according to an older theory logos does not derive from the emotions nor from sensations and emotions and sensations are not inferior forms of logos, if you see what I mean. It is with modern anthropological ideas that man, the primate, the primitive animal, transmutes emotions into rational concepts, et cetera et cetera.

    I certainly understand what you are getting at with ‘be passionate!’ But I think that you could just as well, and possibly to produce a benefit, reverse the assertion. The entirety, just about, of my philosophical position, and my existential perception, derives from opposition to modern forms and that is why I crash up against so much in our present.

    One might say instead:

    “Be rational as the emotions must serve reason and logos and that logos most temper and control the emotions.” It is a very different formulation as you see.

    I think it is a valid and useful point to notice that many people, perhaps our whole culture, reasons emotionally. But if accepted as a tenet it would seem to encourage beginning from a subjective orientation. (Which some might feel the only place to begin).

    From a Thomist perspective the emotional center or faculty is significantly below that of intellectus. And it is the intellectus that connects man to logos. However, these are part of largely former ways of understanding reality and describing it, I admit this.

    In any case, I bring it up only because it is an interesting question and it is, I think, germane to our present. The reasons why your particular formula is ascendent in our present can be explained, but it does (or can) lead to contentiousness. Because we live within a different anthropological regime.

  12. Ms. Tyler:

    I love it! I ask and encourage my students to challenge the assertions I make.

    Your understanding, I am happy to say, of the role of pathos in relation to logos is far more developed than my own.

    I do draw this conclusion from Aristotle, albeit, perhaps, facile:
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotions-17th18th/LD1Background.html
    “The pathe are first and foremost responses found in the embodied animal to the outside world, very much like perceptions.”

    I do agree that pathos should not dictate reason:
    “the pathe are treated as susceptible to rational influence and voluntary action, although not directly subject to choice” – leading to “contentiousness.

    I also agree with Thomas Aquinas’ that emotion is below intellect.

    I think your question would be excellent for my students – and others – to examine.

    What, may I ask, is your background?

    • A BA in Irreverance and a PhD in Pretension …

      I did have some background in philosophy and Great Books in the US (I am from Venezuela originally and became a naturalized citizen) but it is really only in the last 5 years under the guidance of my sister’s husband who has a background in philosophy that I have been trying to understand things better. He has an amazing library and I can access his books and advice.

      I read that Thomas Jefferson only had 2 years of formal education and the rest he got through his own reading. Well, I am giving myself 10 years.

      The rest is simple impertinence combined with unfortunate astrological configurations … 😉

      • I appreciate your expertise, Ms. Tyler.
        I have been thinking more of our discourse. And, yes, I agree that too much of the rhetoric we see today is based on emotion. I caution my students about this frequently.

        Look forward to additional discussion!

        Thank you!

        Andrew

  13. #1 Apologizing can be a humbling experience. I hope the student that apologized learned something from the whole experience. I really hope he comes back and tries again with a little different perspective to guide him.

    We have to learn and sometimes laugh at our own mistakes.

  14. valentine0486

    I’m a little confused as to the issue with the Pepcid-Isn’t it the same medication?

    As to the pig, I don’t feel bad for it because I love me some bacon. However, the agreement was clearly to find the pig a “home”, and not of the stomach variety. The woman treated the SPCA horribly. For that reason, I’m okay with the ban.

    Last, if your still living when my son gets to high school age, (he’s very young, I’m not making a crack at your age), this blog will certainly be assigned to him by me. (As of now, I’m intending to home school him, as the incompetence of the average school terrifies me for him.) I’m glad there are some teachers out there who also think this blog is valuable for educational purposes.

  15. Sam

    Where are the majority of the student comments? I would like to peruse them.

  16. Laurent Canup

    With the Pepcid issue, do see where you are coming from. I’m not trying to excuse it but I do admit that I like the practice for a single reason. Being a cheap-o I usually buy generics and I like the fact that the doppleganger is easily identified with its close representation to the original.

    • Pennagain

      Laurent, There’s an excellent run-down on comparing brand vs. generic medications: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/22/generic-prescriptions_n_6730194.html

      As far as OTC meds like Pepcid (famotidine) and even a lot of prescription meds are concerned, we’re pretty safe going with generic (I assume you mean “store”) brands. I find, though, as I get older, that I need to read the labels on the shelves more carefully. The difference between the inactive ingredients or “coated”, “long-acting” or “delayed-action” meds can be signficant, for instance. And the differences between Pepcid and Zantac, which seem to be interchangeable (the main ingredients, generically famotidine and ranitidine are in the same class of drugs and are the leading competitors in the antacid field) are used beyond that for different purposes and with very different effects.

      I did find this comment in an article on Pepcid which you might take to heart, however: “Been on this medication 15 days; noticed after 7 days a drop in sexual performance; after 14 days a complete inability to get an erection.”

  17. The woman wanted publicity, I assume. Otherwise, the pig disappears, her family burps, and nobody’s the wiser.

    Reminds me of the three S’s many ranchers have used when dealing with the EPA and protected animals on your land: Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up.

  18. Pennagain

    #2. Try Walgreens instead, Jack. Little by little, everything in the store is becoming N*I*C*E.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.