|
On November 17 2010 06:29 Tdelamay wrote:
It's simple enough "Don't promote bad eating to children by giving them a toy when they eat badly"
Seriously, comments like these make me roll my eyes. It's not the toy that attracts children to junk food, it's the fact that junk food is so damn tasty. If it were simply just about the toy, then parents would just be picking the healthy versions of the happy meal (i.e. apples instead of fries).
|
On November 17 2010 06:28 Reborn8u wrote:
I have a suggestion for these liberal jackasses, how about you try being A REAL PARENT and telling your kids NO! I have a son, and it's not always easy, but I don't tolerate him throwing fits, I send his butt straight to the corner if he does throw a fit. These people are pathetic. This is unamerican and they should be ashamed. GROW SOME BACKBONES YOU TIRDS!
Yeah, but this is America. In this country "Won't someone think of the children?" = "let's push some bullshit legislation through by preying on people's emotions"
I believe most people are capable of raising kids. I don't think good parents should need to deal with this because there's such a thing as bad parents. We should probably prevent bad parents from screwing up their kids, but that shouldn't require blanket legislation that effects normal functioning people.
On November 17 2010 06:30 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Corporations are afforded rights.
+ Show Spoiler +I'm pretty sure that was a facetious libertarian 'sperg post anyway.
|
On November 17 2010 06:28 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 06:17 MinoMino wrote: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. 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.
And that's why they're going to allow toys again given the whole meal combined is less than 600 calories and less than 35% of that is from fat. I'm sure they're going to keep a small menu as well. Small meals aren't banned, but meals with toys. The choice would be, using your format:
1) Happy meal between 450calories and 820 calories + kid gets toy
OR
2) Equivalent to Happy meal between 450calories and 820 calories, but without the toy
|
On November 17 2010 06:38 MinoMino wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 17 2010 06:28 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 06:17 MinoMino wrote: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. 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. And that's why they're going to allow toys again given the whole meal combined is less than 600 calories and less than 35% of that is from fat. I'm sure they're going to keep a small menu as well. Small meals aren't banned, but meals with toys. The choice would be, using your format: 1) Happy meal between 450calories and 820 calories + kid gets toy OR 2) Equivalent to Happy meal between 450calories and 820 calories, but without the toy
Why would I spend $1 more to get small fries and a small drink vs getting a medium fries and a medium drink.
A happy meal without toy = small fries + small drink + burger
A value meal (at least here in Canada) = medium fries + medium drink + burger for $1 cheaper than a happy meal.
See what I'm talking about? The only reason the parent gets the happy meal (and thus less calories) is for the toy... if there wasn't the toy. The parents would just buy the bigger meal for less money and throw out what the kid doesn't eat.
Overall, the kid will eat more simply because they don't get a toy.
|
The real health issue is school lunches. They already regulated that school lunches have to be healthy, but then they wrote a million ways around it. For instance Ketchup counts as a vegetable serving, and so does a pickle. So a hamburger with a pickle and ketchup would meet the health standards of a public school lunch.
The real legal issue here is that fast food is a consumer based business. When I buy a dessert at a restaurant I don't want to pay for vegetables. That increases the cost to me and requires me to purchase something I don't want (or need) in order to get what I do want. Fast food IS dessert. The pump sugar into all of their meals. It tastes great. Consumers, not businesses, need to grow up and take responsibility for what they consume. The businesses already list the "nutrition" facts for all of the meals.
Parents need to say "No." We tell our children to "just say no" to drugs. "Luddite" from pg1 says "It's probably too much to expect every single parent to single-handedly fight against a corporation armed with the best marketers and millions of dollars to brainwash kids as much as they possibly can."
How does this connect to drugs? Have you watched a music video in the last 10 years? Between rap music and club dance music, not to mention movies, drugs are glorified. I personally think it is disgusting, but obviously most consumers think it is great to pump themselves full of these ideas buying millions of songs, downloading endless music videos, and paying 7-10 dollars to watch a movie in a theater filled with brain washing ideas. This doesn't eliminate our responsibility as consumers to not spend all our money and time buying and using drugs.
Think about the ad campaigns by pharmaceuticals to brainwash people into begging their doctor for whatever the latest anti-diarrhea medicine whose primary side effect is diarrhea. This doesn't mean that the consumer isn't responsible for what they buy, or the doctor for what the prescribe, just because the ad campaigns have smiling adults with no brown stains on their pants.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
This was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818).
|
I'm actually interested in how far down the rabbit hole we can go with this. So in the interest of understanding people who are actually FOR this legislation, I have a few homework problems for you all:
1) It's well established that alcohol ruins lives. As we can easily see some people willingly abuse alcohol to the point where it effects those around them. Should a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol be instated? Clearly the actions of all people should not be taken into account.
2) Children are more receptive to adds then any other demographic. In fact, there are many deceitful tricks used to advertising agencies to make their product appeal specifically to children. Should all ads for products deemed desirable by children be banned? After all, children, not parents, decide what parents buy.
3) It's well established that not all people are capable of acting rationally. Should non-rational actors be prevented from voting? Please frame your answer along which ethnic, financial, or religious line we should use to prevent incompetent people from voting.
|
Fun fact: They actually charge you .99$ for the toy which is included in the happy meal price.
I remember going to McDonalds one day and I said I didn't want to pay for the toy so I argued with the lady for like 10 minutes. Eventually she called her manager over and let me off without paying for the toy.
While I agree with above posters saying the toy helps reduce calories for the kids. It is still wrong to charge for a fucking toy if you don't want it.
Take the kid for a run and get him the bigger meal. He wont get fat if the parents aren't lazy.
|
On November 17 2010 06:30 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +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.
McDonald's is a company. I agree there, but when you say it does not have rights, I can't agree. First its McDonald's toys, but where does it end? Why doesn't the government step in and say to every company give us 100% of your profit? There would be no incentive to even pursue profits and start a company.
Protip: Companies are the number one suppliers of jobs in this country.
I feel this is going to cost the Chinese who manufacture the toys more than the Americans, but to think that it will take the cheeseburger and french fries out of the children of San Francisco's belly's that's just not true.
|
I don't understand how this thread about banning toys in Happy Meals unless they have those three conditions turned into a Glenn Beck episode about how one city doing that to McDonald's is just the start of the government making every decision for us.
|
There are two McDonald's that I know about in San Francisco, having lived here for 4 years. 1) 24th and Mission, not a place lots of kids hang out at. Mostly homeless guys eat here from what I can tell (This is only a few blocks from my apt.) 2) Down on the Embarcadero, where the tourists are.
So, I don't really think this is our city trying to protect our citizens; more like trying to live up to our status quo.
|
On November 17 2010 06:47 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 06:38 MinoMino wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 17 2010 06:28 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 06:17 MinoMino wrote: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. 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. And that's why they're going to allow toys again given the whole meal combined is less than 600 calories and less than 35% of that is from fat. I'm sure they're going to keep a small menu as well. Small meals aren't banned, but meals with toys. The choice would be, using your format: 1) Happy meal between 450calories and 820 calories + kid gets toy OR 2) Equivalent to Happy meal between 450calories and 820 calories, but without the toy Why would I spend $1 more to get small fries and a small drink vs getting a medium fries and a medium drink. A happy meal without toy = small fries + small drink + burger A value meal (at least here in Canada) = medium fries + medium drink + burger for $1 cheaper than a happy meal. See what I'm talking about? The only reason the parent gets the happy meal (and thus less calories) is for the toy... if there wasn't the toy. The parents would just buy the bigger meal for less money and throw out what the kid doesn't eat. Overall, the kid will eat more simply because they don't get a toy.
I doubt any fast food restaurant would keep a Happy Meal equivalent, but without a toy for the same price as with the toy. And like I said, the toy will come back, but with regulations.
|
On November 17 2010 07:16 Sabin010 wrote:
McDonald's is a company. I agree there, but when you say it does not have rights, I can't agree. First its McDonald's toys, but where does it end? Why doesn't the government step in and say to every company give us 100% of your profit? There would be no incentive to even pursue profits and start a company.
Protip: Companies are the number one suppliers of jobs in this country.
intervening is only called for when the social benefit for doing so exceeds the costs.
if McDonalds were a monopoly, the government would step in and break them up because they would be producing at too high a price and too low a quantity. in this case, the social cost of obesity warrants action.
that is where it starts, and that is where it ends.
companies exist to fuel the desire for consumption. when they damage more than they fill their need, it is time to reign them in. this is not about the government extracting maximum rents, nor is it about forcing people down a road they dont want to go down. people have demonstrated an inability to stop their children from growing fat. I dont think taking the toys away will work that well but it is worth trying.
the alternative is, and has always been, health education. but, that costs money, and this, at least in from the government of San Fran's perspective, does not.
|
On November 17 2010 07:28 Ferrose wrote:
I don't understand how this thread about banning toys in Happy Meals unless they have those three conditions turned into a Glenn Beck episode about how one city doing that to McDonald's is just the start of the government making every decision for us.
I remember the thread when Texas decided to rewrite history for the umpteenth time...
This seems really really insignificant. I remember reading an article on how Mcdonalds spent 100,000 on inner city development and then spent millions advertising that fact.
|
On November 17 2010 07:31 red_b wrote:
that is where it starts, and that is where it ends.
So you're ok with a law designed to stop childhood obesity. But you're well aware that this law won't actually stop childhood obesity.
Pretty shitty place to end if you ask me.
|
Okay, if it's the liberal's stance that the government should discourage unhealthy eating with children, how about we have government step in and discourage abortions.
Oh, wait, now that wouldn't be 'pro-choice', now would it?
|
On November 17 2010 07:31 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 07:16 Sabin010 wrote:
McDonald's is a company. I agree there, but when you say it does not have rights, I can't agree. First its McDonald's toys, but where does it end? Why doesn't the government step in and say to every company give us 100% of your profit? There would be no incentive to even pursue profits and start a company.
Protip: Companies are the number one suppliers of jobs in this country. intervening is only called for when the social benefit for doing so exceeds the costs. if McDonalds were a monopoly, the government would step in and break them up because they would be producing at too high a price and too low a quantity. in this case, the social cost of obesity warrants action. that is where it starts, and that is where it ends. companies exist to fuel the desire for consumption. when they damage more than they fill their need, it is time to reign them in. this is not about the government extracting maximum rents, nor is it about forcing people down a road they dont want to go down. people have demonstrated an inability to stop their children from growing fat. I dont think taking the toys away will work that well but it is worth trying. the alternative is, and has always been, health education. but, that costs money, and this, at least in from the government of San Fran's perspective, does not.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
You're giving up the right to choose to be a little safer. People are fat because they're too stupid to control themselves, in which case I'm completely fine with them having all these health problems (there are cases where obesity is not the individuals fault and I sympathize with these individuals).
They've brought this upon themselves through their choices... don't limit the rest of us because of your stupidity.
|
On November 17 2010 07:50 Volkspanzer wrote:
Okay, if it's the liberal's stance that the government should discourage unhealthy eating with children, how about we have government step in and discourage abortions.
Oh, wait, now that wouldn't be 'pro-choice', now would it?
American liberals are actually center-right, not liberal.
|
Osaka27151 Posts
On November 17 2010 07:53 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 07:31 red_b wrote:On November 17 2010 07:16 Sabin010 wrote:
McDonald's is a company. I agree there, but when you say it does not have rights, I can't agree. First its McDonald's toys, but where does it end? Why doesn't the government step in and say to every company give us 100% of your profit? There would be no incentive to even pursue profits and start a company.
Protip: Companies are the number one suppliers of jobs in this country. intervening is only called for when the social benefit for doing so exceeds the costs. if McDonalds were a monopoly, the government would step in and break them up because they would be producing at too high a price and too low a quantity. in this case, the social cost of obesity warrants action. that is where it starts, and that is where it ends. companies exist to fuel the desire for consumption. when they damage more than they fill their need, it is time to reign them in. this is not about the government extracting maximum rents, nor is it about forcing people down a road they dont want to go down. people have demonstrated an inability to stop their children from growing fat. I dont think taking the toys away will work that well but it is worth trying. the alternative is, and has always been, health education. but, that costs money, and this, at least in from the government of San Fran's perspective, does not. They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin You're giving up the right to choose to be a little safer. People are fat because they're too stupid to control themselves, in which case I'm completely fine with them having all these health problems (there are cases where obesity is not the individuals fault and I sympathize with these individuals). They've brought this upon themselves through their choices... don't limit the rest of us because of your stupidity.
Except nobody lives in a vacuum...
|
On November 17 2010 07:57 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 07:53 Risen wrote:On November 17 2010 07:31 red_b wrote:On November 17 2010 07:16 Sabin010 wrote:
McDonald's is a company. I agree there, but when you say it does not have rights, I can't agree. First its McDonald's toys, but where does it end? Why doesn't the government step in and say to every company give us 100% of your profit? There would be no incentive to even pursue profits and start a company.
Protip: Companies are the number one suppliers of jobs in this country. intervening is only called for when the social benefit for doing so exceeds the costs. if McDonalds were a monopoly, the government would step in and break them up because they would be producing at too high a price and too low a quantity. in this case, the social cost of obesity warrants action. that is where it starts, and that is where it ends. companies exist to fuel the desire for consumption. when they damage more than they fill their need, it is time to reign them in. this is not about the government extracting maximum rents, nor is it about forcing people down a road they dont want to go down. people have demonstrated an inability to stop their children from growing fat. I dont think taking the toys away will work that well but it is worth trying. the alternative is, and has always been, health education. but, that costs money, and this, at least in from the government of San Fran's perspective, does not. They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin You're giving up the right to choose to be a little safer. People are fat because they're too stupid to control themselves, in which case I'm completely fine with them having all these health problems (there are cases where obesity is not the individuals fault and I sympathize with these individuals). They've brought this upon themselves through their choices... don't limit the rest of us because of your stupidity. Except nobody lives in a vacuum...
I don't think happy meal toys would qualify as "essential liberty" according to Franklin.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 17 2010 07:53 Risen wrote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
You're giving up the right to choose to be a little safer. People are fat because they're too stupid to control themselves, in which case I'm completely fine with them having all these health problems (there are cases where obesity is not the individuals fault and I sympathize with these individuals).
They've brought this upon themselves through their choices... don't limit the rest of us because of your stupidity.
1. I dont care about Benjamin Franklin on this issue. He lived in a time where people can cook their own food. Also, Franklin spent most of his time being fat, drinking wine and having unprotected sex with French women; hardly a model of health.
Here is the thing. I admit I dont think it will work that well, but Im open to the possibility that it will. Let's do our own best case scenarios here. Best case scenario is that obesity is reduced and people live healthier, fuller lives, and McDonalds loses some sales. In your case people wise up and put down the fork. Which is more likely?
2. So all fat people are stupid because they eat too much? Hmm, ok. So all smokers and drinkers and druggies are stupid too? A beer every once in a while is just about as harmful as a happy meal once in a while yet you have to be a full 21 to drink. Funny, when I turned 18 I could walk into a store and buy a gun. I could get drafted to go fight in a war, but I couldnt drink. And no matter how old I am, I cant smoke a little pot.
You can live in your objectivist dream world as long as you like, but do let us know when you wake up and want to join the rest of society.
Real life is full of contradiction. Real life is full of bullshit. Just do the best you can.
3. I'm limiting you because of their stupidity? Why yes, yes I am. Just like I want to limit people from mugging each other, I think certain behaviors need to be controlled by force if the cost of you being mad at me is a lot smaller than the huge fucking cost of all the BP and cholesterol medicine, the hospital space, beds and staff, not to mention all of the surgeries.
I think some folks need to stop being so hung up on rights. You lost them a long time ago, and they're never coming back.
You know the first right we have given to us is the right to life. Well, that's funny, but you get placed on a psych hold if you try to kill yourself. Real free world we live in if we lost ownership of the one thing we ever really own.
I think the argument has already been made; who gets to make the the choice? Gotta say, Im a big fan of technocracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2009/04/08/chariot-wearable-device_L2GxD_59.jpg)
