| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On November 17 2010 10:48 red_b wrote: I didnt realize being fat and poor increased your elasticity of demand for mcdonalds. Unless you're saying demand is inelastic, moving up the price curve moves you down the demand curve. And if demand is inelastic, then banning toys is just as pointless, except now people are fat and unhappy. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 17 2010 10:31 Mutaahh wrote: Sorry, had trouble to translate my idea in English.... And still have, should learn better English  I think he means that healthy and responsible people (related to their weight) are being punished by not being able to have toys just because of the people who are fat. This is the way nearly every government program works. Social Security is not necessary for me because I began saving for retirement when i was 12. I am being forced to pay a tax (punished) because a certain percent of the population is unable or unwilling to prepare for retirement is exactly like banning toys for everyone because a certain percent are overweight. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On November 17 2010 10:58 Romantic wrote: I think he means that healthy and responsible people (related to their weight) are being punished by not being able to have toys just because of the people who are fat. This is the way nearly every government program works. Social Security is not necessary for me because I began saving for retirement when i was 12. I am being forced to pay a tax (punished) because a certain percent of the population is unable or unwilling to prepare for retirement is exactly like banning toys for everyone because a certain percent are overweight. You know, I never thought of it that way before. It seems so outrageous when you think about it like that... | ||
|
funnybananaman
United States830 Posts
On November 17 2010 08:41 BlackJack wrote: So your argument is that we already have stupid laws like suicide and pot being illegal so it wouldn't hurt to add another one? You're right, it's much easier for the government to take away your rights than it is for you to gain rights back, so why are you so eager to let the government get their foot in the door when it comes to dictating what we eat? All they want is a small win so that down the line they can start telling us how much salt we can have or how much fat we can have. Some people are trying to decriminalize stupid laws like pot being illegal and in the meantime you want to add more stupid laws. You are all missing the point of whats going on here entirely. both of you. This isn't banning any food or making it hard to get any food its just making it so the makers of especially unhealthy crap food can't do extra stuff like give out toys to encourage little kids to want to eat it. the laws against suicide or weed are totally incomparable to this, because here were talking about little kids who don't know anything, not fully consenting knowledgeable grown people. There really shouldn't be a discussion over the government limiting rights here because thats such a gigantic stretch. And the law isn't even forbidding or restricting anything its just that the little toys can't COME with the meal jesus | ||
|
Insanious
Canada1251 Posts
On November 17 2010 11:10 funnybananaman wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 17 2010 08:41 BlackJack wrote: So your argument is that we already have stupid laws like suicide and pot being illegal so it wouldn't hurt to add another one? You're right, it's much easier for the government to take away your rights than it is for you to gain rights back, so why are you so eager to let the government get their foot in the door when it comes to dictating what we eat? All they want is a small win so that down the line they can start telling us how much salt we can have or how much fat we can have. Some people are trying to decriminalize stupid laws like pot being illegal and in the meantime you want to add more stupid laws. You are all missing the point of whats going on here entirely. both of you. This isn't banning any food or making it hard to get any food its just making it so the makers of especially unhealthy crap food can't do extra stuff like give out toys to encourage little kids to want to eat it. the laws against suicide or weed are totally incomparable to this, because here were talking about little kids who don't know anything, not fully consenting knowledgeable grown people. There really shouldn't be a discussion over the government limiting rights here because thats such a gigantic stretch. And the law isn't even forbidding or restricting anything its just that the little toys can't COME with the meal jesus Except the big problem with the law is that: 1) 99% of "children's meals" at fast food chains already meet the standards set out by the law... so it would be a useless law. It would ban double cheese burger happy meals, but all other types of happy meals are under 600 calories. 2)The banning of the toy would result in MORE obesity, as you pay $0.99 for the toy, where as you can get an ADULT value meal for $1 less, and it has A LOT more food (almost double the calories) This law does nothing at all at best, and at worse it exasterbates the problem... where kids will get McDouble value meals(1,200 calories) rather than cheeseburger happy meals(700 calories). | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On November 17 2010 10:35 domovoi wrote: Good, then they'll respond better to a tax. Actually, I would reform EBT to make it based off of calorie consumption. So you can purchase 2000 calories of food a day. It's not a forced dieting program. If you don't want to diet, like if you don't want to stop smoking, then you're free to do so. That's like saying the marriage tax penalty is a forced divorce program. And the rich can eat all the food they want in a giant mess hall with the king? You are insane. | ||
|
red_b
United States1267 Posts
On November 17 2010 10:58 domovoi wrote: Unless you're saying demand is inelastic, moving up the price curve moves you down the demand curve. And if demand is inelastic, then banning toys is just as pointless, except now people are fat and unhappy. Youre the one that suggested we live in a world without constant elasticity. You may not have realized that is what you were saying, but I actually happen to agree with you. However, I posit that up until the point where an alternative is cheaper than McDonalds/BK/Wendy's etc, demand for the food is actually pretty inelastic. A demand curve is a schedule of willingnesses to pay, and in the aggregate model with homogeneous goods and reasonable substitutes then yes, if the price goes up and elasticity is anything resembling normal then the amount consumed would be reduced. However, that is not a particularly likely scenario. More likely is that the food is sufficiently cheap enough that it would take a huge increase in price (especially considering how much we subsidize farmers to keep the fresh produce and grains at a high price) to get a change in the consumption pattern of the poor. A better option is to reduce the amount of utility that you get out of the meal. Taking the toy away, restricting the amount of salt and fat, etc. will probably do more to reduce consumption than a politically feasible increase in tax. You have correctly predicted part of the behavior of consumers when you suggest that an inelastic curve means people wont change the quantity they consume very much based on a change in price. However, if we change the benefit from eating the fast food, it's entirely possible that the "effective cost" will do a better job getting people to actually change behavior. I assume, from personal observation, have poor information in regards to price but better information in terms of what they are getting. A change in price of 50 cents is significantly less noticeable than taking the toy away, at least in my opinion. If I had to rank the effectiveness of the options, in my opinion, I would rank fiat first, reducing the benifit of the food second and increasing price exogenously third, with relying on people to make smart decisions dead fucking last. | ||
|
KevinIX
United States2472 Posts
On November 17 2010 11:44 Insanious wrote: Except the big problem with the law is that: 1) 99% of "children's meals" at fast food chains already meet the standards set out by the law... so it would be a useless law. It would ban double cheese burger happy meals, but all other types of happy meals are under 600 calories. 2)The banning of the toy would result in MORE obesity, as you pay $0.99 for the toy, where as you can get an ADULT value meal for $1 less, and it has A LOT more food (almost double the calories) This law does nothing at all at best, and at worse it exasterbates the problem... where kids will get McDouble value meals(1,200 calories) rather than cheeseburger happy meals(700 calories). And also 3) Little kids shouldn't be the ones buying Happy Meals anyway. The parent is responsible for what his children eat. Whether a toy comes in a Happy Meal or not shouldn't effect the parent's decision. But the law does give an incentive for McDonalds and other fast foods to lower the calories in their happy meals. Obviously, they aren't going to get rid of the toy. It is a huge part of their marketing. Most likely, the toys will stay and the calories will decrease, which is a win for everyone. | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1437 Posts
On November 17 2010 00:14 Impervious wrote: You don't happen to know someone born with type 1 diabetes, do you? That affects a shitload of people (over half a million people in the USA). That shit is expensive, too. Between the blood glucose testing (those strips aren't cheap) and the injections, as well as frequent blood tests and visits to doctors and nutritionists to help curb the long-term effects of it, to the long term effects, such as organ failures, blindness, and in the most rare cases, amputations are needed..... Clearly they deserve to pay for their "choices" that caused them to get it...... All irrelevant. In fact, it's a pretty good argument for why those bullshit healthcare programs shouldn't be passed or exist. ..... Holy fuck man, this is why I absolutely despise some people (was going to say some Americans, although I'm sure I'd get at least a warning for that). Such a romanticized view of "choice"..... Fuck taxes, Fuck Goverment, Fuck gun control, Fuck Medicare..... Yet they don't have a problem as a whole when they can milk the system for all it's worth, and would rather let a beggar die on the street than help him out..... The truth is, you are hurting other people when you choose to eat a shitty diet. You hurt your family and friends, heck, even your GF/fiance/wife since you're more likely to suffer from ED and can't get it up properly anymore..... You're also more likely to call in sick to work, and therefore your workplace suffers (even if you work at home, this means you are not as productive as you could be, screwing yourself over even more). Enjoy going to Hawaii for a vacation and having to pay for 2 seats on the airplane as well..... When you finally kick the bucket earlier than you should be, that oversized casket is also gonna cost your family extra..... It costs a shitload, without even getting into the support programs and other expenditures that the government has created to help deal with the epidemic, but it costs you as an individual a lot. Just remember that when you stuff the next double-cheeseburger-with-bacon down your throat. It comes down to being personally responsible for what you do, your choices have consequences and you should deal with them. Your life has problems and you should deal with them. Why should you burden everybody else with your problems? You say it's selfish of me to want to take care of myself? Damn straight it is. I don't want to have to take care of myself AND the rest of the neighborhood. If they were responsible for themselves as well, then everything would be fine. If they don't deal with their own issues, then whose fault is that? Let me turn it around for you, isn't it selfish to want to be able to do whatever you want and have other people take care of everything for you? You arn't a baby, you can make your own choices. If you want to eat shitty food then go ahead, I won't stop you. Just deal with your own problems. But if you WANT shitty food, nobody should have a right to tell you that you can't have any. On November 17 2010 01:58 TallMax wrote: There's an interesting point to be made here to some of you who think that legislation like this is over reaching, if you'll follow me for a moment. One of your arguments seem to be that the responsibility should be on the parents to make sure they're taking good care of their children, and that they make good, safe decisions for them. Then, when a bunch of adults (presumably, with children) try to make the decision to prevent a company from influencing all children into poor eating habits, thus trying to make more children safe and healthy, you cry foul. They are doing exactly what you think they should be doing. It just sounds like you're whining like the child who's not going to get their toy, I mean fatty happy meal, anymore. What the hell are you talking about? Your logic makes absolutely no sense. Go take a debate class or a philosophy class or even a basic argumentative writing / speech class. You assume that: 1) Eating a single happy meal by itself will significantly negatively impact health. 2) That the toy is what causes the kids to eat happy meals, not the food. 3) That companies will rework their meals so they can still include toys instead of just removing the toys. 4) That this bunch of adults making the decision is keeping in line with what most adults want. 5) That this bunch of adults SHOULD be making a decision for everybody else 6) That this decision will actually do something 7) That it is this bunch of adult's decision or within their purview to do so. Also, removing options is detrimental to education. Education is what changes eating habits, not removal of options. Make them watch supersize me before you can eat at mcdonalds, sure. Saying people cannot do something because it is bad for them is ridiculous; if they know it is bad (will negatively impact their own health) but still choose to engage in an activity why stop them if it makes them happy? 1) Yes, a body will show signs immediately that it has ingested non-optimal foods (minute differences in muscle tone and body oil for the most part...). But for a real health impact (lasting and actually detrimental) Non-optimal foodstuffs must be ingested regularly. A happy meal by itself is not unhealthy. 2) Nobody actually plays with the toys. In fact, when kids want McDonald its usually NOT because of the toys, but because they like the food. No McDonald advertise the TOYS over the food. If the toys were so effective, then wouldn't more of the focus be on them? The advertisements are always the foods. The toys are always some bullshit throwaway thing that the kid won't even have at the end of the day. 3) Health option foods are already substitutable for the French Fries and other stuff. It never happens. Why? Because the kids like the food, not the toy. If it was the toy they wanted so much, it wouldn't matter what the food was. 4) Who knows, something like this needs to be put to referendum. 5) They don't know what is best for everybody. In general, career politicians are the last people you want to be in charge of things, but always the most willing to do so. 6) It won't. Give the kid a choice between the regular chicken nuggets he eats without a toy and some fruit and stuff he won't eat with a toy and guess what the parent will end up buying. 7) In itself, this is overreaching. Where do you draw the line? Somebody else mentioned in this thread that it is as if we are opposed to the government taking children away from abusive parents etc. No. Let me turn that around. The government knows what is best for you right? So they should take kids away from the parents at an early age and educate them all. Right? We are opposed to unreasonable interference. Dictating what people can or can't eat when they have all the information they need to make informed choices is stupid. On November 17 2010 03:47 Ferrose wrote: Um...When did I say that? I'm pretty sure that in my OP I stated that I think the responsibility falls into the parents' hands. But if you look at how many kids today are obese, the parents aren't doing shit. The government needs to step in. There is some scary logic in this thread. It seems like some people think it'd be a facist nanny state if the government took children away from their parents because the parents abused the children. It's just the parents' choice on how to raise their kid(s), right? No. The government has to protect people in some cases because the people can't/aren't protecting themselves. Sure don't act like it is the parents responsibility for saying that you believe it. Why does the government need to step in? There is no pressing need. If people are not protecting themselves, that is their own problem. The government just needs to make sure that people have all the information they need to make their own decisions. If they want to make a certain one for whatever reason then they should be able to. In this case, the parents are making the decision by proxy. It's completely different because in one case the parents have the interests of the child in mind and in the other situation they do not. It's a facist nanny state when the government starts telling people what they can and cannot do when it is really something down to personal preference. And no, I didn't mean to imply that YOU elected them. Just people that think like you. On November 17 2010 11:01 Ferrose wrote: You know, I never thought of it that way before. It seems so outrageous when you think about it like that... It IS outrageous. Just because some people can't take care of themselves EVERYBODY has to be subjected to idiotproof rules? There was a county run swimming pool. Actually, there are a bunch of them. But one idiot decided to dive into a dive stick and impaled his eye on it. (never mind the fact that he shouldnt be diving in 3ft water anyways, and that dive sticks are meant to be used in deeper water), all of a sudden, not only are dive sticks banned in all pools, but dive rings and anything in that nature... EVEN if they couldnt actually hurt somebody. | ||
|
TallMax
United States131 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On November 17 2010 16:16 dogabutila wrote: All irrelevant. In fact, it's a pretty good argument for why those bullshit healthcare programs shouldn't be passed or exist. It comes down to being personally responsible for what you do, your choices have consequences and you should deal with them. Your life has problems and you should deal with them. Why should you burden everybody else with your problems? You say it's selfish of me to want to take care of myself? Damn straight it is. I don't want to have to take care of myself AND the rest of the neighborhood. If they were responsible for themselves as well, then everything would be fine. If they don't deal with their own issues, then whose fault is that? Let me turn it around for you, isn't it selfish to want to be able to do whatever you want and have other people take care of everything for you? You arn't a baby, you can make your own choices. If you want to eat shitty food then go ahead, I won't stop you. Just deal with your own problems. But if you WANT shitty food, nobody should have a right to tell you that you can't have any. What the hell are you talking about? Your logic makes absolutely no sense. Go take a debate class or a philosophy class or even a basic argumentative writing / speech class. You assume that: 1) Eating a single happy meal by itself will significantly negatively impact health. 2) That the toy is what causes the kids to eat happy meals, not the food. 3) That companies will rework their meals so they can still include toys instead of just removing the toys. 4) That this bunch of adults making the decision is keeping in line with what most adults want. 5) That this bunch of adults SHOULD be making a decision for everybody else 6) That this decision will actually do something 7) That it is this bunch of adult's decision or within their purview to do so. Also, removing options is detrimental to education. Education is what changes eating habits, not removal of options. Make them watch supersize me before you can eat at mcdonalds, sure. Saying people cannot do something because it is bad for them is ridiculous; if they know it is bad (will negatively impact their own health) but still choose to engage in an activity why stop them if it makes them happy? 1) Yes, a body will show signs immediately that it has ingested non-optimal foods (minute differences in muscle tone and body oil for the most part...). But for a real health impact (lasting and actually detrimental) Non-optimal foodstuffs must be ingested regularly. A happy meal by itself is not unhealthy. 2) Nobody actually plays with the toys. In fact, when kids want McDonald its usually NOT because of the toys, but because they like the food. No McDonald advertise the TOYS over the food. If the toys were so effective, then wouldn't more of the focus be on them? The advertisements are always the foods. The toys are always some bullshit throwaway thing that the kid won't even have at the end of the day. 3) Health option foods are already substitutable for the French Fries and other stuff. It never happens. Why? Because the kids like the food, not the toy. If it was the toy they wanted so much, it wouldn't matter what the food was. 4) Who knows, something like this needs to be put to referendum. 5) They don't know what is best for everybody. In general, career politicians are the last people you want to be in charge of things, but always the most willing to do so. 6) It won't. Give the kid a choice between the regular chicken nuggets he eats without a toy and some fruit and stuff he won't eat with a toy and guess what the parent will end up buying. 7) In itself, this is overreaching. Where do you draw the line? Somebody else mentioned in this thread that it is as if we are opposed to the government taking children away from abusive parents etc. No. Let me turn that around. The government knows what is best for you right? So they should take kids away from the parents at an early age and educate them all. Right? We are opposed to unreasonable interference. Dictating what people can or can't eat when they have all the information they need to make informed choices is stupid. Sure don't act like it is the parents responsibility for saying that you believe it. Why does the government need to step in? There is no pressing need. If people are not protecting themselves, that is their own problem. The government just needs to make sure that people have all the information they need to make their own decisions. If they want to make a certain one for whatever reason then they should be able to. In this case, the parents are making the decision by proxy. It's completely different because in one case the parents have the interests of the child in mind and in the other situation they do not. It's a facist nanny state when the government starts telling people what they can and cannot do when it is really something down to personal preference. And no, I didn't mean to imply that YOU elected them. Just people that think like you. It IS outrageous. Just because some people can't take care of themselves EVERYBODY has to be subjected to idiotproof rules? There was a county run swimming pool. Actually, there are a bunch of them. But one idiot decided to dive into a dive stick and impaled his eye on it. (never mind the fact that he shouldnt be diving in 3ft water anyways, and that dive sticks are meant to be used in deeper water), all of a sudden, not only are dive sticks banned in all pools, but dive rings and anything in that nature... EVEN if they couldnt actually hurt somebody. Sounds like someone's cranky, must not have gotten a good toy with your last Happy Meal. Since you can't make a good argument, at least you can make up your own interestingly drawn conclusions, refute those, and insult people. You've said that the toys mean nothing, then why care if they can't include them? As to your other points, if there's something a business does which can negatively affect people (including children), who DON'T KNOW BETTER, it's up to the government to act. Why do you think we regulate packaging products and CFCs? Biologically speaking, do you know the negative effects of regulated chemicals on your body? No. You know that the government would prevent such business-related abuses. It's one of their responsibilities. To make sure people play fair and don't endanger the health of the public. I don't see them trying to take the toys out of their adult meal packages. Why aren't they in there in the first place? Cause adults don't care about stupid little toys. Kids do. You can manipulate kids more easily than adults. Again, that's why cartoons don't advertise for cigarettes, cause kids don't have the life experience to know better. So, they're trying to make sure that kids aren't taken advantage of. That's how they've decided to take responsibility for their children. Props to them for it. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
But I think that things like healthcare are a different story. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4822 Posts
| ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On November 17 2010 22:12 TallMax wrote: Edit: Added spoiler to long ass quote: + Show Spoiler + On November 17 2010 16:16 dogabutila wrote: All irrelevant. In fact, it's a pretty good argument for why those bullshit healthcare programs shouldn't be passed or exist. It comes down to being personally responsible for what you do, your choices have consequences and you should deal with them. Your life has problems and you should deal with them. Why should you burden everybody else with your problems? You say it's selfish of me to want to take care of myself? Damn straight it is. I don't want to have to take care of myself AND the rest of the neighborhood. If they were responsible for themselves as well, then everything would be fine. If they don't deal with their own issues, then whose fault is that? Let me turn it around for you, isn't it selfish to want to be able to do whatever you want and have other people take care of everything for you? You arn't a baby, you can make your own choices. If you want to eat shitty food then go ahead, I won't stop you. Just deal with your own problems. But if you WANT shitty food, nobody should have a right to tell you that you can't have any. What the hell are you talking about? Your logic makes absolutely no sense. Go take a debate class or a philosophy class or even a basic argumentative writing / speech class. You assume that: 1) Eating a single happy meal by itself will significantly negatively impact health. 2) That the toy is what causes the kids to eat happy meals, not the food. 3) That companies will rework their meals so they can still include toys instead of just removing the toys. 4) That this bunch of adults making the decision is keeping in line with what most adults want. 5) That this bunch of adults SHOULD be making a decision for everybody else 6) That this decision will actually do something 7) That it is this bunch of adult's decision or within their purview to do so. Also, removing options is detrimental to education. Education is what changes eating habits, not removal of options. Make them watch supersize me before you can eat at mcdonalds, sure. Saying people cannot do something because it is bad for them is ridiculous; if they know it is bad (will negatively impact their own health) but still choose to engage in an activity why stop them if it makes them happy? 1) Yes, a body will show signs immediately that it has ingested non-optimal foods (minute differences in muscle tone and body oil for the most part...). But for a real health impact (lasting and actually detrimental) Non-optimal foodstuffs must be ingested regularly. A happy meal by itself is not unhealthy. 2) Nobody actually plays with the toys. In fact, when kids want McDonald its usually NOT because of the toys, but because they like the food. No McDonald advertise the TOYS over the food. If the toys were so effective, then wouldn't more of the focus be on them? The advertisements are always the foods. The toys are always some bullshit throwaway thing that the kid won't even have at the end of the day. 3) Health option foods are already substitutable for the French Fries and other stuff. It never happens. Why? Because the kids like the food, not the toy. If it was the toy they wanted so much, it wouldn't matter what the food was. 4) Who knows, something like this needs to be put to referendum. 5) They don't know what is best for everybody. In general, career politicians are the last people you want to be in charge of things, but always the most willing to do so. 6) It won't. Give the kid a choice between the regular chicken nuggets he eats without a toy and some fruit and stuff he won't eat with a toy and guess what the parent will end up buying. 7) In itself, this is overreaching. Where do you draw the line? Somebody else mentioned in this thread that it is as if we are opposed to the government taking children away from abusive parents etc. No. Let me turn that around. The government knows what is best for you right? So they should take kids away from the parents at an early age and educate them all. Right? We are opposed to unreasonable interference. Dictating what people can or can't eat when they have all the information they need to make informed choices is stupid. Sure don't act like it is the parents responsibility for saying that you believe it. Why does the government need to step in? There is no pressing need. If people are not protecting themselves, that is their own problem. The government just needs to make sure that people have all the information they need to make their own decisions. If they want to make a certain one for whatever reason then they should be able to. In this case, the parents are making the decision by proxy. It's completely different because in one case the parents have the interests of the child in mind and in the other situation they do not. It's a facist nanny state when the government starts telling people what they can and cannot do when it is really something down to personal preference. And no, I didn't mean to imply that YOU elected them. Just people that think like you. It IS outrageous. Just because some people can't take care of themselves EVERYBODY has to be subjected to idiotproof rules? There was a county run swimming pool. Actually, there are a bunch of them. But one idiot decided to dive into a dive stick and impaled his eye on it. (never mind the fact that he shouldnt be diving in 3ft water anyways, and that dive sticks are meant to be used in deeper water), all of a sudden, not only are dive sticks banned in all pools, but dive rings and anything in that nature... EVEN if they couldnt actually hurt somebody. Sounds like someone's cranky, must not have gotten a good toy with your last Happy Meal. Since you can't make a good argument, at least you can make up your own interestingly drawn conclusions, refute those, and insult people. You've said that the toys mean nothing, then why care if they can't include them? As to your other points, if there's something a business does which can negatively affect people (including children), who DON'T KNOW BETTER, it's up to the government to act. Why do you think we regulate packaging products and CFCs? Biologically speaking, do you know the negative effects of regulated chemicals on your body? No. You know that the government would prevent such business-related abuses. It's one of their responsibilities. To make sure people play fair and don't endanger the health of the public. I don't see them trying to take the toys out of their adult meal packages. Why aren't they in there in the first place? Cause adults don't care about stupid little toys. Kids do. You can manipulate kids more easily than adults. Again, that's why cartoons don't advertise for cigarettes, cause kids don't have the life experience to know better. So, they're trying to make sure that kids aren't taken advantage of. That's how they've decided to take responsibility for their children. Props to them for it. A single--or even an entire childhood of happy meals is not going to be any where near as addictive or impairment judging as alcohol/tobacco. Which is why they are made illegal for children. While the government should ensure proper information is provided, and can make certain things illegal for children if a parent allowing their child to use it would constitute abusing the child (alcohol, tobacco, pornography), changing the happy meal so that food that should not be a regular part of your diet can't have a toy attached is very overreaching. Parents are the one's buying the meals... they are provided nutritional information. They can make the decision, and once in a while giving your kid unhealthy food is not the same as once in a while giving your kid a smoke or a porn movie or a drink. | ||
|
TallMax
United States131 Posts
On November 18 2010 01:19 Krikkitone wrote: A single--or even an entire childhood of happy meals is not going to be any where near as addictive or impairment judging as alcohol/tobacco. Which is why they are made illegal for children. While the government should ensure proper information is provided, and can make certain things illegal for children if a parent allowing their child to use it would constitute abusing the child (alcohol, tobacco, pornography), changing the happy meal so that food that should not be a regular part of your diet can't have a toy attached is very overreaching. Parents are the one's buying the meals... they are provided nutritional information. They can make the decision, and once in a while giving your kid unhealthy food is not the same as once in a while giving your kid a smoke or a porn movie or a drink. Yeah, the example was a little extreme, I suppose it was reactionary because the other poster was pissing me off with some insults towards me and other posters. I suppose my argument is really that parent's are trying to make the right decision that their kids shouldn't be manipulated by what they consider to be a reward (the toy) for eating something they consider unhealthy. Most kids I grew up with didn't know what something's calorie content meant or how many we should be eating every day, we couldn't have cared less. They list numbers next to the words calories and calories from fat, it doesn't flat out say: eat this shit long enough and you'll probably get fat and/or diabetes. They don't put the toy in there to influence the minds of adults, just the kids, and that's where I agree with the legislation. It's basically telling McDonald's: We'll make the decision for our kids, if we want them eating your food, we'll buy it without your toy, don't influence my kid. While I agree that a single happy meal is not going to be as addictive as alcohol or tobacco, I truly don't know if a childhood of happy meals would be, some kids do get addicted to fatty foods. I know this is picking at your extreme example, so you don't really have to respond to this point in any way. But when I read your example, I laughed my ass off thinking about what a kid who ate happy meals for ever every meal of his/her childhood would look like, and felt like if anyone skipped over your post they deserved a second chance to read it and have a laugh picturing it too. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On November 16 2010 12:17 domovoi wrote: This ban will have a negligible effect on childhood obesity. The reason why parents, by proxy of their children, prefer the unhealthy happy meals over the healthy options is because calories are tasty. I do not see how this legislation will magically cause a child craving fat calories to no longer demand them. I disagree. Calories are not always tasty and things that are not tasty may have high calories. It all depends on how you cook it. McDonald's has been around for a very long time. They have systematic ways of getting raw ingradients, cooking, and testing recipes. They really know how to make food that is fast, easy (for the employees, which makes them workers with no skills), and enjoyable for a portion of the population that is deemed profitable. Anyways, I think the Happy Meal toys are pretty lame anyways. But I will hasten to add that I am not a kid anymore. On November 17 2010 10:58 domovoi wrote: Unless you're saying demand is inelastic, moving up the price curve moves you down the demand curve. And if demand is inelastic, then banning toys is just as pointless, except now people are fat and unhappy. This just invoked many of my bad memories about economics... --------------- Anyways, this by-law is really... odd, I have to say. I doubt it will affect many lives. | ||
|
yema1
Iceland101 Posts
| ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On November 18 2010 01:50 yema1 wrote: It's so good that we have all-knowing Leftists like you guys who can tell us what we can do and what we can't do! Sure is nice not having to take any responsibility in life! All that happened was one city saying that restaurants couldn't sell toys with Happy Meals unless they met those three conditions. It's so good that we have paranoid rightists who see one thing then assume that we're all going to mind slaves to the government. | ||
|
TallMax
United States131 Posts
On November 18 2010 01:54 Ferrose wrote: All that happened was one city saying that restaurants couldn't sell toys with Happy Meals unless they met those three conditions. It's so good that we have paranoid rightists who see one thing then assume that we're all going to mind slaves to the government. Watch out for those Leftist San Franciscans in Iceland! Just look at your world map upside down, that should solve your problems. | ||
|
yema1
Iceland101 Posts
On November 18 2010 02:04 TallMax wrote: Watch out for those Leftist San Franciscans in Iceland! Just look at your world map upside down, that should solve your problems. The Socialists in San Francisco haven't seen Socialism yet. Iceland is one of the most Socialist countries in the world. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On November 18 2010 02:16 yema1 wrote: The Socialists in San Francisco haven't seen Socialism yet. Iceland is one of the most Socialist countries in the world. No one in America has. Yet our country is on the brink of being a Communist regime, if you listen to some people. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games summit1g12816 tarik_tv7360 Grubby5894 Dendi801 shahzam721 mouzStarbuck586 C9.Mang0266 Trikslyr95 Dewaltoss24 Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Master's Coliseum
Astrea vs Serral
Serral vs SHIN
SHIN vs Cure
Werksliga Community Cup
Wardi Open
Sparkling Tuna Cup
AfreecaTV Starcraft Tea…
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
OlimoLeague
|
|
|
EPT
