EPTIn some universes, people will succumb to a simple wave of the hand. Be glad there are such jedi mind trick in this world.
Happy Meal Toy Ban in San Francisco - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
In some universes, people will succumb to a simple wave of the hand. Be glad there are such jedi mind trick in this world. | ||
|
Irrelevant
United States2364 Posts
On November 16 2010 13:01 Slow Motion wrote: 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. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On November 16 2010 13:10 reg wrote: 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. 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: 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 -_- | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
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. | ||
|
Fa1nT
United States3423 Posts
I all for regulating fast food, that shit is deadly, more so than cigarettes and even alcohol. | ||
|
Irrelevant
United States2364 Posts
Seems like way too many are on the "Super Size Me" bandwagon without doing any real research of their own | ||
|
TanGeng
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. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
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 | ||
|
reg
United States134 Posts
On November 16 2010 13:16 Two_DoWn wrote: 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. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
| ||
Ordained
United States779 Posts
| ||
|
Irrelevant
United States2364 Posts
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. | ||
|
TanGeng
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. | ||
|
reg
United States134 Posts
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. | ||
|
drewcifer
United States192 Posts
On November 16 2010 13:10 reg wrote: 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. | ||
|
Two_DoWn
United States13684 Posts
On November 16 2010 13:28 reg wrote: 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. | ||
|
Ordained
United States779 Posts
On November 16 2010 13:33 Irrelevant wrote: 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. | ||
|
crazeman
664 Posts
On November 16 2010 12:26 Manifesto7 wrote: 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. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
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. | ||
|
Saturnize
United States2473 Posts
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. | ||
| ||
