EPTIn this increasingly litigeonous and politically correct world, the governments seem to be increasingly trying to protect people from... themselves
Happy Meal Toy Ban in San Francisco - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ShatterStorm
Australia146 Posts
In this increasingly litigeonous and politically correct world, the governments seem to be increasingly trying to protect people from... themselves | ||
|
TallMax
United States131 Posts
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. | ||
|
nebffa
Australia776 Posts
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. | ||
|
Starfox
Austria699 Posts
| ||
|
Marl
United States692 Posts
"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. | ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
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? | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
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. | ||
|
Celial
2602 Posts
| ||
|
JMave
Singapore1802 Posts
 | ||
|
Melancholia
United States717 Posts
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. | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1437 Posts
On November 16 2010 13:28 Ferrose wrote: 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: 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: 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. | ||
|
Tal
United Kingdom1012 Posts
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. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4137 Posts
On November 16 2010 20:04 dogabutila wrote: 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. | ||
|
Fa1nT
United States3423 Posts
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. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
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. | ||
|
TallMax
United States131 Posts
| ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
Or if they do they must have the words "diabetes" and "obesity" constantly flashing on the screen. | ||
|
red_b
United States1267 Posts
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 | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
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? | ||
|
LiGhtoftheSwaRm
United States39 Posts
| ||
| ||
