EPTHappy Meal Toy Ban in San Francisco - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Psiven
United States148 Posts
| ||
|
P00RKID
United States424 Posts
| ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
From the comments I'm reading, I get the feeling that some people and I are reading completely different articles here. The government is not stopping McD to sell fast food, they were simply forbidding (vetoed now, w/e) a cheap trick that targets innocent and ignorant children: something that rakes in inestimable amount of profit at the cost of the children's healths. How is this a bad thing? It won't help. If children were really fascinated with the toy and cared little about the food, McDonald's would've made them healthy by now given that parents generally do care about the health of their children and would prefer them to eat healthy food rather than non-healthy food, if it weren't for the incessant nagging. But clearly none of you have ever tried to raise a child if you think they can be tricked into eating healthy food by giving them a toy. Toy or not, this law does not do anything to change the preferences of the children for sweet and fatty foods. And besides being useless, I can think of plenty of unintended consequences. San Franciscan parents would now be inclined to drive further to get the tasty meal and toy their children desire, leading to increased carbon emissions. The lack of calories in the healthy happy meal will lead to increased expenditures on food, which hurts the poor. | ||
|
SaroDarksbane
United States55 Posts
On November 16 2010 16:11 Cambium wrote: I keep on reminding myself of this quote: "Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you're still retarded." One of my personal favorites as well.  | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4222 Posts
On November 16 2010 16:13 P00RKID wrote: Classic case of government trying to tell people (force people) how to raise their kids and how to run their business. When nearly 30% of the population look like they'd get winded from walking up 2 flights of stairs, then the government had better step in and do something, because the people themselves aren't..... | ||
|
SaroDarksbane
United States55 Posts
On November 16 2010 16:22 Impervious wrote: When nearly 30% of the population look like they'd get winded from walking up 2 flights of stairs, then the government had better step in and do something, because the people themselves aren't..... Why? My life, my choices. | ||
|
nebffa
Australia776 Posts
Because you live in a country with other people. | ||
|
KevinIX
United States2472 Posts
| ||
|
Ryndika
1489 Posts
Fastfood is a place where you (should) visit about twice a month average. Healthy lifestyle also is way more important and goverment should use resources in supporting that. | ||
|
dudeman001
United States2412 Posts
| ||
|
Impervious
Canada4222 Posts
Your life, your choices, yet someone else pays for it through taxes (talking about medical aid from obesity related causes, like type 2 diabetes)? Imagine if smoking didn't have huge taxes on it to help offset the costs of the medical problems associated with it..... Because that's the current situation..... I'm not saying that fast food is always going to be a bad thing - eaten in moderation with an appropriate lifestyle and there is no problem with it. But that is not the reality in most cases..... There are all kinds of laws in place designed to prevent/dissuade people from doing stupid things which harm themselves and others. Why should food choices be any different? | ||
|
VonLego
United States519 Posts
On November 16 2010 12:04 Zealotdriver wrote: inb4 right wingers complain about the liberal nanny state taking away toys. I haven't been to a fast food restaurant in years and will hopefully never have to again. Right winger here! Damn nanny states deciding what is best for people instead of people deciding what is best for people! They wanted to legalize marijuana yet ban happy meal toys? I can understand the argument for going for or against both, but against one and for the other? It makes no sense! It is kinda silly that the government has the power to ban putting Buzz Lightyear toys in with a small hamburger an apple wedges. | ||
|
Danze
Australia219 Posts
"McHappy meals are unhealthy for children. Ban the toys!" Christ, I don't know about other kids, but I liked McDonald's when I was younger for the food, not for the shitty little plastic toy. If the parents are giving in to their kids moaning for a Happy Meal because you get a toy from it, then what the fuck is going on with parents these days? | ||
|
SaroDarksbane
United States55 Posts
On November 16 2010 16:29 nebffa wrote: Because you live in a country with other people. Which is a good reason I shouldn't be firing off a gun in random directions and driving on the sidewalks. What I eat, though? What does that have to do with you? I mean, if tomorrow the government said: "Right, from now on, this is what everyone will eat, this is what everyone will drink, and here is the amount and type of exercise everyone is required to do everyday." You'd be okay with that? "Other people exist" is a rather vague statement to base policy on. Is any and every action allowed to the government under its banner? On November 16 2010 16:35 Impervious wrote: Your life, your choices, yet someone else pays for it through taxes (talking about medical aid from obesity related causes, like type 2 diabetes)? I never asked anyone to pay my medical bills. I'll do that myself, thank you very much. | ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
that is a seriously overboard nanny state move parents need to take responsibility. why do people keep shitting on mcdonalds | ||
|
Bosu
United States3247 Posts
| ||
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
good intentions but i don't see it being effective in the long run. probably just going to hurt mcdonald's income, but not that it'll be affected that much anyway. | ||
|
XinRan
United States530 Posts
On November 16 2010 16:52 SaroDarksbane wrote: Which is a good reason I shouldn't be firing off a gun in random directions and driving on the sidewalks. What I eat, though? What does that have to do with you? I mean, if tomorrow the government said: "Right, from now on, this is what everyone will eat, this is what everyone will drink, and here is the amount and type of exercise everyone is required to do everyday." You'd be okay with that? "Other people exist" is a rather vague statement to base policy on. Is any and every action allowed to the government under its banner? I never asked anyone to pay my medical bills. I'll do that myself, thank you very much. If you qualify for Medicare, I'm pretty sure you would take advantage of it even if you have the money to pay your medical bills. Even if you don't, more importantly, almost everyone else will. If society is more obese and therefore unhealthier as a whole, then the government must spend more tax dollars on treating obese people with Medicare coverage. Furthermore, obesity creates demand for health services and therefore jacks up the price of health care. An increase in health care prices negatively affects people who have led healthy lifestyles. That is how someone's health choices can affect everyone else. | ||
|
Mr.Pyro
Denmark959 Posts
Doesn't this boil down to resonsibility of the parents and how often they let their childen eat fast-food? Fast food isn't really that bad for you - if you ate the samething every day you subject yourself to malnutritrion under any circumstance. | ||
|
Melancholia
United States717 Posts
It couldn't POSSIBLY be that the food system is arranged so that the cheapest food is also the least healthy. A cheeseburger should naturally be cheaper than a head of broccoli, feeding the broccoli dirt and sun is insanely expensive compared to the hundreds of pounds of grain we feed to cows. | ||
| ||
