|
On November 18 2010 01:38 TallMax wrote:Show nested quote +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.
"We'll make the decision for our kids" is not the message.
If that was it they would just require an adult to be present when ordering an unhealthy happy meal. (like for rated R movies)
"We'll make the decision for Other people's kids" is the message.
Sometimes that is OK (abuse level cases) but any other time it is not.
I'm almost certain that if you asked for a Happy Meal with no toy, that McDonald's would be glad to comply. Indeed you could even use the toy as a teaching opportunity. "OK, honey you can have the toy and eat your vegetables or eat the food"
Or perhaps you want to reward your children for eating their vegetables all month with a toy+fun meal.
Its like saying companies shouldn't make their games fun because otherwise they might be addictive.
If companies are providing the information on the safety, and aren't even selling the product to children, then there shouldn't be restrictions.
If you really think being overweight s a problem then prevent companies (including grocery stores)from selling anything but low calorie type fruits, vegetables and a very limited selection of lean protein to anyone with a BMI of over 30. (that might be difficult in a drive-through though)
|
On November 18 2010 06:20 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 01:38 TallMax wrote: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. "We'll make the decision for our kids" is not the message. If that was it they would just require an adult to be present when ordering an unhealthy happy meal. (like for rated R movies) "We'll make the decision for Other people's kids" is the message. Sometimes that is OK (abuse level cases) but any other time it is not. I'm almost certain that if you asked for a Happy Meal with no toy, that McDonald's would be glad to comply. Indeed you could even use the toy as a teaching opportunity. "OK, honey you can have the toy and eat your vegetables or eat the food" Or perhaps you want to reward your children for eating their vegetables all month with a toy+fun meal. Its like saying companies shouldn't make their games fun because otherwise they might be addictive. If companies are providing the information on the safety, and aren't even selling the product to children, then there shouldn't be restrictions. If you really think being overweight s a problem then prevent companies (including grocery stores)from selling anything but low calorie type fruits, vegetables and a very limited selection of lean protein to anyone with a BMI of over 30. (that might be difficult in a drive-through though)
Difficult? Try impossible. Plus, the BMI is a fucking terrible system to go by.
|
they really should just implement more serious health standards for the fast food industry instead of allowing these places to sell the public crap. Problem solved.
|
It's astounding to me how far, as a society, we have fallen. It is not, and never will be, the role of the government to ban products that may be detrimental to a small sub-section of consumers literally incapable of purchasing the product independently.
|
On November 18 2010 07:48 ZekZ wrote:
they really should just implement more serious health standards for the fast food industry instead of allowing these places to sell the public crap. Problem solved.
So just ban selling fries?
People should be responsible for their own medical costs if they go down the wrong lifestyle path , it's simple as that.
|
Osaka27158 Posts
|
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.
It's owned by people, it's run by people, and it employs people.
And physical persons don't have rights either except ones we agree upon (please don't bother responding if you actually think "inalienable rights" is some sort of metaphysical truth).
We've agreed upon corporations being legal persons. You may not like corporations, but if you're going to support banning free toys with kids' meals at hamburger joints, then this has to apply to both a mega-franchise like Mickey D and any random mom and pop shop.
While you're at it, ban cotton candy from carnivals.
Stop saving other people from themselves. We don't want your fucking help.
|
On November 19 2010 17:49 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 06:30 red_b wrote: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. It's owned by people, it's run by people, and it employs people. And physical persons don't have rights either except ones we agree upon (please don't bother responding if you actually think "inalienable rights" is some sort of metaphysical truth). We've agreed upon corporations being legal persons. You may not like corporations, but if you're going to support banning free toys with kids' meals at hamburger joints, then this has to apply to both a mega-franchise like Mickey D and any random mom and pop shop. While you're at it, ban cotton candy from carnivals. Stop saving other people from themselves. We don't want your fucking help.
I think you would be happier living in the woods somewhere. Unless you built your own house, make your own electricity, and grow your own food.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
