| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Impervious
Canada4216 Posts
On November 17 2010 05:39 Offhand wrote: But nothing is going to prevent stupid people from being stupid. So make it harder and more costly for them to do it, so it doesn`t have as big of an effect on everyone, and it costs less for everyone else..... | ||
|
Insanious
Canada1251 Posts
Do you really think the food you get in super markets would be as high of quality if McDonald's didn't force legislation through in first world countries to increase to standard of many food products (ground beef, produce, chicken, etc...) Without McDonald's the food you would eat would be of a much lower quality, the beef you buy in super markets, the potatoes you buy in the 6 pound bags, not just the food you get from McDonald's but the food you eat every day. Not only that but McDonald's employs a stupidly large number of people world wide. In menial jobs, as well as management jobs... and heck they keep many of the farms in the western world operational. Do you really think many farmers would have jobs when the demand for their products dropped by 30 -> 40% ya... McDonald's buys that much food every year. - - - - - I know a lot of you are QQ'ing about fat people, but its their choice to get fat, to eat fast food and frozen dinners. You also have to look at the good a company does for us and well... employment, food standards... hell McDonald's is one of the largest philanthropist companies on earth... While they might bring a luxury service that people treat like a need, they still do good for the world and you need to keep that in mind. | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On November 17 2010 05:42 red_b wrote: I don't understand your comment, could you please clarify? I as a healthy person would never go to McDonald's to eat their healthy food. If I want healthy food, I will buy it from the grocery store. I go to McDonald's to pig out, and sometimes I crave a toy to go along with my treat. This is the problem with high-handed regulation like this, you screw people who are sensible about such products. If you want to cure obesity, tax them. Simple solution. | ||
|
red_b
United States1267 Posts
On November 17 2010 05:39 Offhand wrote: What was the last R-rated thing you saw that was targetted at minors..... I`d like to know..... Um, like every action movie ever appeals to male children.[/QUOTE] true, however pg-13 movies SMASH R rated movies in terms of ticket sales. I have to say though, if I had child and I had to chose between them eating unhealthily and having bad food habits, watching a lot of very violent films, or watching porn and masturbating, I would go for the third. at least you can explain to a child what makes a healthy sexual relationship. it is hard to explain that food that tastes good is bad for you when youre that young. I wouldnt ever want to go near the second issue. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4216 Posts
On November 17 2010 05:41 domovoi wrote: Wow, what kind of snacks are you eating? If by "couple hundred" you mean 200, that means you consume 600 calories in snacks each day. Which is 4 bags of potato chips. Yeah, a child eating 4 bags of chips a day is going to be a lard-ass. Like I said, that`s for the people who are in the biggest need of calories..... Also, snacks can add up pretty quickly..... For instance, 100 grams of Almonds is something like 600 calories..... While a serving may not be 100 grams, it can add up a lot..... A more realistic diet is somewhere around the 2000 calorie mark. No snacks, 3 meals a day, and that`s still less than 700 calories a meal - many variants of a happy meal at McDonalds are nearly that..... | ||
|
MinoMino
Norway1103 Posts
On November 17 2010 05:39 Offhand wrote: Yes but you're still arguing for a law that effects everyone because we deem a few people incapable of acting rationally. Do you get why that's ridiculous? There's absolutely nothing stopping me from going to a convenience store and chugging 5 hour energies until my heart explodes. Well, nothing but the knowledge that it's a stupid thing to do. It's pretty clear to both parents and kids that eating McDonalds all the time is bad. As such, I don't and I hope you don't either. But nothing is going to prevent stupid people from being stupid. Um, like every action movie ever appeals to male children. Well, then we clearly disagree. I've said it in pretty much all my posts: I don't think all kids will realize that it's bad, even if they go to McD all the time. I agree that this law can potentially affect everyone, since everyone has the freedom to go and buy a Happy Meal, but it sure won't affect everyone. It's going to mainly affect kids, and that effect is in my opinion something positive. So no, I don't find it ridiculous, I find it reasonable. | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On November 17 2010 05:49 Impervious wrote: A more realistic diet is somewhere around the 2000 calorie mark. No snacks, 3 meals a day, and that`s still less than 700 calories a meal - many variants of a happy meal at McDonalds is nearly that..... I don't think anyone is suggesting that you eat 3 happy meals a day. And breakfast (or lunch if you like big breakfasts) should not be 700 calories. Of course, it actually is possible to eat a reasonable amount of calories even if you do eat McD's three times a day everyday. And I'm not talking about ordering salads. That people don't simply reflects that people love eating calories (I wonder why?), toy or not. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On November 17 2010 05:43 Impervious wrote: So make it harder and more costly for them to do it, so it doesn`t have as big of an effect on everyone, and it costs less for everyone else..... You do realize that stupid doesn't work that way? If you're actually incurring some kind of financial burden due to this change; well you're poor and already screwed to begin with. Dollar menu items for everyone! It's no secret that the poor experience obesity in greater numbers because all cheap food (not just fast food) is way worse for you then anything else. If you aren't incurring any kind of financial burden and you are stupid, then the law will do exactly zero for your dumb self and your unfortunate kids. Given that you're a dumb parent with free cash, you will likely buy your kid anything to shut him up anyway. | ||
|
Insanious
Canada1251 Posts
On November 17 2010 05:41 domovoi wrote: Wow, what kind of snacks are you eating? If by "couple hundred" you mean 200, that means you consume 600 calories in snacks each day. Which is 4 bags of potato chips. Yeah, a child eating 4 bags of chips a day is going to be a lard-ass. you are crazy... a bag of potato chips is like 1,600 calories. The back of the bag says something stupid like "160 calories for every 12 chips" the bag doesn't tell you the whole caloric intake. A red delicious apple = ~130 calories A piece of bread = ~50 calories A glass (so about 2 cups) of juice = ~250 calories - - - - So 2 pieces of toast, with peanut butter, an apple, and a glass of juice = ~550 calories Then you take a snack, say a granola bar, that's 150 calories right there Then you have lunch: say tuna-salad sandwich(400), and orange(200), juice box(120), and a hand full of chips(160). That right there is 880 calories. Then dinner: well lets say you have Steak, mashed potatoes, green beans, and a glass of wine... Well saddly you just had a 1,500 calorie dinner if you ate it like normal people do (milk and butter in mashed potatoes, butter on green beans, etc...) Daily intake so far about ~3,200 calories. - - - - - You want to cut out more calories in a day than anything else... drink only water... will cut out ~700 calories from this day of healthy-ish eating. Want to go to McDonald's and eat around these same calorie marks: Breakfast: BLT bagle, hasbrown, water = ~600 calories Lunch: 2x Snack wraps, apple, water = 710 calories Dinner: Big mac meal, water: 890 calories 2,200 calories for a daily meal because you drank water instead of pop at McDonalds. Hell, eating this at McDonalds is less calories then eating the above meal with water anyways... - - - - - McDonald's isn't inherantly unhealthy, its the choices we make, drink water, eat a quarter pounder instead of a double quarter pounder... Hell happy meals arent totally unhealthy, its just the more popular options that are... wait its just the pop. Burger + fries + chocolate milk = 610 calories, with pop its above 700 | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
| ||
|
CidO
United States695 Posts
I've also lost 30+lbs in 2 years. Fastfood doesn't always mean mcdicks or tb, kfc or whatever. it could be subway (which is pretty nasty) or it could be another healthy to eat place, like thundercloud or a healthy meal at a "unhealthy" place. this right here, once again, is the people of san fran trying to make a name for themselves. sad to say. first they were in the news for a happy meal ban, then it was lifted... now they ban the toys? What's next san fran? Banning happiness because not everyone walks around in skinny hipster jeans? The only neat part of my recent california trip is when i drove out of san fran during my free time to see the coast. On November 17 2010 06:00 Insanious wrote: [McDonald's isn't inherantly unhealthy, its the choices we make, drink water, eat a quarter pounder instead of a double quarter pounder... Hell happy meals arent totally unhealthy, its just the more popular options that are... wait its just the pop. Burger + fries + chocolate milk = 610 calories, with pop its above 700 this right here. People need to just watch what they eat and know what they eat. I had a california club from thundercloud today, no chips, so i had 700 cals, + breakfast cereal of 300 cals, so i have 1000 to eat whatever i want later in the day to stay on the recommended 2000. hell I could stop at whataburger on the way home or mcdicks and get something and still finish under 2000, let alone 2500 or 3200. | ||
|
TerraIncognita
Germany55 Posts
And this is what Mc Donalds and Co. are aiming on. They're installing playgrounds, use warm and nice colors, all those happy meals, toys, merchandising, Ronald McDonald and so on. Fat adult people are responsible for their actions of course, but children need some protection from being influenced by fast food industry. They can't take care of their own and if parents are acting irresponsible, should the kids suffering from that? In my opinion McD has also some responsibilty while taking influence on children's minds. | ||
|
MinoMino
Norway1103 Posts
On November 17 2010 06:12 TerraIncognita wrote: Children's desires are based on gaining the most positive effect for themselves. I'm not going to say that kids can't think, but they think in a quite different way and gaining access to their desires are quite simple. And this is what Mc Donalds and Co. are aiming on. They're installing playgrounds, use warm and nice colors, all those happy meals, toys, merchandising, Ronald McDonald and so on. Fat adult people are responsible for their actions of course, but children need some protection from being influenced by fast food industry. They can't take care of their own and if parents are acting irresponsible, should the kids suffering from that? In my opinion McD has also some responsibilty while taking influence on children's minds. Yep, that's exactly what I've been arguing about, yet people seem to use themselves as examples when the law is specifically for meals that include a free toy, or in other words, meals specifically made for kids. | ||
|
Sabin010
United States1892 Posts
| ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
Again, if it were possible to manipulate kids into eating their vegetables by associating it with playgrounds and toys, parents would line up for that in droves. The marketing isn't the problem, it's the desires of the children. This is probably like the third or fourth time I've made this point, yet people still go on to harp about "marketing." | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On November 17 2010 06:17 MinoMino wrote: Yep, that's exactly what I've been arguing about, yet people seem to use themselves as examples when the law is specifically for meals that include a free toy, or in other words, meals specifically made for kids. Yes, all advertising and presentation works this way. The idea that we limit it in one specific case is as ridiculous in theory as it is poorly done in reality. | ||
|
Insanious
Canada1251 Posts
On November 17 2010 06:17 MinoMino wrote: Yep, that's exactly what I've been arguing about, yet people seem to use themselves as examples when the law is specifically for meals that include a free toy, or in other words, meals specifically made for kids. The problem is the law won't change anything, look at it from a parents point of view. 1) Kids want food 2) You are tired / lazy / already a fat ass 3) You are going to go to a fast food place anyways SO now, you are going to get fast food 100%. So look at your choices at McDonald's 1) Happy meal between 450calories and 820 calories + kid gets toy OR 2) Value meal between 840 calories and 1040 calories NOW look at the differences between them: 1) Happy meal is more expensive 2) Happy meal has less food 3) Happy meal has a toy SO, by extension the toy is a way to get parents to choose healthier food for their kids. its a $1 different between a hamburger happy meal... and a hamburger + medium coke + medium fries. ($1 CHEAPER to get the medium coke and medium fries vs the toy) Now would you rather kids eat the happy meal or the medium fries, drink, and hamburger? 600 calories vs 900 calories. | ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Tdelamay
Canada548 Posts
| ||
|
red_b
United States1267 Posts
On November 17 2010 06:23 Sabin010 wrote: Stupid Liberal nanny state taking away the McDonald's right to free trade and practice of marketing cheeseburger french fries to children by offering a toy that is relevant to their interests. not all of us worship at the alter of free trade. McDonald's is a company, not a person. It does not have rights. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
RSL Revival
TriGGeR vs Cure
ByuN vs Rogue
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Maru vs MaxPax
BSL
RSL Revival
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
