|
As you may know, if you go to McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, etc., a kids' meal also gets a free toy with it. Well, the board of supervisors in San Francisco thinks that before restaurants are allowed to do this, the meals that the toys are served with should be somewhat healthy for children. The city plans to accomplish this by mandating that the meal contain less than six hundred calories, less than thirty-five percent of the calories are from fat, and a serving of fruit or vegetables comes with the meal.
San Francisco's board of supervisors has voted, by a veto-proof margin, to ban most of McDonald's Happy Meals as they are now served in the restaurants.
The measure will make San Francisco the first major city in the country to forbid restaurants from offering a free toy with meals that contain more than set levels of calories, sugar and fat.
The ordinance would also require restaurants to provide fruits and vegetables with all meals for children that come with toys.
"We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure. "From San Francisco to New York City, the epidemic of childhood obesity in this country is making our kids sick, particularly kids from low income neighborhoods, at an alarming rate. It's a survival issue and a day-to-day issue."
Just after the vote, McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud said, "We are extremely disappointed with today's decision. It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for."
The ban, already enacted in a similar measure by Santa Clara County, was opposed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who was vying to be lieutenant governor in Tuesday's election. But because the measure was passed by eight votes — one more than needed to override a veto — his opposition doesn't matter unless one of the supervisors changes his or her mind after the promised veto.
Under the ordinance, scheduled to take effect in December 2011, restaurants may include a toy with a meal if the food and drink combined contain fewer than 600 calories, and if less than 35% of the calories come from fat.
Over the last few weeks, the proposed ban caused a stir online and on cable television, with supporters arguing that it would help protect children from obesity, and opponents seeing it as the latest example of the nanny state gone wild.
Supervisor Bevan Dufty, whose swing vote provided the veto-proof majority, said critics should not dismiss the legislation as a nutty effort by San Franciscans. "I do believe the industry is going to take note of this. I don't care how much they say, 'It's San Francisco, they're wacked out there.' "
Proud, the McDonald's spokeswoman, said the city was out of step with the mainstream on the issue.
Article: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103
Now, I believe that childhood obesity is a big problem in the United States. But I do not think that measures like this will help to reduce it. I believe that if a child becomes obese, it is most likely the parents' fault, as they are responsible for raising a healthy child. Also, this could harm the revenue of the restaurants, as one of the most popular meals will no longer appear on the menu.
I am interested to see how the restaurants will handle the ordeal.
Edit: Here's a pdf chart of the nutritional values of Happy Meal options:
http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/Happy_Meals_Nutrition_List.pdf
|
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 idea imo.
Sure it's mostly the parents' fault but if the kid is not constantly asking to get a happy meal because of the toy there's less pressure on the parents to eat unhealthily.
|
On November 16 2010 12:01 Ferrose wrote:
Now, I believe that childhood obesity is a big problem in the United States. But I do not think that measures like this will help to reduce it. I believe that if a child becomes obese, it is most likely the parents' fault, as they are responsible for raising a healthy child. Also, this could harm the revenue of the restaurants, as one of the most popular meals will no longer appear on the menu.
I am interested to see how the restaurants will handle the ordeal.
I agree its entirely the parents fault, but you have to consider if your kid is constantly nagging you 24/7 to go to mcdonalds, and all the kids friends get to go because their parents gave in, it can be really hard to say no because it makes you seem like an asshole parent and your kid will be pissed at you even though you're actually doing him or her a favor. but of course your kid doesn't understand that. and alot of kids want mcdonalds mostly because they want the little happy meal toy they saw on tv so this is a way to reduce that pressure.
And while less kids begging to go to mcdonalds because of the toys they give out might hurt their revenue a little bit, the statement "one of the most popular meals will no longer appear on the menu" isn't true. fast food places can still serve whatever meals they want (and they will continue to serve their current ones i'm sure), they just can't include toys with them unless they meet these requirements.
|
|
|
I know that at McDonald's they actually offer apples and milk as an alternative, but I doubt many kids want milk and apples over Coca-Cola and french fries respectively.
For referencing the Onion, I love you.
|
Osaka27149 Posts
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.
|
@ ferrose yeah but I think if eating apples and milk will get a kid a shiny new toy, most will give in.
I think overall it's a good start. Hopefully this will start a new trend of healthy behaviour.
|
It's the parents' fault but that means we should just say to some fat diabetic kid 10 years later: "Sorry but you happened to have shitty parents, now you're fucked." I believe that adults should have the freedom to choose for themselves, but we should protect children until they are presumed able to make responsible choices.
|
On November 16 2010 12:11 Masamune wrote:
@ ferrose yeah but I think if eating apples and milk will get a kid a shiny new toy, most will give in.
I think overall it's a good start. Hopefully this will start a new trend of healthy behaviour.
I would be nothing short of enraged if they tell me what I can and cannot eat. Let's hope it stays at this...I'm an adult and I value my ability to decide these things
|
Potatoes are a vegetable (i think).
Plus, the toys suck anyways.
|
Good. I'm getting sick of listening to kids whine and bitch and tear my ears a metaphorical new asshole because they didn't get the toy they wanted. Serves the little pricks right. -.-
I like the idea behind the ban, though, despite my obvious bias against Happy Meals and such. If kids are gonna be eating at fast-food restaurants, it's nice to ensure that not everything they're eating is total crap.
|
United States4126 Posts
I would hate to be a child in San Francisco now. I grew up with happy meals all throughout my childhood and I'm completely healthy now as an adult.
|
|
|
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 think most parents want what's best for their children, but often times, they can't give them the best. The parents want to feed their children healthy things, but its just not economically viable sometimes. Vegetables and other healthy foods cost way more than a fast food meal. Sometimes, its either eat the fast food meal, or starve. I watched a family in the documentary, Food Inc, go through this.
As for the ban, I'm all for it. To give toys to the kids was like rewarding them for eating bad and terribly unhealthy food. No one, especially kids, should get a prize for doing that.
|
Thank you, I'll add that to the OP.
|
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.
|
This will have no effect on childhood obesity, even were it adopted on a global scale, which it is not being.
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?
Also, on another note, this is just another manifestation of our current culture's discrimination against the overweight.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Osaka27149 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.
|
Osaka27149 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.
|
Osaka27149 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.
|
On November 16 2010 12:38 Manifesto7 wrote:
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.
Moral high horse? Interesting... Some would call it coy or playful.
Childhood obesity is 100% the parents fault. Its funny, talk to a sociologist and they tell you how ads are the corporations arm that convinces and hypnotizes people to do their bidding. Talk to anyone in the ad business and they'll tell you just how ineffective ads really are. I watched both seasons of the GSL and have yet to buy a Sony Ericsson or a Powerade, nor do I really notice after it leaves my sensory memory.
Name all the ads on the billboards on your way to work. Name the last 10 commercials you saw on TV - precisely. I can only think of one billboard! And its only because I make fun of it all the time!
You want to reduce obesity? STOP SUBSIDIZING PRODUCE. The farm bill is the single most destructive bill to the American diet. Meat is cheaper in America than vegetables. It is the opposite everywhere else! A free market diet is different from a mixed economy diet. And while I don't believe we should ever tell people what the can or can not eat, the free market will provide incentives for healthy substitutes (in terms of lower prices).
On November 16 2010 12:39 Slow Motion wrote:
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.
I disagree the premise that children are being preyed upon. Does McDonald's want more customers? Sure. But I don't see the jump from, "hey, here's a toy, come back again" to "they're being manipulated by a multinational umbrella corporation looking to fatten up the world".
|
Osaka27149 Posts
On November 16 2010 12:48 BlackJack wrote:
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 the other hand, there are probably more than a few people who started liking McDonalds because of the toy, formed a behavioural pattern of connecting McDonalds with joy, and then continued to go despite no longer caring about the toy. Habit forming is a major aim of all businesses and their advertising.
|
On November 16 2010 12:48 BlackJack wrote:
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?
So you think McDonald's doesn't believe its toys and clowns have any effect on the desire of children for their product? Man those guys are nice for throwing in free toys! They just want to see the smiles of innocent children! And by they I mean the multi-million dollar advertising firms.
On November 16 2010 12:50 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +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.
What do those poor policies have to do with our discussion of this particular statute? You're talking about a completely different set of legislation than what is here.
|
McDonald's's (?) marketing strategy is entirely centered on children. They market themselves specifically to children because believe it or not, children exercise enormous influence over their parents. Their specific mascot, the clown, was directly chosen to appeal to children. A parent will not mind eating at a restaurant as long as their child enjoys it, since parents aren't nearly as picky. So since the children go to the restaurant, the parents end up buying something for themselves as well.
I'm sure you are all excellent at theoryparenting, but it's a lot easier to agree with your children than to fight them irl. Also, McDonald's is pretty cheap.
|
its so true, its the power of the toy that made me want to buy a happy meal in the first place when i was a little kid.
Lion king
Antz
all those old school cartoon movies ( toys ) Made me want them more!
This sure is pissing McDonalds but oh well if people want toy i dont think they would mind drive another 20-30min to a new state and go that macdonald.
|
On November 16 2010 12:49 Luddite wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:23 Moa wrote: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.
I understand that because I am not a parent I do not fully understand what it is like to turn down a potentially crying child. What I do know is that as a child myself being in this situation where I really wanted to go to McDonalds, or buy that one toy and not being able to has made me a stronger person. Part of childhood development is the ability to accept "no" as an answer.
That said I don't want you to believe that I think that happy meal toys are a good thing because they make children cry when they can't have them, and tears make you stronger. It is more of an unintended consequence of the situation.
Also I want to ask this question again because it hasn't been answered.
Where do you draw the line?
What is acceptable in terms of marketing towards kids and what isn't?
|
Last thing I want is government coming into my house and telling me what can go on my dinner table, that's not their role, that's not why we pay these bastards
|
On November 16 2010 12:56 Mawi wrote:
its so true, its the power of the toy that made me want to buy a happy meal in the first place when i was a little kid.
Lion king
Antz
all those old school cartoon movies ( toys ) Made me want them more!
This sure is pissing McDonalds but oh well if people want toy i dont think they would mind drive another 20-30min to a new state and go that macdonald.
I used to beg my parents all the time for those Beanie Baby toys...
On November 16 2010 12:57 Moa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:49 Luddite wrote:On November 16 2010 12:23 Moa wrote: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. I understand that because I am not a parent I do not fully understand what it is like to turn down a potentially crying child. What I do know is that as a child myself being in this situation where I really wanted to go to McDonalds, or buy that one toy and not being able to has made me a stronger person. Part of childhood development is the ability to accept "no" as an answer. That said I don't want you to believe that I think that happy meal toys are a good thing because they make children cry when they can't have them, and tears make you stronger. It is more of an unintended consequence of the situation. Also I want to ask this question again because it hasn't been answered. Where do you draw the line? What is acceptable in terms of marketing towards kids and what isn't?
But parents aren't telling their kids "no."
|
|
|
Osaka27149 Posts
On November 16 2010 12:51 reg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:38 Manifesto7 wrote:
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. Moral high horse? Interesting... Some would call it coy or playful. Childhood obesity is 100% the parents fault. Its funny, talk to a sociologist and they tell you how ads are the corporations arm that convinces and hypnotizes people to do their bidding. Talk to anyone in the ad business and they'll tell you just how ineffective ads really are. I watched both seasons of the GSL and have yet to buy a Sony Ericsson or a Powerade, nor do I really notice after it leaves my sensory memory. Name all the ads on the billboards on your way to work. Name the last 10 commercials you saw on TV - precisely. I can only think of one billboard! And its only because I make fun of it all the time! You want to reduce obesity? STOP SUBSIDIZING PRODUCE. The farm bill is the single most destructive bill to the American diet. Meat is cheaper in America than vegetables. It is the opposite everywhere else! A free market diet is different from a mixed economy diet. And while I don't believe we should ever tell people what the can or can not eat, the free market will provide incentives for healthy substitutes (in terms of lower prices).
I disagree with you about how ineffective advertising is, and I'm not going to just accept your statement as fact. In addition, I believe a lot of advertising is not about creating specific moments (although the super bowl is a good example of that) but creating saturation. I can't tell you the last ten ads I saw, but I can recite the ten most popular company jingles that I hear on TV and then subsequently hear in the supermarket the next day.
And again, this isn't a magic bullet. By itself this is ridiculous. Combine this with other measures such as removing corporate sponsorship of public schools by soda companies, creating incentives for healthier products, and public awareness and it might be a start.
|
Meh, you cant sell baseball cards in cigarette packs anymore, how is this any different? The consumable is just as bad for you.
|
On November 16 2010 12:52 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:48 BlackJack wrote:
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 the other hand, there are probably more than a few people who started liking McDonalds because of the toy, formed a behavioural pattern of connecting McDonalds with joy, and then continued to go despite no longer caring about the toy. Habit forming is a major aim of all businesses and their advertising.
I'd bet 99.9% of those people also like pizza hut, taco bell, arbys, doritos, cheetohs, fudgesicles, chips ahoy, potato chips, sugary cereals, ice cream, donuts, soda, etc. and of those only the cereal comes with a toy  Just like you said, mcdonalds isn't the only problem so by itself this law is kind of useless. People that take their kid to mcdonalds more than 1-2 times a month probably have soooo many bad eating habits that removing a toy from a happy meal changes nothing.
|
On November 16 2010 12:57 Irrelevant wrote:
Last thing I want is government coming into my house and telling me what can go on my dinner table, that's not their role, that's not why we pay these bastards
I think people are still misunderstanding this particular statute. It's not banning kids from having fast food. It's banning companies from marketing certain products to your kids. You can still have whatever on your dinner table.
|
On November 16 2010 12:38 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:31 reg 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. 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.
You, as a parent, can prevent the billions of dollars worth of advertising from affecting your kids fairly easily. You can choose to Tivo TV commercials, turn on ad-blocker on Firefox, or even choose to not consumer any media. Even if advertising does reach your kids, you can convince your kids that the advertised product is not something they want. If a talking voice can persuade your kids, why can't you?
|
On November 16 2010 13:01 XinRan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:38 Manifesto7 wrote:On November 16 2010 12:31 reg 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. 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. You, as a parent, can prevent the billions of dollars worth of advertising from affecting your kids fairly easily. You can choose to Tivo TV commercials, turn on ad-blocker on Firefox, or even choose to not consumer any media. Even if advertising does reach your kids, you can convince your kids that the advertised product is not something they want. If a talking voice can persuade your kids, why can't you?
What kid is going to listen to their parents over a McDoanld's commercial?
|
On November 16 2010 13:01 XinRan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:38 Manifesto7 wrote:On November 16 2010 12:31 reg 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. 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. You, as a parent, can prevent the billions of dollars worth of advertising from affecting your kids fairly easily. You can choose to Tivo TV commercials, turn on ad-blocker on Firefox, or even choose to not consumer any media. Even if advertising does reach your kids, you can convince your kids that the advertised product is not something they want. If a talking voice can persuade your kids, why can't you?
And how do you stop your kids friends from teasing them for not having the latest McDonalds toy? Life isnt a vacuum.
|
On November 16 2010 13:03 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 13:01 XinRan wrote:On November 16 2010 12:38 Manifesto7 wrote:On November 16 2010 12:31 reg 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. 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. You, as a parent, can prevent the billions of dollars worth of advertising from affecting your kids fairly easily. You can choose to Tivo TV commercials, turn on ad-blocker on Firefox, or even choose to not consumer any media. Even if advertising does reach your kids, you can convince your kids that the advertised product is not something they want. If a talking voice can persuade your kids, why can't you? What kid is going to listen to their parents over a McDoanld's commercial?
If as Manifesto said marketing is about saturation, it should be quite easy for the message of the parent to outweigh the message of the TV if it is constantly repeated. Also I feel like this argument has almost boiled down to "the government should make parenting easy."
"And how do you stop your kids friends from teasing them for not having the latest McDonalds toy? Life isnt a vacuum."
This is something that I don't believe has ever happened. Or at least doesn't happen on a scale large enough for the government to get involved.
|
The whole argument of whether parents can block these influences from kids is irrelevant. That fact is many parents aren't doing a good job of it whether you think they can or not. Yes you should take personal responsibility for your own poor choices, but why should the children take responsibility for the bad choices of their parents?
|
On November 16 2010 12:59 Manifesto7 wrote:I disagree with you about how ineffective advertising is, and I'm not going to just accept your statement as fact. In addition, I believe a lot of advertising is not about creating specific moments (although the super bowl is a good example of that) but creating saturation. I can't tell you the last ten ads I saw, but I can recite the ten most popular company jingles that I hear on TV and then subsequently hear in the supermarket the next day.
You don't have to accept it as fact but it would be beneficial for you to consider it. But, riddle me this, have you ever acted on those ads? For an ad to be effective you have to do what they say. I've never visited freecreditreport or eaten at an Arby's or bought a Mercedes or drank a Bud Light, even though I'm exposed to those ads all the time, I never act on them.
I refuse to believe, until given a good reason, that ads have some mystical power of children and adults. They simply don't.
On November 16 2010 12:59 Manifesto7 wrote:And again, this isn't a magic bullet. By itself this is ridiculous. Combine this with other measures such as removing corporate sponsorship of public schools by soda companies, creating incentives for healthier products, and public awareness and it might be a start.
Well public schools can ban corporate sponsors if they want. Private schools should retain the right to have them. I don't know about creating incentives but I agree that getting rid of the disincentives would go along way for America's public health.
|
On November 16 2010 13:10 reg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:59 Manifesto7 wrote:I disagree with you about how ineffective advertising is, and I'm not going to just accept your statement as fact. In addition, I believe a lot of advertising is not about creating specific moments (although the super bowl is a good example of that) but creating saturation. I can't tell you the last ten ads I saw, but I can recite the ten most popular company jingles that I hear on TV and then subsequently hear in the supermarket the next day. You don't have to accept it as fact but it would be beneficial for you to consider it. But, riddle me this, have you ever acted on those ads? For an ad to be effective you have to do what they say. I've never visited freecreditreport or eaten at an Arby's or bought a Mercedes or drank a Bud Light, even though I'm exposed to those ads all the time, I never act on them. I refuse to believe, until given a good reason, that ads have some mystical power of children and adults. They simply don't. Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:59 Manifesto7 wrote:And again, this isn't a magic bullet. By itself this is ridiculous. Combine this with other measures such as removing corporate sponsorship of public schools by soda companies, creating incentives for healthier products, and public awareness and it might be a start. Well public schools can ban corporate sponsors if they want. Private schools should retain the right to have them. I don't know about creating incentives but I agree that getting rid of the disincentives would go along way for America's public health.
Here ya go, proof advertising can screw with little kids. And before you say oh thats smoking, its different- Food provides an immediate positive feedback loop, can be just as addicting as smoking, and teaches a lifetime of poor eating habits.
http://www.york.cuny.edu/yorkscholar/v1/pdfs/hull_tobacco_sp04.pdf
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Advertisements are shockingly effective despite your immunity to them. Some people are susceptible to suggestion and will succumb to the temptation of having something shown to them. Be glad you are of higher will power.
In some universes, people will succumb to a simple wave of the hand. Be glad there are such jedi mind trick in this world.
|
On November 16 2010 13:01 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:57 Irrelevant wrote:
Last thing I want is government coming into my house and telling me what can go on my dinner table, that's not their role, that's not why we pay these bastards I think people are still misunderstanding this particular statute. It's not banning kids from having fast food. It's banning companies from marketing certain products to your kids. You can still have whatever on your dinner table.
From the OP -
"Under the ordinance, scheduled to take effect in December 2011, restaurants may include a toy with a meal if the food and drink combined contain fewer than 600 calories, and if less than 35% of the calories come from fat."
The toy as of now is just a foot in the door used to add more regulation for future assaults into our lives.
|
On November 16 2010 13:10 reg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:59 Manifesto7 wrote:I disagree with you about how ineffective advertising is, and I'm not going to just accept your statement as fact. In addition, I believe a lot of advertising is not about creating specific moments (although the super bowl is a good example of that) but creating saturation. I can't tell you the last ten ads I saw, but I can recite the ten most popular company jingles that I hear on TV and then subsequently hear in the supermarket the next day. You don't have to accept it as fact but it would be beneficial for you to consider it. But, riddle me this, have you ever acted on those ads? For an ad to be effective you have to do what they say. I've never visited freecreditreport or eaten at an Arby's or bought a Mercedes or drank a Bud Light, even though I'm exposed to those ads all the time, I never act on them. I refuse to believe, until given a good reason, that ads have some mystical power of children and adults. They simply don't. Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:59 Manifesto7 wrote:And again, this isn't a magic bullet. By itself this is ridiculous. Combine this with other measures such as removing corporate sponsorship of public schools by soda companies, creating incentives for healthier products, and public awareness and it might be a start. Well public schools can ban corporate sponsors if they want. Private schools should retain the right to have them. I don't know about creating incentives but I agree that getting rid of the disincentives would go along way for America's public health.
I can think of MANY times where I saw an ad on TV for McDonald's or something, said to myself "Man, that sounds so good right now..." and went to McDonald's.
On November 16 2010 13:16 Irrelevant wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 13:01 Slow Motion wrote:On November 16 2010 12:57 Irrelevant wrote:
Last thing I want is government coming into my house and telling me what can go on my dinner table, that's not their role, that's not why we pay these bastards I think people are still misunderstanding this particular statute. It's not banning kids from having fast food. It's banning companies from marketing certain products to your kids. You can still have whatever on your dinner table. From the OP - "Under the ordinance, scheduled to take effect in December 2011, restaurants may include a toy with a meal if the food and drink combined contain fewer than 600 calories, and if less than 35% of the calories come from fat." The toy as of now is just a foot in the door used to add more regulation for future assaults into our lives.
The government trying to help kids not be obese is an assault into our lives?
Edit: I should have known that this thread would get some Glenn Beck style paranoia -_-
|
On November 16 2010 13:18 Ferrose wrote:
I can think of MANY times where I saw an ad on TV for McDonald's or something, said to myself "Man, that sounds so good right now..." and went to McDonald's.
That just proves you're weak. Real men only succumb to late night Jack-in-the-Box commercials.
|
When I am hungry, I make a sandwich. How you are tempted to spend money on gas to drive to a fast food restraunt, buy overpriced food, a watered down drink, and drive back, eat it, and probably feel sick for a few hours... I dunno.
I all for regulating fast food, that shit is deadly, more so than cigarettes and even alcohol.
|
Where does any of this prove to be helping childhood obesity? Don't you realize healthy shit is already on the menu, just no one is ordering it. I can go around the corner to Wendy's right now and get a kids meals with a salad, apple slices and milk with a toy, but why the fuck would I want that when I can get a Spicy Chicken /w french fries and a Frostie?
Seems like way too many are on the "Super Size Me" bandwagon without doing any real research of their own
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 16 2010 13:18 Ferrose wrote:
The government trying to help kids not be obese is an assault into our lives?
Edit: I should have known that this thread would get some Glenn Beck style paranoia -_-
To be fair, what government gives with one hand, it takes away with another. The FDA is part of the coalition pushing unhealthy foods like processed cheese, high fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated corn oil, and the such. A few are jade about the "help" that Americans got to get into the situation.
|
On November 16 2010 13:24 Fa1nT wrote:
When I am hungry, I make a sandwich. How you are tempted to spend money on gas to drive to a fast food restraunt, buy overpriced food, a watered down drink, and drive back, eat it, and probably feel sick for a few hours... I dunno.
I all for regulating fast food, that shit is deadly, more so than cigarettes and even alcohol.
Yeah. I want to regulate it too. Because of my life experiences, I've had a lot of fast food in my lifetime. I've had so much that I'm almost kind of addicted to it. I want to stop eating it, but I have a tough time telling myself not to. Call me weak or impulsive, but I can't help it :x
|
On November 16 2010 13:16 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 13:10 reg wrote:On November 16 2010 12:59 Manifesto7 wrote:I disagree with you about how ineffective advertising is, and I'm not going to just accept your statement as fact. In addition, I believe a lot of advertising is not about creating specific moments (although the super bowl is a good example of that) but creating saturation. I can't tell you the last ten ads I saw, but I can recite the ten most popular company jingles that I hear on TV and then subsequently hear in the supermarket the next day. You don't have to accept it as fact but it would be beneficial for you to consider it. But, riddle me this, have you ever acted on those ads? For an ad to be effective you have to do what they say. I've never visited freecreditreport or eaten at an Arby's or bought a Mercedes or drank a Bud Light, even though I'm exposed to those ads all the time, I never act on them. I refuse to believe, until given a good reason, that ads have some mystical power of children and adults. They simply don't. On November 16 2010 12:59 Manifesto7 wrote:And again, this isn't a magic bullet. By itself this is ridiculous. Combine this with other measures such as removing corporate sponsorship of public schools by soda companies, creating incentives for healthier products, and public awareness and it might be a start. Well public schools can ban corporate sponsors if they want. Private schools should retain the right to have them. I don't know about creating incentives but I agree that getting rid of the disincentives would go along way for America's public health. Here ya go, proof advertising can screw with little kids. And before you say oh thats smoking, its different- Food provides an immediate positive feedback loop, can be just as addicting as smoking, and teaches a lifetime of poor eating habits. http://www.york.cuny.edu/yorkscholar/v1/pdfs/hull_tobacco_sp04.pdf
I read it, looks and reads like a shitty undergrad paper. Its pretty weak, dude.
"I can think of MANY times where I saw an ad on TV for McDonald's or something, said to myself "Man, that sounds so good right now..." and went to McDonald's."
Proportional to the amount of ads you saw it is statistically negligible.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
There would be no advertising industry if it didn't work. The major brands know how to push their product. I think 40 years of economics proves that advertisements are effective.
|
Good, Fast food in general needs to be banned.
|
On November 16 2010 13:31 Ordained wrote:
Good, Fast food in general needs to be banned.
You think food you get from a restaurant is any better than fast food for you? If so you're sorely mistaken.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 16 2010 13:31 Ordained wrote:
Good, Fast food in general needs to be banned.
Please stop. There are plenty of situations where people need to eat fast, regardless of the long term health implications. It serves a role. What people don't need is to eat it instead of a proper dinner.
|
On November 16 2010 13:31 TanGeng wrote:
There would be no advertising industry if it didn't work. The major brands know how to push their product. I think 40 years of economics proves that advertisements are effective.
Advertisements are a method to get a product out there and influence choice in brands. They are not hypnotizing agents or psychological deconstructions of the human mind.
An ads purpose isn't to get you off the couch and into a store (though that would be nice for ad companies). The purpose is to get you to choose a specific store on a regular outing. Say you shop at ABC Grocery. XYZ Grocery may run a series of ads to get you to shop there next time you go grocery shopping.
|
On November 16 2010 13:10 reg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:59 Manifesto7 wrote:I disagree with you about how ineffective advertising is, and I'm not going to just accept your statement as fact. In addition, I believe a lot of advertising is not about creating specific moments (although the super bowl is a good example of that) but creating saturation. I can't tell you the last ten ads I saw, but I can recite the ten most popular company jingles that I hear on TV and then subsequently hear in the supermarket the next day. You don't have to accept it as fact but it would be beneficial for you to consider it. But, riddle me this, have you ever acted on those ads? For an ad to be effective you have to do what they say. I've never visited freecreditreport or eaten at an Arby's or bought a Mercedes or drank a Bud Light, even though I'm exposed to those ads all the time, I never act on them. I refuse to believe, until given a good reason, that ads have some mystical power of children and adults. They simply don't.
Humans are monkeys. monkeys are animals. if you wave a juicy hamburger in front of 200+ million animals digitally, the result may most likely be monkeys eating hamburgers. why is that hard to imagine for you? commercials may not work 99/100 times on you but on less intelligent apes they may only not work 80/100 times. but p sure it works and you are arguing it doesn't when people spend billions on the industry so idk even why I'm typin this to you.
|
On November 16 2010 13:28 reg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 13:16 Two_DoWn wrote:On November 16 2010 13:10 reg wrote:On November 16 2010 12:59 Manifesto7 wrote:I disagree with you about how ineffective advertising is, and I'm not going to just accept your statement as fact. In addition, I believe a lot of advertising is not about creating specific moments (although the super bowl is a good example of that) but creating saturation. I can't tell you the last ten ads I saw, but I can recite the ten most popular company jingles that I hear on TV and then subsequently hear in the supermarket the next day. You don't have to accept it as fact but it would be beneficial for you to consider it. But, riddle me this, have you ever acted on those ads? For an ad to be effective you have to do what they say. I've never visited freecreditreport or eaten at an Arby's or bought a Mercedes or drank a Bud Light, even though I'm exposed to those ads all the time, I never act on them. I refuse to believe, until given a good reason, that ads have some mystical power of children and adults. They simply don't. On November 16 2010 12:59 Manifesto7 wrote:And again, this isn't a magic bullet. By itself this is ridiculous. Combine this with other measures such as removing corporate sponsorship of public schools by soda companies, creating incentives for healthier products, and public awareness and it might be a start. Well public schools can ban corporate sponsors if they want. Private schools should retain the right to have them. I don't know about creating incentives but I agree that getting rid of the disincentives would go along way for America's public health. Here ya go, proof advertising can screw with little kids. And before you say oh thats smoking, its different- Food provides an immediate positive feedback loop, can be just as addicting as smoking, and teaches a lifetime of poor eating habits. http://www.york.cuny.edu/yorkscholar/v1/pdfs/hull_tobacco_sp04.pdf I read it, looks and reads like a shitty undergrad paper. Its pretty weak, dude. "I can think of MANY times where I saw an ad on TV for McDonald's or something, said to myself "Man, that sounds so good right now..." and went to McDonald's." Proportional to the amount of ads you saw it is statistically negligible.
OK, so your an internet know it all who refuses to acknowledge his opinion might be wrong when faced with contrary evidence. point made, ill stop trying.
|
On November 16 2010 13:33 Irrelevant wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 13:31 Ordained wrote:
Good, Fast food in general needs to be banned. You think food you get from a restaurant is any better than fast food for you? If so you're sorely mistaken.
Depends on the restaurant but you are right in that regard. I dont see why people defend companies that are softly trying to make us unhealthy though.
I dont trust McDonalds and I never will.
|
On November 16 2010 12:26 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:23 Moa wrote: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.
lol seriously... My nephew is like 2 or 3 and one of the first words he learned was "Coke", "Fries", and "Ipad" >_<.
But I do think this law oversteps it bounds. In NYC there's a law that makes all restaurant/fast food/etc post the calories of each food on the menu. I'm not sure how much it helps in terms of promoting people to eat healthier, it changed my mind maybe once or twice when i was about to get mcdonalds, but I like to think that people are at least more informed due to this law.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
There's a lot of technique use to make food look really good on TV. It doesn't force anyone to go out and do something immediately. It just sways tastes towards certain brands should the occasion arise.
There are situations where the need to eat fast comes up. That's the decision point they get to push and influence. It could be the choice between a sub vs a burger, etc. It works at the margins. It doesn't cause a person who couldn't possible afford a Maserati or a person that finds burgers absolutely disgusting to buy them.
|
On November 16 2010 13:31 Ordained wrote:
Good, Fast food in general needs to be banned.
Stop acting like people are being forced to eat crappy food.
|
So glad the mayor veto'd this.
Risk comes with freedom.
Its this constant notion of 'its a small price to pay' to combat something for no known benefit that's driving a lot of cultural angst.
Its feels nice to legislate based on emotion, but really. Adults have the money and have the final say. If a child can emotionally dominate their parent to constantly get Happy Meals I think we have a larger, different problem that extends to more than just physical health.
So what? No more Happy Meal toy incentive if the meal contains more than 600 calories? The child didn't change how it behaves. One outlet for its greed was taken away. Now it wants Dairy Queen. Or the new Pokemon game. But don't blame the parents. They answer to the kid.
|
He whom would take liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin
|
On November 16 2010 13:48 Saturnize wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 13:31 Ordained wrote:
Good, Fast food in general needs to be banned. Stop acting like people are being forced to eat crappy food.
They are. Fast food companies main targeted demographic is low-income families who cannot easily afford to make their own, more healthy food, and supply them with high fat and high calorie fast food at cheap (but still profitable) prices.
|
On November 16 2010 13:54 Irrelevant wrote:
He whom would take liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin
My God do I hate that quote.
Edit: It's so wrong. I mean, if we have to take away the liberty of one person to save the whole country, we shouldn't right, because Ben Franklin is a god who is always right?
|
On November 16 2010 12:15 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:11 Masamune wrote:
@ ferrose yeah but I think if eating apples and milk will get a kid a shiny new toy, most will give in.
I think overall it's a good start. Hopefully this will start a new trend of healthy behaviour. I would be nothing short of enraged if they tell me what I can and cannot eat. Let's hope it stays at this...I'm an adult and I value my ability to decide these things
It's been proven that people who have a bad diet are more likely to have health problems, and cause a burden on the healthcare system, as well as a lack of productivity at work..... It's costing the country (and the world) as a whole for people to be consuming that type of shit too often..... And you think it's your "choice"? Why should someone who has a proper diet (and ends up paying more money to eat healthy) also have to partially foot the bill (through taxes) for medical care and other programs created because of people who don't eat proper? Surely the people who cause the problem should be paying for it, right?
What if there was a hefty "unhealthy food" tax on stuff that was considered unhealthy? Not just because of calorie or fat contents, there's also foods high in sodium, foods with low amounts of vitamins/minerals in it, foods with processed sugars/oils, high cholesterol, etc..... Would you still be eating it? I know I would, but I don't eat it excessively, so it wouldn't affect me that much.
This bylaw is a fucking sham, much more drastic action needs to be taken, to protect people from themselves. I'm not saying that this stuff needs to be removed from society (I know I definitely enjoy burgers and a poutine once in a while), just that there needs to be better controls of it..... When almost 30% of a country looks like they'll get winded from walking up 2 flights of stairs, there is a huge fucking problem. Pun intended.
PS - I'm overweight myself, with a BMI nearing the limit for obese. I'm 6 ft 3, ~235-240 lbs, with a 32 inch waist, and my doctor thinks it would be bad for me to lose much more than 20 lbs of that. While I'm not going to be running a marathon, I'm actually a pretty good short-distance sprinter (40 yard at the longest). BMI itself is a fucking joke, but the idea behind it is pretty useful.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
Lots of people here underestimating the power of ads and marketing.
|
is it the parents fault for child obesity? yes
does that change anything? absolutely not. culture is what drives us to do shit. less then 1/2 of families now eat dinner at the table, people are thinking that dinner is some obstacle. i really think if people realize how much better fresh food (that's good for god sakes, 3/4 restaurants are so bad) fast food will slowly die. i'm less concerned about calories and fat then i am with how the meat is handled/what's in it etc.
a lot of problems right now can be solved if we cook our own damn food. it's cheaper, healthier, better in general. unfortunately dinner is seen as just a random meal which you eat everyday and they don't really bother wasting time on it. such a shame, nothing beats home cooking.
unfortunately it can't be advertised in a good way. what annoys me the most is how selfish people in every industry are, and how corrupt people can be. mani said it correctly imo it's sad that there has to be restrictions placed because of how ignorant some corporations are
|
On November 16 2010 14:09 IntoTheWow wrote:
Lots of people here underestimating the power of ads and marketing.
Definitely. If people think advertisements and marketing don't work, why does every company invest so much money in them? Even if most people ignore a certain ad, it only takes a small percentage of people to be swayed for it to be well worth it. If ten million people see an ad for a $5 mcdonalds meal, and just 0.1% (1 in a 1000) are convinced to buy the meal, that's still $50,000 dollars back instantly, and far more over time.
Furthermore, ads work well when targeted at people. Your average TLer might not be effected by fast food advertising (though perhaps 1 in a 1000 would), but if faced with computer game related ads things would be very different.
I generally feel advertising to adults is fair game if it isn't clearly catastrophic to health (so banning cigarette advertising is ok with me), but kids are incredibly susceptible, and simply unable to plan ahead- they haven't developed enough. Perhaps a good parent might be able to resist their kids being miserable and jealous of their friends, but why should they have to deal with this bullshit? To give big companies the freedom to target unhealthy food at kids? For me at least, that's a freedom not worth protecting.
|
they should just stop all fast food restaurants imo, keep only the oens open where they cook on the BBQ in front of your eyes, e.g. Harveys... um and pizza shops, thats about it. I havent went to MCdonalds, burger king, harveys, etc... in almost 4 year lol. 
edit: however, i have eaten some MCdonalds recently and i almost got sick, i guess after you quit mcdonalds for a few years your bodies resistance to the garbage in it fades away, so when i tried it again, about 15 minutes later i had pinching in my stomache, and eventually it went away, but thats just how bad it really is. heads up. i think cigarettes are better than mcdonalds imo. lol
|
If you can't trust people to make their own decisions considering something as basic and simple as...how much they let themselves and their kids eat, how could you possibly allow them to vote?
|
On November 16 2010 12:16 Kinky wrote:
I would hate to be a child in San Francisco now. I grew up with happy meals all throughout my childhood and I'm completely healthy now as an adult.
proving that eating happy meals throughought ones childhood is not only not bad for you it actually leads to healthy adulthood so it should definitely be encouraged. if only the ppl in san francisco were aware of this valuable information you provide so they could base their decisions around it.
seriously? you actually think your personal 1 person data sample experience of being born with above-average dna for metabolizing food means absolutely anything or is at all valuable to any kind of discussion about anything related to this topic?
|
Ugh, government wants to control everything these days >.<
Spend more time helping people to understand that healthy meals are good and let maccas keep their toy.
|
Of course lower income people are being targeted with cheap food. I'm sure the lobster and calamari market would love to grow their revenue base too. Every company everywhere is in business to do better for itself. Anyone with something to sell is going to market it, and they're gonna aim to do it as well as they can.
What happens if in theory all toy-in-meal based incentives were done away with? Then you might see free-toy-with-coupon give aways. Buy Barbie's horse adventure and get a $5 coupon for McDonald's and/or a free toy to be claimed -in-store-. Whatever gets banned - the people who are smart enough to make a lot of money are also smart enough to find loopholes we haven't considered.
Who suffers? The bloke who just wanted to get their kid a worry free meal and a little shiny piece of plastic one and awhile. Tax fast food? Isn't fast food targeted at low-income groups? Who wins when you tax the poor 'for their own good?' Insane cigarette taxes didn't stop smoking.
Another hypothetical - Get rid of all fast food. Now that low-income parent who isn't going to cook for their kid -suddenly- is gonna learn how to cook a proper balanced meal for their kid three times a day?
They'll be serving McDonald's Take-home microwaveable dinners -
- which will also come with a free toy.
|
Ah nice to see that this kind of insanity is still stoppable.
Good job Mayor Newsom.
Honestly I'am unsure how anyone could even think this is a good idea. It's pure insanity, I've got enough problems with Government trying to tell me Video games are bad and should be banned/controlled heavily but now happy meal toys too? Slippery slope nanny state is in fact dead on.
If people want to stop them from Selling toys, boycott, campaign against it, be public about it but by all means don't go trying to get a law against it. That's just silly.
|
Note: The government is not forcing McDonalds not to sell food. It's forcing McDonalds not to give away toys with the food. Restaurants can still sell happy meals. They simply won't come with a cheap plastic toy.
I don't understand how it went from the original article to everyone crying "OMG Government is forcing us to eat a certain way now! Where is our freedom to eat?"
|
They can include the toy if its under 600 calories in some combination.
It went that way because that's what the article is about. the San Fran Gov't decided that a company was using an incentive to get kids to eat things that said Gov't no longer approved to go into their bodies, thus seeks with that legislation to say "Make this meal the way we want it or don't include that incentive."
People are reacting to this because I'm sure we've all seen some of this stuff go outta control.
|
It makes me so sad to see that people don't realize that companies plot against them. Keep voting against your interests morons, and we will soon all be indentured servants to our rich overlords.
I salute you America, we had a good time while it lasted.
|
On November 16 2010 14:09 IntoTheWow wrote:
Lots of people here underestimating the power of ads and marketing.
This. There is a lack of ethics observed in that domain; both in the scholar world and the private, corporate domain.
|
On November 16 2010 14:48 A3iL3r0n wrote:
It makes me so sad to see that people don't realize that companies plot against them. Keep voting against your interests morons, and we will soon all be indentured servants to our rich overlords.
I salute you America, we had a good time while it lasted.
I don't think you know what people's interests are.
|
Australia326 Posts
Glad this crap didn't get through, it's so ridiculous.
Whoever said above that parents are 100% to blame for obesity isn't correct either though, you have to take into account those who are predisposed (genetically) to obesity.
There are people saying in this thread that advertising is a transcendant power, and some saying that advertising doesn't do anything (and tell stupid story from their experience to 'prove' it), when obviously it falls in between. Yes advertising can have an effect, but at the end of the day, you're perfectly entitled to ignore or discount the 'message' they're selling.
Don't forget about exercise either, obesity and associated health problems are not just about food. Actively promoting sport, physical hobbies and making healthy food more appealing and more affordable seems like a good start.
Slightly off-topic:
I live in Australia and from grades 9-12 (grade 12 is the last year of high school) I had McDonalds about 3 times a week, for almost the whole year (for 4 years). I actually calculated the number of times i visited Maccas (as we call it over here) over this period and obviously tried to forget because it was scary. This wasn't because my parents didn't care about my health, it was for convenience (most of these visits were grabbing breakfast before school orchestra @ 6am in the morning). I'm sure if I started to balloon at the waist or developed high blood pressure they would have stopped. However the rest of my meals were pretty balanced, I ran a lot at school, and was actually underweight for these years (BM was around 17.5).
Over this time I managed to collect all the snoopy toys that were in the happy meals (yes both the soft versions and the plastic ones!) as well as countless other toys which still sit proudly on my shelf. I only go to McDonalds maybe once or twice a month now, but I still consider myself a veteran. (:
|
It's the parents responsibility to raise their children right. It's common sense that taking your kids to McDonald's a few days a week is unhealthy. However, it is also common sense that taking your kids to McDonald's a few times a year as a special treat won't harm them. Taking away the happy meal toy is an unfair punishment for the kids. I suppose the parents can just go to Oakland to get their kids a real happy meal but it seems rather inconvenient. Sure it might be a sneaky marketing ploy by McDonald's to put toys but it is not unethical. What is next? Taking away arcade games from Chuck E. Cheese's?
|
Marketing is powerful, but you guys are overestimating its effect, otherwise why don't you see the Broccoli lobby putting out ads associating their product with toys? I think it's pretty easy to see why Happy Meals are so popular: they f*cking taste good.
|
On November 16 2010 14:58 palookieblue wrote:
Slightly off-topic:
I live in Australia and from grades 9-12 (grade 12 is the last year of high school) I had McDonalds about 3 times a week, for almost the whole year (for 4 years).
...
Over this time I managed to collect all the snoopy toys that were in the happy meals (yes both the soft versions and the plastic ones!) as well as countless other toys which still sit proudly on my shelf. I only go to McDonalds maybe once or twice a month now, but I still consider myself a veteran. (:
You ordered a happy meal when you went to mcdonalds even in high school? Maybe that's why you didn't balloon at the waist, because you're ordering food intended for a kid
|
I think it's a great idea and every country/state should enforce it. It's not like the law bans McD's stupid toys (man did I like them when I was a kid), it just mandates that the meals have to be somewhat healthy. Why is this a problem?
|
*sigh* It's been vetoed so either:
A) Under weight of the scrutiny piled upon it, they reconsider and don't overrided it.
B) McDonalds sues and this law gets overturned faster than you can blink.
Seriously, cut the fascist crap. The government has no right to tell me what I can and can't eat, how I raise my child, or how a company legally promotes its products.
|
All those damn six-year olds and their credit cards trundling down to McDonald's to buy themselves happy meals . . . so sad.
Oh wait, you mean parents are the ones buying their kids happy meals? I guess telling your kids "no" is way too hard for parents these days. SAVE ME GUBERMINT! PARINT MAH KIDS FOR MAH!
|
On November 16 2010 15:17 Cambium wrote:
I think it's a great idea and every country/state should enforce it. It's not like the law bans McD's stupid toys (man did I like them when I was a kid), it just mandates that the meals have to be somewhat healthy. Why is this a problem?
are freedoms and are guns
|
There are a lot of people, particularly from the US, playing down how big of a role these toys and advertising plays.
Look at what happens when you INCENTIVISE over-borrowing - the financial crisis happens.
A lot of people have said "it is the parents' role", and YES a lot of it is. However, all you need to look at is the financial crisis to see how people act happens when you incentivise a certain behaviour.
When you incentivise fast-food people will buy lots of fast food. The United States also has an overwhelming majority of adults being overweight or obese (74.1% in this source - http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat_2.html)
|
On November 16 2010 15:17 Cambium wrote:
I think it's a great idea and every country/state should enforce it. It's not like the law bans McD's stupid toys (man did I like them when I was a kid), it just mandates that the meals have to be somewhat healthy. Why is this a problem?
Maybe because I don't go to McDonald's for healthy food? If I want to buy terrible food, and McD's wants to sell me terrible food, who are you to say otherwise? Maybe my goal in life is to be 600 lbs. and you should mind your own business.
(Actually, I don't go to McDonald's at all because I think their food sucks, but I do know a lot of people who like it . . . )
|
On November 16 2010 15:39 nebffa wrote:There are a lot of people, particularly from the US, playing down how big of a role these toys and advertising plays. Look at what happens when you INCENTIVISE over-borrowing - the financial crisis happens. A lot of people have said "it is the parents' role", and YES a lot of it is. However, all you need to look at is the financial crisis to see how people act happens when you incentivise a certain behaviour. When you incentivise fast-food people will buy lots of fast food. The United States also has an overwhelming majority of adults being overweight or obese (74.1% in this source - http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat_2.html)
You don't need marketing to incentivize fast food. Your body's desire for tasty, tasty calories is enough of an incentive.
Seriously, I think people are pretty stupid and ignorant compared to myself, but if they followed advertisements like the mindless sheeple you guys think they are, then it would be pretty damn easy to get Americans to eat better and exercise more. There's millions to be made by Whole Foods and 24 Hour Fitness.
|
On November 16 2010 15:39 SaroDarksbane wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 15:17 Cambium wrote:
I think it's a great idea and every country/state should enforce it. It's not like the law bans McD's stupid toys (man did I like them when I was a kid), it just mandates that the meals have to be somewhat healthy. Why is this a problem? Maybe because I don't go to McDonald's for healthy food? If I want to buy terrible food, and McD's wants to sell me terrible food, who are you to say otherwise? Maybe my goal in life is to be 600 lbs. and you should mind your own business. (Actually, I don't go to McDonald's at all because I think their food sucks, but I do know a lot of people who like it . . . )
Good try going for the extreme, except the target audience for the happy meal is the children, and I'd like to think very few are capable of making these decisions, especially going along with your argument of having a strong desire to be 600 lbs.
Face it, most children go for these stupid toys, and they couldn't care less about what they eat. Even if the healthy meals don't taste as good as the regular happy meals, kids will still not have a problem wolfing them down just to hold a plastic Ronald.
Are people seriously upset about this...?
edit:
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?
|
On November 16 2010 15:49 Cambium wrote:Good try going for the extreme, except the target audience for the happy meal is the children, and I'd like to think very few are capable of making these decisions
The children are buying these meals? With what? How are they getting to McD's on their own?
Are people seriously upset about this...?
You betcha. My pet peeve is other people telling me how to run my life, especially when it's "for my own good".
EDIT:
Goes right along with banning transfats in New York, and now Bloomberg's trying to ban salt in restaurants. How hard is it for people to just mind their own fucking business? Seriously?
|
On November 16 2010 15:52 SaroDarksbane wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 15:49 Cambium wrote:Good try going for the extreme, except the target audience for the happy meal is the children, and I'd like to think very few are capable of making these decisions The children are buying these meals? With what? How are they getting to McD's on their own?
The kid will most likely nag and nag and nag; I know that's what I did.
You betcha. My pet peeve is other people telling me how to run my life, especially when it's "for my own good".
You can buy as much fucking McD as you want; no one is stopping McD from selling anything. They are just trying to stop them giving away the toy. Are we on the same page here?
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 from selling 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?
|
the only reason i ever got happy meals were because my mom wanted the teeny babies that came with it
guess she used me because she was too ashamed to buy a happy meal =(
|
On November 16 2010 15:56 Cambium wrote:
The kid will most likely nag and nag and nag; I know that's what I did.
A good opportunity to tell them "NO!". You know, parenting and shit.
You can buy as much fucking McD as you want; no one is stopping McD from selling anything. They are just trying to stop them giving away the toy. Are we on the same page here?
No one is trying to stop McD's from selling anything, except for the thing they are stopping them from selling (the toy). Good to know.
Maybe I want my kid to get a goddamn toy with his meal? It's a happy meal for christ sakes!
|
Being a guy who's never exceeded 136 lbs (5'8"), I don't feel like I have the right to comment on this issue. I just think obesity is funny, and that airlines should charge extra for fat people. Oh, and I downed a KFC Double Down last Friday... disgusting. -fin
|
On November 16 2010 16:02 OpticalShot wrote:airlines should charge extra for fat people.
Should probably charge by weight, including both your person and the luggage you bring with you.
Oh, and I downed a KFC Double Down last Friday... disgusting. -fin
Ugh, those things look so terrible.
|
On November 16 2010 16:00 SaroDarksbane wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 15:56 Cambium wrote:
The kid will most likely nag and nag and nag; I know that's what I did. A good opportunity to tell them "NO!". You know, parenting and shit. Show nested quote +You can buy as much fucking McD as you want; no one is stopping McD from selling anything. They are just trying to stop them giving away the toy. Are we on the same page here? No one is trying to stop McD's from selling anything, except for the thing they are stopping them from selling (the toy). Good to know. Maybe I want my kid to get a goddamn toy with his meal? It's a happy meal for christ sakes!
I've been around long enough to know not to argue on the Internet. Clearly, I am not going to change your mind, and you sure as hell aren't going to change mine.
We shall each have our own opinions in peace, okay?
|
We shall each have our own opinions in peace, okay?
Fair enough.
Sadly, that's all I want in life too. But as this story demonstrates, some people have a big problem with that. =(
|
On November 16 2010 16:10 SaroDarksbane wrote:Fair enough. Sadly, that's all I want in life too. But as this story demonstrates, some people have a big problem with that. =(
I keep on reminding myself of this quote:
Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win youre still retarded.
|
If it's requiring an optional-side deal like Wendy's, that's sensible legislation. If they're literally saying you aren't allowed to offer XYZ unhealthy combo with a toy, that's just stupid. Some kids aren't eating Happy Meals for every meal, and it's unreasonable to hold every meal to the standards for the average.
|
Classic case of government trying to tell people (force people) how to raise their kids and how to run their business.
|
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.
|
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. 
|
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.....
|
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.
|
On November 16 2010 16:24 SaroDarksbane wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Because you live in a country with other people.
|
Instead of banning toys, they should make PE longer in schools. Everyone wins.
|
IMO it's not even near a good thing to have more healthier meals for childrens in fastfood because you even shouldnt visit there that often it affects your health. Having some carrots and then ten pounds of fat will not make it any better.
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.
|
I can agree with their motives, but I don't agree with their logic. Children beg for toys from McDonalds or another fast food place. A good parent looks to see how often they've been eating there and decides if it'll be ok to go or if they're leading their child down the track to obesity. A bad parent gives into their child's whining and goes for the sake of getting the toy. Removing the toy or adding a health aspect to happy meals really isn't solving the problem.
|
On November 16 2010 16:24 SaroDarksbane wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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?
|
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.
|
How ridiculous.
"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?
|
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.
|
thats ridiculous.
that is a seriously overboard nanny state move
parents need to take responsibility. why do people keep shitting on mcdonalds
|
Absolutely the most ridiculous law I have ever heard. It is up to the parents how to feed their kids. And its not like a fucking occasional happy meal is going to kill a kid.
|
konadora
Singapore66161 Posts
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 :/
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.
|
On November 16 2010 16:52 SaroDarksbane wrote:Show nested quote +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? Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
I don't know how large the servings of a Happy Meal are in the U.S. but i had them once in a while as a kid and well, i'm anything but fat...
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.
|
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.
|
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.
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
|
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 =/
|
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?
|
On November 16 2010 17:04 MaD.pYrO wrote:Show nested quote +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 =/
Uh, he didn't say that?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On November 16 2010 16:22 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +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.....
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.
|
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.
|
On November 16 2010 17:08 SaroDarksbane wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
This law is immoral. Punishing an innocent parent or child (by restricting their free choices) for the fault of another is unjust. The innocent are being punished for the sake of the guilty. The innocent -- responsible parents who want to take their kid to get a happy-meal with a toy every now and then -- are being punished for the shortcomings of irresponsible parents -- parents who who choose not to (or don't know how to) raise their child properly (which includes feeding your child correctly as well as being able to tell your child "No." and "I don't care if Johnny's parents take him to McDonalds everyday, we aren't going.")
I'm very glad the Mayor vetoed the law. Is his veto supposed to stick?
|
On November 16 2010 17:14 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You've grasped the entirety of the point I was making about the terrible inefficiencies of broccoli!
|
Damn, by the time I'm going to have children, the government will be raising my kids for me!
|
On November 16 2010 17:06 Melancholia wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Vegetables and Fruit are cheaper on a per pound basis. Have you never gone shopping at a supermarket?
|
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.
|
On November 16 2010 17:17 Melancholia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 17:14 kojinshugi wrote: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. 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?
|
Well government intervention is not always bad. Their job is to basically keep corporations in check in this occasion. Meaning, making sure they do not step over their boundaries.
(Also, there is no government intervention. This was done by city powers)
|
On November 16 2010 17:24 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
This is setting a really bad precedent. Leave it to the smug, pretentious San Fransiscan's to do this. McDonalds does nothing wrong, they provide a service that people want. Its actually sad that its come to this.
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.
|
As a kid, i used to ask my parents to go to Mc Donalds for the toy and all the fancy colors. It's a little bit like going to Disneyland.
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'
|
Hate to say it, but the Australian government has been implimenting nanny state legislation for years. every now and then a new restriction comes out that restricts peoples freedoms, some are "passive" restrictions, like making all food packaging (fast food or supermarkets) display nutritional facts and full ingredient lists. Other restrictions are more draconian, like forbidding smoking in ANY public venue (including pubs/clubs) Outside areas and designated smking zones are allowed.
In this increasingly litigeonous and politically correct world, the governments seem to be increasingly trying to protect people from... themselves
|
McDonald's doesn't put toys in their Happy Meals out of love for children. They wouldn't do it if it didn't earn them more money, either short term by attracting families to McDonald's, or long term for building up a customer base. So, they put them in there to manipulate kids into WANTING to go to McDonald's. I don't think anyone really disagrees with the monetary motives of McDonald's.
But don't forget, we don't have smoking camels anymore because they didn't want smoking advertisements to target kids. When you generalize smoking and obesity to being things which are really bad for you, it's a bit easier to see that the people here are trying to prevent something harmful for kids. Move a little more towards an extreme example, unhealthy food to smoking, and it's easy to see the same motives, which (long term) are good for the company and bad for the child they try to manipulate. It'd be like having Jack Sparrow advertise alcohol...wait, crap, bad example.
|
On November 16 2010 18:22 ShatterStorm wrote:
Hate to say it, but the Australian government has been implimenting nanny state legislation for years. every now and then a new restriction comes out that restricts peoples freedoms, some are "passive" restrictions, like making all food packaging (fast food or supermarkets) display nutritional facts and full ingredient lists. Other restrictions are more draconian, like forbidding smoking in ANY public venue (including pubs/clubs) Outside areas and designated smking zones are allowed.
In this increasingly litigeonous and politically correct world, the governments seem to be increasingly trying to protect people from... themselves
In fact with smoking they probably looked at the overwhelming scientific evidence that implied smoking AND second-hand smoke negatively affects health and therefore legislated to protect the health of the Australian citizens.
Sure, it's freedom-restricting if you're a smoker. But then you're doing yourself harm and a government has a mandate to protect the well-being of the people it represents.
|
mcd markets straight for the children, when they are susceptible to those marketing messages. they link their food with "having fun" for the very young. they are straight up trying to condition kids into fastfood, which parents have to fight against. :/
|
Tomorrow on Fox News:
"Today Happy Meals, Tomorrow Bill of Rights?"
I remember begging to go to mcdonalds when they had pokemon happy meals or some other super hip fad. Even though I had a lot of happy meals in my day, I don't think it caused any adverse effects to me. However, I don't want to have to deal with my future children begging to be fed unhealthy food to get a dumb toy, so I support this law.
|
On November 16 2010 18:38 Teogamer wrote:
Tomorrow on Fox News:
"Today Happy Meals, Tomorrow Bill of Rights?"
I remember begging to go to mcdonalds when they had pokemon happy meals or some other super hip fad. Even though I had a lot of happy meals in my day, I don't think it caused any adverse effects to me. However, I don't want to have to deal with my future children begging to be fed unhealthy food to get a dumb toy, so I support this law.
So if I can prove to you that you won't ever have children, will you retract your support of this law?
|
So, they put them in there to manipulate kids into WANTING to go to McDonald's. I don't think anyone really disagrees with the monetary motives of McDonald's.
Yes, but think about it on the margins. The toy is not there to attract the children from healthy meals to unhealthy meals. This is obvious when you consider that McD's offers healthy replacements in their happy meals, yet I doubt they are all that popular. The point of the toy is to attract children to happy meals from competing unhealthy products. Don't eat at Burger King, our toy is better! The child is attracted to unhealthy food, because we as a species selected for traits that allow us to very much enjoy sweet and fatty foods.
Requiring that a toy only be included with healthy happy meals is not going to shift demand from unhealthy to healthy. The demand is still there. Maybe the healthy happy meals get purchased for the toy, but the child is still not satisfied, because he isn't getting all the calories he wants (especially not the fat calories he wants). Most likely, they'll compensate by ordering something from the adult menu.
|
Havent read all the replies, but.... what stops the parents from purchasing the unhappy meal anyways? I mean, it has no toys in it now, but who cares. What I really like is, that the child will eventually say "i want something with a toy", and then it choses the healthier food. I really like that shit.
|
i think as with every other business, mcdonalds is driven by money. apparently, i hate mcdonalds so i'm hoping that this move will one day lead to its closure
|
On November 16 2010 17:22 domovoi wrote:
Vegetables and Fruit are cheaper on a per pound basis. Have you never gone shopping at a supermarket?
On November 16 2010 17:27 XinRan wrote:
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?
The least healthy food is the cheapest. The sarcasm in the second sentence was pointing out that a hamburger shouldn't be nearly as cheap as it is. A hamburger is not literally less expensive on a per pound basis, but the idea that a double cheeseburger at McDonalds ($1) costs less than a pound of broccoli ($1.50) from Safeway is pretty insane. The cheeseburger includes the cost of putting it together and cooking it as well as the various ingredients, and meat is about the LEAST efficient way to get calories that we have. Enough meat to feed one person takes enough grain to feed tens of people. Though that we're feeding cows grain rather than grass is another can of worms altogether.
If you want a better comparison look at white bread versus whole wheat bread. White bread has had almost all of the nutrients in the wheat grain removed, leaving only the starch. Specific nutrients, such as iron and niacin, are added artificially, but by and large the processed simple carbohydrates are worse for you than the more complex carbohydrates that break down slower and provide energy for a longer period of time (you get hungry again less quickly). The one advantage is that whole wheat flour spoils more quickly, and that combined with several other details (high fructose corn syrup sweetener as opposed to actual sugar, for example) leads to less healthy bread being cheaper on the store shelf.
TL:DR | McDonalds' food is cheaper than it should be. Look at US farm subsidies to see why.
|
Yet it still isn't hard or time consuming to buy some shit and make a sandwich that will 1) come out less expensive longterm vs fast food and 2) be more healthy. It is NOT. HARD. It's sheer laziness that is the only explanation.
On November 16 2010 13:28 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 13:24 Fa1nT wrote:
When I am hungry, I make a sandwich. How you are tempted to spend money on gas to drive to a fast food restraunt, buy overpriced food, a watered down drink, and drive back, eat it, and probably feel sick for a few hours... I dunno.
I all for regulating fast food, that shit is deadly, more so than cigarettes and even alcohol. Yeah. I want to regulate it too. Because of my life experiences, I've had a lot of fast food in my lifetime. I've had so much that I'm almost kind of addicted to it. I want to stop eating it, but I have a tough time telling myself not to. Call me weak or impulsive, but I can't help it :x
So basically you are irresponsible and undisciplined and you want other people to fix your problems for you. Jesus, I was wondering how idiots like this got elected but now I know why. No wonder you've been arguing that side so vehemently.
On November 16 2010 13:55 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 13:48 Saturnize wrote:On November 16 2010 13:31 Ordained wrote:
Good, Fast food in general needs to be banned. Stop acting like people are being forced to eat crappy food. They are. Fast food companies main targeted demographic is low-income families who cannot easily afford to make their own, more healthy food, and supply them with high fat and high calorie fast food at cheap (but still profitable) prices.
Don't be ridiculous. You could make a meal cheaper then going to get fast food easily. I'd know. I work in a grocery store.
On November 16 2010 16:35 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 16:24 SaroDarksbane wrote: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. 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?
Again, which is ridiculous. If I make bad choices I should have to pay for them. Not somebody else.
Thats why the health care bill was fucking stupid as well. Force people to get insurance, try to force people to all pay for each other. NTY. America is about the freedom to choose. I'm not hurting anybody but myself in choosing to eat fast food, so I should be allowed to. The answer isn't to babysit everybody, nobody gets more responsible by getting their hand held throughout life. If people want to make unhealthy choices for whatever reason they ought to be able to.
Thats why bullshit like medicare and medicaid shouldn't exist. If you have problems, why am i obligated to pay for them.
|
Dogabutila
Why should America be about freedom to choose? There's fairly strong evidence that most people choose badly (looking at US obesity statistics), and aren't even made happy by their choices.
I understand freedom of choice if it leads to great happiness, but not as an end in itself. Particularly not when such short sighted choices are impacting not only on oneself, but on one's children.
|
On November 16 2010 20:04 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 16:35 Impervious wrote:On November 16 2010 16:24 SaroDarksbane wrote: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. 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? Again, which is ridiculous. If I make bad choices I should have to pay for them. Not somebody else. Thats why the health care bill was fucking stupid as well. Force people to get insurance, try to force people to all pay for each other. NTY. America is about the freedom to choose. I'm not hurting anybody but myself in choosing to eat fast food, so I should be allowed to. The answer isn't to babysit everybody, nobody gets more responsible by getting their hand held throughout life. If people want to make unhealthy choices for whatever reason they ought to be able to. Thats why bullshit like medicare and medicaid shouldn't exist. If you have problems, why am i obligated to pay for them.
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......
.....
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.
|
On November 16 2010 18:22 ShatterStorm wrote:
Hate to say it, but the Australian government has been implimenting nanny state legislation for years. every now and then a new restriction comes out that restricts peoples freedoms, some are "passive" restrictions, like making all food packaging (fast food or supermarkets) display nutritional facts and full ingredient lists. Other restrictions are more draconian, like forbidding smoking in ANY public venue (including pubs/clubs) Outside areas and designated smking zones are allowed.
In this increasingly litigeonous and politically correct world, the governments seem to be increasingly trying to protect people from... themselves
World is changing, the US as a whole is not educated enough to even deserve many "freedoms" we enjoy. We abuse things then cry "unconstitutional!!!1" if the government is forced to take it away because idiots would destroy the whole country by abuse of such things.
|
They had to change the camel on the cigarette packs because they appealed to children apparently, this is effectively the same thing (but I guess fast food joints can get away with being way more blatant about it).
The problem is, this doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of how fucked up the obesity issue is. Coming from SF, it also just kind of looks like pretentious supermodel Hollywood type bullshit.
|
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.
|
Nice law, next on the list is sweet or chocolate companies directly marketing their products to children with little to no nutritional value.
Or if they do they must have the words "diabetes" and "obesity" constantly flashing on the screen.
|
dohoho san fran 1 fatty kids 0
but in all seriousness anything that puts a damper on childhood obesity should be considered seriously.
BTW McDonalds can still sell toys if they comply with the new, perfectly reasonable nutrtion guidelines.
btw if McDonalds leaves San Francisco I will be out campaigning to get this shit passed in Boston the very next day
|
On November 16 2010 21:01 Tal wrote:
Dogabutila
Why should America be about freedom to choose? There's fairly strong evidence that most people choose badly (looking at US obesity statistics), and aren't even made happy by their choices.
I understand freedom of choice if it leads to great happiness, but not as an end in itself. Particularly not when such short sighted choices are impacting not only on oneself, but on one's children.
Yes, but what we put into our own bodies should really be left to personal choice. Clearly, this isn't actually how American thought works as we've banned all but a few recreational drugs. We subsidize the shit out of corn to the point where it's in most food products, and now we're trying to prevent children from eating happy meals. It's all a bit ridiculous, as A) you can still take your kid to McDonalds and B) You can still feed your kids poorly from a supermarket. At what point do we let people control what they put in their own bodies?
|
What's really dissapointing is we would rather blame McDonalds for obesity instead of ourselves.
|
Give the kids their damned toys. WTF is wrong with these people? McDonalds isn't forcing these things down kids' throats. When will people stop blaming corporations for their problems and start looking at their own decision making? You're not mandated to go to McDonalds nor are you mandated to buy a Happy Meal. This is just like when they got rid of their super sized meals, which were frikking awesome...
|
On November 17 2010 03:33 LiGhtoftheSwaRm wrote:
What's really dissapointing is we would rather blame McDonalds for obesity instead of ourselves.
There are legitimate issues with fast food places directly taking advantage of the poor by selling terrible for you crap that happens to cost exactly what's left in your wallet at the time. The problem is that the legislation used actually does nothing to solve this but rather gets passed without a second thought because "Won't someone think of the (fat) children?"
So great for SF, they just acknowledged an existing problem, passed a piece of legislation designed to solve it, and changed nothing in the process.
|
On November 17 2010 03:37 LegendaryZ wrote:
Give the kids their damned toys. WTF is wrong with these people? McDonalds isn't forcing these things down kids' throats. When will people stop blaming corporations for their problems and start looking at their own decision making? You're not mandated to go to McDonalds nor are you mandated to buy a Happy Meal. This is just like when they got rid of their super sized meals, which were frikking awesome...
The "600" calorie limit is about what an adult should be eating in a meal.....
Do you market adult strength tylenol for a child? How about movies/videogames with excessive gore/nudity/swearing? Because that's one of the things that these fast food companies are doing.....
Imagine if those hotwheels cars were attached to mature videogames, or you got a free insert name of popular toy brand here toy in your next bottle of cold and flu medication..... Would you want people to "give the kids their damned toys" then?
|
On November 17 2010 03:33 LiGhtoftheSwaRm wrote:
What's really dissapointing is we would rather blame McDonalds for obesity instead of ourselves.
I doubt kids at that age think, "Oh hey, I'm getting fat, I should stop eating Happy Meals". Sure, you can blame a large part of it on the parents, but then again, that won't stop stupid parents from buying them Happy Meals to avoid making the kids food themselves or stop the kids from complaining. A law that regulates what McDonald's sells is a realistic goal, a law that somehow punishes parents who buy their kids too many Happy Meals is not. It's about protecting the kids from begging their parents for Happy Meals because they saw this toy they must have on an ad or complete a toy collection from the last time he/she got had a Happy Meal.
|
So many hypocrites in here, if this was a ban on computers because they make people more likely to sit around the house instead of exercising(which a lot of studies show inactivity is a bigger health risk than fast foods) you would all be ready to firebomb the nearest government building.
|
On November 16 2010 20:04 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 13:28 Ferrose wrote:On November 16 2010 13:24 Fa1nT wrote:
When I am hungry, I make a sandwich. How you are tempted to spend money on gas to drive to a fast food restraunt, buy overpriced food, a watered down drink, and drive back, eat it, and probably feel sick for a few hours... I dunno.
I all for regulating fast food, that shit is deadly, more so than cigarettes and even alcohol. Yeah. I want to regulate it too. Because of my life experiences, I've had a lot of fast food in my lifetime. I've had so much that I'm almost kind of addicted to it. I want to stop eating it, but I have a tough time telling myself not to. Call me weak or impulsive, but I can't help it :x So basically you are irresponsible and undisciplined and you want other people to fix your problems for you. Jesus, I was wondering how idiots like this got elected but now I know why. No wonder you've been arguing that side so vehemently.
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.
Also, I don't live in San Francisco so I didn't elect the board of supervisors
@ ShatterStorm: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/blog/nsb061609_casino.html
That's an article I used for an essay about cancers contracted in workplaces. Second hand smoke leads to things like lung cancer. But if people want to be inconsiderate douches and help people develop lung disease(s), that's their lifestyle choice right? How dare that nanny state government try to promote public health and well-being!
Edit: Here in Michigan, an indoor smoking ban was enacted in public places on May 1. Except in casinos. Casinos have discretion about whether or not they wish to allow smoking. Every casino in downtown Detroit allows smoking on the gaming floors. My point is, some people say "Then just let the people who own the public place decide." Well, obviously that's not going to work. Businesses aren't going to ban smoking in their places of business. So the government needs to regulate things that are extremely hazardous to human health. And I think that eating McDonald's is pretty hazardous to human health.
|
On November 17 2010 03:45 Irrelevant wrote:
So many hypocrites in here, if this was a ban on computers because they make people more likely to sit around the house instead of exercising(which a lot of studies show inactivity is a bigger health risk than fast foods) you would all be ready to firebomb the nearest government building.
My hometown (the city of Guelph, Ontario) actually gives preferential treatment (for access to sports fields) to dog walkers over the city's football teams even..... Yes, I think there is a big fucking problem with that, and I know it's overall worse in the USA (redneck family ftw).....
|
On November 17 2010 03:44 Impervious wrote:
Do you market adult strength tylenol for a child? How about movies/videogames with excessive gore/nudity/swearing? Because that's one of the things that these fast food companies are doing.....
Woah, giving kids access to violence and sex at an early age via tv, internet, and video games is a American pastime. Also, what does this have to do with food?
If you can't stop yourself from taking your kid to McDonalds all the time because you always need to get your kids whatever new toy McDonlads has this week, then you fail as a parent and probably shouldn't have had children in the first place.
|
Parents are the problem, when will people figure it out?
|
On November 17 2010 03:55 FindingPride wrote:
Parents are the problem, when will people figure it out?
I agree, the parents in America generally suck.
|
On November 17 2010 03:55 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 03:44 Impervious wrote:
Do you market adult strength tylenol for a child? How about movies/videogames with excessive gore/nudity/swearing? Because that's one of the things that these fast food companies are doing.....
Woah, giving kids access to violence and sex at an early age via tv, internet, and video games is a American pastime. Also, what does this have to do with food?If you can't stop yourself from taking your kid to McDonalds all the time because you always need to get your kids whatever new toy McDonlads has this week, then you fail as a parent and probably shouldn't have had children in the first place.
Simple. They're products which are meant for an adult. A good comparison to a meal with 600+ calories in it.
|
On November 17 2010 03:44 MinoMino wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 03:33 LiGhtoftheSwaRm wrote:
What's really dissapointing is we would rather blame McDonalds for obesity instead of ourselves. I doubt kids at that age think, "Oh hey, I'm getting fat, I should stop eating Happy Meals". Sure, you can blame a large part of it on the parents, but then again, that won't stop stupid parents from buying them Happy Meals to avoid making the kids food themselves or stop the kids from complaining. A law that regulates what McDonald's sells is a realistic goal, a law that somehow punishes parents who buy their kids too many Happy Meals is not. It's about protecting the kids from begging their parents for Happy Meals because they saw this toy they must have on an ad or complete a toy collection from the last time he/she got had a Happy Meal.
Kids can be very sensitive about their weight. If your kid is one of those, and you cart them to McDonalds all the time because they want a toy then you should probably have a cause/effect conversation with them.
|
It's not McDonalds fault, it's not the kids fault, it's not society's fault. It's the parents fault. Parents now adays are plain awful. They'd rather blame video games, TV, internet, restaurants, anyone but themselves. Time for parents to become parents.
|
On November 17 2010 03:59 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 03:55 Offhand wrote:On November 17 2010 03:44 Impervious wrote:
Do you market adult strength tylenol for a child? How about movies/videogames with excessive gore/nudity/swearing? Because that's one of the things that these fast food companies are doing.....
Woah, giving kids access to violence and sex at an early age via tv, internet, and video games is a American pastime. Also, what does this have to do with food?If you can't stop yourself from taking your kid to McDonalds all the time because you always need to get your kids whatever new toy McDonlads has this week, then you fail as a parent and probably shouldn't have had children in the first place. Simple. They're products which are meant for an adult. A good comparison to a meal with 600+ calories in it.
Yeah but these "intended for adults" products you seem so fond of aren't good for adults either. So why don't we ban them outright? Oh right, because we're supposed to have the freedom to chose what we do and don't put in our bodies. Parents have that right over their children as well.
You can eat at McDonalds and get your kids a happy meal, once in a while. All things in moderation.
|
On November 17 2010 04:02 Pibacc wrote:
It's not McDonalds fault, it's not the kids fault, it's not society's fault. It's the parents fault. Parents now adays are plain awful. They'd rather blame video games, TV, internet, restaurants, anyone but themselves. Time for parents to become parents.
Yeah, it seems that Americans today can't take personal responsibility for ANYTHING.
|
On November 17 2010 04:03 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 03:59 Impervious wrote:On November 17 2010 03:55 Offhand wrote:On November 17 2010 03:44 Impervious wrote:
Do you market adult strength tylenol for a child? How about movies/videogames with excessive gore/nudity/swearing? Because that's one of the things that these fast food companies are doing.....
Woah, giving kids access to violence and sex at an early age via tv, internet, and video games is a American pastime. Also, what does this have to do with food?If you can't stop yourself from taking your kid to McDonalds all the time because you always need to get your kids whatever new toy McDonlads has this week, then you fail as a parent and probably shouldn't have had children in the first place. Simple. They're products which are meant for an adult. A good comparison to a meal with 600+ calories in it. Yeah but these "intended for adults" products you seem so fond of aren't good for adults either. So why don't we ban them outright? Oh right, because we're supposed to have the freedom to chose what we do and don't put in our bodies. Parents have that right over their children as well. You can eat at McDonalds and get your kids a happy meal, once in a while. All things in moderation.
Agreed, but the statistics show that too many people are too fucking dumb to realize that. So something needs to be done about it for them. Otherwise, it's going to hurt society much more in the long run.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
Wow, smart mayor. I like that comment.
|
I can't believe just how much of a shit storm this caused. Only in America do people get pissed off when we can't eat the greasiest and most fattening foods. Remember the New York trans fat ban a few years ago? People went apeshit.
I'm not sure if this is the best way to go about it, but I think this is one of those news stories that got super blown out of proportion. "My kid has to eat fucking apples now to get a toy at McDonalds!?!", as if that's some unreasonable expectation.
|
The differences in reaction to this law and the ban on violent video game sales to minors is striking.
|
Like most people are saying, parents are the problem.
I remember when I was a kid, everytime I saw a McDonalds I used to beg if we could eat there, but most of the times my parents would say "No, we're eating at home", I don't think we ever ate at McDonalds more often than once a month.
|
On November 17 2010 04:07 Chill wrote:
Wow, smart mayor. I like that comment.
He's full of shit - they already do that with their subsidies on corn, soy, etc. which help fuel this entire issue. He said it for more votes, by fighting against the political "evils" that are trying to restrict the choices people can make..... I just hope his veto doesn't stick. Although this individual law is fucking dumb, it's a start in the right direction.
I expect him to get a nice check for funding his next campaign from several different fast-food companies as well now.....
Fuck, I hate politics.....
|
On November 17 2010 03:59 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 03:44 MinoMino wrote:On November 17 2010 03:33 LiGhtoftheSwaRm wrote:
What's really dissapointing is we would rather blame McDonalds for obesity instead of ourselves. I doubt kids at that age think, "Oh hey, I'm getting fat, I should stop eating Happy Meals". Sure, you can blame a large part of it on the parents, but then again, that won't stop stupid parents from buying them Happy Meals to avoid making the kids food themselves or stop the kids from complaining. A law that regulates what McDonald's sells is a realistic goal, a law that somehow punishes parents who buy their kids too many Happy Meals is not. It's about protecting the kids from begging their parents for Happy Meals because they saw this toy they must have on an ad or complete a toy collection from the last time he/she got had a Happy Meal. Kids can be very sensitive about their weight. If your kid is one of those, and you cart them to McDonalds all the time because they want a toy then you should probably have a cause/effect conversation with them.
Yeah, some kids can be, but if that kid doesn't realize how fat he/she is or is about to become, you can't blame it on the kid, at least in my opinion. Thus, if the kid wants a toy real bad and the parents choose the easy way out and just buys them the happy meal, the kid's going to suffer the consequences.
I'm not saying McD are the bad guys, they're just doing what best for the business. Sure, the law is pretty harsh on McD, but like I said, passing a law that somehow punishes the parents is something I doubt could work. This law, on the other hand, is pretty easy to make it work.
|
On November 17 2010 04:05 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 04:03 Offhand wrote:On November 17 2010 03:59 Impervious wrote:On November 17 2010 03:55 Offhand wrote:On November 17 2010 03:44 Impervious wrote:
Do you market adult strength tylenol for a child? How about movies/videogames with excessive gore/nudity/swearing? Because that's one of the things that these fast food companies are doing.....
Woah, giving kids access to violence and sex at an early age via tv, internet, and video games is a American pastime. Also, what does this have to do with food?If you can't stop yourself from taking your kid to McDonalds all the time because you always need to get your kids whatever new toy McDonlads has this week, then you fail as a parent and probably shouldn't have had children in the first place. Simple. They're products which are meant for an adult. A good comparison to a meal with 600+ calories in it. Yeah but these "intended for adults" products you seem so fond of aren't good for adults either. So why don't we ban them outright? Oh right, because we're supposed to have the freedom to chose what we do and don't put in our bodies. Parents have that right over their children as well. You can eat at McDonalds and get your kids a happy meal, once in a while. All things in moderation. Agreed, but the statistics show that too many people are too fucking dumb to realize that. So something needs to be done about it for them. Otherwise, it's going to hurt society much more in the long run.
People are too fucking dumb to realize a lot of things. If we're actually interested in looking out for these people, there's way more important things we should be focusing on.
Hey, if people are too dumb to realize that they're getting scammed, duped, or otherwise taken advantage of in a really obvious manner, let's fix the issue by investing in education. It's ridiculous that higher education costs $20k+ a year in a first world country and our primary education is way too shitty to expect kids to actually complete a bachelors in 4 years.
People tried suing McDonalds for making them fat. It was laughed out of the court. You should be blaming the parents that can't raise their own kids. Not the fast food store they go to all the time.
+ Show Spoiler +It's funny that the conversation hasn't moved beyond McDonalds yet. Any prepared meal in the US is terrible for you. Targeting fast food chains only isn't going to do anything for childhood obesity.
|
Good, now time to Ban McDonalds.
|
On November 17 2010 04:15 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 04:07 Chill wrote:
Wow, smart mayor. I like that comment. He's full of shit - they already do that with their subsidies on corn, soy, etc. which help fuel this entire issue. He said it for more votes, by fighting against the political "evils" that are trying to restrict the choices people can make..... I just hope his veto doesn't stick. Although this individual law is fucking dumb, it's a start in the right direction. I expect him to get a nice check for funding his next campaign from several different fast-food companies as well now..... Fuck, I hate politics.....
This is a very uninformed, knee-jerk comment that's so far from true it's not even funny.
You do realize this is the same guy that started the whole modern same-sex debate in California by giving marriage licenses to gay couples back in 2004? He's constantly been taking unpopular decisions because he believes they're the right decisions, not because he believes they'll advance his political career. Hell, he LOST the gubernatorial primaries to Jerry Brown this year BECAUSE of his unpopular decisions. And you think that he's doing this just to get more votes?
Please do some fucking research before you slander people like this.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 17 2010 04:18 MinoMino wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 03:59 Offhand wrote:On November 17 2010 03:44 MinoMino wrote:On November 17 2010 03:33 LiGhtoftheSwaRm wrote:
What's really dissapointing is we would rather blame McDonalds for obesity instead of ourselves. I doubt kids at that age think, "Oh hey, I'm getting fat, I should stop eating Happy Meals". Sure, you can blame a large part of it on the parents, but then again, that won't stop stupid parents from buying them Happy Meals to avoid making the kids food themselves or stop the kids from complaining. A law that regulates what McDonald's sells is a realistic goal, a law that somehow punishes parents who buy their kids too many Happy Meals is not. It's about protecting the kids from begging their parents for Happy Meals because they saw this toy they must have on an ad or complete a toy collection from the last time he/she got had a Happy Meal. Kids can be very sensitive about their weight. If your kid is one of those, and you cart them to McDonalds all the time because they want a toy then you should probably have a cause/effect conversation with them. Yeah, some kids can be, but if that kid doesn't realize how fat he/she is or is about to become, you can't blame it on the kid, at least in my opinion. Thus, if the kid wants a toy real bad and the parents choose the easy way out and just buys them the happy meal, the kid's going to suffer the consequences. I'm not saying McD are the bad guys, they're just doing what best for the business. Sure, the law is pretty harsh on McD, but like I said, passing a law that somehow punishes the parents is something I doubt could work. This law, on the other hand, is pretty easy to make it work.
Yeah but you're forgetting that children are capable of thinking. This law is based on the premise that the parents are blameless and that kids are actually just small retards that get whatever toy they want.
I have a little cousin that's 11 now. She was always a thin little kid but recently started gaining weight (hooray for puberty starting to kick in). She's well aware that eating certain foods will cause weight gain to the point where she doesn't want to eat freezer packaged chicken nuggets every meal. That 11 year old kid is capable of seeing a cause and effect and actually wants to prevent herself from getting fat.
+ Show Spoiler +Her dad used to be a professional goddamn chef too. So it's not like the food they cook at home is horrible, quite the contrary. She just had to grow up a bit and stop being a picky eater all the time. She's obviously to young to realize that her metabolism is changing but that's not necessary for her to understand why some foods are worse for you then others.
|
On November 17 2010 03:44 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 03:37 LegendaryZ wrote:
Give the kids their damned toys. WTF is wrong with these people? McDonalds isn't forcing these things down kids' throats. When will people stop blaming corporations for their problems and start looking at their own decision making? You're not mandated to go to McDonalds nor are you mandated to buy a Happy Meal. This is just like when they got rid of their super sized meals, which were frikking awesome... The "600" calorie limit is about what an adult should be eating in a meal..... Do you market adult strength tylenol for a child? How about movies/videogames with excessive gore/nudity/swearing? Because that's one of the things that these fast food companies are doing..... Imagine if those hotwheels cars were attached to mature videogames, or you got a free insert name of popular toy brand here toy in your next bottle of cold and flu medication..... Would you want people to "give the kids their damned toys" then?
Ignoring the fact that you're absolutely wrong about a 600-calorie meal being appropriate for an adult (maybe an adult on a major diet), the issue here is that it's not the government's place to tell you that you're not allowed to include a toy with a meal unless it's healthy. Nobody eats fast food expecting it to be healthy. It's something you eat once in a while. If a parent is taking their child to McDonalds every single day because they're too damned lazy to cook something healthy, that's a problem with the parent, not McDonalds.
Your comparison to gore, nudity, swearing, and mature video games are just random and absurd. This would be more like, "We should stop making medicine that tastes good because stupid kids might overdose on it because they think it's candy." There are plenty of unhealthy things out there that otherwise taste good or come with some other perks. Why don't we ban all of them and make everyone eat celery for the rest of their lives?
What's hilarious here is that most of the people arguing in favor of this here are probably the same exact people arguing for the legalization of drugs and would probably argue against banning tobacco and alcohol all in the name of personal choice.
If getting rid of obesity is all you care about, then getting rid of Chinese Take-outs or taxing them to discourage people from buying it would probably do more to that end. A lunch special with like 1500+ calories (Not sure about the exact amount, but I can eat just 1 and be full for the whole day) for $4 and free delivery? Seriously?
|
On November 17 2010 04:30 LegendaryZ wrote:
If getting rid of obesity is all you care about, then getting rid of Chinese Take-outs or taxing them to discourage people from buying it would probably do more to that end. A lunch special with like 1500 calories for $4 and free delivery? Seriously?
Dude where do you get Chinese food? I gotta pay like $7 and they don't deliver.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
On November 17 2010 04:15 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 04:07 Chill wrote:
Wow, smart mayor. I like that comment. He's full of shit - they already do that with their subsidies on corn, soy, etc. which help fuel this entire issue. He said it for more votes, by fighting against the political "evils" that are trying to restrict the choices people can make..... I just hope his veto doesn't stick. Although this individual law is fucking dumb, it's a start in the right direction. I expect him to get a nice check for funding his next campaign from several different fast-food companies as well now..... Fuck, I hate politics.....
If I just take it at face value, as I did, I like that comment.
|
On November 17 2010 04:36 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 04:30 LegendaryZ wrote:
If getting rid of obesity is all you care about, then getting rid of Chinese Take-outs or taxing them to discourage people from buying it would probably do more to that end. A lunch special with like 1500 calories for $4 and free delivery? Seriously? Dude where do you get Chinese food? I gotta pay like $7 and they don't deliver.
I live in NYC. Plenty of neighborhood places in Queens where you can get a retarded amount of food for $4-$6 depending. I also have a Halal cart where I can get a similar amount of food for about $5. <33 Chicken over Rice.
Almost every Chinese Take-out around here has free delivery, though. Of course you're going to give the guy a tip either way, but that still makes it like $5...
|
On November 17 2010 04:39 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 04:36 Offhand wrote:On November 17 2010 04:30 LegendaryZ wrote:
If getting rid of obesity is all you care about, then getting rid of Chinese Take-outs or taxing them to discourage people from buying it would probably do more to that end. A lunch special with like 1500 calories for $4 and free delivery? Seriously? Dude where do you get Chinese food? I gotta pay like $7 and they don't deliver. I live in NYC. Plenty of neighborhood places in Queens where you can get a retarded amount of food for $4-$6 depending. I also have a Halal cart where I can get a similar amount of food for about $5. <33 Chicken over Rice. Almost every Chinese Take-out around here has free delivery, though. Of course you're going to give the guy a tip either way, but that still makes it like $5...
I guess I don't live in a big enough city with enough competition then. We have mad good food in Worcester but it's expensive as hell if you get anything delivered.
|
On November 17 2010 04:39 LegendaryZ wrote:
I also have a Halal cart where I can get a similar amount of food for about $5.
53rd and 6th? Although I think that's $6... best meal ever.
|
On November 17 2010 04:41 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 04:39 LegendaryZ wrote:On November 17 2010 04:36 Offhand wrote:On November 17 2010 04:30 LegendaryZ wrote:
If getting rid of obesity is all you care about, then getting rid of Chinese Take-outs or taxing them to discourage people from buying it would probably do more to that end. A lunch special with like 1500 calories for $4 and free delivery? Seriously? Dude where do you get Chinese food? I gotta pay like $7 and they don't deliver. I live in NYC. Plenty of neighborhood places in Queens where you can get a retarded amount of food for $4-$6 depending. I also have a Halal cart where I can get a similar amount of food for about $5. <33 Chicken over Rice. Almost every Chinese Take-out around here has free delivery, though. Of course you're going to give the guy a tip either way, but that still makes it like $5... I guess I don't live in a big enough city with enough competition then. We have mad good food in Worcester but it's expensive as hell if you get anything delivered.
Yeah, that probably makes a difference. Heavy competition here drives prices down, which is great for us consumers. Visit some of the ethnic neighborhoods around here and you can get such good food and so much of it for so cheap. Just stay away from eating in Manhattan because everything there is so ridiculously expensive...
|
On November 17 2010 04:43 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 04:39 LegendaryZ wrote:
I also have a Halal cart where I can get a similar amount of food for about $5.
53rd and 6th? Although I think that's $6... best meal ever.
That cart is pretty overrated and the line is so ridiculously long. I used to eat that when I worked in the area (my boss was obsessed with it). Now I get my Halal in Jackson Heights and it's honestly just as good if not better without the crazy line.
Besides... the 53rd and 6th cart just has really strange hours.
Halal carts are definitely one of the best "bang for your buck" places to get food in the city and every tourist should try it. Ignore all the stupid hot dog and pretzel carts. No self-respecting New Yorker eats that stuff anymore. LOL
|
On November 17 2010 04:22 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 04:15 Impervious wrote:On November 17 2010 04:07 Chill wrote:
Wow, smart mayor. I like that comment. He's full of shit - they already do that with their subsidies on corn, soy, etc. which help fuel this entire issue. He said it for more votes, by fighting against the political "evils" that are trying to restrict the choices people can make..... I just hope his veto doesn't stick. Although this individual law is fucking dumb, it's a start in the right direction. I expect him to get a nice check for funding his next campaign from several different fast-food companies as well now..... Fuck, I hate politics..... This is a very uninformed, knee-jerk comment that's so far from true it's not even funny. You do realize this is the same guy that started the whole modern same-sex debate in California by giving marriage licenses to gay couples back in 2004? He's constantly been taking unpopular decisions because he believes they're the right decisions, not because he believes they'll advance his political career. Hell, he LOST the gubernatorial primaries to Jerry Brown this year BECAUSE of his unpopular decisions. And you think that he's doing this just to get more votes? Please do some fucking research before you slander people like this.
Did you listen to the video on CNN? "It's one thing to educate, it's one thing to promote, it's one thing to create options, but it's all together different when we decide as politicians what we believe the private sector can do....."
There are so many situations where this already happens that I don't even want to bother talking about any of them..... And he vetoes one that actually might make a positive difference to a younger generation? PS - Jerry Brown already has a pretty good history in politics, so it's not a fair claim to say he lost because he chose the unpopular decisions only.....
|
Can't seem to think this is a bad idea in any shape of form, other than maybe if you work for mcdonalds?
I dunno - im all for creating a healthier life - including that of myself and my children. Good thing tbh!
|
On November 17 2010 04:30 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 03:44 Impervious wrote:On November 17 2010 03:37 LegendaryZ wrote:
Give the kids their damned toys. WTF is wrong with these people? McDonalds isn't forcing these things down kids' throats. When will people stop blaming corporations for their problems and start looking at their own decision making? You're not mandated to go to McDonalds nor are you mandated to buy a Happy Meal. This is just like when they got rid of their super sized meals, which were frikking awesome... The "600" calorie limit is about what an adult should be eating in a meal..... Do you market adult strength tylenol for a child? How about movies/videogames with excessive gore/nudity/swearing? Because that's one of the things that these fast food companies are doing..... Imagine if those hotwheels cars were attached to mature videogames, or you got a free insert name of popular toy brand here toy in your next bottle of cold and flu medication..... Would you want people to "give the kids their damned toys" then? Ignoring the fact that you're absolutely wrong about a 600-calorie meal being appropriate for an adult (maybe an adult on a major diet), the issue here is that it's not the government's place to tell you that you're not allowed to include a toy with a meal unless it's healthy. Nobody eats fast food expecting it to be healthy. It's something you eat once in a while. If a parent is taking their child to McDonalds every single day because they're too damned lazy to cook something healthy, that's a problem with the parent, not McDonalds.
Really? Eating 3-5 times a day, plus snacks, and a highly active male between the ages of 14 and 18 requires 3200 calories. dividing that into 3 puts it to just over 1000 calories per meal, and you can take a couple hundred away due to eating snacks. And that is the highest calorie requirment for a person for anything short of a professional or semi-pro athlete.....
Your comparison to gore, nudity, swearing, and mature video games are just random and absurd. This would be more like, "We should stop making medicine that tastes good because stupid kids might overdose on it because they think it's candy." There are plenty of unhealthy things out there that otherwise taste good or come with some other perks. Why don't we ban all of them and make everyone eat celery for the rest of their lives?
Is access to better quality medicines/easier to take medicines going to give more people heart attacks with proper use?
Fast food is not a bad thing. Over-use of it is, just like medicines. Guess which one has a little barbie toy, or a Monsters Inc figurine attached to it.....
What's hilarious here is that most of the people arguing in favor of this here are probably the same exact people arguing for the legalization of drugs and would probably argue against banning tobacco and alcohol all in the name of personal choice.
I'm pro-drug and tobacco and alcohol as well. However, I definitely think better constraints on tobacco and alcohol are needed (due to the negative effects they do have at the moment, yet when enjoyed responsibly, there is no problem with it, and if people aren't going to be mature about it, then someone needs to make that decision for them).
If getting rid of obesity is all you care about, then getting rid of Chinese Take-outs or taxing them to discourage people from buying it would probably do more to that end. A lunch special with like 1500+ calories (Not sure about the exact amount, but I can eat just 1 and be full for the whole day) for $4 and free delivery? Seriously?
Taxing anyone who serves unhealthy foods an "unhealthy food" tax would be an awesome thing imo. Far better than taking the toy away from the kids. Giving subsidies to growers of healthy crops rather than the current cash crops would also be a huge step in the right direction as well, since it would increase costs and prices for fast foods and decrease costs for eating healthy foods.
|
Awesome, so now in SF when parents take their kids to McDonald's they will just by them a value meal for about the same price as a happy meal... more food less toys  .
Actually... at least in Canada happy meal costs more than value meal, the toy justified the lower amount of food the kids were getting.
for like $3.50 you can get McDouble + medium fries + medium drink.
vs.
$4.75 you can get hamburger + small fries + small drink + toy
Damn, now parents can pay less for more food for their kids at McDonalds.
|
On November 17 2010 05:00 Insanious wrote:Awesome, so now in SF when parents take their kids to McDonald's they will just by them a value meal for about the same price as a happy meal... more food less toys . Actually... at least in Canada happy meal costs more than value meal, the toy justified the lower amount of food the kids were getting. for like $3.50 you can get McDouble + medium fries + medium drink. vs. $4.75 you can get hamburger + small fries + small drink + toy Damn, now parents can pay less for more food for their kids at McDonalds.
Read the whole OP; apparently, the mayor of San Francisco vetoed the ban.
|
On November 17 2010 04:43 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 04:39 LegendaryZ wrote:
I also have a Halal cart where I can get a similar amount of food for about $5.
53rd and 6th? Although I think that's $6... best meal ever.
That's hands down the best street meat in NYC. The lamb is crazy delicious...
|
I can only say one thing, only in America........
Sorry if you feel attacked, but if this would happen in my country I would totally freak out.
IMO this is a statement from the government; Hey you taxpayers, you cant think for yourselves, so we will do that.
How can you forbid a company for selling legal stuff? That makes no sense at all.
They should find other way's to deal with the problem.....
Sorry I'm really pissed of about this happening
ok the plan is off, but still....
|
On November 17 2010 05:01 Aeres wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 05:00 Insanious wrote:Awesome, so now in SF when parents take their kids to McDonald's they will just by them a value meal for about the same price as a happy meal... more food less toys . Actually... at least in Canada happy meal costs more than value meal, the toy justified the lower amount of food the kids were getting. for like $3.50 you can get McDouble + medium fries + medium drink. vs. $4.75 you can get hamburger + small fries + small drink + toy Damn, now parents can pay less for more food for their kids at McDonalds. Read the whole OP; apparently, the mayor of San Francisco vetoed the ban.
K k, so that's what I read. My gf just told me that he didn't according to the news but she might have heard it wrong.
I didn't know the veto part was in the OP so I wasn't going to go looking for it.
But ya, my argument still stands vs all these people "good will force McDonalds to make healthier food for kids"
Not really... will just have them get rid of happy meals and offer value deals to kids... more food for cheaper, done and done.
|
for all of you saying that it should be a choice to take your kids to mcdonalds...
what part of the law says no mcdonalds? they cant put a toy with the meal if it's really unhealthy, that's it.
there are laws that restrict alcohol being served, smoking, drugs etc. because they are have a very large social cost. Obesity does too, and if this law reduces the obesity rate by a single full percent that's one in every one hundred children who will have a significantly improved life.
so why not just let san fran pass the law and see what happens? there should be some comparable areas around the city that dont, so we will get a nice natural experiment.
I want to remind all of you who think that this is a bad idea that obesity in america is a huge problem among adults as well, so clearly a lot of people are incapable of making the right choice.
|
On November 17 2010 05:10 red_b wrote:
for all of you saying that it should be a choice to take your kids to mcdonalds...
what part of the law says no mcdonalds? they cant put a toy with the meal if it's really unhealthy, that's it.
there are laws that restrict alcohol being served, smoking, drugs etc. because they are have a very large social cost. Obesity does too, and if this law reduces the obesity rate by a single full percent that's one in every one hundred children who will have a significantly improved life.
so why not just let san fran pass the law and see what happens? there should be some comparable areas around the city that dont, so we will get a nice natural experiment.
I want to remind all of you who think that this is a bad idea that obesity in america is a huge problem among adults as well, so clearly a lot of people are incapable of making the right choice.
You should note that if they actually just lowered the price of a happy meal, the law probably made the issue worse not better...
There's a lot of people in the thread who are convinced we need the state to think for us. That is frankly scary as fuck. Who do propose we put in charge of our well-being? Dick Cheney and Carl Rove? You? Some magical fantasy man who will make all the correct decisions? Do we need a pope of the democracy?
|
On November 17 2010 05:05 Mutaahh wrote:
I can only say one thing, only in America........
Sorry if you feel attacked, but if this would happen in my country I would totally freak out.
IMO this is a statement from the government; Hey you taxpayers, you cant think for yourselves, so we will do that.
How can you forbid a company for selling legal stuff? That makes no sense at all.
They should find other way's to deal with the problem.....
Sorry I'm really pissed of about this happening
Simple. People have thought for themselves. The result?
![[image loading]](http://cs-willy.com/overlooked/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/TheMainDifferenceBetweenEuropeAndUSA.jpg)
Granted, it`s not quite that bad..... But you get the idea.....
Also, if it wasn`t vetoed, then selling the toys would be illegal in that situaion (much like selling other things to minors is illegal), so you could forbid the company from selling it.
|
On November 17 2010 05:10 red_b wrote:
for all of you saying that it should be a choice to take your kids to mcdonalds...
what part of the law says no mcdonalds? they cant put a toy with the meal if it's really unhealthy, that's it.
there are laws that restrict alcohol being served, smoking, drugs etc. because they are have a very large social cost. Obesity does too, and if this law reduces the obesity rate by a single full percent that's one in every one hundred children who will have a significantly improved life.
so why not just let san fran pass the law and see what happens? there should be some comparable areas around the city that dont, so we will get a nice natural experiment.
I want to remind all of you who think that this is a bad idea that obesity in america is a huge problem among adults as well, so clearly a lot of people are incapable of making the right choice.
Ya so ensure that "fat" people will do something about their way of living...
Now the healthy people are disadvantaged for the conduct of the fatso...
|
On November 16 2010 12:01 Ferrose wrote:As you may know, if you go to McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, etc., a kids' meal also gets a free toy with it. Well, the board of supervisors in San Francisco thinks that before restaurants are allowed to do this, the meals that the toys are served with should be somewhat healthy for children. The city plans to accomplish this by mandating that the meal contain less than six hundred calories, less than thirty-five percent of the calories are from fat, and a serving of fruit or vegetables comes with the meal. Show nested quote +
San Francisco's board of supervisors has voted, by a veto-proof margin, to ban most of McDonald's Happy Meals as they are now served in the restaurants.
The measure will make San Francisco the first major city in the country to forbid restaurants from offering a free toy with meals that contain more than set levels of calories, sugar and fat.
The ordinance would also require restaurants to provide fruits and vegetables with all meals for children that come with toys.
"We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure. "From San Francisco to New York City, the epidemic of childhood obesity in this country is making our kids sick, particularly kids from low income neighborhoods, at an alarming rate. It's a survival issue and a day-to-day issue."
Just after the vote, McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud said, "We are extremely disappointed with today's decision. It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for."
The ban, already enacted in a similar measure by Santa Clara County, was opposed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who was vying to be lieutenant governor in Tuesday's election. But because the measure was passed by eight votes — one more than needed to override a veto — his opposition doesn't matter unless one of the supervisors changes his or her mind after the promised veto.
Under the ordinance, scheduled to take effect in December 2011, restaurants may include a toy with a meal if the food and drink combined contain fewer than 600 calories, and if less than 35% of the calories come from fat.
Over the last few weeks, the proposed ban caused a stir online and on cable television, with supporters arguing that it would help protect children from obesity, and opponents seeing it as the latest example of the nanny state gone wild.
Supervisor Bevan Dufty, whose swing vote provided the veto-proof majority, said critics should not dismiss the legislation as a nutty effort by San Franciscans. "I do believe the industry is going to take note of this. I don't care how much they say, 'It's San Francisco, they're wacked out there.' "
Proud, the McDonald's spokeswoman, said the city was out of step with the mainstream on the issue.
Article: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103Now, I believe that childhood obesity is a big problem in the United States. But I do not think that measures like this will help to reduce it. I believe that if a child becomes obese, it is most likely the parents' fault, as they are responsible for raising a healthy child. Also, this could harm the revenue of the restaurants, as one of the most popular meals will no longer appear on the menu. I am interested to see how the restaurants will handle the ordeal. Edit: Here's a pdf chart of the nutritional values of Happy Meal options:http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/Happy_Meals_Nutrition_List.pdf
While I agree that child obesity comes in large part due to their parents, I think people should consider the fact that most parents make a lot of their decisions based on what the child nags about. How many times have parents bought their child something on a whim or on impulse simply because the child would nag and cry about it non stop? The children who want the toys will nag just as much and at least the happy meal will be healthier this way.
|
On November 17 2010 05:05 Mutaahh wrote:
I can only say one thing, only in America........
Sorry if you feel attacked, but if this would happen in my country I would totally freak out.
IMO this is a statement from the government; Hey you taxpayers, you cant think for yourselves, so we will do that.
How can you forbid a company for selling legal stuff? That makes no sense at all.
They should find other way's to deal with the problem.....
Sorry I'm really pissed of about this happening
ok the plan is off, but still....
? Legal is only legal until its illegal as determined by the state..
|
On November 17 2010 05:13 Impervious wrote:
Also, if it wasn`t vetoed, then selling the toys would be illegal in that situaion (much like selling other things to minors is illegal), so you could forbid the company from selling it.
Except they're not selling anything to minors
|
On November 17 2010 05:19 mrgoochio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:01 Ferrose wrote:As you may know, if you go to McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, etc., a kids' meal also gets a free toy with it. Well, the board of supervisors in San Francisco thinks that before restaurants are allowed to do this, the meals that the toys are served with should be somewhat healthy for children. The city plans to accomplish this by mandating that the meal contain less than six hundred calories, less than thirty-five percent of the calories are from fat, and a serving of fruit or vegetables comes with the meal.
San Francisco's board of supervisors has voted, by a veto-proof margin, to ban most of McDonald's Happy Meals as they are now served in the restaurants.
The measure will make San Francisco the first major city in the country to forbid restaurants from offering a free toy with meals that contain more than set levels of calories, sugar and fat.
The ordinance would also require restaurants to provide fruits and vegetables with all meals for children that come with toys.
"We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure. "From San Francisco to New York City, the epidemic of childhood obesity in this country is making our kids sick, particularly kids from low income neighborhoods, at an alarming rate. It's a survival issue and a day-to-day issue."
Just after the vote, McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud said, "We are extremely disappointed with today's decision. It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for."
The ban, already enacted in a similar measure by Santa Clara County, was opposed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who was vying to be lieutenant governor in Tuesday's election. But because the measure was passed by eight votes — one more than needed to override a veto — his opposition doesn't matter unless one of the supervisors changes his or her mind after the promised veto.
Under the ordinance, scheduled to take effect in December 2011, restaurants may include a toy with a meal if the food and drink combined contain fewer than 600 calories, and if less than 35% of the calories come from fat.
Over the last few weeks, the proposed ban caused a stir online and on cable television, with supporters arguing that it would help protect children from obesity, and opponents seeing it as the latest example of the nanny state gone wild.
Supervisor Bevan Dufty, whose swing vote provided the veto-proof majority, said critics should not dismiss the legislation as a nutty effort by San Franciscans. "I do believe the industry is going to take note of this. I don't care how much they say, 'It's San Francisco, they're wacked out there.' "
Proud, the McDonald's spokeswoman, said the city was out of step with the mainstream on the issue.
Article: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103Now, I believe that childhood obesity is a big problem in the United States. But I do not think that measures like this will help to reduce it. I believe that if a child becomes obese, it is most likely the parents' fault, as they are responsible for raising a healthy child. Also, this could harm the revenue of the restaurants, as one of the most popular meals will no longer appear on the menu. I am interested to see how the restaurants will handle the ordeal. Edit: Here's a pdf chart of the nutritional values of Happy Meal options:http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/Happy_Meals_Nutrition_List.pdf While I agree that child obesity comes in large part due to their parents, I think people should consider the fact that most parents make a lot of their decisions based on what the child nags about. How many times have parents bought their child something on a whim or on impulse simply because the child would nag and cry about it non stop? The children who want the toys will nag just as much and at least the happy meal will be healthier this way.
You assume a lot of things:
- Unable to get a happy meal, families will still go to McDonalds anyway.
- Even if that's not the case, what's to say that what kids eat at home is any better? (we are talking about people who eat at McDonalds all the time)
- Cutting toys out of happy meals doesn't turn bad parents into good parents. In fact, if there kid is constantly whining for a toy bad parents are just going to buy them something else to shut them up.
- Are happy meals actually going to be made healthy because of this? We're talking about a law that effects one city. This probably isn't going to change the menu for a huge multi-national company.
|
On November 17 2010 05:25 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 05:13 Impervious wrote:
Also, if it wasn`t vetoed, then selling the toys would be illegal in that situaion (much like selling other things to minors is illegal), so you could forbid the company from selling it. Except they're not selling anything to minors
True, but they`re selling something that is obviously targetted at minors. Not really much difference..... Just semantics.....
|
On November 17 2010 05:25 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 05:19 mrgoochio wrote:On November 16 2010 12:01 Ferrose wrote:As you may know, if you go to McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, etc., a kids' meal also gets a free toy with it. Well, the board of supervisors in San Francisco thinks that before restaurants are allowed to do this, the meals that the toys are served with should be somewhat healthy for children. The city plans to accomplish this by mandating that the meal contain less than six hundred calories, less than thirty-five percent of the calories are from fat, and a serving of fruit or vegetables comes with the meal.
San Francisco's board of supervisors has voted, by a veto-proof margin, to ban most of McDonald's Happy Meals as they are now served in the restaurants.
The measure will make San Francisco the first major city in the country to forbid restaurants from offering a free toy with meals that contain more than set levels of calories, sugar and fat.
The ordinance would also require restaurants to provide fruits and vegetables with all meals for children that come with toys.
"We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure. "From San Francisco to New York City, the epidemic of childhood obesity in this country is making our kids sick, particularly kids from low income neighborhoods, at an alarming rate. It's a survival issue and a day-to-day issue."
Just after the vote, McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud said, "We are extremely disappointed with today's decision. It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for."
The ban, already enacted in a similar measure by Santa Clara County, was opposed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who was vying to be lieutenant governor in Tuesday's election. But because the measure was passed by eight votes — one more than needed to override a veto — his opposition doesn't matter unless one of the supervisors changes his or her mind after the promised veto.
Under the ordinance, scheduled to take effect in December 2011, restaurants may include a toy with a meal if the food and drink combined contain fewer than 600 calories, and if less than 35% of the calories come from fat.
Over the last few weeks, the proposed ban caused a stir online and on cable television, with supporters arguing that it would help protect children from obesity, and opponents seeing it as the latest example of the nanny state gone wild.
Supervisor Bevan Dufty, whose swing vote provided the veto-proof majority, said critics should not dismiss the legislation as a nutty effort by San Franciscans. "I do believe the industry is going to take note of this. I don't care how much they say, 'It's San Francisco, they're wacked out there.' "
Proud, the McDonald's spokeswoman, said the city was out of step with the mainstream on the issue.
Article: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103Now, I believe that childhood obesity is a big problem in the United States. But I do not think that measures like this will help to reduce it. I believe that if a child becomes obese, it is most likely the parents' fault, as they are responsible for raising a healthy child. Also, this could harm the revenue of the restaurants, as one of the most popular meals will no longer appear on the menu. I am interested to see how the restaurants will handle the ordeal. Edit: Here's a pdf chart of the nutritional values of Happy Meal options:http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/Happy_Meals_Nutrition_List.pdf While I agree that child obesity comes in large part due to their parents, I think people should consider the fact that most parents make a lot of their decisions based on what the child nags about. How many times have parents bought their child something on a whim or on impulse simply because the child would nag and cry about it non stop? The children who want the toys will nag just as much and at least the happy meal will be healthier this way. You assume a lot of things: - Unable to get a happy meal, families will still go to McDonalds anyway. - Even if that's not the case, what's to say that what kids eat at home is any better? (we are talking about people who eat at McDonalds all the time) - Cutting toys out of happy meals doesn't turn bad parents into good parents. In fact, if there kid is constantly whining for a toy bad parents are just going to buy them something else to shut them up. - Are happy meals actually going to be made healthy because of this? We're talking about a law that effects one city. This probably isn't going to change the menu for a huge multi-national company.
From the look of it, several different combinations of happy meals actually fit in the guidelines, so the kids could still get their toys if that is the main point of the meal. And that meal will be of the healthier options (apples instead of fries for example). If this persuades a bunch of kids to eat the healthier option, that is definitely a good thing, especially if slightly healthier eating becomes a habit for them.
|
I just remembered the reason I liked going to mcdonalds as a kid. It was probably 50% the food and 50% getting to play in the playground after eating.
![[image loading]](http://autonomoussource.com/blog/mt-static/pics/playmcd.jpg)
When we went to mcdonalds my brothers and I would insist on going to a mcdonalds with a playground.
|
On November 17 2010 05:27 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 05:25 BlackJack wrote:On November 17 2010 05:13 Impervious wrote:
Also, if it wasn`t vetoed, then selling the toys would be illegal in that situaion (much like selling other things to minors is illegal), so you could forbid the company from selling it. Except they're not selling anything to minors True, but they`re selling something that is obviously targetted at minors. Not really much difference..... Just semantics.....
Err no. It's a quite important legal distinction. Your parents can get you into an R rated movie, or buy you a M rated game, or even buy you alcohol in some states. Once again, the decision of what's appropriate is left to the parent, not the state.
|
On November 17 2010 04:29 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 04:18 MinoMino wrote:On November 17 2010 03:59 Offhand wrote:On November 17 2010 03:44 MinoMino wrote:On November 17 2010 03:33 LiGhtoftheSwaRm wrote:
What's really dissapointing is we would rather blame McDonalds for obesity instead of ourselves. I doubt kids at that age think, "Oh hey, I'm getting fat, I should stop eating Happy Meals". Sure, you can blame a large part of it on the parents, but then again, that won't stop stupid parents from buying them Happy Meals to avoid making the kids food themselves or stop the kids from complaining. A law that regulates what McDonald's sells is a realistic goal, a law that somehow punishes parents who buy their kids too many Happy Meals is not. It's about protecting the kids from begging their parents for Happy Meals because they saw this toy they must have on an ad or complete a toy collection from the last time he/she got had a Happy Meal. Kids can be very sensitive about their weight. If your kid is one of those, and you cart them to McDonalds all the time because they want a toy then you should probably have a cause/effect conversation with them. Yeah, some kids can be, but if that kid doesn't realize how fat he/she is or is about to become, you can't blame it on the kid, at least in my opinion. Thus, if the kid wants a toy real bad and the parents choose the easy way out and just buys them the happy meal, the kid's going to suffer the consequences. I'm not saying McD are the bad guys, they're just doing what best for the business. Sure, the law is pretty harsh on McD, but like I said, passing a law that somehow punishes the parents is something I doubt could work. This law, on the other hand, is pretty easy to make it work. Yeah but you're forgetting that children are capable of thinking. This law is based on the premise that the parents are blameless and that kids are actually just small retards that get whatever toy they want. I have a little cousin that's 11 now. She was always a thin little kid but recently started gaining weight (hooray for puberty starting to kick in). She's well aware that eating certain foods will cause weight gain to the point where she doesn't want to eat freezer packaged chicken nuggets every meal. That 11 year old kid is capable of seeing a cause and effect and actually wants to prevent herself from getting fat. + Show Spoiler +Her dad used to be a professional goddamn chef too. So it's not like the food they cook at home is horrible, quite the contrary. She just had to grow up a bit and stop being a picky eater all the time. She's obviously to young to realize that her metabolism is changing but that's not necessary for her to understand why some foods are worse for you then others.
I'm not forgetting it, nor am I ignoring it. I acknowledge that a bunch of kids can probably realize when they're getting fat and opt to do something about it, but I don't believe that all kids do. I'm thinking of kids younger than your cousin, kids that just care about the toys. Now that kids are a lot fatter than they used to be, it might be even more difficult for a kid to realize it's not good, as he might see other fat kids around him or her as well.
|
All these "Parents need to take responsibility" comments are retarded, fundamentally when the parents are irresponsible the child suffers through no fault of it's own. So the state absolutely has the right to force parents to be responsible. Essentially that's putting the right of the child before the right of the parent.
And this law doesn't even do that. All it does is ban the use of toys for marketing junk food to children which is clearly an unethical practice. Since McDonalds won't acknowledge this and children are not old enough to be responsible for themselves then it's the responsibility of the state to step in. Which they have done.
Bravo San Fransisco.
|
On November 17 2010 05:30 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 05:27 Impervious wrote:On November 17 2010 05:25 BlackJack wrote:On November 17 2010 05:13 Impervious wrote:
Also, if it wasn`t vetoed, then selling the toys would be illegal in that situaion (much like selling other things to minors is illegal), so you could forbid the company from selling it. Except they're not selling anything to minors True, but they`re selling something that is obviously targetted at minors. Not really much difference..... Just semantics..... Err no. It's a quite important legal distinction. Your parents can get you into an R rated movie, or buy you a M rated game, or even buy you alcohol in some states. Once again, the decision of what's appropriate is left to the parent, not the state.
What was the last R-rated or M-rated thing you saw that was targetted at minors..... I`d like to know.....
And it`s why McDonalds can get around this pretty easily by claiming their meal is a `happy meal` and not a childs meal, especially since some money from each one goes to charity..... Unless this was taken into consideration in the law..... In that case, McDonalds could probably file suit that their business is being targetted directly with the law, which looks like it would have a really good chance of winning, and we`re back to square one again.....
|
On November 17 2010 05:32 MinoMino wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 04:29 Offhand wrote:On November 17 2010 04:18 MinoMino wrote:On November 17 2010 03:59 Offhand wrote:On November 17 2010 03:44 MinoMino wrote:On November 17 2010 03:33 LiGhtoftheSwaRm wrote:
What's really dissapointing is we would rather blame McDonalds for obesity instead of ourselves. I doubt kids at that age think, "Oh hey, I'm getting fat, I should stop eating Happy Meals". Sure, you can blame a large part of it on the parents, but then again, that won't stop stupid parents from buying them Happy Meals to avoid making the kids food themselves or stop the kids from complaining. A law that regulates what McDonald's sells is a realistic goal, a law that somehow punishes parents who buy their kids too many Happy Meals is not. It's about protecting the kids from begging their parents for Happy Meals because they saw this toy they must have on an ad or complete a toy collection from the last time he/she got had a Happy Meal. Kids can be very sensitive about their weight. If your kid is one of those, and you cart them to McDonalds all the time because they want a toy then you should probably have a cause/effect conversation with them. Yeah, some kids can be, but if that kid doesn't realize how fat he/she is or is about to become, you can't blame it on the kid, at least in my opinion. Thus, if the kid wants a toy real bad and the parents choose the easy way out and just buys them the happy meal, the kid's going to suffer the consequences. I'm not saying McD are the bad guys, they're just doing what best for the business. Sure, the law is pretty harsh on McD, but like I said, passing a law that somehow punishes the parents is something I doubt could work. This law, on the other hand, is pretty easy to make it work. Yeah but you're forgetting that children are capable of thinking. This law is based on the premise that the parents are blameless and that kids are actually just small retards that get whatever toy they want. I have a little cousin that's 11 now. She was always a thin little kid but recently started gaining weight (hooray for puberty starting to kick in). She's well aware that eating certain foods will cause weight gain to the point where she doesn't want to eat freezer packaged chicken nuggets every meal. That 11 year old kid is capable of seeing a cause and effect and actually wants to prevent herself from getting fat. + Show Spoiler +Her dad used to be a professional goddamn chef too. So it's not like the food they cook at home is horrible, quite the contrary. She just had to grow up a bit and stop being a picky eater all the time. She's obviously to young to realize that her metabolism is changing but that's not necessary for her to understand why some foods are worse for you then others. I'm not forgetting it, nor am I ignoring it. I acknowledge that a bunch of kids can probably realize when they're getting fat and opt to do something about it, but I don't believe that all kids do. I'm thinking of kids younger than your cousin, kids that just care about the toys. Now that kids are a lot fatter than they used to be, it might be even more difficult for a kid to realize it's not good, as he might see other fat kids around him or her as well.
Yes but you're still arguing for a law that effects everyone because we deem a few people incapable of acting rationally. Do you get why that's ridiculous?
There's absolutely nothing stopping me from going to a convenience store and chugging 5 hour energies until my heart explodes. Well, nothing but the knowledge that it's a stupid thing to do. It's pretty clear to both parents and kids that eating McDonalds all the time is bad. As such, I don't and I hope you don't either. But nothing is going to prevent stupid people from being stupid.
On November 17 2010 05:39 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 05:30 Offhand wrote:On November 17 2010 05:27 Impervious wrote:On November 17 2010 05:25 BlackJack wrote:On November 17 2010 05:13 Impervious wrote:
Also, if it wasn`t vetoed, then selling the toys would be illegal in that situaion (much like selling other things to minors is illegal), so you could forbid the company from selling it. Except they're not selling anything to minors True, but they`re selling something that is obviously targetted at minors. Not really much difference..... Just semantics..... Err no. It's a quite important legal distinction. Your parents can get you into an R rated movie, or buy you a M rated game, or even buy you alcohol in some states. Once again, the decision of what's appropriate is left to the parent, not the state. What was the last R-rated thing you saw that was targetted at minors..... I`d like to know.....
Um, like every action movie ever appeals to male children.
|
dividing that into 3 puts it to just over 1000 calories per meal, and you can take a couple hundred away due to eating snacks.
Wow, what kind of snacks are you eating? If by "couple hundred" you mean 200, that means you consume 600 calories in snacks each day. Which is 4 bags of potato chips. Yeah, a child eating 4 bags of chips a day is going to be a lard-ass.
|
On November 17 2010 05:15 Mutaahh wrote:
Ya so ensure that "fat" people will do something about their way of living...
Now the healthy people are disadvantaged for the conduct of the fatso...
I don't understand your comment, could you please clarify?
|
On November 17 2010 05:39 Offhand wrote:
But nothing is going to prevent stupid people from being stupid.
So make it harder and more costly for them to do it, so it doesn`t have as big of an effect on everyone, and it costs less for everyone else.....
|
Also, since this is a hate-on McDonald's thread so far... I wonder how many people know that food standards have been raised world wide thanks to McDonald's.
Do you really think the food you get in super markets would be as high of quality if McDonald's didn't force legislation through in first world countries to increase to standard of many food products (ground beef, produce, chicken, etc...)
Without McDonald's the food you would eat would be of a much lower quality, the beef you buy in super markets, the potatoes you buy in the 6 pound bags, not just the food you get from McDonald's but the food you eat every day.
Not only that but McDonald's employs a stupidly large number of people world wide. In menial jobs, as well as management jobs... and heck they keep many of the farms in the western world operational. Do you really think many farmers would have jobs when the demand for their products dropped by 30 -> 40% ya... McDonald's buys that much food every year.
- - - - -
I know a lot of you are QQ'ing about fat people, but its their choice to get fat, to eat fast food and frozen dinners.
You also have to look at the good a company does for us and well... employment, food standards... hell McDonald's is one of the largest philanthropist companies on earth...
While they might bring a luxury service that people treat like a need, they still do good for the world and you need to keep that in mind.
|
On November 17 2010 05:42 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 05:15 Mutaahh wrote:
Ya so ensure that "fat" people will do something about their way of living...
Now the healthy people are disadvantaged for the conduct of the fatso...
I don't understand your comment, could you please clarify?
I as a healthy person would never go to McDonald's to eat their healthy food. If I want healthy food, I will buy it from the grocery store. I go to McDonald's to pig out, and sometimes I crave a toy to go along with my treat. This is the problem with high-handed regulation like this, you screw people who are sensible about such products.
If you want to cure obesity, tax them. Simple solution.
|
On November 17 2010 05:39 Offhand wrote:What was the last R-rated thing you saw that was targetted at minors..... I`d like to know.....
Um, like every action movie ever appeals to male children.[/QUOTE]
true, however pg-13 movies SMASH R rated movies in terms of ticket sales.
I have to say though, if I had child and I had to chose between them eating unhealthily and having bad food habits, watching a lot of very violent films, or watching porn and masturbating, I would go for the third.
at least you can explain to a child what makes a healthy sexual relationship. it is hard to explain that food that tastes good is bad for you when youre that young. I wouldnt ever want to go near the second issue.
|
On November 17 2010 05:41 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +dividing that into 3 puts it to just over 1000 calories per meal, and you can take a couple hundred away due to eating snacks. Wow, what kind of snacks are you eating? If by "couple hundred" you mean 200, that means you consume 600 calories in snacks each day. Which is 4 bags of potato chips. Yeah, a child eating 4 bags of chips a day is going to be a lard-ass.
Like I said, that`s for the people who are in the biggest need of calories..... Also, snacks can add up pretty quickly.....
For instance, 100 grams of Almonds is something like 600 calories..... While a serving may not be 100 grams, it can add up a lot.....
A more realistic diet is somewhere around the 2000 calorie mark. No snacks, 3 meals a day, and that`s still less than 700 calories a meal - many variants of a happy meal at McDonalds are nearly that.....
|
On November 17 2010 05:39 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 05:32 MinoMino wrote:On November 17 2010 04:29 Offhand wrote:On November 17 2010 04:18 MinoMino wrote:On November 17 2010 03:59 Offhand wrote:On November 17 2010 03:44 MinoMino wrote:On November 17 2010 03:33 LiGhtoftheSwaRm wrote:
What's really dissapointing is we would rather blame McDonalds for obesity instead of ourselves. I doubt kids at that age think, "Oh hey, I'm getting fat, I should stop eating Happy Meals". Sure, you can blame a large part of it on the parents, but then again, that won't stop stupid parents from buying them Happy Meals to avoid making the kids food themselves or stop the kids from complaining. A law that regulates what McDonald's sells is a realistic goal, a law that somehow punishes parents who buy their kids too many Happy Meals is not. It's about protecting the kids from begging their parents for Happy Meals because they saw this toy they must have on an ad or complete a toy collection from the last time he/she got had a Happy Meal. Kids can be very sensitive about their weight. If your kid is one of those, and you cart them to McDonalds all the time because they want a toy then you should probably have a cause/effect conversation with them. Yeah, some kids can be, but if that kid doesn't realize how fat he/she is or is about to become, you can't blame it on the kid, at least in my opinion. Thus, if the kid wants a toy real bad and the parents choose the easy way out and just buys them the happy meal, the kid's going to suffer the consequences. I'm not saying McD are the bad guys, they're just doing what best for the business. Sure, the law is pretty harsh on McD, but like I said, passing a law that somehow punishes the parents is something I doubt could work. This law, on the other hand, is pretty easy to make it work. Yeah but you're forgetting that children are capable of thinking. This law is based on the premise that the parents are blameless and that kids are actually just small retards that get whatever toy they want. I have a little cousin that's 11 now. She was always a thin little kid but recently started gaining weight (hooray for puberty starting to kick in). She's well aware that eating certain foods will cause weight gain to the point where she doesn't want to eat freezer packaged chicken nuggets every meal. That 11 year old kid is capable of seeing a cause and effect and actually wants to prevent herself from getting fat. + Show Spoiler +Her dad used to be a professional goddamn chef too. So it's not like the food they cook at home is horrible, quite the contrary. She just had to grow up a bit and stop being a picky eater all the time. She's obviously to young to realize that her metabolism is changing but that's not necessary for her to understand why some foods are worse for you then others. I'm not forgetting it, nor am I ignoring it. I acknowledge that a bunch of kids can probably realize when they're getting fat and opt to do something about it, but I don't believe that all kids do. I'm thinking of kids younger than your cousin, kids that just care about the toys. Now that kids are a lot fatter than they used to be, it might be even more difficult for a kid to realize it's not good, as he might see other fat kids around him or her as well. Yes but you're still arguing for a law that effects everyone because we deem a few people incapable of acting rationally. Do you get why that's ridiculous? There's absolutely nothing stopping me from going to a convenience store and chugging 5 hour energies until my heart explodes. Well, nothing but the knowledge that it's a stupid thing to do. It's pretty clear to both parents and kids that eating McDonalds all the time is bad. As such, I don't and I hope you don't either. But nothing is going to prevent stupid people from being stupid. Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 05:39 Impervious wrote:On November 17 2010 05:30 Offhand wrote:On November 17 2010 05:27 Impervious wrote:On November 17 2010 05:25 BlackJack wrote:On November 17 2010 05:13 Impervious wrote:
Also, if it wasn`t vetoed, then selling the toys would be illegal in that situaion (much like selling other things to minors is illegal), so you could forbid the company from selling it. Except they're not selling anything to minors True, but they`re selling something that is obviously targetted at minors. Not really much difference..... Just semantics..... Err no. It's a quite important legal distinction. Your parents can get you into an R rated movie, or buy you a M rated game, or even buy you alcohol in some states. Once again, the decision of what's appropriate is left to the parent, not the state. What was the last R-rated thing you saw that was targetted at minors..... I`d like to know..... Um, like every action movie ever appeals to male children.
Well, then we clearly disagree. I've said it in pretty much all my posts: I don't think all kids will realize that it's bad, even if they go to McD all the time. I agree that this law can potentially affect everyone, since everyone has the freedom to go and buy a Happy Meal, but it sure won't affect everyone. It's going to mainly affect kids, and that effect is in my opinion something positive. So no, I don't find it ridiculous, I find it reasonable.
|
On November 17 2010 05:49 Impervious wrote:
A more realistic diet is somewhere around the 2000 calorie mark. No snacks, 3 meals a day, and that`s still less than 700 calories a meal - many variants of a happy meal at McDonalds is nearly that.....
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you eat 3 happy meals a day. And breakfast (or lunch if you like big breakfasts) should not be 700 calories.
Of course, it actually is possible to eat a reasonable amount of calories even if you do eat McD's three times a day everyday. And I'm not talking about ordering salads. That people don't simply reflects that people love eating calories (I wonder why?), toy or not.
|
On November 17 2010 05:43 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 05:39 Offhand wrote:
But nothing is going to prevent stupid people from being stupid. So make it harder and more costly for them to do it, so it doesn`t have as big of an effect on everyone, and it costs less for everyone else.....
You do realize that stupid doesn't work that way?
If you're actually incurring some kind of financial burden due to this change; well you're poor and already screwed to begin with. Dollar menu items for everyone! It's no secret that the poor experience obesity in greater numbers because all cheap food (not just fast food) is way worse for you then anything else.
If you aren't incurring any kind of financial burden and you are stupid, then the law will do exactly zero for your dumb self and your unfortunate kids. Given that you're a dumb parent with free cash, you will likely buy your kid anything to shut him up anyway.
|
On November 17 2010 05:41 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +dividing that into 3 puts it to just over 1000 calories per meal, and you can take a couple hundred away due to eating snacks. Wow, what kind of snacks are you eating? If by "couple hundred" you mean 200, that means you consume 600 calories in snacks each day. Which is 4 bags of potato chips. Yeah, a child eating 4 bags of chips a day is going to be a lard-ass.
you are crazy... a bag of potato chips is like 1,600 calories. The back of the bag says something stupid like "160 calories for every 12 chips" the bag doesn't tell you the whole caloric intake.
A red delicious apple = ~130 calories
A piece of bread = ~50 calories
A glass (so about 2 cups) of juice = ~250 calories
- - - -
So 2 pieces of toast, with peanut butter, an apple, and a glass of juice = ~550 calories
Then you take a snack, say a granola bar, that's 150 calories right there
Then you have lunch: say tuna-salad sandwich(400), and orange(200), juice box(120), and a hand full of chips(160).
That right there is 880 calories.
Then dinner: well lets say you have Steak, mashed potatoes, green beans, and a glass of wine...
Well saddly you just had a 1,500 calorie dinner if you ate it like normal people do (milk and butter in mashed potatoes, butter on green beans, etc...)
Daily intake so far about ~3,200 calories.
- - - - -
You want to cut out more calories in a day than anything else... drink only water... will cut out ~700 calories from this day of healthy-ish eating.
Want to go to McDonald's and eat around these same calorie marks:
Breakfast: BLT bagle, hasbrown, water = ~600 calories
Lunch: 2x Snack wraps, apple, water = 710 calories
Dinner: Big mac meal, water: 890 calories
2,200 calories for a daily meal because you drank water instead of pop at McDonalds.
Hell, eating this at McDonalds is less calories then eating the above meal with water anyways...
- - - - -
McDonald's isn't inherantly unhealthy, its the choices we make, drink water, eat a quarter pounder instead of a double quarter pounder...
Hell happy meals arent totally unhealthy, its just the more popular options that are... wait its just the pop. Burger + fries + chocolate milk = 610 calories, with pop its above 700
|
How many people are for controlling the actions of those they feel superior to?
|
I go to fastfood places once a day every day and have for the most part (except maybe weekends) for the past 2 years.
I've also lost 30+lbs in 2 years. Fastfood doesn't always mean mcdicks or tb, kfc or whatever. it could be subway (which is pretty nasty) or it could be another healthy to eat place, like thundercloud or a healthy meal at a "unhealthy" place.
this right here, once again, is the people of san fran trying to make a name for themselves. sad to say. first they were in the news for a happy meal ban, then it was lifted... now they ban the toys?
What's next san fran? Banning happiness because not everyone walks around in skinny hipster jeans? The only neat part of my recent california trip is when i drove out of san fran during my free time to see the coast.
On November 17 2010 06:00 Insanious wrote:
[McDonald's isn't inherantly unhealthy, its the choices we make, drink water, eat a quarter pounder instead of a double quarter pounder...
Hell happy meals arent totally unhealthy, its just the more popular options that are... wait its just the pop. Burger + fries + chocolate milk = 610 calories, with pop its above 700
this right here. People need to just watch what they eat and know what they eat. I had a california club from thundercloud today, no chips, so i had 700 cals, + breakfast cereal of 300 cals, so i have 1000 to eat whatever i want later in the day to stay on the recommended 2000.
hell I could stop at whataburger on the way home or mcdicks and get something and still finish under 2000, let alone 2500 or 3200.
|
Children's desires are based on gaining the most positive effect for themselves. I'm not going to say that kids can't think, but they think in a quite different way and gaining access to their desires are quite simple.
And this is what Mc Donalds and Co. are aiming on. They're installing playgrounds, use warm and nice colors, all those happy meals, toys, merchandising, Ronald McDonald and so on.
Fat adult people are responsible for their actions of course, but children need some protection from being influenced by fast food industry. They can't take care of their own and if parents are acting irresponsible, should the kids suffering from that?
In my opinion McD has also some responsibilty while taking influence on children's minds.
|
On November 17 2010 06:12 TerraIncognita wrote:
Children's desires are based on gaining the most positive effect for themselves. I'm not going to say that kids can't think, but they think in a quite different way and gaining access to their desires are quite simple.
And this is what Mc Donalds and Co. are aiming on. They're installing playgrounds, use warm and nice colors, all those happy meals, toys, merchandising, Ronald McDonald and so on.
Fat adult people are responsible for their actions of course, but children need some protection from being influenced by fast food industry. They can't take care of their own and if parents are acting irresponsible, should the kids suffering from that?
In my opinion McD has also some responsibilty while taking influence on children's minds.
Yep, that's exactly what I've been arguing about, yet people seem to use themselves as examples when the law is specifically for meals that include a free toy, or in other words, meals specifically made for kids.
|
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.
|
McDonald's uses all those marketing gimmicks to attract children to their restaurants over competing restaurants, not to get kids to eat fatty meals. It's quite possible to eat a healthy meal at McDonald's, or even just a low calorie, yet still greasy, meal. This ban doesn't change the fact that children demand the high calorie meals over the low calorie ones.
Again, if it were possible to manipulate kids into eating their vegetables by associating it with playgrounds and toys, parents would line up for that in droves. The marketing isn't the problem, it's the desires of the children.
This is probably like the third or fourth time I've made this point, yet people still go on to harp about "marketing."
|
On November 17 2010 06:17 MinoMino wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 06:12 TerraIncognita wrote:
Children's desires are based on gaining the most positive effect for themselves. I'm not going to say that kids can't think, but they think in a quite different way and gaining access to their desires are quite simple.
And this is what Mc Donalds and Co. are aiming on. They're installing playgrounds, use warm and nice colors, all those happy meals, toys, merchandising, Ronald McDonald and so on.
Fat adult people are responsible for their actions of course, but children need some protection from being influenced by fast food industry. They can't take care of their own and if parents are acting irresponsible, should the kids suffering from that?
In my opinion McD has also some responsibilty while taking influence on children's minds. Yep, that's exactly what I've been arguing about, yet people seem to use themselves as examples when the law is specifically for meals that include a free toy, or in other words, meals specifically made for kids.
Yes, all advertising and presentation works this way. The idea that we limit it in one specific case is as ridiculous in theory as it is poorly done in reality.
|
On November 17 2010 06:17 MinoMino wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 06:12 TerraIncognita wrote:
Children's desires are based on gaining the most positive effect for themselves. I'm not going to say that kids can't think, but they think in a quite different way and gaining access to their desires are quite simple.
And this is what Mc Donalds and Co. are aiming on. They're installing playgrounds, use warm and nice colors, all those happy meals, toys, merchandising, Ronald McDonald and so on.
Fat adult people are responsible for their actions of course, but children need some protection from being influenced by fast food industry. They can't take care of their own and if parents are acting irresponsible, should the kids suffering from that?
In my opinion McD has also some responsibilty while taking influence on children's minds. Yep, that's exactly what I've been arguing about, yet people seem to use themselves as examples when the law is specifically for meals that include a free toy, or in other words, meals specifically made for kids.
The problem is the law won't change anything, look at it from a parents point of view.
1) Kids want food
2) You are tired / lazy / already a fat ass
3) You are going to go to a fast food place anyways
SO now, you are going to get fast food 100%.
So look at your choices at McDonald's
1) Happy meal between 450calories and 820 calories + kid gets toy
OR
2) Value meal between 840 calories and 1040 calories
NOW look at the differences between them:
1) Happy meal is more expensive
2) Happy meal has less food
3) Happy meal has a toy
SO, by extension the toy is a way to get parents to choose healthier food for their kids.
its a $1 different between a hamburger happy meal... and a hamburger + medium coke + medium fries. ($1 CHEAPER to get the medium coke and medium fries vs the toy)
Now would you rather kids eat the happy meal or the medium fries, drink, and hamburger? 600 calories vs 900 calories.
|
I have a suggestion for these liberal jackasses, how about you try being A REAL PARENT and telling your kids NO! I have a son, and it's not always easy, but I don't tolerate him throwing fits, I send his butt straight to the corner if he does throw a fit. These people are pathetic. This is unamerican and they should be ashamed. GROW SOME BACKBONES YOU TIRDS! If you can't stand up to your own children you need to STFU and not try to force others to be spineless like you.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
It's simple enough "Don't promote bad eating to children by giving them a toy when they eat badly"
|
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.
|
On November 17 2010 06:29 Tdelamay wrote:
It's simple enough "Don't promote bad eating to children by giving them a toy when they eat badly"
Seriously, comments like these make me roll my eyes. It's not the toy that attracts children to junk food, it's the fact that junk food is so damn tasty. If it were simply just about the toy, then parents would just be picking the healthy versions of the happy meal (i.e. apples instead of fries).
|
On November 17 2010 06:28 Reborn8u wrote:
I have a suggestion for these liberal jackasses, how about you try being A REAL PARENT and telling your kids NO! I have a son, and it's not always easy, but I don't tolerate him throwing fits, I send his butt straight to the corner if he does throw a fit. These people are pathetic. This is unamerican and they should be ashamed. GROW SOME BACKBONES YOU TIRDS!
Yeah, but this is America. In this country "Won't someone think of the children?" = "let's push some bullshit legislation through by preying on people's emotions"
I believe most people are capable of raising kids. I don't think good parents should need to deal with this because there's such a thing as bad parents. We should probably prevent bad parents from screwing up their kids, but that shouldn't require blanket legislation that effects normal functioning people.
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.
Corporations are afforded rights.
+ Show Spoiler +I'm pretty sure that was a facetious libertarian 'sperg post anyway.
|
On November 17 2010 06:28 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 06:17 MinoMino wrote:On November 17 2010 06:12 TerraIncognita wrote:
Children's desires are based on gaining the most positive effect for themselves. I'm not going to say that kids can't think, but they think in a quite different way and gaining access to their desires are quite simple.
And this is what Mc Donalds and Co. are aiming on. They're installing playgrounds, use warm and nice colors, all those happy meals, toys, merchandising, Ronald McDonald and so on.
Fat adult people are responsible for their actions of course, but children need some protection from being influenced by fast food industry. They can't take care of their own and if parents are acting irresponsible, should the kids suffering from that?
In my opinion McD has also some responsibilty while taking influence on children's minds. Yep, that's exactly what I've been arguing about, yet people seem to use themselves as examples when the law is specifically for meals that include a free toy, or in other words, meals specifically made for kids. The problem is the law won't change anything, look at it from a parents point of view. 1) Kids want food 2) You are tired / lazy / already a fat ass 3) You are going to go to a fast food place anyways SO now, you are going to get fast food 100%. So look at your choices at McDonald's 1) Happy meal between 450calories and 820 calories + kid gets toy OR 2) Value meal between 840 calories and 1040 calories NOW look at the differences between them: 1) Happy meal is more expensive 2) Happy meal has less food 3) Happy meal has a toy SO, by extension the toy is a way to get parents to choose healthier food for their kids. its a $1 different between a hamburger happy meal... and a hamburger + medium coke + medium fries. ($1 CHEAPER to get the medium coke and medium fries vs the toy) Now would you rather kids eat the happy meal or the medium fries, drink, and hamburger? 600 calories vs 900 calories.
And that's why they're going to allow toys again given the whole meal combined is less than 600 calories and less than 35% of that is from fat. I'm sure they're going to keep a small menu as well. Small meals aren't banned, but meals with toys. The choice would be, using your format:
1) Happy meal between 450calories and 820 calories + kid gets toy
OR
2) Equivalent to Happy meal between 450calories and 820 calories, but without the toy
|
On November 17 2010 06:38 MinoMino wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 17 2010 06:28 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 06:17 MinoMino wrote:On November 17 2010 06:12 TerraIncognita wrote:
Children's desires are based on gaining the most positive effect for themselves. I'm not going to say that kids can't think, but they think in a quite different way and gaining access to their desires are quite simple.
And this is what Mc Donalds and Co. are aiming on. They're installing playgrounds, use warm and nice colors, all those happy meals, toys, merchandising, Ronald McDonald and so on.
Fat adult people are responsible for their actions of course, but children need some protection from being influenced by fast food industry. They can't take care of their own and if parents are acting irresponsible, should the kids suffering from that?
In my opinion McD has also some responsibilty while taking influence on children's minds. Yep, that's exactly what I've been arguing about, yet people seem to use themselves as examples when the law is specifically for meals that include a free toy, or in other words, meals specifically made for kids. The problem is the law won't change anything, look at it from a parents point of view. 1) Kids want food 2) You are tired / lazy / already a fat ass 3) You are going to go to a fast food place anyways SO now, you are going to get fast food 100%. So look at your choices at McDonald's 1) Happy meal between 450calories and 820 calories + kid gets toy OR 2) Value meal between 840 calories and 1040 calories NOW look at the differences between them: 1) Happy meal is more expensive 2) Happy meal has less food 3) Happy meal has a toy SO, by extension the toy is a way to get parents to choose healthier food for their kids. its a $1 different between a hamburger happy meal... and a hamburger + medium coke + medium fries. ($1 CHEAPER to get the medium coke and medium fries vs the toy) Now would you rather kids eat the happy meal or the medium fries, drink, and hamburger? 600 calories vs 900 calories. And that's why they're going to allow toys again given the whole meal combined is less than 600 calories and less than 35% of that is from fat. I'm sure they're going to keep a small menu as well. Small meals aren't banned, but meals with toys. The choice would be, using your format: 1) Happy meal between 450calories and 820 calories + kid gets toy OR 2) Equivalent to Happy meal between 450calories and 820 calories, but without the toy
Why would I spend $1 more to get small fries and a small drink vs getting a medium fries and a medium drink.
A happy meal without toy = small fries + small drink + burger
A value meal (at least here in Canada) = medium fries + medium drink + burger for $1 cheaper than a happy meal.
See what I'm talking about? The only reason the parent gets the happy meal (and thus less calories) is for the toy... if there wasn't the toy. The parents would just buy the bigger meal for less money and throw out what the kid doesn't eat.
Overall, the kid will eat more simply because they don't get a toy.
|
The real health issue is school lunches. They already regulated that school lunches have to be healthy, but then they wrote a million ways around it. For instance Ketchup counts as a vegetable serving, and so does a pickle. So a hamburger with a pickle and ketchup would meet the health standards of a public school lunch.
The real legal issue here is that fast food is a consumer based business. When I buy a dessert at a restaurant I don't want to pay for vegetables. That increases the cost to me and requires me to purchase something I don't want (or need) in order to get what I do want. Fast food IS dessert. The pump sugar into all of their meals. It tastes great. Consumers, not businesses, need to grow up and take responsibility for what they consume. The businesses already list the "nutrition" facts for all of the meals.
Parents need to say "No." We tell our children to "just say no" to drugs. "Luddite" from pg1 says "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."
How does this connect to drugs? Have you watched a music video in the last 10 years? Between rap music and club dance music, not to mention movies, drugs are glorified. I personally think it is disgusting, but obviously most consumers think it is great to pump themselves full of these ideas buying millions of songs, downloading endless music videos, and paying 7-10 dollars to watch a movie in a theater filled with brain washing ideas. This doesn't eliminate our responsibility as consumers to not spend all our money and time buying and using drugs.
Think about the ad campaigns by pharmaceuticals to brainwash people into begging their doctor for whatever the latest anti-diarrhea medicine whose primary side effect is diarrhea. This doesn't mean that the consumer isn't responsible for what they buy, or the doctor for what the prescribe, just because the ad campaigns have smiling adults with no brown stains on their pants.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
This was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818).
|
I'm actually interested in how far down the rabbit hole we can go with this. So in the interest of understanding people who are actually FOR this legislation, I have a few homework problems for you all:
1) It's well established that alcohol ruins lives. As we can easily see some people willingly abuse alcohol to the point where it effects those around them. Should a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol be instated? Clearly the actions of all people should not be taken into account.
2) Children are more receptive to adds then any other demographic. In fact, there are many deceitful tricks used to advertising agencies to make their product appeal specifically to children. Should all ads for products deemed desirable by children be banned? After all, children, not parents, decide what parents buy.
3) It's well established that not all people are capable of acting rationally. Should non-rational actors be prevented from voting? Please frame your answer along which ethnic, financial, or religious line we should use to prevent incompetent people from voting.
|
Fun fact: They actually charge you .99$ for the toy which is included in the happy meal price.
I remember going to McDonalds one day and I said I didn't want to pay for the toy so I argued with the lady for like 10 minutes. Eventually she called her manager over and let me off without paying for the toy.
While I agree with above posters saying the toy helps reduce calories for the kids. It is still wrong to charge for a fucking toy if you don't want it.
Take the kid for a run and get him the bigger meal. He wont get fat if the parents aren't lazy.
|
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.
McDonald's is a company. I agree there, but when you say it does not have rights, I can't agree. First its McDonald's toys, but where does it end? Why doesn't the government step in and say to every company give us 100% of your profit? There would be no incentive to even pursue profits and start a company.
Protip: Companies are the number one suppliers of jobs in this country.
I feel this is going to cost the Chinese who manufacture the toys more than the Americans, but to think that it will take the cheeseburger and french fries out of the children of San Francisco's belly's that's just not true.
|
I don't understand how this thread about banning toys in Happy Meals unless they have those three conditions turned into a Glenn Beck episode about how one city doing that to McDonald's is just the start of the government making every decision for us.
|
There are two McDonald's that I know about in San Francisco, having lived here for 4 years. 1) 24th and Mission, not a place lots of kids hang out at. Mostly homeless guys eat here from what I can tell (This is only a few blocks from my apt.) 2) Down on the Embarcadero, where the tourists are.
So, I don't really think this is our city trying to protect our citizens; more like trying to live up to our status quo.
|
On November 17 2010 06:47 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 06:38 MinoMino wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 17 2010 06:28 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 06:17 MinoMino wrote:On November 17 2010 06:12 TerraIncognita wrote:
Children's desires are based on gaining the most positive effect for themselves. I'm not going to say that kids can't think, but they think in a quite different way and gaining access to their desires are quite simple.
And this is what Mc Donalds and Co. are aiming on. They're installing playgrounds, use warm and nice colors, all those happy meals, toys, merchandising, Ronald McDonald and so on.
Fat adult people are responsible for their actions of course, but children need some protection from being influenced by fast food industry. They can't take care of their own and if parents are acting irresponsible, should the kids suffering from that?
In my opinion McD has also some responsibilty while taking influence on children's minds. Yep, that's exactly what I've been arguing about, yet people seem to use themselves as examples when the law is specifically for meals that include a free toy, or in other words, meals specifically made for kids. The problem is the law won't change anything, look at it from a parents point of view. 1) Kids want food 2) You are tired / lazy / already a fat ass 3) You are going to go to a fast food place anyways SO now, you are going to get fast food 100%. So look at your choices at McDonald's 1) Happy meal between 450calories and 820 calories + kid gets toy OR 2) Value meal between 840 calories and 1040 calories NOW look at the differences between them: 1) Happy meal is more expensive 2) Happy meal has less food 3) Happy meal has a toy SO, by extension the toy is a way to get parents to choose healthier food for their kids. its a $1 different between a hamburger happy meal... and a hamburger + medium coke + medium fries. ($1 CHEAPER to get the medium coke and medium fries vs the toy) Now would you rather kids eat the happy meal or the medium fries, drink, and hamburger? 600 calories vs 900 calories. And that's why they're going to allow toys again given the whole meal combined is less than 600 calories and less than 35% of that is from fat. I'm sure they're going to keep a small menu as well. Small meals aren't banned, but meals with toys. The choice would be, using your format: 1) Happy meal between 450calories and 820 calories + kid gets toy OR 2) Equivalent to Happy meal between 450calories and 820 calories, but without the toy Why would I spend $1 more to get small fries and a small drink vs getting a medium fries and a medium drink. A happy meal without toy = small fries + small drink + burger A value meal (at least here in Canada) = medium fries + medium drink + burger for $1 cheaper than a happy meal. See what I'm talking about? The only reason the parent gets the happy meal (and thus less calories) is for the toy... if there wasn't the toy. The parents would just buy the bigger meal for less money and throw out what the kid doesn't eat. Overall, the kid will eat more simply because they don't get a toy.
I doubt any fast food restaurant would keep a Happy Meal equivalent, but without a toy for the same price as with the toy. And like I said, the toy will come back, but with regulations.
|
On November 17 2010 07:16 Sabin010 wrote:
McDonald's is a company. I agree there, but when you say it does not have rights, I can't agree. First its McDonald's toys, but where does it end? Why doesn't the government step in and say to every company give us 100% of your profit? There would be no incentive to even pursue profits and start a company.
Protip: Companies are the number one suppliers of jobs in this country.
intervening is only called for when the social benefit for doing so exceeds the costs.
if McDonalds were a monopoly, the government would step in and break them up because they would be producing at too high a price and too low a quantity. in this case, the social cost of obesity warrants action.
that is where it starts, and that is where it ends.
companies exist to fuel the desire for consumption. when they damage more than they fill their need, it is time to reign them in. this is not about the government extracting maximum rents, nor is it about forcing people down a road they dont want to go down. people have demonstrated an inability to stop their children from growing fat. I dont think taking the toys away will work that well but it is worth trying.
the alternative is, and has always been, health education. but, that costs money, and this, at least in from the government of San Fran's perspective, does not.
|
On November 17 2010 07:28 Ferrose wrote:
I don't understand how this thread about banning toys in Happy Meals unless they have those three conditions turned into a Glenn Beck episode about how one city doing that to McDonald's is just the start of the government making every decision for us.
I remember the thread when Texas decided to rewrite history for the umpteenth time...
This seems really really insignificant. I remember reading an article on how Mcdonalds spent 100,000 on inner city development and then spent millions advertising that fact.
|
On November 17 2010 07:31 red_b wrote:
that is where it starts, and that is where it ends.
So you're ok with a law designed to stop childhood obesity. But you're well aware that this law won't actually stop childhood obesity.
Pretty shitty place to end if you ask me.
|
Okay, if it's the liberal's stance that the government should discourage unhealthy eating with children, how about we have government step in and discourage abortions.
Oh, wait, now that wouldn't be 'pro-choice', now would it?
|
On November 17 2010 07:31 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 07:16 Sabin010 wrote:
McDonald's is a company. I agree there, but when you say it does not have rights, I can't agree. First its McDonald's toys, but where does it end? Why doesn't the government step in and say to every company give us 100% of your profit? There would be no incentive to even pursue profits and start a company.
Protip: Companies are the number one suppliers of jobs in this country. intervening is only called for when the social benefit for doing so exceeds the costs. if McDonalds were a monopoly, the government would step in and break them up because they would be producing at too high a price and too low a quantity. in this case, the social cost of obesity warrants action. that is where it starts, and that is where it ends. companies exist to fuel the desire for consumption. when they damage more than they fill their need, it is time to reign them in. this is not about the government extracting maximum rents, nor is it about forcing people down a road they dont want to go down. people have demonstrated an inability to stop their children from growing fat. I dont think taking the toys away will work that well but it is worth trying. the alternative is, and has always been, health education. but, that costs money, and this, at least in from the government of San Fran's perspective, does not.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
You're giving up the right to choose to be a little safer. People are fat because they're too stupid to control themselves, in which case I'm completely fine with them having all these health problems (there are cases where obesity is not the individuals fault and I sympathize with these individuals).
They've brought this upon themselves through their choices... don't limit the rest of us because of your stupidity.
|
On November 17 2010 07:50 Volkspanzer wrote:
Okay, if it's the liberal's stance that the government should discourage unhealthy eating with children, how about we have government step in and discourage abortions.
Oh, wait, now that wouldn't be 'pro-choice', now would it?
American liberals are actually center-right, not liberal.
|
Osaka27149 Posts
On November 17 2010 07:53 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 07:31 red_b wrote:On November 17 2010 07:16 Sabin010 wrote:
McDonald's is a company. I agree there, but when you say it does not have rights, I can't agree. First its McDonald's toys, but where does it end? Why doesn't the government step in and say to every company give us 100% of your profit? There would be no incentive to even pursue profits and start a company.
Protip: Companies are the number one suppliers of jobs in this country. intervening is only called for when the social benefit for doing so exceeds the costs. if McDonalds were a monopoly, the government would step in and break them up because they would be producing at too high a price and too low a quantity. in this case, the social cost of obesity warrants action. that is where it starts, and that is where it ends. companies exist to fuel the desire for consumption. when they damage more than they fill their need, it is time to reign them in. this is not about the government extracting maximum rents, nor is it about forcing people down a road they dont want to go down. people have demonstrated an inability to stop their children from growing fat. I dont think taking the toys away will work that well but it is worth trying. the alternative is, and has always been, health education. but, that costs money, and this, at least in from the government of San Fran's perspective, does not. They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin You're giving up the right to choose to be a little safer. People are fat because they're too stupid to control themselves, in which case I'm completely fine with them having all these health problems (there are cases where obesity is not the individuals fault and I sympathize with these individuals). They've brought this upon themselves through their choices... don't limit the rest of us because of your stupidity.
Except nobody lives in a vacuum...
|
On November 17 2010 07:57 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 07:53 Risen wrote:On November 17 2010 07:31 red_b wrote:On November 17 2010 07:16 Sabin010 wrote:
McDonald's is a company. I agree there, but when you say it does not have rights, I can't agree. First its McDonald's toys, but where does it end? Why doesn't the government step in and say to every company give us 100% of your profit? There would be no incentive to even pursue profits and start a company.
Protip: Companies are the number one suppliers of jobs in this country. intervening is only called for when the social benefit for doing so exceeds the costs. if McDonalds were a monopoly, the government would step in and break them up because they would be producing at too high a price and too low a quantity. in this case, the social cost of obesity warrants action. that is where it starts, and that is where it ends. companies exist to fuel the desire for consumption. when they damage more than they fill their need, it is time to reign them in. this is not about the government extracting maximum rents, nor is it about forcing people down a road they dont want to go down. people have demonstrated an inability to stop their children from growing fat. I dont think taking the toys away will work that well but it is worth trying. the alternative is, and has always been, health education. but, that costs money, and this, at least in from the government of San Fran's perspective, does not. They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin You're giving up the right to choose to be a little safer. People are fat because they're too stupid to control themselves, in which case I'm completely fine with them having all these health problems (there are cases where obesity is not the individuals fault and I sympathize with these individuals). They've brought this upon themselves through their choices... don't limit the rest of us because of your stupidity. Except nobody lives in a vacuum...
I don't think happy meal toys would qualify as "essential liberty" according to Franklin.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 17 2010 07:53 Risen wrote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
You're giving up the right to choose to be a little safer. People are fat because they're too stupid to control themselves, in which case I'm completely fine with them having all these health problems (there are cases where obesity is not the individuals fault and I sympathize with these individuals).
They've brought this upon themselves through their choices... don't limit the rest of us because of your stupidity.
1. I dont care about Benjamin Franklin on this issue. He lived in a time where people can cook their own food. Also, Franklin spent most of his time being fat, drinking wine and having unprotected sex with French women; hardly a model of health.
Here is the thing. I admit I dont think it will work that well, but Im open to the possibility that it will. Let's do our own best case scenarios here. Best case scenario is that obesity is reduced and people live healthier, fuller lives, and McDonalds loses some sales. In your case people wise up and put down the fork. Which is more likely?
2. So all fat people are stupid because they eat too much? Hmm, ok. So all smokers and drinkers and druggies are stupid too? A beer every once in a while is just about as harmful as a happy meal once in a while yet you have to be a full 21 to drink. Funny, when I turned 18 I could walk into a store and buy a gun. I could get drafted to go fight in a war, but I couldnt drink. And no matter how old I am, I cant smoke a little pot.
You can live in your objectivist dream world as long as you like, but do let us know when you wake up and want to join the rest of society.
Real life is full of contradiction. Real life is full of bullshit. Just do the best you can.
3. I'm limiting you because of their stupidity? Why yes, yes I am. Just like I want to limit people from mugging each other, I think certain behaviors need to be controlled by force if the cost of you being mad at me is a lot smaller than the huge fucking cost of all the BP and cholesterol medicine, the hospital space, beds and staff, not to mention all of the surgeries.
I think some folks need to stop being so hung up on rights. You lost them a long time ago, and they're never coming back.
You know the first right we have given to us is the right to life. Well, that's funny, but you get placed on a psych hold if you try to kill yourself. Real free world we live in if we lost ownership of the one thing we ever really own.
I think the argument has already been made; who gets to make the the choice? Gotta say, Im a big fan of technocracy.
|
On November 17 2010 07:31 red_b wrote:
intervening is only called for when the social benefit for doing so exceeds the costs.
if McDonalds were a monopoly, the government would step in and break them up because they would be producing at too high a price and too low a quantity. in this case, the social cost of obesity warrants action.
that is where it starts, and that is where it ends.
No, that is most assuredly not where it ends. I agree that there are negative externalities associated with obesity (us dealing with their ugly looks and paying for their healthcare), and so some government intervention would be helpful. But that doesn't mean you can automatically conclude the government can do anything and everything in the name of fighting obesity. You can't just turn off your brain when it comes to government regulation, you have to actually analyze if the regulation itself has benefits which exceed its cost.
This regulation does nothing to stop the underlying problem: kids wanting and consuming too many calories. It is not the coupling of a toy with a happy meal which creates this demand for calories, it is our evolutionary desire to consume foods high in fat and caloric content. Requiring that toys be coupled with healthy happy meals is simply going to make children seek other sources of high calorie foods.
On the other hand, this regulation hurts those of us who know how to eat McDonald's in moderation. We are no longer able to purchase a tasty meal that comes with a toy. This is not a trivial loss given the popularity of unhealthy happy meals; the loss in consumer surplus is significant.
If you really want to change incentives, then you need to attack the demand directly. The best way to do this is to simply tax people who are overweight. That way, if they still decide to be overweight, at least society is compensated for its loss. Telling McDonald's what it can and cannot sell is stupid and socially harmful.
|
On November 17 2010 08:09 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 07:31 red_b wrote:
intervening is only called for when the social benefit for doing so exceeds the costs.
if McDonalds were a monopoly, the government would step in and break them up because they would be producing at too high a price and too low a quantity. in this case, the social cost of obesity warrants action.
that is where it starts, and that is where it ends. If you really want to change incentives, then you need to attack the demand directly. The best way to do this is to simply tax people who are overweight. That way, if they still decide to be overweight, at least society is compensated for its loss. Telling McDonald's what it can and cannot sell is stupid and socially harmful.
So the problem is that there is an obesity problem among children in low income families. Your solution is to tax them. Brilliant! Now instead of McDonalds, they will go straight to the dumpster!
|
On November 17 2010 08:16 _Darwin_ wrote:
So the problem is that there is an obesity problem among children in low income families. Your solution is to tax them. Brilliant! Now instead of McDonalds, they will go straight to the dumpster!
They have an obesity problem because they consume too many calories. If they have to spend more money per calorie, then all the better; they won't starve, they'll just buy less calories. Note that one doesn't actually spend more money per calorie until they are deemed overweight.
|
On November 17 2010 08:18 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 08:16 _Darwin_ wrote:
So the problem is that there is an obesity problem among children in low income families. Your solution is to tax them. Brilliant! Now instead of McDonalds, they will go straight to the dumpster! They have an obesity problem because they consume too many calories. If they have to spend more money per calorie, then all the better; they won't starve, they'll just buy less calories. Note that one doesn't actually spend more money per calorie until they are deemed overweight.
Taxing fat people in order for them to compensate us for "their ugly looks" has to be trolling. There is really no other explanation. As for the healthcare burden- it won't be lessened by decreasing the amount of big macs from 2 to 1.
|
On November 17 2010 08:28 _Darwin_ wrote:
Taxing fat people in order for them to compensate us for "their ugly looks" has to be trolling. There is really no other explanation. As for the healthcare burden- it won't be lessened by decreasing the amount of big macs from 2 to 1.
Fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but if your goal is to reduce overall obesity, taxing obesity would be wiser than banning McDonald's toys, which is simply stupid.
And don't underestimate the negative utility of looking at ugly people all day.
|
On November 17 2010 08:09 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 07:31 red_b wrote:
intervening is only called for when the social benefit for doing so exceeds the costs.
if McDonalds were a monopoly, the government would step in and break them up because they would be producing at too high a price and too low a quantity. in this case, the social cost of obesity warrants action.
that is where it starts, and that is where it ends. No, that is most assuredly not where it ends. I agree that there are negative externalities associated with obesity (us dealing with their ugly looks and paying for their healthcare), and so some government intervention would be helpful. But that doesn't mean you can automatically conclude the government can do anything and everything in the name of fighting obesity. You can't just turn off your brain when it comes to government regulation, you have to actually analyze if the regulation itself has benefits which exceed its cost. This regulation does nothing to stop the underlying problem: kids wanting and consuming too many calories. It is not the coupling of a toy with a happy meal which creates this demand for calories, it is our evolutionary desire to consume foods high in fat and caloric content. Requiring that toys be coupled with healthy happy meals is simply going to make children seek other sources of high calorie foods. On the other hand, this regulation hurts those of us who know how to eat McDonald's in moderation. We are no longer able to purchase a tasty meal that comes with a toy. This is not a trivial loss given the popularity of unhealthy happy meals; the loss in consumer surplus is significant.
If you really want to change incentives, then you need to attack the demand directly. The best way to do this is to simply tax people who are overweight. That way, if they still decide to be overweight, at least society is compensated for its loss. Telling McDonald's what it can and cannot sell is stupid and socially harmful.
Totally agree. However, taxing them directly is going to be impossible to actually enforce..... Think about that for a while and you should see why.....
What's the next best way? How about taxing the unhealthy foods they eat? You end up taxing people more if they consume more crappy foods, which has been shown to increase their chances of being overweight and having health complications. Therefore, the more unhealthy their habits, the more they get taxed. Not the ideal solution, but definitely comes closer.
While that is definitely a better direction to head, trying to reduce the number of kids who are exposed to bad eating habits and jumk food is definitely a good thing - I don't know how you can argue against that..... Sure, it doesn't prevent people from eating junk food, however, if it can persuade a bunch of kids to get the toy, and the apples with caramel dip instead of the frenchfries, I definitely look at that as being a positive step.
And this doesn't stop at just McDonalds..... Other restaraunt chains that have toys come with the meals may have to switch to serving a small salad instead of fries (or something similar), to be able to market their meals with toys. It's literally just a baby step towards getting people to have a better lifestyle.
|
On November 17 2010 08:06 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 07:53 Risen wrote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
You're giving up the right to choose to be a little safer. People are fat because they're too stupid to control themselves, in which case I'm completely fine with them having all these health problems (there are cases where obesity is not the individuals fault and I sympathize with these individuals).
They've brought this upon themselves through their choices... don't limit the rest of us because of your stupidity. 1. I dont care about Benjamin Franklin on this issue. He lived in a time where people can cook their own food. Also, Franklin spent most of his time being fat, drinking wine and having unprotected sex with French women; hardly a model of health. Here is the thing. I admit I dont think it will work that well, but Im open to the possibility that it will. Let's do our own best case scenarios here. Best case scenario is that obesity is reduced and people live healthier, fuller lives, and McDonalds loses some sales. In your case people wise up and put down the fork. Which is more likely? 2. So all fat people are stupid because they eat too much? Hmm, ok. So all smokers and drinkers and druggies are stupid too? A beer every once in a while is just about as harmful as a happy meal once in a while yet you have to be a full 21 to drink. Funny, when I turned 18 I could walk into a store and buy a gun. I could get drafted to go fight in a war, but I couldnt drink. And no matter how old I am, I cant smoke a little pot. You can live in your objectivist dream world as long as you like, but do let us know when you wake up and want to join the rest of society. Real life is full of contradiction. Real life is full of bullshit. Just do the best you can. 3. I'm limiting you because of their stupidity? Why yes, yes I am. Just like I want to limit people from mugging each other, I think certain behaviors need to be controlled by force if the cost of you being mad at me is a lot smaller than the huge fucking cost of all the BP and cholesterol medicine, the hospital space, beds and staff, not to mention all of the surgeries. I think some folks need to stop being so hung up on rights. You lost them a long time ago, and they're never coming back. You know the first right we have given to us is the right to life. Well, that's funny, but you get placed on a psych hold if you try to kill yourself. Real free world we live in if we lost ownership of the one thing we ever really own. I think the argument has already been made; who gets to make the the choice? Gotta say, Im a big fan of technocracy.
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.
|
To all the people in the thread: have you ever BEEN child?
I remember wanting happy meals all the time. I would get it, get the toy and immediately lose my appetite. All I wanted to do was press down the little car, pull it back, and watch it tear ass across the table and onto the floor. =)
Now I know that's not the case with all kid's, but damn, those cheap cars were fun, huh?
The toy thing is a great business model. When mommy is out running errands and her crumb muncher gets hungry, she (THE ADULT) has the incentive to go to mcdonalds. She can get her food, and her kids, and a toy to shut him up.
Now say she does that on Monday. The next day she's out running errands and Devil Child Josh starts whining for food. He says he wants Mcdonalds. Mommy knows she gave him mcdonalds yesterday, and that she probably shouldn't again, so she doesn't go. She goes home, and makes him a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on whole wheat bread (delicious, btw).
People in the USA are quick to blame anyone but themselves. That's why this is happening. The parents of these obese kid's blame mcdonalds for THEIR inability to say "no" to their little brat. Combine that with the common US opinion that corporations are evil, and you get this ban.
This generation of parents is raising a breed of greedy, whiny, spoiled brats, and I see it everyday at the grocery store I work at. Mommy gets a balloon for their 5 year old. "Now, don't let go of it hun!" she says. 10 seconds later, Tommy let's go and starts crying that it flew away. Instead of letting him learn the lesson, she gets him a new one to shut him up.
Not to mention, McD's will probably not change a thing in that area. Oh, we can't include the toys? Just sell them by themselves on the value menu. Hey, it wouldn't be included in the meal now would it? And the kids would still beg to go.
Instead of the ineffective ban on a small sector of child nutrition problems, how about the town starts an awareness campaign for parents about the types of food their kids need? Or, if you really want to include fast food somehow, require that not only the nutritional facts be posted, but that city/state/country/whatever approved informational fliers on infant nutrition be packaged with kids meals.
|
Personally, I think this is a good thing. I remember when I was a kid, I always wanted my grandmother to take me to burger king to get the toys and collect as much as I could. You should get Toys from a Toy Store, not at a fast food restaurant.
|
On November 17 2010 08:09 domovoi wrote:
If you really want to change incentives, then you need to attack the demand directly. The best way to do this is to simply tax people who are overweight. That way, if they still decide to be overweight, at least society is compensated for its loss. Telling McDonald's what it can and cannot sell is stupid and socially harmful.
Yes, discriminating against a group of people is not socially harmful at all. Lets establish huge taxes for old people while we're at it. They're a huge drain on society and we deserve to be compensated for our losses.
|
On November 17 2010 10:00 Corbie wrote:
Yes, discriminating against a group of people is not socially harmful at all.
It isn't. We discriminate all the time. We discriminate against people without mortgages, people without children, people with high incomes, people who are married, people who don't donate, people who don't have a 401k, people who buy cigarettes and alcohol, people who prefer eating at restaurants over buying groceries, people who don't own farms...
And again, if you think obesity is a social issue, then a tax is infinitely preferable over the government deciding what foods can and cannot be sold. If you think obesity isn't a social issue and any attempt to fix it is discrimination against fat people, then ok, I think you're wrong, but that wasn't the point of my post.
Lets establish huge taxes for old people while we're at it. They're a huge drain on society and we deserve to be compensated for our losses.
Old people aren't drains on society in a way that taxing them would be appropriate. Unless they are on their deathbeds, old people provide net surplus to society, since they tend to be on the richer side. The fact that old people waste tons of money trying to survive for another week is a problem, but not addressable through taxes.
|
Im very glad to see this. The state needs to take action against fast food places that contribute so much to obesity. Id be glad to see fast food places done with altogether.
|
On November 17 2010 10:24 muta_micro wrote:
Im very glad to see this. The state needs to take action against fast food places that contribute so much to obesity. Id be glad to see fast food places done with altogether.
Might as well ban TV and video games while we're at it.
|
On November 17 2010 08:18 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 08:16 _Darwin_ wrote:
So the problem is that there is an obesity problem among children in low income families. Your solution is to tax them. Brilliant! Now instead of McDonalds, they will go straight to the dumpster! They have an obesity problem because they consume too many calories. If they have to spend more money per calorie, then all the better; they won't starve, they'll just buy less calories. Note that one doesn't actually spend more money per calorie until they are deemed overweight.
The poor are disproportionally obese compared to other demographics. Yes, a fat tax seems like a great idea. Is this going to limit their EBT purchases as well?
A state run forced dieting program is about as scary as you can get. Like, precious bodily fluids territory.
|
On November 17 2010 05:42 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 05:15 Mutaahh wrote:
Ya so ensure that "fat" people will do something about their way of living...
Now the healthy people are disadvantaged for the conduct of the fatso...
I don't understand your comment, could you please clarify?
Sorry, had trouble to translate my idea in English....
And still have, should learn better English
|
On November 17 2010 10:30 Offhand wrote:
The poor are disproportionally obese compared to other demographics.
Good, then they'll respond better to a tax.
Yes, a fat tax seems like a great idea. Is this going to limit their EBT purchases as well?
Actually, I would reform EBT to make it based off of calorie consumption. So you can purchase 2000 calories of food a day.
A state run forced dieting program is about as scary as you can get.
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.
|
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?
No, what I am saying is that the opposite - that because we have some stupid laws we should just give up - is not a legitimate reason.
|
Bisutopia19235 Posts
No more toys! I have no more reasons to go to MC'Ds
|
On November 17 2010 10:35 domovoi wrote:
Yes, a fat tax seems like a great idea. Is this going to limit their EBT purchases as well?
I didnt realize being fat and poor increased your elasticity of demand for mcdonalds.
|
On November 17 2010 10:35 domovoi wrote:
Actually, I would reform EBT to make it based off of calorie consumption. So you can purchase 2000 calories of food a day.
You do realize that different people have different calorie needs, right? 2000 calories is not enough for everyone..... Fuck, at one point, I was eating 7000 calories a day (I felt like shit from eating so much, but I needed to gain weight while having a very intense workout schedule, I was burning 4000 calories daily from working out alone). So that system would be totally flawed.....
|
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.
|
On November 17 2010 10:31 Mutaahh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 05:42 red_b wrote:On November 17 2010 05:15 Mutaahh wrote:
Ya so ensure that "fat" people will do something about their way of living...
Now the healthy people are disadvantaged for the conduct of the fatso...
I don't understand your comment, could you please clarify? 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.
|
On November 17 2010 10:58 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 10:31 Mutaahh wrote:On November 17 2010 05:42 red_b wrote:On November 17 2010 05:15 Mutaahh wrote:
Ya so ensure that "fat" people will do something about their way of living...
Now the healthy people are disadvantaged for the conduct of the fatso...
I don't understand your comment, could you please clarify? 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.
You know, I never thought of it that way before. It seems so outrageous when you think about it like that...
|
On November 17 2010 08:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 08:06 red_b wrote:On November 17 2010 07:53 Risen wrote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
You're giving up the right to choose to be a little safer. People are fat because they're too stupid to control themselves, in which case I'm completely fine with them having all these health problems (there are cases where obesity is not the individuals fault and I sympathize with these individuals).
They've brought this upon themselves through their choices... don't limit the rest of us because of your stupidity. 1. I dont care about Benjamin Franklin on this issue. He lived in a time where people can cook their own food. Also, Franklin spent most of his time being fat, drinking wine and having unprotected sex with French women; hardly a model of health. Here is the thing. I admit I dont think it will work that well, but Im open to the possibility that it will. Let's do our own best case scenarios here. Best case scenario is that obesity is reduced and people live healthier, fuller lives, and McDonalds loses some sales. In your case people wise up and put down the fork. Which is more likely? 2. So all fat people are stupid because they eat too much? Hmm, ok. So all smokers and drinkers and druggies are stupid too? A beer every once in a while is just about as harmful as a happy meal once in a while yet you have to be a full 21 to drink. Funny, when I turned 18 I could walk into a store and buy a gun. I could get drafted to go fight in a war, but I couldnt drink. And no matter how old I am, I cant smoke a little pot. You can live in your objectivist dream world as long as you like, but do let us know when you wake up and want to join the rest of society. Real life is full of contradiction. Real life is full of bullshit. Just do the best you can. 3. I'm limiting you because of their stupidity? Why yes, yes I am. Just like I want to limit people from mugging each other, I think certain behaviors need to be controlled by force if the cost of you being mad at me is a lot smaller than the huge fucking cost of all the BP and cholesterol medicine, the hospital space, beds and staff, not to mention all of the surgeries. I think some folks need to stop being so hung up on rights. You lost them a long time ago, and they're never coming back. You know the first right we have given to us is the right to life. Well, that's funny, but you get placed on a psych hold if you try to kill yourself. Real free world we live in if we lost ownership of the one thing we ever really own. I think the argument has already been made; who gets to make the the choice? Gotta say, Im a big fan of technocracy. 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
|
On November 17 2010 11:10 funnybananaman wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 17 2010 08:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 08:06 red_b wrote:On November 17 2010 07:53 Risen wrote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
You're giving up the right to choose to be a little safer. People are fat because they're too stupid to control themselves, in which case I'm completely fine with them having all these health problems (there are cases where obesity is not the individuals fault and I sympathize with these individuals).
They've brought this upon themselves through their choices... don't limit the rest of us because of your stupidity. 1. I dont care about Benjamin Franklin on this issue. He lived in a time where people can cook their own food. Also, Franklin spent most of his time being fat, drinking wine and having unprotected sex with French women; hardly a model of health. Here is the thing. I admit I dont think it will work that well, but Im open to the possibility that it will. Let's do our own best case scenarios here. Best case scenario is that obesity is reduced and people live healthier, fuller lives, and McDonalds loses some sales. In your case people wise up and put down the fork. Which is more likely? 2. So all fat people are stupid because they eat too much? Hmm, ok. So all smokers and drinkers and druggies are stupid too? A beer every once in a while is just about as harmful as a happy meal once in a while yet you have to be a full 21 to drink. Funny, when I turned 18 I could walk into a store and buy a gun. I could get drafted to go fight in a war, but I couldnt drink. And no matter how old I am, I cant smoke a little pot. You can live in your objectivist dream world as long as you like, but do let us know when you wake up and want to join the rest of society. Real life is full of contradiction. Real life is full of bullshit. Just do the best you can. 3. I'm limiting you because of their stupidity? Why yes, yes I am. Just like I want to limit people from mugging each other, I think certain behaviors need to be controlled by force if the cost of you being mad at me is a lot smaller than the huge fucking cost of all the BP and cholesterol medicine, the hospital space, beds and staff, not to mention all of the surgeries. I think some folks need to stop being so hung up on rights. You lost them a long time ago, and they're never coming back. You know the first right we have given to us is the right to life. Well, that's funny, but you get placed on a psych hold if you try to kill yourself. Real free world we live in if we lost ownership of the one thing we ever really own. I think the argument has already been made; who gets to make the the choice? Gotta say, Im a big fan of technocracy. 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).
|
On November 17 2010 10:35 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 10:30 Offhand wrote:
The poor are disproportionally obese compared to other demographics. Good, then they'll respond better to a tax. Show nested quote +Yes, a fat tax seems like a great idea. Is this going to limit their EBT purchases as well? 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.
|
On November 17 2010 10:58 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On November 17 2010 11:44 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 11:10 funnybananaman wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 17 2010 08:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 08:06 red_b wrote:On November 17 2010 07:53 Risen wrote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
You're giving up the right to choose to be a little safer. People are fat because they're too stupid to control themselves, in which case I'm completely fine with them having all these health problems (there are cases where obesity is not the individuals fault and I sympathize with these individuals).
They've brought this upon themselves through their choices... don't limit the rest of us because of your stupidity. 1. I dont care about Benjamin Franklin on this issue. He lived in a time where people can cook their own food. Also, Franklin spent most of his time being fat, drinking wine and having unprotected sex with French women; hardly a model of health. Here is the thing. I admit I dont think it will work that well, but Im open to the possibility that it will. Let's do our own best case scenarios here. Best case scenario is that obesity is reduced and people live healthier, fuller lives, and McDonalds loses some sales. In your case people wise up and put down the fork. Which is more likely? 2. So all fat people are stupid because they eat too much? Hmm, ok. So all smokers and drinkers and druggies are stupid too? A beer every once in a while is just about as harmful as a happy meal once in a while yet you have to be a full 21 to drink. Funny, when I turned 18 I could walk into a store and buy a gun. I could get drafted to go fight in a war, but I couldnt drink. And no matter how old I am, I cant smoke a little pot. You can live in your objectivist dream world as long as you like, but do let us know when you wake up and want to join the rest of society. Real life is full of contradiction. Real life is full of bullshit. Just do the best you can. 3. I'm limiting you because of their stupidity? Why yes, yes I am. Just like I want to limit people from mugging each other, I think certain behaviors need to be controlled by force if the cost of you being mad at me is a lot smaller than the huge fucking cost of all the BP and cholesterol medicine, the hospital space, beds and staff, not to mention all of the surgeries. I think some folks need to stop being so hung up on rights. You lost them a long time ago, and they're never coming back. You know the first right we have given to us is the right to life. Well, that's funny, but you get placed on a psych hold if you try to kill yourself. Real free world we live in if we lost ownership of the one thing we ever really own. I think the argument has already been made; who gets to make the the choice? Gotta say, Im a big fan of technocracy. 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).
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.
|
On November 17 2010 00:14 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 20:04 dogabutila wrote:On November 16 2010 16:35 Impervious wrote:On November 16 2010 16:24 SaroDarksbane wrote: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. 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? Again, which is ridiculous. If I make bad choices I should have to pay for them. Not somebody else. Thats why the health care bill was fucking stupid as well. Force people to get insurance, try to force people to all pay for each other. NTY. America is about the freedom to choose. I'm not hurting anybody but myself in choosing to eat fast food, so I should be allowed to. The answer isn't to babysit everybody, nobody gets more responsible by getting their hand held throughout life. If people want to make unhealthy choices for whatever reason they ought to be able to. Thats why bullshit like medicare and medicaid shouldn't exist. If you have problems, why am i obligated to pay for them. 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:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 20:04 dogabutila wrote:On November 16 2010 13:28 Ferrose wrote:On November 16 2010 13:24 Fa1nT wrote:
When I am hungry, I make a sandwich. How you are tempted to spend money on gas to drive to a fast food restraunt, buy overpriced food, a watered down drink, and drive back, eat it, and probably feel sick for a few hours... I dunno.
I all for regulating fast food, that shit is deadly, more so than cigarettes and even alcohol. Yeah. I want to regulate it too. Because of my life experiences, I've had a lot of fast food in my lifetime. I've had so much that I'm almost kind of addicted to it. I want to stop eating it, but I have a tough time telling myself not to. Call me weak or impulsive, but I can't help it :x So basically you are irresponsible and undisciplined and you want other people to fix your problems for you. Jesus, I was wondering how idiots like this got elected but now I know why. No wonder you've been arguing that side so vehemently. 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:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 10:58 Romantic wrote:On November 17 2010 10:31 Mutaahh wrote:On November 17 2010 05:42 red_b wrote:On November 17 2010 05:15 Mutaahh wrote:
Ya so ensure that "fat" people will do something about their way of living...
Now the healthy people are disadvantaged for the conduct of the fatso...
I don't understand your comment, could you please clarify? 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. 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.
|
Edit: Added spoiler to long ass quote:
+ Show Spoiler +On November 17 2010 16:16 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 00:14 Impervious wrote:On November 16 2010 20:04 dogabutila wrote:On November 16 2010 16:35 Impervious wrote:On November 16 2010 16:24 SaroDarksbane wrote: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. 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? Again, which is ridiculous. If I make bad choices I should have to pay for them. Not somebody else. Thats why the health care bill was fucking stupid as well. Force people to get insurance, try to force people to all pay for each other. NTY. America is about the freedom to choose. I'm not hurting anybody but myself in choosing to eat fast food, so I should be allowed to. The answer isn't to babysit everybody, nobody gets more responsible by getting their hand held throughout life. If people want to make unhealthy choices for whatever reason they ought to be able to. Thats why bullshit like medicare and medicaid shouldn't exist. If you have problems, why am i obligated to pay for them. 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. Show nested quote +
.....
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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 03:47 Ferrose wrote:On November 16 2010 20:04 dogabutila wrote:On November 16 2010 13:28 Ferrose wrote:On November 16 2010 13:24 Fa1nT wrote:
When I am hungry, I make a sandwich. How you are tempted to spend money on gas to drive to a fast food restraunt, buy overpriced food, a watered down drink, and drive back, eat it, and probably feel sick for a few hours... I dunno.
I all for regulating fast food, that shit is deadly, more so than cigarettes and even alcohol. Yeah. I want to regulate it too. Because of my life experiences, I've had a lot of fast food in my lifetime. I've had so much that I'm almost kind of addicted to it. I want to stop eating it, but I have a tough time telling myself not to. Call me weak or impulsive, but I can't help it :x So basically you are irresponsible and undisciplined and you want other people to fix your problems for you. Jesus, I was wondering how idiots like this got elected but now I know why. No wonder you've been arguing that side so vehemently. 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. Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 11:01 Ferrose wrote:On November 17 2010 10:58 Romantic wrote:On November 17 2010 10:31 Mutaahh wrote:On November 17 2010 05:42 red_b wrote:On November 17 2010 05:15 Mutaahh wrote:
Ya so ensure that "fat" people will do something about their way of living...
Now the healthy people are disadvantaged for the conduct of the fatso...
I don't understand your comment, could you please clarify? 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. 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.
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.
|
dogabutila: That last example is pretty fucking stupid. Everyone shouldn't have to suffer because that retard did that.
But I think that things like healthcare are a different story.
|
This is a ridiculous violation of my civil right to train your child to crave poison.
|
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:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 00:14 Impervious wrote:On November 16 2010 20:04 dogabutila wrote:On November 16 2010 16:35 Impervious wrote:On November 16 2010 16:24 SaroDarksbane wrote: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. 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? Again, which is ridiculous. If I make bad choices I should have to pay for them. Not somebody else. Thats why the health care bill was fucking stupid as well. Force people to get insurance, try to force people to all pay for each other. NTY. America is about the freedom to choose. I'm not hurting anybody but myself in choosing to eat fast food, so I should be allowed to. The answer isn't to babysit everybody, nobody gets more responsible by getting their hand held throughout life. If people want to make unhealthy choices for whatever reason they ought to be able to. Thats why bullshit like medicare and medicaid shouldn't exist. If you have problems, why am i obligated to pay for them. 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. Show nested quote +
.....
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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 03:47 Ferrose wrote:On November 16 2010 20:04 dogabutila wrote:On November 16 2010 13:28 Ferrose wrote:On November 16 2010 13:24 Fa1nT wrote:
When I am hungry, I make a sandwich. How you are tempted to spend money on gas to drive to a fast food restraunt, buy overpriced food, a watered down drink, and drive back, eat it, and probably feel sick for a few hours... I dunno.
I all for regulating fast food, that shit is deadly, more so than cigarettes and even alcohol. Yeah. I want to regulate it too. Because of my life experiences, I've had a lot of fast food in my lifetime. I've had so much that I'm almost kind of addicted to it. I want to stop eating it, but I have a tough time telling myself not to. Call me weak or impulsive, but I can't help it :x So basically you are irresponsible and undisciplined and you want other people to fix your problems for you. Jesus, I was wondering how idiots like this got elected but now I know why. No wonder you've been arguing that side so vehemently. 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. Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 11:01 Ferrose wrote:On November 17 2010 10:58 Romantic wrote:On November 17 2010 10:31 Mutaahh wrote:On November 17 2010 05:42 red_b wrote:On November 17 2010 05:15 Mutaahh wrote:
Ya so ensure that "fat" people will do something about their way of living...
Now the healthy people are disadvantaged for the conduct of the fatso...
I don't understand your comment, could you please clarify? 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. 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. 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.
|
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.
|
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:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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!
|
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.
|
On November 18 2010 01:54 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Watch out for those Leftist San Franciscans in Iceland! Just look at your world map upside down, that should solve your problems.
|
On November 18 2010 02:04 TallMax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 01:54 Ferrose wrote: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. 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.
|
On November 18 2010 02:16 yema1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 02:04 TallMax wrote:On November 18 2010 01:54 Ferrose wrote: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. 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.
No one in America has. Yet our country is on the brink of being a Communist regime, if you listen to some people.
|
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.
|
Osaka27149 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![[image loading]](http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2009/04/08/chariot-wearable-device_L2GxD_59.jpg)
