SF can add this one to the bottled water ban, soda sales ban, dealings with AZ ban, transfat ban, Segway ban (it's healthier to walk) and proposed sodium regulation.
The end result? Kids lost their toys but will still get the Happy Meal with it's evil fries. Hey, happy meals in SF will probably be sold at a discount,...they don't have to include the toy.
Government good intentions vs individual freedom. Thank God Pelosi from SF is no longer the Speaker and they lost control. Happy meal bans would've been a national law by 2012.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The end result? Kids lost their toys but will still get the Happy Meal with it's evil fries.
Nope. Read your own link. Goodness gracious.
I would support a ban on meals for children that came with a cigarette. Or alcohol. Or poison. And 600+ calorie high-fat happy meals are not really all that different. Obesity is become ludicrously bad in this country. It's affecting lives, happiness, the economy, and our national image. If corporations are so willing to provide easy, cheap, obviously damaging food to children, wrapped up in pretty colors and with toys, I'm not upset if some people say "This is ridiculous. It shouldn't be allowed to happen."
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You believe the government can regulate what we choose to eat? No they can't...that's why they outlawed the toy. I thought poor people in America were obese because they could only afford to eat things like McDonalds. I know poor kids that only have a few toys....many of them happy meal toys. In SF, they'll still be fat but they can't have a toy if they choose the fries.
Inuit eat blubber.....are they unhealthy? Would you argue blubber is better than a frech fry? Everything in moderation. I'm not poor and McDonalds is rare splurge for my kids. The liberal would rather ban whale hunting because blubber eating unhealthy for people that've eaten blubber for thousands of years. Sending them a welfare check is better than allowing them to support themselves, as they have for millenia.
My kids don't care about the toy....I buy them better toys to play with. They love the food though. This law took toys away from kids...they'll still eat happy meals. It isn't a happy meal anymore, without the toy. The only toys some kids own are happy meal toys. Now it's just an unhealthy meal.
Is a 600+ calorie meal bad, when it's the only meal you get for the day?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
My daughter's happy meal is only 390 calories. The apples and milk seem like healthy calories to me (she doesn't eat the caramel dip so the calorie count is a bit higher than what she actually eats). Chicken nuggets aren't really that bad either (though there are healthier ones than McD's). I suppose if I let my daughter order french fries and soda I might be a bit more negative regarding the health.
However, to be honest, we do get McD's a lot for the toy. We tend to go a lot more when they have certain toys than other toys. When they had strawberry shortcake dolls my daughter wanted to go every night (we didn't but she asked). With the halloween bucket, she had no interest in McD.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: My daughter's happy meal is only 390 calories. The apples and milk seem like healthy calories to me (she doesn't eat the caramel dip so the calorie count is a bit higher than what she actually eats). Chicken nuggets aren't really that bad either (though there are healthier ones than McD's). I suppose if I let my daughter order french fries and soda I might be a bit more negative regarding the health.
However, to be honest, we do get McD's a lot for the toy. We tend to go a lot more when they have certain toys than other toys. When they had strawberry shortcake dolls my daughter wanted to go every night (we didn't but she asked). With the halloween bucket, she had no interest in McD.
You are looking at facts and reality over political correctness. In fact, the Happy Meal isn't that bad but it is demonized like WalMart.
SF also outlawed plastic bags in grocery stores. Fact...paper bags are worse for the environment in terms of pollution, tree harvest and energy required to produce. Plastics are a byproduct of oil production. Demonize oil and plastics are evil by default. Plastic is sooooo un-PC.
By the way, my family uses cotton reusable bags. SF can ban the toy with good intentions but the result might be cheaper "kids meals". McD's doesn't have to include a toy, SF might end up with discounted happy meals. More people will buy them when they cost 50 cents less. The good intention was a reduction....the opposite is likely to happen.
How many 10 year olds go to McD's on their own to purchase that toddler toy. Past 10 years old...the toy doesn't matter. Parents will still take their kids there.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the conversation between a parent and child that will result from this law...
"Son, if you want the fries you can't have a toy. If you get the carrot sticks you can have the toy"
Why not, the government uses the tax code to regulate behavior. Are we free? Social Security is a "choice" as well. Unfortunately, if "choose" not to participate you can't get a job or go to school.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I like it when you provide links that disprove your own claims? It is really nice of you.
Please provide the link and quotes you say, I provided. The link I provided spelled out the law. Use my own links and words to disprove me, rather than make simple assertions. Use my words to disprove my assertion.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Check your OWN link. No others are necessary to refute you.
Honestly, sometimes I wonder if you can read. I wouldn't be surprised if your "daughter" typed your dictation.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the inspiration with the burger comment. If a town can outlaw a toy with a burger, whats to stop them from taxing the burger for the same reason....it's bad for you. Of course, we need government provided healthcare to come first. Once government provided healthcare is law, your fry consumption and exercise habits are subject to law. Burger tax, like cigarette tax or soda tax. Cigarette taxes and soda taxes are already happening, even in places with private healthcare.
Some day, you'll have a pedometer installed on your ass and you'll be subject to a fine for being lazy. The less you walk, the more it costs society. It's better for society for you to eat carrot sticks instead of fries and use the stairs instead of the elevator. I'm suprised San Fransisco hasn't outlawed elevators. I care less about society than the individual.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Check your OWN link. No others are necessary to refute you.
Honestly, sometimes I wonder if you can read. I wouldn't be surprised if your "daughter" typed your dictation.
I did check my own link... My question remains. My link was only a paragraph about the law. Please, stop making assertions. You all keep asserting that it disproves me. Hell, you could paste the contents of the link and it would take less words than this post. Something substantive, please. Meals over 600 calories can't have a toy.
How many calories per day does a person require? How many meals per day should you consume? If it's 3 meals, I guess the government has decided that 1800 is the maximum you deserve.
600 sounds like a big number but last time I checked....2000 was normal. According to SF...anything over 1800 is evil.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For a toddler?
And toddlers are spending their own money to get the toy? Will outlawing the toy change anything? If it changes anything, it'll be the price of the meal. Outlawing the toy will make the meal cheaper. Parents will be more likely to visit McD's.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For a toddler?
And toddlers are spending their own money to get the toy? Will outlawing the toy change anything? If it changes anything, it'll be the price of the meal. Outlawing the toy will make the meal cheaper. Parents will be more likely to visit McD's.
I'm pretty sure that part of the reasoning is that some significant amount of the draw in happy meals is because of the toy. Either McDonald's will start offering healthier options with their happy meals and kids will continue to get their toys, or they'll remove the toy from it. This removal would in theory lesson the amount of kids that eat those happy meals (even if the price is cheaper) because they won't be pestering their parents for the meal with the toy, and parents will have less incentive to purchase this meal because they know they won't receive a toy to give to their children.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For a toddler?
And toddlers are spending their own money to get the toy? Will outlawing the toy change anything? If it changes anything, it'll be the price of the meal. Outlawing the toy will make the meal cheaper. Parents will be more likely to visit McD's.
I readily admit that a lot of this results from lazy parenting, though, your assertion seems to be some sort of claim that only poor people who are forced to eat at McDonald's because it's the cheapest option are really affected.
Anyway, I think that screaming kids demanding McDonald's because they want a toy is the reason behind this, because parents are incapable of telling their unruly children no. Now, they could just solve this by having responsible parents who discipline their children, and feed them right more often, to say nothing of sending them outside and away from their computers, but, we seem to be losing that battle as a whole. And you know, I actually do think this will cut down on a lot of visits to McDonalds. They won't be able to advertise the toys they are giving away with their awful meals, which kids see while watching Dora the Explorer or Miley Cyrus, or whatever the heck they watch these days, so kids won't clamor for it anymore. Or, they will be forced to put toys with healthier meals and thus keep the cycle going, but with the nutritional argument removed, which is really the biggest problem people have anyway.
It's not my preferred solution, but fine I guess. If the people of that city choose to reelect those councilmen in the next election year, we'll know if it's the will of the people or not. I threw that last little bit in there because I know how much mal loves democracy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I thought poor people in America were obese because they could only afford to eat things like McDonalds.
That's because you never bothered to read the, as I recall, painstakingly clear explanation I gave you the last time you made these half-baked claims about poor people and fast food. The fast food companies (and big food) target areas rich in commuters and full of working poor, move in, purposefully and willfully destroy whatever local economy exists, and employ locals at low wages in very insecure positions. They feed off of poverty by enthusiastically promoting it with low wages, lobbying against proper food education and safety regulations, as well as wage increases, and feeding these underpaid overworked undereducated people, whom they have helped to make this way, more of the dogshit food they can afford to offer so cheaply by exploiting those same people and their neighbors.
These are not my politics. This is the grim reality of this situation. Now if you like that, and I know that you do like it, admit it. Be a man and admit that you don't give two craps about poor people because you hate them, because they remind you of what you could be, if you were in their position. And you hate that feeling because you want so very badly to believe that you "made it on your own," and you're far too much of a narcissist to conceive of everything outside yourself that helped put you where you are. It's really a hateful thing to be this way, Mal.
I know you don't understand this, or rather that you are willfully ignorant of even the basics of this point of view (I know because you misrepresent it time after time after time), but perhaps you ought to do us all a favor and, for once, talk about something you haven't been corrected on a dozen times already. You really are not good at this.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: My daughter's happy meal is only 390 calories. The apples and milk seem like healthy calories to me (she doesn't eat the caramel dip so the calorie count is a bit higher than what she actually eats). Chicken nuggets aren't really that bad either (though there are healthier ones than McD's). I suppose if I let my daughter order french fries and soda I might be a bit more negative regarding the health.
However, to be honest, we do get McD's a lot for the toy. We tend to go a lot more when they have certain toys than other toys. When they had strawberry shortcake dolls my daughter wanted to go every night (we didn't but she asked). With the halloween bucket, she had no interest in McD.
As I understand it, this type of Happy Meal would be fine. It's not the packaging of any meal with a toy that SF, just the ones that are ridiculously unhealthy.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was under the impression that it wouldn't pass
quote:In response to the pressure from CSPI and Santa Clara, McDonald’s has begun providing healthier options, like apple slices with caramel sauce (called “Apple Dippers”) and low-fat milk. Today, the most nutritious Happy Meal, with chicken nuggets, apple slices, and milk, has 390 calories, 15 grams of fat, and 560 milligrams of sodium, according to the published nutritional information. Even that option flunks the San Francisco test, though, because 37 percent of the calories come from fat.
posted
This won't hold anyways. SF can regulate all they want, but you know McDonalds is going to find a way around it. All they have to do is drop the price of their Happy Meal by 50 cents, then add the toy to their menu with a 50 cent price tag. Problem solved.
Orincoro, I see one problem with your view, and that is regarding wages. Perhaps you can explain what a fair wage is for someone working at McDonalds. Is it $10 an hour? Or $20 an hour? How much should they be paid?
If wages across the board are raised, the company has to come up with that extra money. Goods and services become more expensive. The dollar buys less. And what do ya know, the people making $10 or $20 an hour working at McDonalds are still poor.
Kind of sad how raising the minimum wage has never lifted one person out of poverty.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Malanthrop, advertising works. Children like toys. If you include toys in things, children will generally want that thing more than they did before the toy was included.
And the amusing thing is, of course you know this. You're just transparently pretending not to to vent your spleen about a supposed outrage against individual liberty, though of course the people of San Francisco elected the representatives who took this action in the first place.
But by all means, pretend there's no impact to taking the toy out of the Happy Meal. I'm certain McDonalds just added the toys for the hell of it. And of course Happy Meals as they're most commonly ordered in McDonalds are a safe, healthy way to get calories in a child's diet too, right, so they really ought to be left alone as well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:All they have to do is drop the price of their Happy Meal by 50 cents, then add the toy to their menu with a 50 cent price tag. Problem solved.
I don't think that would actually work as well. There's a psychological difference in paying extra for a toy and getting a toy for free. Also, McDonalds HAS been attempting to fix their image as the "fat person restaurant," without any government interference at all. Deliberately circumventing the ruling (which would be incredibly obvious if you were forced to buy a toy seperately) would effectively say "we care more about your money than your child's health."
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The toy can already be purchased separately and with no other food item. The cost is more than fifty cents at every place I have been- usually $1, sometime $1.50 and at overpriced places like airports can be $2. Though a lot of times, if you ask to pay for a toy, they will just toss it in for free. The fact that I know this I think says I have a very spoiled preschooler.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I would support a ban on meals for children that came with a cigarette. Or alcohol. Or poison. And 600+ calorie high-fat happy meals are not really all that different.
They really are quite different. If you take the meal issue out of the equation, most people would still ban selling cigarettes, alcohol, and poison to children. However, I'm not sure that most people would support an outright ban on selling 600 calorie meals to children. I certainly wouldn't.
quote:Obesity is become ludicrously bad in this country. It's affecting lives, happiness, the economy, and our national image. If corporations are so willing to provide easy, cheap, obviously damaging food to children, wrapped up in pretty colors and with toys, I'm not upset if some people say "This is ridiculous. It shouldn't be allowed to happen."
Do you really think this one law by itself is going to change the eating habits of the nation? Do you think obesity rates are going to decrease as a result of this? If not, how many laws do you think we will need?
Personally, I think it would be more useful to regulate the information that is provided to the consumer rather than merely regulating specific combinations of otherwise legal products.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meh. It's just one city and I'm sure it's not that hard to go across city lines to get a Happy Meal. Shame it's SF, they're all into good eating there to begin with, probably a parental conspiracy to have law on their side (sorry kids, no toys -haha whoops- eat your hummus and carrot sticks now). It would be interesting if this happened in a less-blue area.
Let's see what happens.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by shadowland: Personally, I think it would be more useful to regulate the information that is provided to the consumer rather than merely regulating specific combinations of otherwise legal products.
Except that doesn't work at all. I've been in a restaurant just recently that listed the calorie content right next to the food on the behind-the-counter menu. "Cheeseburger - 1500 calories. Double Cheeseburger 2,300 calories. Fish Fry 2,600 calories." And on the wall next to the line were pictures of people happily completing the quadruple-cheeseburger challenge.
quote:However, I'm not sure that most people would support an outright ban on selling 600 calorie meals to children. I certainly wouldn't.
And I never said this. When a obviously unhealthy package (i.e. Happy Meal) is advertised to susceptible, malleable, naive children, that's when I have a problem.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Except that doesn't work at all. I've been in a restaurant just recently that listed the calorie content right next to the food on the behind-the-counter menu. "Cheeseburger - 1500 calories. Double Cheeseburger 2,300 calories. Fish Fry 2,600 calories." And on the wall next to the line were pictures of people happily completing the quadruple-cheeseburger challenge.
It doesn't work at all? I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that it is not in any way helpful. But yes, for many people it would probably not help them out, but then, I'm not sure that those same people will benefit much by this law either.
quote:When a obviously unhealthy package (i.e. Happy Meal) is advertised to susceptible, malleable, naive children, that's when I have a problem.
I have a problem with it too. But I don't feel it's the government's job to ban it, in the same way that I wouldn't be in favor of the government banning a restaurant giving a discount for value meals containing more than some arbitrarily decided number of calories, or the government banning potentially 'harmful' entertainment being sold to children.
Of note, I would be more accepting of the government regulating how and where the advertisements are displayed, but I'm not too fond of outright bans.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by shadowland: I have a problem with it too. But I don't feel it's the government's job to ban it, in the same way that I wouldn't be in favor of the government banning a restaurant giving a discount for value meals containing more than some arbitrarily decided number of calories, or the government banning potentially 'harmful' entertainment being sold to children.
When does is stop becoming "the people" or "our community" and start becoming "the government" that's doing the banning?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When does is stop becoming "the people" or "our community" and start becoming "the government" that's doing the banning?
I tend to view bans as being a sort of last resort method. When I feel there are more productive actions that can be taken, then I favor those actions over instituting a ban on one very specific and limited behavior that may or may not have any effect on the goal that the ban is intended to achieve. The fact that the majority of a community may support the ban does not change my views on bans in general.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: And I never said this. When a obviously unhealthy package (i.e. Happy Meal) is advertised to susceptible, malleable, naive children, that's when I have a problem.
Oh come on WW. Your statement makes it seem like just because something is advertised kids are going to be able to go right out and get it. The fact is the parent has the choice whether to buy that happy meal for the child, and what food is included in that happy meal. Scholarette said she chooses milk and apple slices for her child. That is her choice, and I think she is a good parent for doing so.
I haven't seen one McDonald's commercial in the past decade that has advertised the actual food contained in the Happy Meal. They may advertise the toy, but I've never seen the actual food.
What is to stop other parents from choosing the apple slices or milk for their children? Nothing. It is posted on the menu in a prominant place. They don't make any effort to hide the choices.
This ban is simply an attempt to remove personal responsibility from an individual. It isn't the parent's fault they choose unhealthy food for their children, it HAS to be McDonald's!
That evil yellow and red clown is out to get your kids!
Now I think there does come a time where someone should step in. If a parent overfeeds their children and the kid starts looking like Violet Beauregarde after chewing on a stick of Wonka's experimental gum, then I think someone needs to either talk to those parents or remove the child from the household.
I do understand that this ban was placed because people care about kids and want to prevent harm from coming to them. This is where awareness and education help.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by shadowland: I have a problem with it too. But I don't feel it's the government's job to ban it, in the same way that I wouldn't be in favor of the government banning a restaurant giving a discount for value meals containing more than some arbitrarily decided number of calories, or the government banning potentially 'harmful' entertainment being sold to children.
When does is stop becoming "the people" or "our community" and start becoming "the government" that's doing the banning?
This.
My parents were talking about how at the financial town meeting, it goes late, so most decisions get passed by "special interest" groups who stay until the end. My dad interjected and pointed out that these people's special interest, whatever it was, was still "town resident".
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I haven't seen one McDonald's commercial in the past decade that has advertised the actual food contained in the Happy Meal. They may advertise the toy, but I've never seen the actual food.
quote:Oh come on WW. Your statement makes it seem like just because something is advertised kids are going to be able to go right out and get it. The fact is the parent has the choice whether to buy that happy meal for the child, and what food is included in that happy meal. Scholarette said she chooses milk and apple slices for her child. That is her choice, and I think she is a good parent for doing so.
Food companies spend billions on advertising, and a lot of them advertise to children. They don't spend the money if they don't see results. Sometimes the parent is the final arbiter (kudos, Scholarette, btw), but not always.
Where I grew up, the only fast food chain in the town was a Wendys. You saw primarily grade school and high school kids there for dinner. Some of them might have had jobs, but many of them (and I know this because I knew many of them and their families) were just given money by their parents, told to take their younger siblings with them, and told to go feed themselves. Surely my town wasn't the only one like this.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Happy meal advertisements never advertising the food would be a surprise? I am pretty sure they do.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:When does is stop becoming "the people" or "our community" and start becoming "the government" that's doing the banning?
I tend to view bans as being a sort of last resort method. When I feel there are more productive actions that can be taken, then I favor those actions over instituting a ban on one very specific and limited behavior that may or may not have any effect on the goal that the ban is intended to achieve. The fact that the majority of a community may support the ban does not change my views on bans in general.
This law didn't "ban" the toy. It set certain requirements to get a toy. Include fruits and veggies or be under X amount of calories. This law set out to control the behavior of the people. Using the tax code to manipulate the population is wrong. Manipulating adults is one thing, pitting parents against children is another. In SF, the parent will have to explain to the child, they didn't get a toy for choosing the fries.
Every time I go to McD's, I have the conversation with my small children about what they want. "Do you want the apples or fries? Nuggets or burger? 4 piece or 6 piece? Milk, Chocolate Milk, Juice or Soda?" They pick their food and I comply. How the hell does a city counsel think it can interject itself into this conversation? I order my kids what they want. The city wants to deny my child the toy for ordering what they want to eat.
Limited government anyone? Of course, liberals believe that people are too stupid to know what is good for them. We need government to control our lives and force us to do what is best for us.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of note, I would be more accepting of the government regulating how and where the advertisements are displayed, but I'm not too fond of outright bans.
That's pretty much what this is: you can include your toy with a meal so long as the location is next to some fruit, not a bunch of fried salted starch. Rather like not having a billboard of a leather wearing tobacco smoking camel up next to a school, to be honest.
quote:This ban is simply an attempt to remove personal responsibility from an individual. It isn't the parent's fault they choose unhealthy food for their children, it HAS to be McDonald's!
I'm afraid you'll have to explain this statement, because it doesn't make sense. In way way does this ban 'remove personal responsibility'? That's just some nice conservative buzz-word usage so far as I can tell.
quote:
Now I think there does come a time where someone should step in. If a parent overfeeds their children and the kid starts looking like Violet Beauregarde after chewing on a stick of Wonka's experimental gum, then I think someone needs to either talk to those parents or remove the child from the household.
Isn't the time to intervene some point before the child is horrendously obese? Speaking as a kid who was morbidly obese as a child myself, actually, and not someone who would have wanted government intervention either. I'm not saying I want the government stopping parents from being permitted to feed their kids fast food, but fortunately, that's not what's being done here. What is being done here is government in one city saying, "You can't market your very unhealthy food explicitly for children in our city." Small government, mind.
Of course it's San Francisco so the fact that it's small, local government somehow gets left by the wayside in venting of conservative spleen.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: That evil yellow and red clown is out to get your kids!
Ok. You do understand that McDonald's is engaged in an ongoing and highly calculated campaign to imprint as many children in the world as possible with brand loyalty that can be used to the company's advantage throughout their entire lives, right? Again, this is not politics or conspiracy, this is a well established fact about McDonald's advertising strategies and long term goals. The company advertises to children, associates toys and play structures with the taste of their food, and jams their food as full of unhealthy and highly pleasing substances as possible in order, very purposefully, to hook children into become brand loyal to McDonald's.
Whatever you want to say about personal responsibility or whatever other schlock you've been told to throw out when somebody talks about any kind of regulation, even of the most dangerous and socially harmful practices, do not claim that McDonald's is not involved in a balls-out campaign to ensnare children into a lifestyle of unhealthy eating. That is their express goal, as a business.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: That evil yellow and red clown is out to get your kids!
Ok. You do understand that McDonald's is engaged in an ongoing and highly calculated campaign to imprint as many children in the world as possible with brand loyalty that can be used to the company's advantage throughout their entire lives, right?
Do you understand that the government is doing the very same thing via public education? My kids go to McD's when I, as a parent, choose to take them. My kids go to school, several hours per day. My 6th grader is yet to learn about the constitution but she has nightmares about global warming.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Using the tax code to manipulate the population is wrong. Manipulating adults is one thing, pitting parents against children is another. In SF, the parent will have to explain to the child, they didn't get a toy for choosing the fries.
It is? You'll certainly want to scrap all sorts of tax incentives and rules for having children, marriage, starting businesses, going to school, so on and so forth. I thought you were some sort of man experienced in business, malanthrop, making lots of money a year. That's an incredibly foolish thing for such a man to say, 'using the tax code to manipulate the population is wrong'.
As for pitting parents against children, yes, heaven forbid children not have easy access to incredibly fatty calorie rich food with cheap, short-lasting toys that they're taught by advertising to like. The horror! If this action had been taken in, say, Omaha instead of San Francisco your reaction would be much different, and of course most folks know it. The big grab for you wasn't 'government ban', it was 'San Francisco'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Limited government anyone? Of course, liberals believe that people are too stupid to know what is good for them. We need government to control our lives and force us to do what is best for us.
Demonstrably, many people are too stupid to know what is best for them, or their children. You take your children to McDonald's, for instance. This is a very stupid thing to do.
But no, liberals want the government to protect people from the designs of corporations to manipulate and take advantage of them, and society at large, most especially when those corporations do so in ways that ensnare even non-brainless people. A lot of smart people take their children to McDonald's. They remain unaware that this act is part of a very complex and very purposeful design of McDonald's, to fool parents into believing that they, and their families, are not affected by the billions of dollars in advertising money and political lobbies which help McDonald's pursue its interest: making money.
You would object, I am quite sure, to a toy cigarette or bottle of toy alcohol contained in a happy meal. Why? It's a toy- and you can exercise your individual ability not to buy it. No, you would favor it being banned because it represents a *very* clearly bad message- smoking and drinking is good, and no big deal.
What you don't realize is that the happy meal *already* contains those toy cigarettes, in the form of a small processed, freeze dried, reconstituted, artificially died and flavored and deep fried portion of meat and potato.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Do you understand that the government is doing the very same thing via public education?
Yeah, of course. I'm ok with it. I wouldn't be ok with it if the government didn't have a very good and noble reason for doing it. You're a nihilist, insofar as you have no real beliefs, so I don't expect you to understand the difference.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Where do you draw the line? When will the tax laws impose themselves into the grocery store?
They already do. You pay high taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. Again, I'm okay with it. You draw the line when it is reasonable to draw the line. It is unreasonable to allow McDonald's to continue actively ravaging the health of the American public in pursuit of profits. And again, you're a nihilist, so it's hard for you to understand that others believe in the ability of a society to form reasonable policies- and hard for you to see why you're always part of the problem, simply because to you, there will never be a solution, because you don't care about anyone but yourself.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Limited government anyone? Of course, liberals believe that people are too stupid to know what is good for them. We need government to control our lives and force us to do what is best for us.
Demonstrably, many people are too stupid to know what is best for them, or their children. You take your children to McDonald's, for instance. This is a very stupid thing to do.
But no, liberals want the government to protect people from the designs of corporations to manipulate and take advantage of them, and society at large, most especially when those corporations do so in ways that ensnare even non-brainless people. A lot of smart people take their children to McDonald's. They remain unaware that this act is part of a very complex and very purposeful design of McDonald's, to fool parents into believing that they, and their families, are not affected by the billions of dollars in advertising money and political lobbies which help McDonald's pursue its interest: making money.
You would object, I am quite sure, to a toy cigarette or bottle of toy alcohol contained in a happy meal. Why? It's a toy- and you can exercise your individual ability not to buy it. No, you would favor it being banned because it represents a *very* clearly bad message- smoking and drinking is good, and no big deal.
What you don't realize is that the happy meal *already* contains those toy cigarettes, in the form of a small processed, freeze dried, reconstituted, artificially died and flavored and deep fried portion of meat and potato.
I take my children to McD's about once per month. Is this "demonsterably stupid"? I suppose you consider salt to be a poison. SF wants to limit sodium as well. Without sodium, you'll die. Is sodium bad for you? Is fat bad for you? We crave it for it's efficiency. Fat and sugar provides the calories we need. We naturally crave them for their efficient delivery.
Solar power is evil....too much power for nothing...like eating fat. What gives a city the right to determine what you can eat or feed your children? Inuit eating blubber should be charged with child abuse for feeding blubber to their kids. Reality, they, like native Americans, didn't get obese until whitey forced their "better judgement" and compassion upon them. The party of "good intentions" needs to learn not to feed the animals. The animals know how to take care of themselves.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:From Geraine That evil yellow and red clown is out to get your kids!
Not funny.
I used to have this recurring nightmare when I was a teenager about Ronald McDonald. There's a McDonalds by my mom's house that has a playplace, and in the playplace is a statue of Ronald sitting on a bench.
I used to have a dream that I was stopped at the red light right outside the McDonalds late at night. The street light would go out, and I'd look over at Ronald, but he wouldn't be at his bench. I'd look forward, and then back again, and this time he'd be at the glass wall with his face pressed against it staring at me. I'd look back at the light nervously, and then back at the playplace, only now he's outside the playplace standing in front of the newspaper racks.
Finally I start to consider just running the red light, but I look back at the playplace and now he's standing right next to my car with his face pressed up against the car window. As I floor it to run the endless red light, I see that he's sitting in the passenger seat next to me.
That's normally when I wake up.
Ronald is no laughing matter.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Using the tax code to manipulate the population is wrong. Manipulating adults is one thing, pitting parents against children is another. In SF, the parent will have to explain to the child, they didn't get a toy for choosing the fries.
It is? You'll certainly want to scrap all sorts of tax incentives and rules for having children, marriage, starting businesses, going to school, so on and so forth. I thought you were some sort of man experienced in business, malanthrop, making lots of money a year. That's an incredibly foolish thing for such a man to say, 'using the tax code to manipulate the population is wrong'.
As for pitting parents against children, yes, heaven forbid children not have easy access to incredibly fatty calorie rich food with cheap, short-lasting toys that they're taught by advertising to like. The horror! If this action had been taken in, say, Omaha instead of San Francisco your reaction would be much different, and of course most folks know it. The big grab for you wasn't 'government ban', it was 'San Francisco'.
Just for the record, I think this legislature is completely absurd and not because it happened in San Francisco. I think it's a great example of the sort of nanny state crap that I'm adamantly opposed to.
I also hate pretty much any form of tax incentives.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Maybe Ronald's true intent it to scare children to eat bad food.
