EPTthe key is low income families and especially single parents that do not have time to cook for their kids, and a kids meal becomes a super easy solution - quick, economical, and a toy that means a lot to underprivileged children
Happy Meal Toy Ban in San Francisco - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Terranist
United States2496 Posts
the key is low income families and especially single parents that do not have time to cook for their kids, and a kids meal becomes a super easy solution - quick, economical, and a toy that means a lot to underprivileged children | ||
|
Mr.Pyro
Denmark959 Posts
On November 16 2010 16:59 konadora wrote: mcdonalds has a part to play too, but i think the responsibility falls majorly on the parents on what kind of food their children eat :/ So you don't think parents should allow their childen to eat McDonald's at all? I'd hate to be that child =/ | ||
|
Mr.Pyro
Denmark959 Posts
On November 16 2010 17:04 Terranist wrote: when there was power rangers or hotwheels toys, i wanted happy meals breakfast, lunch, and dinner. KFC had pokemon beanie babies if you bought large popcorn chicken and i probably ate a full life's quota of popcorn chicken in a single week to get dratini. kids are super easy to manipulate and market shit to, so that's why this is such a necessary and needed ban. Why? You don't leave important decision making up to the child itself, surely their parents can control this. What ever happened to parental guidance in stead of having government regulations raise your child for you? | ||
|
Bosu
United States3247 Posts
On November 16 2010 17:04 MaD.pYrO wrote: So you don't think parents should allow their childen to eat McDonald's at all? I'd hate to be that child =/ Uh, he didn't say that? | ||
|
Melancholia
United States717 Posts
On November 16 2010 16:15 domovoi wrote: 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. Healthy is expensive. Compare the price of a head of broccoli (or a piece of fruit, if you want to look at something tasty) to the cost of a McDonald's cheeseburger. | ||
|
SaroDarksbane
United States55 Posts
On November 16 2010 17:00 XinRan wrote: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. An excellent argument for ending state-sponsored healthcare! But assuming that's not on the table, I wouldn't care if it were simply putting restrictions on people who are living on the tax payer's dime. Much like we attempt to prevent welfare payments from going towards booze and cigarettes, I could get behind preventing government healthcare recipients from indulging in health-risky behavior. Then it's simply a voluntary condition. If at any time you don't want to play by the rules, you can simply opt to pay for yourself from then on. Everybody wins. But in this case, they are making decisions for everyone, including people who aren't asking for someone else to bear the cost of their decisions. | ||
|
kojinshugi
Estonia2559 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. Good for you. This is an absolutely idiotic fucking law. Children aren't consumers, their parents are. If I want to take my kid to McDonalds every so often, I'm allowed to. If I'm feeding my child nothing but McDonalds society has bigger fucking problems than free toys. Like allowing retarded people to reproduce. | ||
|
kojinshugi
Estonia2559 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..... No. If people want to die of heart disease after 60-70 years of delicious bacon grease, that's their choice. We all die of something. It is not the government's role in any way shape or form to dictate our fucking eating habits. We are not cattle. | ||
|
kojinshugi
Estonia2559 Posts
On November 16 2010 17:03 Melancholia wrote: Of COURSE it's the parents fault. After all, poor people, black people, and Hispanic people are inherently worse at being parents. As are people in the south eastern US. And really, Americans as a whole. 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. This just in, a cheeseburger contains an entire cow. | ||
|
XinRan
United States530 Posts
On November 16 2010 17:08 SaroDarksbane wrote: An excellent argument for ending state-sponsored healthcare! But assuming that's not on the table, I wouldn't care if it were simply putting restrictions on people who are living on the tax payer's dime. Much like we attempt to prevent welfare payments from going towards booze and cigarettes, I could get behind preventing government healthcare recipients from indulging in health-risky behavior. Then it's simply a voluntary condition. If at any time you don't want to play by the rules, you can simply opt to pay for yourself from then on. Everybody wins. But in this case, they are making decisions for everyone, including people who aren't asking for someone else to bear the cost of their decisions. Not that I agree with the San Franscisco legislation, but I was just trying to point out how the diet choices of an individual can affect the entire society. I think that's the best argument in favor of the legislation and will always exist as far as I can see because Medicare is politically invulnerable. | ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
I'm very glad the Mayor vetoed the law. Is his veto supposed to stick? | ||
|
Melancholia
United States717 Posts
On November 16 2010 17:14 kojinshugi wrote: This just in, a cheeseburger contains an entire cow. You've grasped the entirety of the point I was making about the terrible inefficiencies of broccoli! | ||
|
LOLtex
United States148 Posts
| ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On November 16 2010 17:06 Melancholia wrote: Healthy is expensive. Compare the price of a head of broccoli (or a piece of fruit, if you want to look at something tasty) to the cost of a McDonald's cheeseburger. Vegetables and Fruit are cheaper on a per pound basis. Have you never gone shopping at a supermarket? | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On November 16 2010 17:00 XinRan wrote: 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. On the other hand, this could be mitigated by the shorter lifespans. | ||
|
XinRan
United States530 Posts
On November 16 2010 17:17 Melancholia wrote: You've grasped the entirety of the point I was making about the terrible inefficiencies of broccoli! I actually had trouble grasping the point of your post because of your use of sarcasm. The two sentences in the second paragraph seem to contradict each other. So you think that the food system is arranged so that the cheapest food is also the least healthy, yet a cheeseburger costs more than a head of broccoli? | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
(Also, there is no government intervention. This was done by city powers) | ||
|
XinRan
United States530 Posts
On November 16 2010 17:24 domovoi wrote: On the other hand, this could be mitigated by the shorter lifespans. It is mitigated, but not by much. Death from complications related to obesity is slow and drawn out. An obese person with high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and diabetes will not die immediately from these conditions, and he or she will prolong his or her life by taking medications to help with these conditions and checking in with a doctor frequently. | ||
|
MadVillain
United States402 Posts
I laugh at the people claiming that this protects the children. Since when does a 6 year old walk over to McDonalds, wip a 5 dollar bill out of his pocket and say "Could I have a Happy Meal?" No, no no and no, if children are becoming fat from fast food its 100% parents fault. | ||
|
LeCastor
France234 Posts
Obviously this will help parent's a little bit. It's so hard to be a parent nowadays, because on TV there is about 70% of advertising about crappy food and snacks. We can't let poor people down. OFFTOPIC: About advertising on tv, now all food ads in France must have this words on the bottom of the screen: 'Be sure to eat at least 5 fruits and vegetables each day' | ||
| ||
