|
On November 16 2010 12:20 Luddite wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:10 Manifesto7 wrote:
McDonalds sells more toys than any other company in the world, so it is obviously a huge part of their business plan to get kids into their stores.
It is just unfortunate that corporate social responsibility has to be legislated rather than something voluntarily undertaken for the good of us all. 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.
No it isn't, each parent can simply not go to McDonalds. It is literally that easy. Children can't just go to McDonalds by themselves, it is the parent providing the McDonalds so it is very easy for the parent to simply stop providing McDonalds.
|
On November 16 2010 12:20 Moa wrote:
I am somewhat surprised that so many people appear to be supporting this. This is such a ridiculous example of the government poking its head places it shouldn't, it simply isn't the government's business to get involved in this.
If I were a cynic I would say that they want to ensure a productive future workforce but I don't believe that is the actual reason for this. I think that this legislature probably stems from overzealous (for aiur) idealists who believe that because this may increase the public good it is alright to stomp on the freedoms of businesses.
It is the job of the parents to take care of this problem, not the government. This is a dangerous precedent to set.
Isn't part of the government's job to protect its citizens? With this law, the city is trying to prevent childhood obesity.
|
I'm glad the mayor vetoed this proposition. The government shouldn't be sticking their fingers into people's lives. California just tried to do this exact same thing to video games and it got shut down just like it should, and just like this bill should. Government has no right to meddle in parenting decisions, especially if they do so by meddling in the free market. Decisions like this are only a few steps away from mandatory morning exercise like in nineteen eighty-four. It's horrifying.
|
Osaka27097 Posts
On November 16 2010 12:20 Moa wrote:
I am somewhat surprised that so many people appear to be supporting this. This is such a ridiculous example of the government poking its head places it shouldn't, it simply isn't the government's business to get involved in this.
If I were a cynic I would say that they want to ensure a productive future workforce but I don't believe that is the actual reason for this. I think that this legislature probably stems from overzealous (for aiur) idealists who believe that because this may increase the public good it is alright to stomp on the freedoms of businesses.
It is the job of the parents to take care of this problem, not the government. This is a dangerous precedent to set.
If it supposed to be the parent vs the corporations, with no backing from government, then it is more lopsided than Margarito vs Pacquiao.
If corporations had any sense of responsibility then governments wouldn't have to step in, but they don't. They are legally obligated to make as much money as possible, within the law, that they can. When those methods are hurting society, it is time to change the law. This may not be the best way to go about it, but it is an example of the system under which we operate.
|
Osaka27097 Posts
On November 16 2010 12:23 Moa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:20 Luddite wrote:On November 16 2010 12:10 Manifesto7 wrote:
McDonalds sells more toys than any other company in the world, so it is obviously a huge part of their business plan to get kids into their stores.
It is just unfortunate that corporate social responsibility has to be legislated rather than something voluntarily undertaken for the good of us all. 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. No it isn't, each parent can simply not go to McDonalds. It is literally that easy. Children can't just go to McDonalds by themselves, it is the parent providing the McDonalds so it is very easy for the parent to simply stop providing McDonalds.
That is fine if McDonalds were the only problem, but the culmination of pressures that society places on us to be consumers makes this "simple solution" very difficult. My children are not even in school yet but they exhibit the effects of advertising by companies.
|
On November 16 2010 12:20 Luddite wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:10 Manifesto7 wrote:
McDonalds sells more toys than any other company in the world, so it is obviously a huge part of their business plan to get kids into their stores.
It is just unfortunate that corporate social responsibility has to be legislated rather than something voluntarily undertaken for the good of us all. 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.
Exactly. This statute isn't controlling the behavior of kids. It's controlling the ability of companies to market unhealthy products directly towards children. We've done this with good success when it comes to cigarettes. Poor people who have no choice but fast food can still buy fast food for kids. But now McDonald's can't try to hook kids who do have choices early.
|
On November 16 2010 12:10 Manifesto7 wrote:
McDonalds sells more toys than any other company in the world, so it is obviously a huge part of their business plan to get kids into their stores.
Yeah, they're corporate motto is "first one's free" and they actively pray to Satan for addictive flavors.
Seriously guys, its a toy. We all wanted Micky D's back in the day because of the fries; the toy was a bonus. Even so, if the toy was the only reason children wanted McDonald's, then why would a parent take their child to McDonalds more than once a day? Or once every few days? Or once a month? I remember wanting McDonalds succulent fries every day but, guess what, my mom and dad actually had the spine to say no.
Children don't have money, they don't have a means of transport and they probably lack the social skills to engage in a conversation for their next McDonald's fix. Parents are the problem, punking McDonald's isn't the solution.
On November 16 2010 12:20 Luddite wrote:
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.
You don't have to fight them? Just don't take your kid to McDonald's. It's not hard.
|
On November 16 2010 12:23 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:20 Moa wrote:
I am somewhat surprised that so many people appear to be supporting this. This is such a ridiculous example of the government poking its head places it shouldn't, it simply isn't the government's business to get involved in this.
If I were a cynic I would say that they want to ensure a productive future workforce but I don't believe that is the actual reason for this. I think that this legislature probably stems from overzealous (for aiur) idealists who believe that because this may increase the public good it is alright to stomp on the freedoms of businesses.
It is the job of the parents to take care of this problem, not the government. This is a dangerous precedent to set. Isn't part of the government's job to protect its citizens? With this law, the city is trying to prevent childhood obesity.
Then why not ban cigarettes, and alcohol and fun? The government is to protect the citizens from what would do them harm, not the harm they do to themselves.
To those who are arguing for this law, where do you draw the line?
The precedent this is setting is that the government may remove the rights of the few to ensure the well being of many. This is a dangerous precedent because eventually something that is almost universally considered evil (McDonald's) will no longer be the target. What if the government decides that television targeted towards children is too dangerous and limits that, or some other form of media.
What if... what if.... the government bans the sale of videogames to minors.
|
Last thing people need is these damn self-righteous I know better than you hippies pushing their agendas on the rest of us.
Spot the irony ^ ^
|
I actually think this may impact at least a little on the parents buying their kids crap food. Sure, it will not stop obesity, but it may lower it down.
|
I can't believe the city is spending time to take this action. Why not ban candy marketed towards children while they are at it? Parents who cannot refuse their childrens' request for Happy Meal toys probably cannot refuse requests for candy as well. Unless I see evidence to the contrary, for now I will believe that Happy Meal toys have little contribution to childhood obesity in the United States and that the city council's ordinance is nothing more than a political maneuver. Real civic leaders would attack the root of the obesity problem, not the symbols.
|
On November 16 2010 12:33 Moa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:23 Ferrose wrote:On November 16 2010 12:20 Moa wrote:
I am somewhat surprised that so many people appear to be supporting this. This is such a ridiculous example of the government poking its head places it shouldn't, it simply isn't the government's business to get involved in this.
If I were a cynic I would say that they want to ensure a productive future workforce but I don't believe that is the actual reason for this. I think that this legislature probably stems from overzealous (for aiur) idealists who believe that because this may increase the public good it is alright to stomp on the freedoms of businesses.
It is the job of the parents to take care of this problem, not the government. This is a dangerous precedent to set. Isn't part of the government's job to protect its citizens? With this law, the city is trying to prevent childhood obesity. Then why not ban cigarettes, and alcohol and fun? The government is to protect the citizens from what would do them harm, not the harm they do to themselves. To those who are arguing for this law, where do you draw the line? The precedent this is setting is that the government may remove the rights of the few to ensure the well being of many. This is a dangerous precedent because eventually something that is almost universally considered evil (McDonald's) will no longer be the target. What if the government decides that television targeted towards children is too dangerous and limits that, or some other form of media. What if... what if.... the government bans the sale of videogames to minors.
It sounds like you are a bit paranoid. But cigarettes and alcohol are legal because they aren't marketed to children. A fully-grown adult knows what they're doing to themselves when they smoke or drink. If a child eats McDonald's everyday, the child isn't going to think "Gee, I'm probably gonna get really fat and become a diabetic from this."
My point is, children can't protect themselves.
|
Osaka27097 Posts
On November 16 2010 12:31 reg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:10 Manifesto7 wrote:
McDonalds sells more toys than any other company in the world, so it is obviously a huge part of their business plan to get kids into their stores. Yeah, they're corporate motto is "first one's free" and they actively pray to Satan for addictive flavors. Seriously guys, its a toy. We all wanted Micky D's back in the day because of the fries; the toy was a bonus. Even so, if the toy was the only reason children wanted McDonald's, then why would a parent take their child to McDonalds more than once a day? Or once every few days? Or once a month? I remember wanting McDonalds succulent fries every day but, guess what, my mom and dad actually had the spine to say no. Children don't have money, they don't have a means of transport and they probably lack the social skills to engage in a conversation for their next McDonald's fix. Parents are the problem, punking McDonald's isn't the solution.
Hey, the moral high horse is a great place to be, and I am glad that you didn't turn out to be an obese french fry craving lunatic because of a miniature plush toy.
But if you look at obesity levels the reality is that you are the exception, not the norm. It is fine to say that parents should spine up, but looking around it doesn't seem as though that is happening. There is a real problem with overweight children in developed countries. So the government can either admonish people to "not take your kids to McDonalds, not buy soda, go for a daily walk, and ignore the billions in advertising dollars we are all exposed to", or they can take some other measures.
Do I think this is going to solve the problem of fat kids? Nope, I think this is a pretty ham fisted (no pun intended) way of going about things. But this, in conjunction with numerous other changes, might give people more of a chance. Because right now, the evidence shows that the norm isn't working.
|
On November 16 2010 12:38 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:33 Moa wrote:On November 16 2010 12:23 Ferrose wrote:On November 16 2010 12:20 Moa wrote:
I am somewhat surprised that so many people appear to be supporting this. This is such a ridiculous example of the government poking its head places it shouldn't, it simply isn't the government's business to get involved in this.
If I were a cynic I would say that they want to ensure a productive future workforce but I don't believe that is the actual reason for this. I think that this legislature probably stems from overzealous (for aiur) idealists who believe that because this may increase the public good it is alright to stomp on the freedoms of businesses.
It is the job of the parents to take care of this problem, not the government. This is a dangerous precedent to set. Isn't part of the government's job to protect its citizens? With this law, the city is trying to prevent childhood obesity. Then why not ban cigarettes, and alcohol and fun? The government is to protect the citizens from what would do them harm, not the harm they do to themselves. To those who are arguing for this law, where do you draw the line? The precedent this is setting is that the government may remove the rights of the few to ensure the well being of many. This is a dangerous precedent because eventually something that is almost universally considered evil (McDonald's) will no longer be the target. What if the government decides that television targeted towards children is too dangerous and limits that, or some other form of media. What if... what if.... the government bans the sale of videogames to minors. It sounds like you are a bit paranoid. But cigarettes and alcohol are legal because they aren't marketed to children. A fully-grown adult knows what they're doing to themselves when they smoke or drink. If a child eats McDonald's everyday, the child isn't going to think "Gee, I'm probably gonna get really fat and become a diabetic from this." My point is, children can't protect themselves.
Yes but parents can, this law takes responsibility from the hands of parents and puts it into the hands of the government.
|
On November 16 2010 12:20 MrWinkles wrote:
This will have no effect on childhood obesity, even were it adopted on a global scale, which it is not being.
Yes, of course this act would never gain national, much less international, acceptance, but I think it's a bit hasty to condemn the proposition as futile before you even see the results.
On November 16 2010 12:20 MrWinkles wrote:World with less toys = a little bit sadder, perhaps  Doesn't this seem like a bunch of adults tearing a teddy bear out of a kid's hand and telling him he can have it back when he behaves?
No, it doesn't seem like that at all. You can't compare teddy bears and fast food consumption so flippantly.
A teddy bear cannot be considered a vice; it has no physical or mental deterrent to the owner, unlike fast food, which can and does inflict physiological damage upon the eater (assuming careful moderation is not taken). Your analogy is trying to make the claim that removing an incentive to eat McDonald's to help crack down on child obesity, and taking away a child's teddy bear due to poor behavior (I assume this is the case from your wording), are comparable. I find this kind of thinking suspect at best. When was the last time your teddy bear made you fat? There's a difference between parents enforcing good behavior for their child, and the government encouraging healthier eating habits for children.
On November 16 2010 12:20 MrWinkles wrote:
Also, on another note, this is just another manifestation of our current culture's discrimination against the overweight.
There's something wrong with this?
Call me Negative Nancy, but I don't see why it's a problem for society to look down on fat people. If fat people are teased because of their weight, that's enough reason to monitor their eating habits. I also don't like the term "overweight", as that implies there is a correct weight. There isn't; you should think not of correct and incorrect, but healthy and unhealthy body weights. Fat people are harming themselves with their lifestyle, and if a little teasing at the expense of their feelings prompts a more nutritional diet, then I say mission accomplished.
I expect to get a lot of flak for that last one, but that's simply how I feel about it. You may call me insensitive, but I prefer to think of myself as pragmatic.
|
On November 16 2010 12:31 reg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:10 Manifesto7 wrote:
McDonalds sells more toys than any other company in the world, so it is obviously a huge part of their business plan to get kids into their stores. Yeah, they're corporate motto is "first one's free" and they actively pray to Satan for addictive flavors. Seriously guys, its a toy. We all wanted Micky D's back in the day because of the fries; the toy was a bonus. Even so, if the toy was the only reason children wanted McDonald's, then why would a parent take their child to McDonalds more than once a day? Or once every few days? Or once a month? I remember wanting McDonalds succulent fries every day but, guess what, my mom and dad actually had the spine to say no. Children don't have money, they don't have a means of transport and they probably lack the social skills to engage in a conversation for their next McDonald's fix. Parents are the problem, punking McDonald's isn't the solution.
You think McDonald's puts in the toy because they love giving out free toys to kids? It's a deliberate marketing strategy targeted towards children. And yes it would be great if parents step in and say no. But many of them aren't. And it's far less intrusive to say McDonald's can't market unhealthy products to children than to say to parents we will take your kids away from you if they are fat.
I don't understand what this sudden fear of government taking away your freedoms in coming from. Government has long protected children in a paternalistic fashion. Kids generally can't make contracts, for example. The right to make contracts is a VITAL right that adults enjoy. I don't see people railing against the government for denying children this right. You get all your rights if you are an adult with normal capacity. However, kids and mentally challenged people are clearly vulnerable and we can't let corporations prey on their lack of decision-making ability.
|
On November 16 2010 12:39 Moa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:38 Ferrose wrote:On November 16 2010 12:33 Moa wrote:On November 16 2010 12:23 Ferrose wrote:On November 16 2010 12:20 Moa wrote:
I am somewhat surprised that so many people appear to be supporting this. This is such a ridiculous example of the government poking its head places it shouldn't, it simply isn't the government's business to get involved in this.
If I were a cynic I would say that they want to ensure a productive future workforce but I don't believe that is the actual reason for this. I think that this legislature probably stems from overzealous (for aiur) idealists who believe that because this may increase the public good it is alright to stomp on the freedoms of businesses.
It is the job of the parents to take care of this problem, not the government. This is a dangerous precedent to set. Isn't part of the government's job to protect its citizens? With this law, the city is trying to prevent childhood obesity. Then why not ban cigarettes, and alcohol and fun? The government is to protect the citizens from what would do them harm, not the harm they do to themselves. To those who are arguing for this law, where do you draw the line? The precedent this is setting is that the government may remove the rights of the few to ensure the well being of many. This is a dangerous precedent because eventually something that is almost universally considered evil (McDonald's) will no longer be the target. What if the government decides that television targeted towards children is too dangerous and limits that, or some other form of media. What if... what if.... the government bans the sale of videogames to minors. It sounds like you are a bit paranoid. But cigarettes and alcohol are legal because they aren't marketed to children. A fully-grown adult knows what they're doing to themselves when they smoke or drink. If a child eats McDonald's everyday, the child isn't going to think "Gee, I'm probably gonna get really fat and become a diabetic from this." My point is, children can't protect themselves. Yes but parents can, this law takes responsibility from the hands of parents and puts it into the hands of the government.
Obviously the parents don't give a shit then since so many kids these days are fat. Maybe it's time for the government to try its hand.
Edit: Right now, it's the parents' responsibility. And they aren't doing their job currently. We can't leave it solely in their hands anymore.
|
Is there anyone here that actually lost interest in going to Mcdonalds once they got too old for a happy meal toy? Not because you made a concious decision to eat healthy but because the only reason you liked mcdonalds was because of the cheap 5 cent toy that came with your meal. Anyone?
|
On November 16 2010 12:23 Moa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:20 Luddite wrote:On November 16 2010 12:10 Manifesto7 wrote:
McDonalds sells more toys than any other company in the world, so it is obviously a huge part of their business plan to get kids into their stores.
It is just unfortunate that corporate social responsibility has to be legislated rather than something voluntarily undertaken for the good of us all. 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. No it isn't, each parent can simply not go to McDonalds. It is literally that easy. Children can't just go to McDonalds by themselves, it is the parent providing the McDonalds so it is very easy for the parent to simply stop providing McDonalds.
It's not really an easy thing for a parent to ignore the constant whining of their kids. We're pretty much programmed to give our kids what they want. Sure you can ignore it for a while, and maybe some really strong parents can ignore whining forever, but most people are only human and will give in eventually.
|
On November 16 2010 12:26 Slow Motion wrote:
Exactly. This statute isn't controlling the behavior of kids. It's controlling the ability of companies to market unhealthy products directly towards children. We've done this with good success when it comes to cigarettes. Poor people who have no choice but fast food can still buy fast food for kids. But now McDonald's can't try to hook kids who do have choices early.
Unfortunately what you, and many other people don't seem to understand, is that the government has mandated that all companies sell unhealthy food by regulating what can be put in them. The movement away from (healthy and unhealthy) fat towards salt and sugar is what companies are obligated to put in their foods, because of tarrifs and other regulations. The government causes industries to sell unhealthy food because of legislation, and then punishes companies for following the law. There was a TL thread with a long youtube lecture in it about how this happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
