quote:I take my children to McD's about once per month. Is this "demonsterably stupid"?
Might be. Are your kids obese?
quote: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?
Poison is in the dose. I'm terrified of the amount of sodium my grandmother takes in when she heats up one of her frozen chicken pot pies.
quote: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.
This is true. Yes. And now, since many of us in the US are no longer facing daily starvation and instead are facing an excess of fat and sweets, our instincts are cravings trick us. They no longer serve our best purposes. Hence (in part) the obesity epidemic.
quote:Solar power is evil....too much power for nothing...like eating fat.
This isn't even coherent.
quote:What gives a city the right to determine what you can eat or feed your children?
Elected officials, elected by the people of the city, to fight against larger forces influencing their children.
quote:Inuit eating blubber should be charged with child abuse for feeding blubber to their kids.
Unless, as it was in the past, it was one of the primary sources of nutrition.
quote: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.
You...just...equated Inuits and Native Americans with animals.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I didn't equate them with animals...I equated them with man's natural instinct. Man is an animal and parents teach their children. All mankind is an animal. Feeding the ducks in your backyard pond might feel good but prevent them from flying south....they freeze to death. Parents teach their children how to survive. Some parents in the animal kingdom, show them where to graze, some show them which garbage cans to topple, some show them where wait for the human to throw a scrap.
I'm teaching my children to study and learn. Some of their classmates are disrespectful to the teachers and have learned to live on welfare. I tell my children the percentage of my income the government confiscates. Is this wrong? Others live on confiscated income.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: 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.
Well, I don't quite agree with that. I draw a very specific distinction between the advertising of a product and the ability to sell that product, ie., I'm okay with limiting the scope of certain types of advertisements, but I'm not in favor of limiting the ability to sell products that are perfectly legal when sold individually. I can also completely understand if you don't make that same distinction in this situation.
The problem with the comparisons to cigarettes or alcohol or poison is that all of those things are illegal to sell to children on their own, so the idea of marketing those things to children is irrelevant because selling them to children is already illegal. Hamburgers, fries, and a soda is not illegal to sell to children.
Quite frankly, this whole issue seems like a case of addressing a symptom while ignoring the actual problem. I really don't see this as being much different than saying that a store can't sell a 'harmful' video game or movie to a child despite parental consent. What's next, the city is going to come up with a list of acceptable Halloween treats that people can hand out?
[edit] Can't we just ignore Malanthrop's arguments? I mean, they really don't make sense anyway and addressing them is not productive.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by shadowland: [edit] Can't we just ignore Malanthrop's arguments? I mean, they really don't make sense anyway and addressing them is not productive.
But they're kind of fun as a sort of looking glass experiment. They're nonsensical, and when you prod at certain parts of them, they blossom into entire whole new fields of hazy conceptualizations.
But if you're actually trying to inform him or change his habits, then yes. Abandon all hope. It's only if you intend to be entertained by his tomfoolery.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
mal, yes....fat is bad for you. Yes...salt is bad for you.
In excess. You need water to live, but there is such a thing as eater poisoning, and yes....it can kill you.
Lots of things are OK in moderation, but not in excess. As a matter of fact, very few, if any, things are good or have no impact in excess.
Once again, you show you lack a basic understanding of reality. YOU show a basic lack of compassion, intelligence, and understand of how things work that is staggering. On a post by post basis, even.
You are disrespectful, regardless of who's income you live on. You showed your real agenda clearly with that comment, BTW....
Thank you....not every people gets to be their own straw man.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I take my children to McD's about once per month. Is this "demonstrably stupid"?
Yes. It is an awful thing to do to your children to expose them to the clutches of McDonald's, most especially if you do it knowing what a terrible company it is- not to mention what kinds of things the foods contain that you should never, ever be eating.
quote: 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?
Typically a diet of processed foods will deliver to a human being a dose of salt per day which is in the range of tens of thousands of percent more than their metabolism requires. At these levels, yes, most definitely salt is bad for you. It has been a proven cause of hypertension, kidney and liver disease, and heart disease. It also has addictive properties, as do certain fats. It is absolutely one of the *more* dangerous things in our society.
quote: Lots of things are OK in moderation, but not in excess. As a matter of fact, very few, if any, things are good or have no impact in excess.
QFT. Even an occassional trip to McDonald's with the kids is one of the worst things a parent can do regarding their children's health. Not only is the food, even in those amounts, very unhealthy, but the purpose of happy meals and trips to McD's from the company's perspective is to hook children for life. They do it too- McDonald's serves over 50 million meals a day.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ugh. Your inability to plumb the depths even of the arguments you bring to the table is nothing if not consistent.
quote:Yes, scrap all tax incentives. I don't believe the government should "incentivise" (control) behavior.
Why on Earth not? This is just a silly position. Of course government should do this. The obvious question is how much and when. You don't actually believe it shouldn't do it ever and to no extent at all, because even the kind of flat tax some conservatives call 'fair' would be a control on behavior.
quote:Where do you draw the line? When will the tax laws impose themselves into the grocery store?
For someone so hooked in with what everyday Americans think, it's once again surprising how little you understand about what everyday American life brings to the table-pun intended. Oricincoro addressed part of this already, but let me mention another part of it: over half the nation already incentivizes tax activity at the grocery store, malanthrop. Perhaps if you lived up more to the things you claimed about yourself and less to the literal meaning of your user name you would know things like that.
quote:Punish parents that feed their children badly,...even if they cook at home.
I wouldn't call stopping a company from marketing incredibly fatty, obesity-causing foods to children a punishment. And honestly I'm having a hard time entertaining the notion that a rational person would. How is this decision actually on the table - not the slippery slope nonsense you're engaging in - a punishment? McDonald's isn't permitted in one city to market their obesity-making food to children. Most people would call that a reward-less mordibly obese children.
quote: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.
And here's another heroically stupid argument. Sodium is bad for you. SF wants to limit sodium. Without it you'll die. That's just ridiculous, malanthrop. San Francisco doesn't want to eliminate sodium. Though for the record, I don't consider ever going to McDonalds or taking one's child there stupid, that's going pretty over-the-top too, Orincoro.
quote:What gives a city the right to determine what you can eat or feed your children?
The people, obviously. And no, the city has not determined what parents can feed their children, but that's a transparently poor attempt to change the argument again, malanthrop. You're once more a liar. San Francisco has not said, "Parents shall not feed their children the contents of a Happy Meal." They've said 'McDonalds cannot serve them under these conditions." Parents are perfectly free to buy exactly the same foods as before, and you know it. You've read the article. You're lying.
quote: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.
Another subject change. What on Earth does whitey have to do with anything? As usual, you're getting your backside handed to you in another silly argument, so quick! Time to start throwing out as many buzzwords as possible. Bring out the chalkboard, start waving your hands and throwing out jargon.
-------
quote: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.
I'll entertain that statement from you, Dan, because I believe you're sincere, however much I disagree with you. Malanthrop, on the other hand, is frequently a liar, almost never a participant in good faith, and just as often a hack, and from him I'm quite happy to believe the big bell for him here was San Francisco.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, If you could go into why you don't like nanny state policies and tax incentives, this strikes me as a potentially useful and interesting conversation.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somehow, this doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It wouldn't kill McDonald's to add a bag of carrots or something or give an apple with the meal. They can still hand out toys if they did that. They already started adding healthier stuff before that documentary even came out.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Syn, they do already give the choice of an apple versus fries. I am assuming that other parents are just not choosing that option.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I reckon, but it's more like apples dipped in caramel or something? Parents probably should set a better example when it comes to health food, but I'm making brownies tonight, so I can't really talk. BUT, I do not have kids yet.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is an apple dip that comes with it (kinda like the ketchup packet) and we just take that part away. Though to be honest, that isn't so much the health thing as caramel makes a sticky mess.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: mal, yes....fat is bad for you. Yes...salt is bad for you.
In excess. You need water to live, but there is such a thing as eater poisoning, and yes....it can kill you.
Lots of things are OK in moderation, but not in excess. As a matter of fact, very few, if any, things are good or have no impact in excess.
Once again, you show you lack a basic understanding of reality. YOU show a basic lack of compassion, intelligence, and understand of how things work that is staggering. On a post by post basis, even.
You are disrespectful, regardless of who's income you live on. You showed your real agenda clearly with that comment, BTW....
Thank you....not every people gets to be their own straw man.
You can die from drinking too much water....in fact it does happen with drug users.
Burgers are bad for you but where do you draw the line? Will the grocery store need to tax ice cream more than milk? Where do you draw the line with government intervention into our diets?
I would argue the government crossed the line by getting involved in our diets. Of course, it's just a crack in the door. The crack in the door of your grandparents has now become a chasm...you don't realize it. The next generation will be brought up in a society where illegal happy meal toys is normal. Maybe the next generation will argue about whether the government should have the right to regulate apple juice for having a higher sugar content than milk. Once soda is singled out, they'll need to further classify what is the next "bad for you" beverage subject to law. Once they have a "juice tax", they'll attack milk for it's fat content.
Water is the only drink you "need". Orange juice companies might put a cartoon on the juice box to entice children to drink something better tasting than water. We all know, water is better than juice.
You can live on beans, rice and water. Everthing else should have a special tax.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: You do know this, right?
Again, the answer is pretty much no in all cases. It saves time to remember three things.
1. He doesn't understand what is wrong with the arguments that he is making. 2. No, he also doesn't understand the corrections. 3. No, he won't stop relying on them, even if you pin what's wrong with them solidly.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet another straw man argument. Mal, you ARE the spambot of Hatrack, aren't you?
ANYONE can die from drinking too much water, mal. Not just drug users. And the fact that YOU thin you can tell me ANYTHING about the habits and risks drug users face is a riot. I work a large number of hours as a nurse in a Crisis Stabilization Unit for my area. I am far too familiar with all of the symptoms of addiction and the stages of recovery, as well as the risks each stage holds.
Yet another example of you going off half cocked, spouting idiotic stuff to people far better educated than you on the subject.
BTW....I dislike the law too. But other than that, we have nothing else in common. Hell....if you dislike it, maybe it isn't all that bad after all.....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Burgers are bad for you but where do you draw the line? Will the grocery store need to tax ice cream more than milk? Where do you draw the line with government intervention into our diets?
A true conservative, as opposed to a hack such as yourself, might say that the people ought to decide. As they're in the process of doing in San Francisco.
quote: I would argue the government crossed the line by getting involved in our diets. Of course, it's just a crack in the door. The crack in the door of your grandparents has now become a chasm...you don't realize it. The next generation will be brought up in a society where illegal happy meal toys is normal. Maybe the next generation will argue about whether the government should have the right to regulate apple juice for having a higher sugar content than milk. Once soda is singled out, they'll need to further classify what is the next "bad for you" beverage subject to law. Once they have a "juice tax", they'll attack milk for it's fat content.
Because, of course, two generations ago (which is inaccurate - government was already neck deep in our food back then, you need to go quite a bit further, say, five or six generations ago) - food was safer, cleaner, cheaper, healthier, etc. Wait a minute, malanthrop. None of that is true at all. By almost every possible measure, in fact. So...again you're grossly, unmistakably wrong by every empirical measure on a political argument. Stunning.
If only you would be decent at least at trolling, and make your argument something like, "Government goes too far, instead of 'government shouldn't be involved in food at all', which is plainly ridiculous." It's an easy argument to make, too, which is one of many reasons you're such a hoot.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We do fast food far too often simply because it's convenient. If I have to work even half an hour late, it's hard enough to get in eating, homework, and a bath without throwing cooking into the mix. If I'm good, I'll cook enough on the weekends to have some leftovers I can just heat up, but if not...
I'm pretty lucky though. My son HATES fries - really, truly hates them! I'm not really sure why, but he does, and it's not something I've ever tried to change. So, for all of his meals, we get the fruit option. Honestly, milk, a burger, and apples isn't really that terrible of a meal. It's not great, I'll grant you, but it's not really awful either.
The toy rarely even figures into the mix. The ONLY time I get meals for the toy is when Wendy's is putting audiobooks in the meals. In fact, I actually toss alot of our toys strait into the give-away box because our playroom is cluttered enough as it is!
I do have to ask one question though... why does McDonald's insist on serving skinless apples? I don't get it. It's gotta cost more to peel them, and it hurts the nutritional value. I just wish they'd stop doing it!
Btw, at least around here, you only actually get the caramel dip with the apples about 25% of the time. The usually forget to put it in the bag. I don't mind though, since, as Scholarette said, it makes a horrid sticky mess!
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: I know I haven't been joining these conversations lately, but mal? What you said is kind of a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy.
Ask your grandmother, or great grandmother before she dies if she would agree.
What the hell kind of link was that? Did you create that website yourself to prove your own point? It looks like an advertisement for the University of Phoenix to me. What a great and highly respected institution.... Are they still accredited? My wife is building a website as a grad school project. I think yours was created by a U of P online learner, and it was his personal blog.
Don't believe everything you read.....certainly, don't use ANYTHING you've read to prove a point.
Slippery slope isn't "six degrees of Kevin Bacon"
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: We do fast food far too often simply because it's convenient. If I have to work even half an hour late, it's hard enough to get in eating, homework, and a bath without throwing cooking into the mix. If I'm good, I'll cook enough on the weekends to have some leftovers I can just heat up, but if not...
I'm pretty lucky though. My son HATES fries - really, truly hates them! I'm not really sure why, but he does, and it's not something I've ever tried to change. So, for all of his meals, we get the fruit option. Honestly, milk, a burger, and apples isn't really that terrible of a meal. It's not great, I'll grant you, but it's not really awful either.
The toy rarely even figures into the mix. The ONLY time I get meals for the toy is when Wendy's is putting audiobooks in the meals. In fact, I actually toss alot of our toys strait into the give-away box because our playroom is cluttered enough as it is!
I do have to ask one question though... why does McDonald's insist on serving skinless apples? I don't get it. It's gotta cost more to peel them, and it hurts the nutritional value. I just wish they'd stop doing it!
Btw, at least around here, you only actually get the caramel dip with the apples about 25% of the time. The usually forget to put it in the bag. I don't mind though, since, as Scholarette said, it makes a horrid sticky mess!
I'll only comment on the apples. I think they fooled you about the skinless part. Perhaps, like the chicken...they are mechanically separated and then formed into nice little apple slice shapes, glued together with ? and treated with ? to keep them from browning.
The FDA has a purpose....we shoundn't have "?"'s. If I know it's pig fat fried in penut oil, I should have a right to eat it and liking pork rinds is none of the governments business. McD's even makes me wonder, with their perfect apple slices. McRib anyone?
quote:I think they fooled you about the skinless part. Perhaps, like the chicken...they are mechanically separated and then formed into nice little apple slice shapes, glued together with ? and treated with ? to keep them from browning.
McDonald's actually contracts for some very specific varieties (primarily Empire, Pink Lady, and Cameo) of apples, which are peeled and sliced by robots but not "mechanically separated," and which sell in enough quantities to make McDonald's one of the biggest apple suppliers in the world.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
malanthrop, what a transparent way to attempt to deflect multiple people pointing out, "Hey, he's making a slippery slope argument-again!" But just to give you less room for your typical gutless weaseling, here ya go, you hack.
quote:The FDA has a purpose....we shoundn't have "?"'s. If I know it's pig fat fried in penut oil, I should have a right to eat it and liking pork rinds is none of the governments business. McD's even makes me wonder, with their perfect apple slices. McRib anyone?
You've got the right to eat it. There is nothing the city of San Francisco is doing that challenges any of these rights you're claiming or, for that matter, that anyone else is challenging either. San Francisco hasn't said, "You can't give your kids fries," however hysterically you rant otherwise. What they have said is you can't, within our jurisdiction, market your nutritionally very harmful food specifically to children. They have to be adults before they make the decision to start going in for risky behavior.
OMG! Sound the alarm! Liburals comin' ta take mah babies!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
McDonalds is not the only fast food business that places toys in their kids meals. I don't know if the ban specifically names McDonalds or not though.
I really believe that obesity education would be more effective than a ban in all cases.
Actually, the ban might be pretty effective...I'm going to start stockpiling McDonalds toys for the black market. I'll make a killing!
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really believe that obesity education would be more effective than a ban in all cases.
I will definitely agree that more obesity education is needed, though of course talking to a Republican will get you the expectation that this will magically come from...somewhere. Anyway, though, that's not an argument at all against a specific local government restricting advertisement against a known harmful product being marketed specifically towards children, when we know that a) the product is harmful - fast food in the quantities this ban targets is bad for children, and child obesity is quite bad - and b) McDonald's advertising is very effective.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: McDonalds is not the only fast food business that places toys in their kids meals. I don't know if the ban specifically names McDonalds or not though.
I don't have sourced figures handy, but McDonald's has something like an 8% US market share in fast food with a higher share of children (figures are higher internationally as well). That's something like 3 or 4 times the nearest competitor (Burger King)- and McDonald's also spends several times over what the nearest competitors spend on advertising, much of that money spent advertising to children as well. Certainly such a measure is aimed at McDonald's, but it's also generally aimed at a notably effective and socially detrimental marketing strategy.
What interests me in this case actually might be a matter of first ammendment rights. I don't know that predatory advertising and promotions are necessarily protected as would be, say, the sale of toys to children on their own.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm personally a bit uncomfortable with the way that certain advertisements are banned. I don't think it's inherently wrong to ban, say, smoking ads on television, but I'm concerned that ultimately what decides we ban those things is public whim.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree with that Raymond. It's a slippery slope, but luckily we haven't started sliding yet. I can't even really remember smoking ads on TV (when were they banned) and everyone might even think that, in the long run, this no-toy advertising for bad food this is ok. Certainly I wouldn't mind seeing a few less beer or viagra commercials, but... where does it stop.
What if the far right, for instance, decides to take Abstinence Only all the way to TV ads? While I can't say I actually enjoy Trojan commercials, isn't it important for people to know the product is out there?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that would work. That labors under the assumption that Trojan ads are marketed only at young unmarried people. Besides, I wonder if someone challenging the principle behind that law could call it a violation of the establishment clause.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
banning fast food is the stupid way to handle issues of obesity. This despite the fact that obesity, as an issue, ends up managed one way or another; we only have the choice of managing it the expensive, terrible, delayed way through inaction or useless action (spoiler: banning the happy meal won't fix anything). Or, possibly, coming up with workable policy of managing it that doesn't step on too many toes. Oh, and we're right on the cusp of needing to do that, too! Observe how fast people are growing fat in the typical post-WWII diet environment, in this actually interesting animation.. The better way would involve much less individual revocation of right 'for the greater good' but would involve too much of a level of social planning for most urban regions to be comfortable with. You have to isolate and remove 'food deserts' or 'nutritional deserts.'
DEFINITION
quote:A nutritional desert is an area where people have difficulty accessing diverse, healthy foods. As a result, residents of a nutritional desert often eat poorly balanced diets, potentially creating health problems for themselves. Nutritional deserts are also sometimes referred to as “food deserts,” and they are especially common in inner cities, where citizens may more generally lack access to basic goods and services.
In a typical nutritional desert, citizens have access to some food, but not a diverse and balanced selection of food. It is also common to have especially limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and for food to be comparatively very expensive in a nutritional desert. For example, residents of a neighborhood might only be able to shop at a corner store, where there is an abundance of expensive and heavily processed food, and a dearth of things like salad greens and fruit.
Classically, nutritional deserts may also have a high concentration of fast food restaurants, and their residents are often poor. It is also common for the people who live in a nutritional desert to rely heavily on public transit, lacking private vehicles or the ability to use them, and as a result, they are heavily dependent on the offerings in their surrounding neighborhood. When faced with a choice between fast food down the street, or a long bus ride out of the neighborhood for fresh ingredients, it is perhaps not surprising that some people opt for the fast food, especially if they have to cope with caring for related dependents or grueling work schedules.
There are a number of reasons for a nutritional desert to form. Many such regions are in minority neighborhoods, suggesting that a certain amount of redlining may be occurring. Redlining is a practice in which banks and other lenders refuse to invest in a specific area, making it hard to open a new supermarket or any other sort of business; commonly when a district is redlined, loans are also denied to the residents. Although this practice is explicitly illegal in most countries, it is unfortunately still common in some regions, because it can be difficult to prove that a bank is practicing redlining.
Residents of a nutritional desert may also lack the education to seek out healthier food choices, and their lack of education may also prevent them from agitating for change in their neighborhoods. Educational differences can also mean that people cannot get high-paying jobs, and as a result, they are financially restricted as well.
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I have to agree with that Raymond. It's a slippery slope, but luckily we haven't started sliding yet. I can't even really remember smoking ads on TV (when were they banned) and everyone might even think that, in the long run, this no-toy advertising for bad food this is ok. Certainly I wouldn't mind seeing a few less beer or viagra commercials, but... where does it stop.
What if the far right, for instance, decides to take Abstinence Only all the way to TV ads? While I can't say I actually enjoy Trojan commercials, isn't it important for people to know the product is out there?
I can't tell if you mean to say this in a positive or a negative light...
I don't think they should show Tabacco products, Alcohol products, or Sex related products... since all those things are lumped into one this..
As for condoms being a good thing... that's what sex ed/health class is for in school .-. ----- As for banning toys in McD's food, perfectly acceptable (expecially if you ban all other children luring toys with food from other fast food places)
Some one said McD's was the only meal some kids have and the only toys too, this is skewed though, buying fast food is only convienient not economical and will cost you more if it's all you're buying. More important than any toy is being healthy, and you get nothing of that from McD's or many other Fast Food places.
I say pass it, this slippery slope only has positive effects once you start to slide.
(Yes I am aware how terrible I am as a writter)
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:this slippery slope only has positive effects once you start to slide
At the end of that slope is government-supplied food pills containing all the nutrition you need in a day, plus some helpful drugs and other supplements.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as I am alive and well; getting all my nutrition and living life I could care less; hell with my metabolism I could probably eat normal food* along with all them food pills
Though what you said is so far the most unlikely thing I've ever heard; considering how much the economy runs off the food industry, though even then the economy won't matter if we are all healthy and fit, now would it ^-^
Hurray for slippery slope!
( Honestly, no one sees the world the way I do; as long as the government stays out of education (lol) and doesn't try to control my free will I am perfectly happy .-. , of course I am not happy so these rules are being broken /: )
Edit- I mispelled food as ford ;o
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:banning fast food is the stupid way to handle issues of obesity. This despite the fact that obesity, as an issue, ends up managed one way or another; we only have the choice of managing it the expensive, terrible, delayed way through inaction or useless action (spoiler: banning the happy meal won't fix anything). Or, possibly, coming up with workable policy of managing it that doesn't step on too many toes. Oh, and we're right on the cusp of needing to do that, too! Observe how fast people are growing fat in the typical post-WWII diet environment, in this actually interesting animation.. The better way would involve much less individual revocation of right 'for the greater good' but would involve too much of a level of social planning for most urban regions to be comfortable with. You have to isolate and remove 'food deserts' or 'nutritional deserts.'
I don't think this ought to be a tool for managing obesity, obviously. I just don't have a problem with restricting advertising of harmful products specifically towards children, that's all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:as long as the government stays out of education (lol) and doesn't try to control my free will I am perfectly happy
What if you desire, of your own free will, to eat badly?
Good to have me thinking My conclusion:
I do on occasion want to indulge myself in a heap of chocolate, but thinking more into it, if I never had chocolate... would I want to have it .-.
This can be said the same for many things; would a child born in a place where food-pills where the only food offered want chocolate; No, unless someone else tells the how great it is, and ect.
This is like alcohol really; if it was banned entirely the only people effected would be those dependant on the alcohol and those who worry only about all their rights being taken away because one bad thing was removed, why not remove them all (as a form of entertainment or to treat their already bad depression) but if no one had alcohol would anyone want it, even if they read all the facts about what it does to the body ....
I never drink, I never smoke, I rarely eat fast food, and I am incredibly poor. ( Not even sure if this is relivent or I even spelled that word correctly /
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't think this ought to be a tool for managing obesity, obviously. I just don't have a problem with restricting advertising of harmful products specifically towards children, that's all.
Which leads to massive taxes and demonization of businesses who do not serve the ideals of the government du jour
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Monies value is imaginary; whereas health is more important in all aspects.....
Remember happy (healthy) cows make the best cheese and are given no money only food! But a sick cow costs money and makes terrible cheese.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a metaphor ): of course we are not cows, but like cows if we are healthy we will do better and if unhealthy are a burden and do terribly.... pointing out we aren't cows was pointless and some of us ARE COWS in terms of weight.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The government should not tell us what we should or shouldn't eat. I mean, if they want to sell candy that might have some lead in it, that is for the buyer to be ware. We should have the right to buy our eggs with the thrilling opportunity for bachelism....baccel...food poisoning. The government should never force food services to make sure their food is taint free. What if I like eating taint. And if I want a big slice of human brains--well any law that would disallow cannibalism is out right prejudice against Zombie-Americans.
Wow--no wonder Mal likes these extreme attacks. Taking it all out of context and too bizarre extremes is fun.
Try this for an argument for the ban.
If Joey gets diabetes he goes to the hospital for a cure. If Joey's family can't afford the cure we have two choices. We can let Joey die or we can as a society pay for that cure. For some reason this country doesn't believe that poverty should be terminal.
We pay for limited health-care of the poor by legally requiring that now hospital can turn down a patient even if they can not pay. Who pays? The rest of us when we get medical care--or the state.
If the state pays, or if the state represents the people who are paying, then the state has the responsibility to its tax payers to make sure that a minimum effort is made to keep Joey healthy before he needs expensive medical treatments.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If Joey gets diabetes he goes to the hospital for a cure.
What if the cure for his diabetes is to drop the weight? Should the all caring state then force him on a restricted calorie diet?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, because obviously his family isn't supporting him enough to have him stop eating tweenkies so the government has to.
In the end Joey loses the weight, and lives a longer healthier life OR he can't handle his tweenkieless life and he kills himself, either way the world is now a better place..... :D
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Yes, because obviously his family isn't supporting him enough to have him stop eating tweenkies so the government has to.
Would you support the government limiting your caloric intake to match the diet that would be required for Joey to be healthier?
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which leads to massive taxes and demonization of businesses who do not serve the ideals of the government du jour
Hey, you're right, what a fool I w-hey, wait a minute! That's a slippery slope again!
Your penetrating analysis of the dangers of preventing harmful products from being marketed specifically towards children notwithstanding, DarkKnight, nothing you've said at all is an argument for why local governments limiting advertising such products to children means businesses will be demonized, taxes will be raised, or government will be whimsical.
And just for the record? 'Government du jour' is conservative-speak for 'they're doing things I don't want them to do'. When small government does things like say 'gays can't get married', that of course ain't an idea of the day but an ironclad social institution that's always been unchanging (despite the fact that it's not. When small government attempts to limit really fattening bad nutrition foods from being marketed - not sold - to children, though, well, that's 'government du jour'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the end Joey loses the weight, and lives a longer healthier life OR he can't handle his tweenkieless life and he kills himself, either way the world is now a better place.....
Speaking as a fat guy with diabetes, I'm not particularly thrilled by jokes that suggest that, were I to kill myself over the government's decision to restrict what I choose to eat, the world would be improved.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your penetrating analysis of the dangers of preventing harmful products from being marketed specifically towards children notwithstanding, DarkKnight, nothing you've said at all is an argument for why local governments limiting advertising such products to children means businesses will be demonized, taxes will be raised, or government will be whimsical.
But if you are banning products from being sold, it must be because it is bad. Why would you ban something good for kids? How can you not be demonizing the business if the local government is saying the product is banned. Is the happy meal more or less unhealthy than Aussie Cheese fries from the Outback? Is a happy meal more or less healthy than Apple Jacks? Chocolate milk?
quote: And just for the record? 'Government du jour' is conservative-speak for 'they're doing things I don't want them to do'.
Wrong. I mean this for both sides of the aisle. Liberals and Conservatives. Local governments who ban gay marriage are also wrong. It's a little tougher when the state votes and outlaws gay marriage. I would just keep bringing it up every single election cycle and it will pass. I was going to say pass soon enough but we are well past time to pass allowing gay marriage
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
My caloric intake would be entirely different from Joey, as I have a high metabolism and considering Joey was tubby his was probably slow.
I wouldn't mind my caloric intake to be limited if it were the proper amount for each day; however I would need more calories depending on how active I am that day, so it changes... -----
But this isn't about calories this is about removing bad food (this arguement not the topic)which is better for us all.
-----
As for this article using toys to entice children to buy McD's is just sick, if McD's wants to sell toys then it should be a toy store, not using toys to make children become addicted to "crappy meals"
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the end Joey loses the weight, and lives a longer healthier life OR he can't handle his tweenkieless life and he kills himself, either way the world is now a better place..... :D
Speaking as a fat guy with diabetes, I'm not particularly thrilled by jokes that suggest that, were I to kill myself over the government's decision to restrict what I choose to eat, the world would be improved.
I don't refraise what I say to make anyone happy.
And for what reason are you "fat"?
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: I wouldn't mind my caloric intake to be limited if it were the proper amount for each day; however I would need more calories depending on how active I am that day, so it changes...
Who gets to decide what the proper amount is for you on any given day? Is there someone else other than you that would be in a better position to have that type of information available?
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Though to be honest, that isn't so much the health thing as caramel makes a sticky mess.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
