DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Nigerius Rex on November 15, 2010, 07:04:02 AM
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/09/AR2010110904353.html
San Francisco has become the first major American city to prohibit fast-food restaurants from including toys with children's meals that do not meet nutritional guidelines.
The city's Board of Supervisors gave the measure final approval Tuesday on an 8-3 vote. That's enough votes to survive a planned veto by Mayor Gavin Newsom.
The ordinance, which would go into effect in December of next year, prohibits toy giveaways in fast-food children's meals that have more than 640 milligrams of sodium, 600 calories or 35 percent of their calories from fat. The law also would limit saturated fats and trans fats and require fruits or vegetables to be served with each meal with a toy.
As always the system sucks and logical and reasonable responses to the situation are snuffed out in favor of moral outrage and watchdog nannying.
"If the babies don't get what they want, then they won't stop crying," Sanchez said.
-
WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING GAY HUH?
-
That's really, really stupid.
-
Come on NR the thread title is inappropriate
-
Alright now gay people everywhere can celebrate because the thread title was changed.
Also pikajew
-
Mixed feelings about the whole thing. Most of hatred is from people who won't be effected in any way, shape or form. It's bitching for the sake of bitching. Plus, I think discouraging kiddos from living off of shitty food is always a worthy endeavor. However, this really is silly. I really don't think kids like McDonald's because of the crappy-ass toys. When I was a kid, getting happy meals was lame. You weren't cool until you could get a regular meal that didn't come with a toy.
The better solution is for fast food places to start making healthier food, which they could do pretty easily and most people probably wouldn't notice. The Libertarians will still bitch and moan about the disgusting lack of sodium and MSG in their food, but hey, it keeps them off the streets at night.
-
The better solution is for fast food places to start making healthier food, which they could do pretty easily and most people probably wouldn't notice. The Libertarians will still bitch and moan about the disgusting lack of sodium and MSG in their food, but hey, it keeps them off the streets at night.
Well, God damn it, don't patronize a place if you think the food is unhealthy. As long as McDonald's sells the sodium-laden shit and people want to eat it, there's no problem to be rectified. Everybody else should take their busy body proposals and promptly fuck off.
-
But given the amount of influence kids exert on parents, and the lack of ability for a child to make conscious decisions about their own health, should advertising directed towards children be restricted?
-
But given the amount of influence kids exert on parents, and the lack of ability for a child to make conscious decisions about their own health, should advertising directed towards children be restricted?
No. 50 years ago we weren't anywhere near as fat of a society as we are today, yet there were no advertising restrictions. How did we ever manage without some fuck face at the FDA telling us what to eat?
-
Something that seems self-evident that almost no one agrees with - personal responsibility never stops.
Not personal responsibility matters unless food just tastes so good you can't resist.
Personal responsibility never stops. If people can make an informed decision about McDonalds (they can), then McDonalds shouldn't be held responsible for anything people do. Giving out toys with happy meals may or may not be a good thing (I don't like it actually), but the premise of the law is wrong. Essentially, San Fransisco decided parents can't stop themselves from buying happy meals for their kids, so McDonalds should have to pay a price by taking toys out of happy meals.
-
I agree with the above post whole-heartedly. People in today's society just don't care enough to think for themselves.
-
What is government for if not to engineer society?
-
What is government for if not to engineer society?
Questions like that help me appreciate 'merica, however fucked up it may be.
-
Something that seems self-evident that almost no one agrees with - personal responsibility never stops.
Not personal responsibility matters unless food just tastes so good you can't resist.
Personal responsibility never stops. If people can make an informed decision about McDonalds (they can), then McDonalds shouldn't be held responsible for anything people do. Giving out toys with happy meals may or may not be a good thing (I don't like it actually), but the premise of the law is wrong. Essentially, San Fransisco decided parents can't stop themselves from buying happy meals for their kids, so McDonalds should have to pay a price by taking toys out of happy meals.
This.
People need to take responsibility for themselves and if that means not letting your kids have that happy meal, then by all means do that. This is an area government doesn't need to intervene.
-
Amateurs. Call me when your whole state bans a beverage.
https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013395010_drinkban11m.html
OLYMPIA — The state Liquor Control Board on Wednesday approved an emergency ban of caffeinated alcohol drinks, the type of beverage that sickened nine Central Washington University students last month during an off-campus party.
Board members said they acted out of concern for public health and safety. The ban will start Nov. 18 and remain in place for 120 days while the board goes through rule-making procedures for a permanent ban.
The Legislature is also expected to consider a ban early next year.
"The Liquor Control Board has a duty to protect the safety of the people of Washington state," Gov. Chris Gregoire said at a news conference after the vote. "It has fulfilled that duty by banning these drinks."
-
Amateurs. Call me when your whole state bans a beverage.
https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013395010_drinkban11m.html
OLYMPIA — The state Liquor Control Board on Wednesday approved an emergency ban of caffeinated alcohol drinks, the type of beverage that sickened nine Central Washington University students last month during an off-campus party.
Board members said they acted out of concern for public health and safety. The ban will start Nov. 18 and remain in place for 120 days while the board goes through rule-making procedures for a permanent ban.
The Legislature is also expected to consider a ban early next year.
"The Liquor Control Board has a duty to protect the safety of the people of Washington state," Gov. Chris Gregoire said at a news conference after the vote. "It has fulfilled that duty by banning these drinks."
Yeah, I saw that one coming. Obviously people up there are too stupid to mix vodka and Red Bull like the cool kids down here.
I do recall The Man wanting to ban Cisco a few years back after it killed a bunch of people. The FTC forced them to revise their marketing strategy and they stayed in business.
-
Amateurs. Call me when your whole state bans a beverage.
https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013395010_drinkban11m.html
OLYMPIA — The state Liquor Control Board on Wednesday approved an emergency ban of caffeinated alcohol drinks, the type of beverage that sickened nine Central Washington University students last month during an off-campus party.
Board members said they acted out of concern for public health and safety. The ban will start Nov. 18 and remain in place for 120 days while the board goes through rule-making procedures for a permanent ban.
The Legislature is also expected to consider a ban early next year.
"The Liquor Control Board has a duty to protect the safety of the people of Washington state," Gov. Chris Gregoire said at a news conference after the vote. "It has fulfilled that duty by banning these drinks."
It's always the same bullshit argument. "For the safety of the people, blah blah blah we have ball chins." There's nothing unique about the drinks, and the company that makes Four Loko is correct; kids will keep drinking because alcohol is relatively easy to get.
-
What the hell is up with all this emphasis on sodium and saturated fats lately? I don't want them in my food, and I'm guessing neither do most people, so why are the libertarians getting all fired up (again) about an issue (like when they went batshit on the ban of smoking inside public places) that most people would probably be happy to see the government (finally) take care of?
Talk to me about internet privacy or something I care about. I find it very hard to come rushing to the defense of... McDonalds.
Is it just me, or do libertarians have a knack for picking the worst possible battlefields on the ideological playground? Far worse things are happening to individual liberties around the world, and yet I always see the libertarians rushing back to the defense of the tobacco companies, drugs, the fast food industry, the child pornographers, etc...
Furthermore, a city-wide ban is the way it should be, if any ban is to happen at all. If our communities don't have the freedom to decide they want certain influences to remain outside the community, then why get all fired up about liberty to begin with?
-
There is no scientific backing behind the ideas that saturated fat and sodium cause health problems. Aside from that, this legislation is not even on the right track to solving any problems. All it does is add more hoops for businesses to jump through. The whole "Communities should be able to do what they want cause they vote for it" thing sounds nice, but that is never the actual situation.
-
What the hell is up with all this emphasis on sodium and saturated fats lately? I don't want them in my food, and I'm guessing neither do most people, so why are the libertarians getting all fired up (again) about an issue (like when they went batshit on the ban of smoking inside public places) that most people would probably be happy to see the government (finally) take care of?
Talk to me about internet privacy or something I care about. I find it very hard to come rushing to the defense of... McDonalds.
Is it just me, or do libertarians have a knack for picking the worst possible battlefields on the ideological playground? Far worse things are happening to individual liberties around the world, and yet I always see the libertarians rushing back to the defense of the tobacco companies, drugs, the fast food industry, the child pornographers, etc...
Furthermore, a city-wide ban is the way it should be, if any ban is to happen at all. If our communities don't have the freedom to decide they want certain influences to remain outside the community, then why get all fired up about liberty to begin with?
It's for the sake of consistency that I (I won't speak for anybody else) get so riled up over people's right to smoke or stuff their faces with french fries. Whether it's internet privacy or the right to choose what you eat, liberty is liberty. If you don't like smoking in bars or fatty foods go somewhere where those things aren't.
And your community's rights argument is total shit, whether at a local, state or federal level. What about the people in those communities who don't want the ban? Are they wrong just because they aren't in the majority? Private property and freedom of association should trump any fucktastic community standards related to food or smoking that city council members can dream up.
-
Private property and freedom of association should trump fucktastic community standards related to food or smoking that city council members can dream up.
No, they don't. If your town doesn't like certain business practices, it should be able to keep those business practices out of town. Just like I don't have the right have tanks and heavy metal festivals in my back yard, corporate interests shouldn't have leeway to pull their bullshit wherever they want regardless if they're actually wanted there or not. If people really want Ronald McDonald shoving spray-painted sodium paddies and toys in the faces of their children, they'll vote for council members who also share in their dream, or run for council themselves.
It's for the sake of consistency that I (I won't speak for anybody else) get so riled up over people's right to smoke or stuff their faces with french fries. Whether it's internet privacy or the right to choose what you eat, liberty is liberty. If you don't like smoking in bars or fatty foods go somewhere where those things aren't.
Ew, for what it's worth, while Libertarians seem to be eternally optimistic about the market's ability to run society, they're dismally pessimistic when it comes to trusting that people won't let things like "giving up the right to smoke in walmart" lead us down a slippery slope toward "nannyism." This sort of rampant exaggeration of issues that aren't that pressing anyway is the primary reason why I don't bother with following what the libertarians are getting riled up about anymore.
-
And your community's rights argument is total shit, whether at a local, state or federal level. What about the people in those communities who don't want the ban? Are they wrong just because they aren't in the majority? Private property and freedom of association should trump any fucktastic community standards related to food or smoking that city council members can dream up.
What's the significant difference between the majority of the community agreeing on a state wide ban of something or the free market deciding that a particular product isn't worth it and gets pulled despite the minority who still want it?
-
WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING GAY HUH?
For me personally, its the penis. :tick2:
-
And your community's rights argument is total shit, whether at a local, state or federal level. What about the people in those communities who don't want the ban? Are they wrong just because they aren't in the majority? Private property and freedom of association should trump any fucktastic community standards related to food or smoking that city council members can dream up.
What's the significant difference between the majority of the community agreeing on a state wide ban of something or the free market deciding that a particular product isn't worth it and gets pulled despite the minority who still want it?
This, man. Either way, something happens that somebody, somewhere, doesn't want. But personally, I don't want it in the hands of business. I trust politicians more (though that's really not saying much)
-
WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING GAY HUH?
For me personally, its the penis. :tick2:
Off topic. I made him change the thread title for a reason. Let's talk about McDonalds :PLM:
-
WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING GAY HUH?
For me personally, its the penis. :tick2:
Off topic. I made him change the thread title for a reason. Let's talk about McDonalds :PLM:
Sorry, just a one liner.
I hate the fact McDonald's was forced to take the toy out. Who the fuck is the government to tell a business what to do? If they deem bacon too unhealthy can they ban bacon from being on sandwiches? Where is the line in the sand drawn, and who gets to draw that line?
People make there own choices and they will reap the benefit of or suffer the consequences of the choices they make.
Its the same thing with the proposed soda and juice tax. They want us to limit the intake of these things my taxing the shit out of them?
Pretty soon all choices will be made for us because were too stupid to make right decisions.
Its like forcing a health care bill on people because government knows whats best for us whether we like it or not. :tick2: <---- worthless icon that renders anything I say irrelevant.
-
For what it's worth, this is why I never trust the libertarian/psuedo "constitutionalists" argument. Whenever the courts fail to uphold the banning of some controversial issue, libertarians bring up the argument that the problem with the ban was that 1.) the constitution has no say in the matter and 2.) if states want to run things differently, they're more than welcome too. Yet I've NEVER seen an instance of a libertarian actually presenting a scenario where community regulations trump federal decisions. That may or may not have anything to do with the movement's ultimately "corporate" benefactors, but it sure does display how far the ideology falls from its more practical source.
I hate the fact McDonald's was forced to take the toy out. Who the fuck is the government to tell a business what to do?
It's not the "government's say" and it's not like health-care. This isn't a piece of federal legislation. Where talking about whether YOUR town and EVERY OTHER town/city/state should be forced accept McDonald's business practices because the libertarians say not doing so will "lead us to fascism" from the ground up or something else direly pessimistic like that.
-
For what it's worth, this is why I never trust the libertarian/psuedo "constitutionalists" argument. Whenever the courts fail to uphold the banning of some controversial issue, libertarians bring up the argument that the problem with the ban was that 1.) the constitution has no say in the matter and 2.) if states want to run things differently, they're more than welcome too. Yet I've NEVER seen an instance of a libertarian actually presenting a scenario where community regulations trump federal decisions. That may or may not have anything to do with the movement's ultimately "corporate" benefactors, but it sure does display how far the ideology falls from its more practical source.
I hate the fact McDonald's was forced to take the toy out. Who the fuck is the government to tell a business what to do?
It's not the "government's say" and it's not like health-care. This isn't a piece of federal legislation. Where talking about whether YOUR town and EVERY OTHER town/city/state should be forced accept McDonald's business practices because the libertarians say not doing so will "lead us to fascism" from the ground up or something else direly pessimistic like that.
It should NO ONES call but the business itself. If a town decides to let McDonald's into there town, they should have no say in what they serve. If they don't allow a McDonald's in there town, that is another issue, and that is there prerogative. IMO. :TICK2:
-
No, they don't. If your town doesn't like certain business practices, it should be able to keep those business practices out of town. Just like I don't have the right have tanks and heavy metal festivals in my back yard, corporate interests shouldn't have leeway to pull their bullshit wherever they want regardless if they're actually wanted there or not. If people really want Ronald McDonald shoving spray-painted sodium paddies and toys in the faces of their children, they'll vote for council members who also share in their dream, or run for council themselves.
You can't give me one legitimate reason for allowing the local government to enact food or smoking restrictions. If there were some cost which fell on the community at large, some sort of externality, as a result of people eating too much saturated fat, then you'd have a case. Unless you create the externality by subsidizing health care, for example, one dosn't exist. The difference between a heavy metal concert in your backyard and McDonald's in your town is that one involves you whether you want it to or not. I could understand restricting where and when a festival could take place because of the inconvenience it may create for local residents. The same can't be said for McDonald's, which could easily be avoided. The only corporate interest I'm defending is the right to conduct business without dealing with shit head regulations. There's no business that deserves any kind of special legal or political treatment, but that's not what we're talking about.
Ew, for what it's worth, while Libertarians seem to be eternally optimistic about the market's ability to run society, they're dismally pessimistic when it comes to trusting that people won't let things like "giving up the right to smoke in walmart" lead us down a slippery slope toward "nannyism." This sort of rampant exaggeration of issues that aren't that pressing anyway is the primary reason why I don't bother with following what the libertarians are getting riled up about anymore.
Well, for one, it's not a lack of faith in people; it's a lack of faith in politicians and other government agents, who will generally expand their authority when given the opportunity. It's makes perfect sense, really. I'm pessimistic about central planning because I know people can manage their lives independently of the guiding hand of government.
And what about the costs you impose on a local business? Would the bans be pressing then? What if a bar had to close or layoff employees because smokers wouldn't patronize it anymore? These regulations do impose costs on the people they're aimed at, and that can hurt the local economy. This isn't just a rehash of the slippery slope.
-
Private property and freedom of association should trump fucktastic community standards related to food or smoking that city council members can dream up.
No, they don't. If your town doesn't like certain business practices, it should be able to keep those business practices out of town. Just like I don't have the right have tanks and heavy metal festivals in my back yard, corporate interests shouldn't have leeway to pull their bullshit wherever they want regardless if they're actually wanted there or not. If people really want Ronald McDonald shoving spray-painted sodium paddies and toys in the faces of their children, they'll vote for council members who also share in their dream, or run for council themselves.
It's for the sake of consistency that I (I won't speak for anybody else) get so riled up over people's right to smoke or stuff their faces with french fries. Whether it's internet privacy or the right to choose what you eat, liberty is liberty. If you don't like smoking in bars or fatty foods go somewhere where those things aren't.
Ew, for what it's worth, while Libertarians seem to be eternally optimistic about the market's ability to run society, they're dismally pessimistic when it comes to trusting that people won't let things like "giving up the right to smoke in walmart" lead us down a slippery slope toward "nannyism." This sort of rampant exaggeration of issues that aren't that pressing anyway is the primary reason why I don't bother with following what the libertarians are getting riled up about anymore.
People are not getting reliable information, making a decision, and then voting accordingly as per your constant suggestion. Whats happening is one or two loud mouth special interest groups like CSPI (https://www.cspinet.org/new/201011091.html) are flooding the local media and government with ridiculous and exaggerated information and pressuring elected officials into making the move they have now made the right move by fuckery and manipulation. The problem is not that the system should prevent this, because it cant. The solution, is to have a set list laying down the basic absolute unfuckwithable personal and business rights and conditions that wont change with "community standards" and other illogical inconsistent constraints. Does anyone see the issue is really about parenting and personal responsibility? Do they care that Mcdonalds employs millions of people across the entire world and is a positive influence in a dysfunctional economy? No, they see a press release from the center for bullshittery and then think "Oh fast food is bad mmk, we need to ban it mmk" and then you have a totally fucked up society because communities have the right to compartmentalize legitimate business based on whatever bullshit they think is right.
-
:tick2: <---- worthless icon that renders anything I say irrelevant.
Just to clarify, I said it makes it hard to take you seriously. I can; I just have to ignore the tick. Don't worry, your posts aren't irrelevant. :smiley:
And is there statistical evidence that says kids buy more meals if they get a crappy toy? Maybe it was just me, but I never cared for the toys when I was that young.
-
And is there statistical evidence that says kids buy more meals if they get a crappy toy? Maybe it was just me, but I never cared for the toys when I was that young.
The crappy toy is irrelevant. Kids like McDonalds because they think they're supposed to. They've spend billions of dollars crafting their brand and aiming it directly at kids, so now if they put fried dog turds on a stick, kids will pester and annoy their dimwitted parents for them. The food is irrelevant. The toy is irrelevant. Only the brand association matters.
That's what bugs me about the whole deal. McDonalds could easily be promoting healthier food, and they'd still have the same brainwashed zombies lining up for it.
-
I disagree with that. They went on a streak promoting their salads and apple filled happy meals like mad for a couple of years. I used to see commercials all the time promoting their new healthy initiative.
The fast food episode where Penn and Teller interviewed the ceo of carls jr made the situation pretty clear. "We have healthy food, but people don't buy it."
-
And is there statistical evidence that says kids buy more meals if they get a crappy toy? Maybe it was just me, but I never cared for the toys when I was that young.
The crappy toy is irrelevant. Kids like McDonalds because they think they're supposed to. They've spend billions of dollars crafting their brand and aiming it directly at kids, so now if they put fried dog turds on a stick, kids will pester and annoy their dimwitted parents for them. The food is irrelevant. The toy is irrelevant. Only the brand association matters.
That's what bugs me about the whole deal. McDonalds could easily be promoting healthier food, and they'd still have the same brainwashed zombies lining up for it.
Not in the slightest way is this correct. Kids are not brainwashed zombies. They actually have some capacity to process advertising, and that means they can and do reject things that they see. Secondly, McDonald's offers things that people like. If consumers would buy more salads and veggie burgers, you'd see that shit for sale everywhere.
-
Yeah, I really don't understand this "kids are being corrupted by all of this advertisement directed at them!" thing. Kids aren't retards, however much we may sometimes think otherwise. If they know bitching will get their parents to cave in after a little yelling then they'll do it. My dad taught me pretty early on what "no" means and he didn't have any problems with me throwing tantrums over not getting a game, troy, or food I wanted.
If you're the sort of parent that can't stand the knowledge that you did something that made your kid a little unhappy then, yeah, I could imagine why it might seem impossible for any human to go up against a shitty toy bundled with a burger and fries.
-
Studies have shown that kids are extremely influenced by advertising. They did a study a while back where they gave kids carrots, one branded with Disney characters or something and one in generic packaging. The kids said the branded ones tasted better despite being the exact same thing. To say that kids are smart enough to wade through the bullshit of ads is innaccurate. Heck, many adults are too dumb to realize that ads are full of bullshit.
As a parent, I believe that it is my responsibility to steer my child away from advertisements as much as possible. I wish more parents would do the same. It would make their lives a heck of a lot easier and cheaper in the long run. But it's easier right now to plop their kids in front of Sponge Bob rather than actually playing with them, so that's what most of them do.
-
As a parent, I believe that it is my responsibility to steer my child away from advertisements as much as possible. I wish more parents would do the same. It would make their lives a heck of a lot easier and cheaper in the long run. But it's easier right now to plop their kids in front of Sponge Bob rather than actually playing with them, so that's what most of them do.
That's what I was getting at, obviously advertisements work or so much money wouldn't be pumped into it (heck, I read about a similar experiment done towards adults. They held a wine tasting thing but switched the lables on the wine. Everyone said the cheap wine (labeled as the expensive wine) was far better than the fancy stuff). But if they know they can scream a bit and get whatever they want then they'll do it all the time. Once you give in that first time they're going to keep doing it.
-
Here's the study showing kid's preference for McDonalds. https://adage.com/article?article_id=119753
"They actually believe that the chicken nugget they think is from McDonald's tastes better than an identical, unbranded nugget."
It doesn't matter what you feed them, if it comes in a McDonalds wrapper it will automatically be better.
I'm actually stunned to here people suggest that kids aren't brainwashed zombies. I mean, damn.
-
Here's the study showing kid's preference for McDonalds. https://adage.com/article?article_id=119753
"They actually believe that the chicken nugget they think is from McDonald's tastes better than an identical, unbranded nugget."
It doesn't matter what you feed them, if it comes in a McDonalds wrapper it will automatically be better.
I'm actually stunned to here people suggest that kids aren't brainwashed zombies. I mean, damn.
This is actually true. My ex fiances daughter totally knew the difference. She loved....LOVED chicken nuggets from McD's, but when we bought our own she didn't want to eat them as much.
Half the time she wanted to go to McD's just for the hell of it, or to play there. Food or no food.
Luckily I had no problems saying no.
-
It basically always comes back to the parents needing to say no, obviously. But many of the parents can't say no to themselves much less their whining child.
The question is how far should a parent be able to go in damaging their child physically before it's the duty of their government to step in? The answer is easier when the parent is beating a child, but less easy when they're helping them to become obese and crippling their health potentially for life. Some local governments are stepping in with laws like this one (let's ignore for the moment whether this law will actually do anything).
The real problem I see with laws such as these are that they're preventing parents who are doing the right thing (using trips to McDonalds and getting a Happy Meal as an occasional special treat rather than a daily or weekly occurance) from being able to purchase what they want for their child. But the fact of the matter is, millions of parents in the US are damaging their children's health, likely for life, by allowing them to comsume unhealthy products in far too high of quantities. I know it's expremely difficult to know where to draw the line. I don't really know what the answer is.
I'd love to hear someone with more of a Libertarian slant than me discuss what they think is an acceptable level of government intervention in such cases.
-
I'm actually stunned to here people suggest that kids aren't brainwashed zombies. I mean, damn.
I'd say no more than anyone else.
-
And is there statistical evidence that says kids buy more meals if they get a crappy toy? Maybe it was just me, but I never cared for the toys when I was that young.
The crappy toy is irrelevant. Kids like McDonalds because they think they're supposed to. They've spend billions of dollars crafting their brand and aiming it directly at kids, so now if they put fried dog turds on a stick, kids will pester and annoy their dimwitted parents for them. The food is irrelevant. The toy is irrelevant. Only the brand association matters.
That's what bugs me about the whole deal. McDonalds could easily be promoting healthier food, and they'd still have the same brainwashed zombies lining up for it.
Damn, I hope the day never comes that McDonald's is promoting healthy food! Who the fuck goes to McDonald's for healthy food? I don't want fucking apple wedges from McDonalds, I want greasy fries! :metal I want a Big Mac that tastes awesome when I eat it and makes me ill an hour later.
As far as the toy goes, kids want that shitty toy up to a certain age, then it doesn't matter.
Its like when they used to put little shitty toys in cereal boxes.That was the reason you picked the cereal you did. You went for the best toy! You opened the cereal box as soon as you got home and stuck your arm completely into the box to get to bottom and pull out that treasure! :tick2:
-
Here's the study showing kid's preference for McDonalds. https://adage.com/article?article_id=119753
"They actually believe that the chicken nugget they think is from McDonald's tastes better than an identical, unbranded nugget."
It doesn't matter what you feed them, if it comes in a McDonalds wrapper it will automatically be better.
I'm actually stunned to here people suggest that kids aren't brainwashed zombies. I mean, damn.
What you are describing is not limited to children (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Wansink#Works). I have seen a number of studies like the one you linked to, and there is some deception to it. The advertising alone doesn't turn the children into zombies as would be suggested. Its the advertising, the food being good, prices being lowered so parents can afford it more often, and the fact that Mcdonalds has play places everywhere.
-
Here's the study showing kid's preference for McDonalds. https://adage.com/article?article_id=119753
"They actually believe that the chicken nugget they think is from McDonald's tastes better than an identical, unbranded nugget."
It doesn't matter what you feed them, if it comes in a McDonalds wrapper it will automatically be better.
I'm actually stunned to here people suggest that kids aren't brainwashed zombies. I mean, damn.
This is actually true. My ex fiances daughter totally knew the difference. She loved....LOVED chicken nuggets from McD's, but when we bought our own she didn't want to eat them as much.
Unfortunate because McDonald's has the worst chicken nuggets. Even as a kid I was smart enough to know that.
-
Here's the study showing kid's preference for McDonalds. https://adage.com/article?article_id=119753
"They actually believe that the chicken nugget they think is from McDonald's tastes better than an identical, unbranded nugget."
It doesn't matter what you feed them, if it comes in a McDonalds wrapper it will automatically be better.
I'm actually stunned to here people suggest that kids aren't brainwashed zombies. I mean, damn.
This is actually true. My ex fiances daughter totally knew the difference. She loved....LOVED chicken nuggets from McD's, but when we bought our own she didn't want to eat them as much.
Unfortunate because McDonald's has the worst chicken nuggets Mz. Lemon. Even as a kid I was smart enough to know that.
I wouldn't know, I've never had any chicken anything. And I refuse to go into a McDonalds.
-
You're a stronger man than I.
-
You're a stronger man than I Ms. Lemon.
Thanks, I guess I'm just good at saying no.
-
You can't give me one legitimate reason for allowing the local government to enact food or smoking restrictions.
Yes, I can. Because people who belong to the locality want them.
The only corporate interest I'm defending is the right to conduct business without dealing with shit head regulations.
I'm not sure what that means, because there's nothing wrong or even unreasonable with the regulations being proposed.
I'm pessimistic about central planning because I know people can manage their lives independently of the guiding hand of government.
It's not central planning.
And what about the costs you impose on a local business? Would the bans be pressing then? What if a bar had to close or layoff employees because smokers wouldn't patronize it anymore? These regulations do impose costs on the people they're aimed at, and that can hurt the local economy. This isn't just a rehash of the slippery slope.
That's silly. If anything, I'd say the ban on smoking was good for business. People like going to bars more when they're not going to have smoke blown in the faces. And everyone just goes outside to smoke. Again, this is a non-issue that only libertarians seem to get fired up about.
*snip*
Okay, that's it. You guys are just too much for me today. I thought libertarians were all about verbal reasoning, not using words like "shithead," "fucktard," "fucktastic," and so on at every chance to make strange arguments sound slightly more badass.
-
You haven't actually responded to anyones arguments.
How is the argument that there is no scientific research supporting the ban/legislation, and that the majority locality may not even agree with an elected officials view strange?
-
You haven't actually responded to anyones arguments.
Yes, I have. But, since you don't like what I've said, I'll convenience you by posting something you might have an easier time agreeing with:
"I can't believe people are so fucking stupid. First, the retards in office want to infringe on business by forcing fast-food restaurants to provide nannying "nutritional guidelines." Now, the same ass-wipes are trying to stop McDonalds from handing out toys. Well, isn't this just fucktastic. This is by far the gayest legislation I've seen yet. What bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit."
You can just read that statement from now on if you disagree with the other things I've said. Over, and over, and over again... :P
-
I just reread your posts in this thread and have not seen anything other than "I dislike libertarians/their arguments because ..." and "Local government has the right to do whatever its elected officials/citizens want".
-
Here's some references to back up my claims that kids aren't always soft-headed retards.
Older children are discriminating consumers of advertising who find many commercials entertaining, interesting, and socially relevant. By virtue of their growing sophistication, older children and adolescents find entertainment in analyzing the creativity strategy of many commercials and constructing theories for why certain elements are persuasive. Advertisements are also valued as a device for social interaction, serving as a focus of conversation with peers, a means of belonging and group membership, and a conduit for transferring and conveying meaning in their daily lives
- John, D. “Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty-five years of research.” Journal of Consumer Research Vol 26, pg. 183-213 (1999)
More times than not, it's trends among kids that influence advertising, not the other way around.
- Goldstein, J. “Children and Advertising: The Research, Advertising and Marketing to Children” London: Advertising Association. (1999) pg. 113
And this is pure poetry:
The love of a no risk society results increasingly in substituting scapegoats outside one’s own sphere of influence for self responsibility. Due to its universal presence, advertising is one of those scapegoats; also because-fitting the naïve theory of the effects of advertising- it is attributed to having a direct effect on behavior, it provides psychological relief from the strain of personal responsibility
-Bergler, R. “The effects of commercial advertising on children.” International Journal of advertising Vol. 18, pg. 411-425
-
I'd seriously question the veracity of those claims. Just by being around my little brother and his friends, I can tell
I just reread your posts in this thread and have not seen anything other than "I dislike libertarians/their arguments because ..." and "Local government has the right to do whatever its elected officials/citizens want".
...And? I gave my opinion, and the reasons why I hold it. I'm not sure what you what else you want from me ???
Here's some references to back up my claims that kids aren't always soft-headed retards.
Older children are discriminating consumers of advertising who find many commercials entertaining, interesting, and socially relevant. By virtue of their growing sophistication, older children and adolescents find entertainment in analyzing the creativity strategy of many commercials and constructing theories for why certain elements are persuasive. Advertisements are also valued as a device for social interaction, serving as a focus of conversation with peers, a means of belonging and group membership, and a conduit for transferring and conveying meaning in their daily lives
- John, D. “Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty-five years of research.” Journal of Consumer Research Vol 26, pg. 183-213 (1999)
More times than not, it's trends among kids that influence advertising, not the other way around.
- Goldstein, J. “Children and Advertising: The Research, Advertising and Marketing to Children” London: Advertising Association. (1999) pg. 113
And this is pure poetry:
The love of a no risk society results increasingly in substituting scapegoats outside one’s own sphere of influence for self responsibility. Due to its universal presence, advertising is one of those scapegoats; also because-fitting the naïve theory of the effects of advertising- it is attributed to having a direct effect on behavior, it provides psychological relief from the strain of personal responsibility
-Bergler, R. “The effects of commercial advertising on children.” International Journal of advertising Vol. 18, pg. 411-425
No one's saying kids are "soft-headed retards," but neither should theｙ be considered "responsible consumers." The information you posted is nice, but I don't see what is has to do with whether a community can tell McDonalds to buzz of or not; which they certainly can, and there's no legal reason that says otherwise.
Side note: This is the kinda attitude that's starting to bug me about PR now, too. Every argument on the politic side of things gets boiled down to some obscenity, I guess to sound cool. Kids are "retards," lawmakers are "fucktards," the president is a "dumbass," everyone else's argument is "bullshit." This is a PR forum, not a Tool concert. Dammit guys!
I mean, it was funny when just El Barto was posting that way. Now I feel like everyone's just trying to sound badass.
-
But I am bad ass, and in need of your approval. On a serious note, I am not suggesting that kids are independently responsible consumers. But they do have the ability to decipher the marketing that is aimed at them. That runs contrary to the assumption behind your argument, that we have to do this to protect parents and their children from overbearing advertising.
-
I'm not saying we have to "protect parents." I'm saying parents have a right to work together to keep things out of their communities. And, for what it's worth, stable societies everywhere suggest your implicit assertion that only markets can successfully determine community standards is unfounded.
-
...And? I gave my opinion, and the reasons why I hold it. I'm not sure what you what else you want from me
You got morally outraged at my use of profanity and called my argument strange. In order for this debate to be productive, it would help if you responded to my claim that local government should be required to cite factual evidence and logical reasoning when enacting new measures.
I'm not saying we have to "protect parents." I'm saying parents have a right to work together to keep things out of their communities. And, for what it's worth, stable societies everywhere suggest your implicit assertion that only markets can successfully determine community standards is unfounded.
Why do you keep calling this a parental response? This is a political response to the current media craze, lobbying, and a genuine but misguided attempt to prevent childhood obesity. It is not based on anything factual, and will only hurt Mcdonalds and other fast food companies that operate in the area.
Also, check this out:
https://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-09/us/california.fast.food.ban_1_meal-combinations-apple-dippers-yale-university-s-rudd-center?_s=PM:US
"As previously stated, we are extremely disappointed with this decision. It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for," said McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud.
Proud said public opinion is against such government intervention.
-
...And? I gave my opinion, and the reasons why I hold it. I'm not sure what you what else you want from me
You got morally outraged at my use of profanity and called my argument strange.
Not outraged. God forbid I lament the way the discourse in PR has devolved. It seems that libertarians really can't talk about ANYTHING with a hefty amount of hyperbole and blowing things out of proportion :lol
In order for this debate to be productive, it would help if you responded to my claim that local government should be required to cite factual evidence and logical reasoning when enacting new measures.
I already did. You already know where the evidence is, too. You just disagree with it, because you live in a bizarre world where saturated fats and sodium are good, and eating lots of beef is good for people who want to lose weight. No amount of evidence to the contrary seems to be able to change your mind, as displayed in previous threads.
As per the community point, a community shouldn't have to "justify banning“ the sale of ANYTHING that doesn't already meet nutritional guidelines to minors. For what it's worth, I like McDonald's and wouldn't want support any such measures aside from simply forcing them to have nutritional information available (which you are also against). But I see no real cause for alarm with this particular piece of legislation. Sucks for McDonalds, but again, I don't see the big deal with them having to actually make their food somewhat healthier if they're going to make it as savory as possible to children.
Actually, this thread's got me craving some serious McDonald's right now ;D
-
I'm not saying we have to "protect parents." I'm saying parents have a right to work together to keep things out of their communities. And, for what it's worth, stable societies everywhere suggest your implicit assertion that only markets can successfully determine community standards is unfounded.
That's irrelevant. The issue were discussing isn't one of destabilizing society. Again, it's a matter of respecting private property and the freedom of association. Society will still function peacefully with or without smoking bars. And I realize that people acting through their elected officials, or whatever sanctimonious way you describe it, can determine community standards. But that should be limited to issues that truly impact everybody; people shouldn't be allowed to vote on how others live their lives.
-
As usual I agree with the libertarians minus their illogical optimism.
Also minus NRs little speeches about how eating constant fat is the best diet possible.
-
NigeriusRex, if you use the word 'gay' one more time to describe something here I'm giving you a temporary vacation
-
NigeriusRex, if you use the word 'gay' one more time to describe something here I'm giving you a temporary vacation
Thank you, I actually appreciate that.
-
Also minus NRs little speeches about how eating constant fat is the best diet possible.
I would agree, but NR's probably lost 80 pounds over the last year eating mostly saturated fat.
-
Also minus NRs little speeches about how eating constant fat is the best diet possible.
I would agree, but NR's probably lost 80 pounds over the last year eating mostly saturated fat.
And other people have lost weight eating no saturated fat and mostly fruits and veges. And other people lose weight in other ways. It's odd to assume your diet is the only possible diet and that everything else is unhealthy to a large extent.
-
Skimming through this thread I managed to read:
>ad hominem attack
>no u
-
There should be other goals of a healthy diet than just losing weight. If you just want to lose weight, consume less calories than you expend.
-J
-
Also minus NRs little speeches about how eating constant fat is the best diet possible.
I would agree, but NR's probably lost 80 pounds over the last year eating mostly saturated fat.
And other people have lost weight eating no saturated fat and mostly fruits and veges. And other people lose weight in other ways. It's odd to assume your diet is the only possible diet and that everything else is unhealthy to a large extent.
Losing weight does not make what you are doing healthy as per Mark Haub and the convenience store/twinky diet.
I never said my diet was the only diet and we should legislate it. I specifically have always said that the government should not condemn saturated fat as the reason behind America becoming fatter over the past thirty years and should rewrite their nutritional guidelines to let people know that foods high in carbohydrates are much more detrimental to their health than foods high in saturated fat and sodium. On a personal level, after trying miserably to lose weight for years via the government and Jillian Micheals way, I found that a low carb diet is easy to maintain and actually makes me feel fantastic, keep my waist size slim, and keep my blood and organ health on the up and up. .
Aside from that, there has never been any study anywhere that legitimately proves a link between heart disease and saturated fat, or weight gain and saturated fat. On the other hand, more research is emerging that questions those presupposed links. All those threads I made about the 2010 dietary guidelines were justified (https://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/PIIS0899900710002893/fulltext) as an example.
The initial Dietary Goals for Americans (1977) proposed increases in carbohydrate intake and decreases in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and salt consumption that are carried further in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report. Important aspects of these recommendations remain unproven, yet a dietary shift in this direction has already taken place even as overweight/obesity and diabetes have increased. Although appealing to an evidence-based methodology, the DGAC Report demonstrates several critical weaknesses, including use of an incomplete body of relevant science; inaccurately representing, interpreting, or summarizing the literature; and drawing conclusions and/or making recommendations that do not reflect the limitations or controversies in the science
-
Skimming through this thread I managed to read:
>ad hominem attack
>no u
If that's what you saw, then you didn't read through the thread at all.
-
Also minus NRs little speeches about how eating constant fat is the best diet possible.
I would agree, but NR's probably lost 80 pounds over the last year eating mostly saturated fat.
And other people have lost weight eating no saturated fat and mostly fruits and veges. And other people lose weight in other ways. It's odd to assume your diet is the only possible diet and that everything else is unhealthy to a large extent.
Losing weight does not make what you are doing healthy as per Mark Haub and the convenience store/twinky diet.
I never said my diet was the only diet and we should legislate it. I specifically have always said that the government should not condemn saturated fat as the reason behind America becoming fatter over the past thirty years and should rewrite their nutritional guidelines to let people know that foods high in carbohydrates are much more detrimental to their health than foods high in saturated fat and sodium. On a personal level, after trying miserably to lose weight for years via the government and Jillian Micheals way, I found that a low carb diet is easy to maintain and actually makes me feel fantastic, keep my waist size slim, and keep my blood and organ health on the up and up. .
Aside from that, there has never been any study anywhere that legitimately proves a link between heart disease and saturated fat, or weight gain and saturated fat. On the other hand, more research is emerging that questions those presupposed links. All those threads I made about the 2010 dietary guidelines were justified (https://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/PIIS0899900710002893/fulltext) as an example.
The initial Dietary Goals for Americans (1977) proposed increases in carbohydrate intake and decreases in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and salt consumption that are carried further in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report. Important aspects of these recommendations remain unproven, yet a dietary shift in this direction has already taken place even as overweight/obesity and diabetes have increased. Although appealing to an evidence-based methodology, the DGAC Report demonstrates several critical weaknesses, including use of an incomplete body of relevant science; inaccurately representing, interpreting, or summarizing the literature; and drawing conclusions and/or making recommendations that do not reflect the limitations or controversies in the science
The problem with saying that Saturated Fat can be good is that, yes it can be, for SOME people. But as far as I can tell it's harmful overall, and cutting it down at the very least is a good thing
-
Skimming through this thread I managed to read:
>ad hominem attack
>no u
If that's what you saw, then you didn't read through the thread at all.
I said skimming but what I got out of what both sides were saying was "NO I'M RIGHT YOU SUCK" "NO U SUCK MORE LOLOLOL" except done more eloquently. Really for a moment I thought I was in the news board of a certain imageboard.
I'll have to re-read through it, but reading through it certainly made my eyes burn.
-
The big difference here is that people are saying each other's arguments--not eachother-- suck; a distinction which is unfortunately absent from most places on the internet where politics are discussed. This is not one of those places. No one here has any issues with each other on a personal level. Let's not start trying to make nothing into a big deal.
-
The big difference here is that people are saying each other's arguments--not eachother-- suck; a distinction which is unfortunately absent from most places on the internet where politics are discussed. This is not one of those places. No one here has any issues with each other on a personal level. Let's not start trying to make nothing into a big deal.
I dunno, I got a sense of hostility from the both of you towards each other from both of your posts, which lead to that indication.
-
Maybe in the past but now, not at all.
-
Maybe in the past but now, not at all.
I dunno, reading through this topic makes me rage and want to punch everyone in it.
-
I disagree with PC, but I don't dislike him. You cant disagree in text without sounding mad.
-
I disagree with PC, but I don't dislike him. You cant disagree in text without sounding mad.
Its not that, its that both of you seem to be working off of circular logic, so its impossible to figure out what side actually has a good point and which one doesn't and it makes me want to hurt everyone that has posted in this topic.
-
Seventh Son, just stop. There's no issue here, mmkay? ;D
I disagree with PC, but I don't dislike him. You cant disagree in text without sounding mad.
Yeah, this.
And, to be completely honest, I suppose at the end of the day I'd side with the libertarians on this issue. While I do think communities should have the right to keep certain businesses out (granted that this isn't racially motivated or anything) I think it's extremely reactive and harsh for the city of San Fransisco to ban something based on so little evidence. I'm not sure I'd say the same yet about those energy drinks in the other thread.
-
The big difference here is that people are saying each other's arguments--not eachother-- suck; a distinction which is unfortunately absent from most places on the internet where politics are discussed. This is not one of those places. No one here has any issues with each other on a personal level. Let's not start trying to make nothing into a big deal.
I agree. It's almost never the discussion participants who complain about ad hominem arguments. Very telling. Anyway, I had double cheeseburgers for dinner, and McDonald's should be allowed to market those little discs of deliciousness to me or anybody else they like. Whether we buy them or not is completely up to us.
-
Here in Hong Kong, I can actually just have them delivered to my room :P
-
Here in Hong Kong, I can actually just have them delivered to my room :P
We need to put a stop to that! Honestly, people don't know what they're doing when pick up a phone, order mcnuggets and then have them delivered.
-
UPDATE
https://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/happy_meal_ban_mcdonalds_outsm.php
I find this absolutely hilarious.
-
UPDATE
https://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/happy_meal_ban_mcdonalds_outsm.php (https://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/happy_meal_ban_mcdonalds_outsm.php)
I find this absolutely hilarious.
Hey, San Francisco:
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/pics/owned.jpg)
-
UPDATE
https://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/happy_meal_ban_mcdonalds_outsm.php
I find this absolutely hilarious.
Suck on that, San Francisco. Also, I just reread this thread and am even more convinced that these bans are garbage. There's a lot of nutrition research that's simply ignored when people tout these bans as a way to make kids healthier.
-
Look, I'm 47 and McDonalds was around when I was a kid. Children today aren't fat because McDonalds sells happy meals. Children today are fat because they sit on their asses playing video games instead of riding their bikes and playing in the park, etc.
-
*makes note to play in the park more than playing video games*
-
Look, I'm 47 and McDonalds was around when I was a kid. Children today aren't fat because McDonalds sells happy meals. Children today are fat because they sit on their asses playing video games instead of riding their bikes and playing in the park, etc.
And get driven everywhere because of their paranoid parents.
rumborak
-
Seriously. Childhood obesity is a fucking crock. It mostly comes from parents either feeding their kids unhealthy food all the time because they don't know how to cook, or can't afford fresh food. or the fact that kids don't go outside and play as much as they used to.
I mean, I was always outside playing with friends and playing multiple sports all the time. I got plenty of exercise growing up.
Childhood obesity is a problem that parents need to address on an individual basis. It is not for the government to decide. Don't take my McDonald's away because I'm nowhere near fat and I know enough to not eat McDonald's often.
-
Look, I'm 47 and McDonalds was around when I was a kid. Children today aren't fat because McDonalds sells happy meals. Children today are fat because they sit on their asses playing video games instead of riding their bikes and playing in the park, etc.
While agreeing with your general sentiment, I just feel like pointing out that McDonalds today is not the McDonalds of 30 years ago. THey didn't use to ammonia-wash their meat, for starters.
-
Look, I'm 47 and McDonalds was around when I was a kid. Children today aren't fat because McDonalds sells happy meals. Children today are fat because they sit on their asses playing video games instead of riding their bikes and playing in the park, etc.
While agreeing with your general sentiment, I just feel like pointing out that McDonalds today is not the McDonalds of 30 years ago. THey didn't use to ammonia-wash their meat, for starters.
How does that impact the weight of people who eat it? Seriously asking, not being a jerk.
-
Look, I'm 47 and McDonalds was around when I was a kid. Children today aren't fat because McDonalds sells happy meals. Children today are fat because they sit on their asses playing video games instead of riding their bikes and playing in the park, etc.
While agreeing with your general sentiment, I just feel like pointing out that McDonalds today is not the McDonalds of 30 years ago. THey didn't use to ammonia-wash their meat, for starters.
How does that impact the weight of people who eat it? Seriously asking, not being a jerk.
"while agreeing with your general sentiment"
It doesn't. There's more to health than weight, though.
-
Look, I'm 47 and McDonalds was around when I was a kid. Children today aren't fat because McDonalds sells happy meals. Children today are fat because they sit on their asses playing video games instead of riding their bikes and playing in the park, etc.
While agreeing with your general sentiment, I just feel like pointing out that McDonalds today is not the McDonalds of 30 years ago. THey didn't use to ammonia-wash their meat, for starters.
How does that impact the weight of people who eat it? Seriously asking, not being a jerk.
"while agreeing with your general sentiment"
It doesn't. There's more to health than weight, though.
Er, yeah, right, but that wasn't my point. My point was, there was plenty of fast food around when I was a kid. But childhood obesity wasn't an epidemic in the 60's and 70's and I believe that is largely due to the fact that children were much, much more active then than they are now.
There are many facets to this issue. A big part of the problem is the fact that most families cannot afford to live on a single salary, thus, both parents now work. This, I believe, exacerbates the whole childhood obesity problem because instead of kids coming home from school and going outside to play ball or ride their bikes, they often either go to some latch-key after-school program where they sit on their asses playing video games, then they come home and sit on their asses some more to play more video games. Same thing on weekends. X-Box, Nintendo, PlayStation, whatever. Kids don't play ball or ride bikes any more, they engage in simulated combat in front of a computer screen sitting on their ass. So when you combine that with a poor diet, you have fat kids.
That's obviously a gross oversimplification, but I think it summarizes some of the problem.
It's not the fault of McDonalds that kids are fat. It's a combination of poor or inadequate supervision from parents, which isn't always 100% the fault of the parents, who are often victims of their financial circumstances and don't have the same amount of free time to devote to parenting as my generation's parents did. It's a pretty vicious circle. You can lay some of the blame at the feet of parents, but not all of it.
-
Here's the study showing kid's preference for McDonalds. https://adage.com/article?article_id=119753
"They actually believe that the chicken nugget they think is from McDonald's tastes better than an identical, unbranded nugget."
It doesn't matter what you feed them, if it comes in a McDonalds wrapper it will automatically be better.
I'm actually stunned to here people suggest that kids aren't brainwashed zombies. I mean, damn.
When I was a kid, I would want my parents to buy me anything that I saw on Nickelodeon, I didn't care what it was.
-
Look, I'm 47 and McDonalds was around when I was a kid. Children today aren't fat because McDonalds sells happy meals. Children today are fat because they sit on their asses playing video games instead of riding their bikes and playing in the park, etc.
While agreeing with your general sentiment, I just feel like pointing out that McDonalds today is not the McDonalds of 30 years ago. THey didn't use to ammonia-wash their meat, for starters.
How does that impact the weight of people who eat it? Seriously asking, not being a jerk.
30 years ago McDonalds didn't have a breakfast sandwhich that contained almost 500 calories, 40% of your daily saturated fat, 50% of your daily sodium, and 80% of your daily cholesterol. That's just one example.
-
Look, I'm 47 and McDonalds was around when I was a kid. Children today aren't fat because McDonalds sells happy meals. Children today are fat because they sit on their asses playing video games instead of riding their bikes and playing in the park, etc.
While agreeing with your general sentiment, I just feel like pointing out that McDonalds today is not the McDonalds of 30 years ago. THey didn't use to ammonia-wash their meat, for starters.
How does that impact the weight of people who eat it? Seriously asking, not being a jerk.
30 years ago McDonalds didn't have a breakfast sandwhich that contained almost 500 calories, 40% of your daily saturated fat, 50% of your daily sodium, and 80% of your daily cholesterol. That's just one example.
But so what? That's their product. People can easily not purchase it. Easily. A little person responsibility saves a lot of money and time in stupid legislation.
-
Look, I'm 47 and McDonalds was around when I was a kid. Children today aren't fat because McDonalds sells happy meals. Children today are fat because they sit on their asses playing video games instead of riding their bikes and playing in the park, etc.
While agreeing with your general sentiment, I just feel like pointing out that McDonalds today is not the McDonalds of 30 years ago. THey didn't use to ammonia-wash their meat, for starters.
How does that impact the weight of people who eat it? Seriously asking, not being a jerk.
30 years ago McDonalds didn't have a breakfast sandwhich that contained almost 500 calories, 40% of your daily saturated fat, 50% of your daily sodium, and 80% of your daily cholesterol. That's just one example.
But so what? That's their product. People can easily not purchase it. Easily. A little person responsibility saves a lot of money and time in stupid legislation.
But people are not responsible....
-
Then fuck them. If they can't take care of their own personal health, then screw it. Next we ban ice cream and cookies. Right? What's the difference? Why do we need laws telling people how to eat healthy? That's ridiculous.
-
while I am definately opposed to gov't playing this type of role, I also understand the reality that health issues like smoking, unhealthy eating habits, drug addiction, etc ending up costing tax payers (increased insurance premiums, uninsured patients, disabilities, workers comp, etc).
-
Then fuck them. If they can't take care of their own personal health, then screw it. Next we ban ice cream and cookies. Right? What's the difference? Why do we need laws telling people how to eat healthy? That's ridiculous.
That's my attitude as well... toward adults. It's not fair that a kid can be screwed for life because the parents neglected his/her health for their first 15 years.
-
How is the kid being screwed? It is up to the parents not to take their kid do McDonald's every day. The parent needs to do the damn parenting. Not the US gov.
-
How is the kid being screwed? It is up to the parents not to take their kid do McDonald's every day.
...and if the parent does take their kid to McDonald's every day, the kid is screwed. I'm not saying that's justification for these kind of laws, but it's kind of hard to deny that the parent's harming the kid in some form.
-
Then fuck them. If they can't take care of their own personal health, then screw it. Next we ban ice cream and cookies. Right? What's the difference? Why do we need laws telling people how to eat healthy? That's ridiculous.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And sorry, Scheavo. I didn't pay attention to your first comment.
-
How is the kid being screwed? It is up to the parents not to take their kid do McDonald's every day.
...and if the parent does take their kid to McDonald's every day, the kid is screwed. I'm not saying that's justification for these kind of laws, but it's kind of hard to deny that the parent's harming the kid in some form.
But what the hell does that have to do with laws and government? These are all personal things in personal life. It has nothing to do with the public. Seriously. The whole idea of banning fatty foods is so roundabout and arbitrary. If you ban McDonalds you might as well ban every candy out there, all frozen dinners, butter, cheese etc etc.
The government is not supposed to make up for bad parenting.
-
Look, I'm 47 and McDonalds was around when I was a kid. Children today aren't fat because McDonalds sells happy meals. Children today are fat because they sit on their asses playing video games instead of riding their bikes and playing in the park, etc.
While agreeing with your general sentiment, I just feel like pointing out that McDonalds today is not the McDonalds of 30 years ago. THey didn't use to ammonia-wash their meat, for starters.
How does that impact the weight of people who eat it? Seriously asking, not being a jerk.
"while agreeing with your general sentiment"
It doesn't. There's more to health than weight, though.
Er, yeah, right, but that wasn't my point.
[/font][/size]
WHILE AGREEING WITH YOUR GENERAL SENTIMENT. What I added is an... addition... not a rebuttal.
-
How is the kid being screwed? It is up to the parents not to take their kid do McDonald's every day.
...and if the parent does take their kid to McDonald's every day, the kid is screwed. I'm not saying that's justification for these kind of laws, but it's kind of hard to deny that the parent's harming the kid in some form.
But what the hell does that have to do with laws and government? These are all personal things in personal life. It has nothing to do with the public. Seriously. The whole idea of banning fatty foods is so roundabout and arbitrary. If you ban McDonalds you might as well ban every candy out there, all frozen dinners, butter, cheese etc etc.
The government is not supposed to make up for bad parenting.
So no government intervention of any kind if:
- Children are left unattended in a household for days at a time with no supervision
- Children are supplied drugs or alcohol by adults
- Children are physically abused by their parents
- Children are left to live in filth and squalor
- etc
- etc
The government can, should and does intervene in the lives of children under some circumstances. That's one of the purposes of a government, to protect its citizens, particularly those that cannot protect themselves.
Do I agree with banning happy meals? No, I don't. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. There are plenty of perfectly valid circumstances under which government intervention in the lives of children is absolutely appropriate.
-
What? Physically abused? You know, libertarians aren't against laws that prohibit assault or sexual misconduct.
-
What? Physically abused? You know, libertarians aren't against laws that prohibit assault or sexual misconduct.
He wrote that the government is "not supposed to make up for bad parenting" and it's my contention that "making up for bad parenting" is precisely one of the things the government SHOULD most definitely be doing. I just don't like this sort of "all or nothing" approach sometimes used in these online discussions.
Sure, we have to have balance and parents have to be free to raise their children as they see fit, but there are plenty of cases where government intervention is beneficial. You mentioned Physical Abuse and Sexual Misconduct. Those would be two examples where the government CAN and SHOULD "make up for bad parenting"
-
Big fucking difference between a simple bad parent, and an abusive parent. It's like no one here can think in any terms other than black and white sometimes, I swear.
Like I said, if this law bans happy meals, might as well ban candy, ice cream, soda, whatever. The government shouldn't be telling me what I can consume (within reason obviously. I'm obviously not going to say its ok to give your kids hard drugs).
-
Never mind, I'm clearly way too stupid to engage someone of your vastly superior intellect in this discussion. :|
-
Never mind, I'm clearly way too stupid to engage someone of your vastly superior intellect in this discussion. :|
lol I'm sorry man. I didn't mean to sound so confrontational. It's just, reason must be applied to these debates. There are always exceptions to every rule.
-
Yeah, of course. And I don't see anyone on this forum disagreeing with that. That's not a law concerning specifically bad parenting or limiting the choices of consumers in the market, that's a law prohibiting the violation of the rights of other individuals - which is precisely the purpose of law.
-
Big fucking difference between a simple bad parent, and an abusive parent. It's like no one here can think in any terms other than black and white sometimes, I swear.
From a different angle... an abusive or sexually assualting parent can have negative effects of a child mentally and at times be painful. A bad parent letting their child get to 150 pounds by the second grade is putting their life in danger. In my mind that can be just as bad, if not worse than certain abuse cases. I am not saying ban happy meals, kids should be allowed to enjoy food now and then. You can't tell me there aren't parents out there who feed their kids McDonalds every day, and on some days more than once. There is no reason why McDonalds couldn't make the kids selection healty.
Like I said, if this law bans happy meals, might as well ban candy, ice cream, soda, whatever. The government shouldn't be telling me what I can consume (within reason obviously. I'm obviously not going to say its ok to give your kids hard drugs).
This isn't about being told what you can consume. It's about giving kids a fair chance at life who's parents are negleting their health.
-
And again. It is not the governments place to come in and tell Mcdonalds what and what not to sell as far as their menu goes. Parents that let their kid get to 150 pounds by feeding them crap are bad parents. It's not McDonalds fault. It literally has nothing to do with McDonalds because its so easily avoided its absurd. Parent just needs to say, ok I'm not taking you to McDonald's. Boom McDonalds problem solved without regulations.
The smart good parents will have their kids benefit, the bad parents will just go on doing what they do and their kids will suffer for it until they can make the decision themselves not to eat it every day. This is where nutritional studies in school come in, so kids are aware.
-
And again. It is not the governments place to come in and tell Mcdonalds what and what not to sell as far as their menu goes. Parents that let their kid get to 150 pounds by feeding them crap are bad parents.
Should we be able to take those kids away from those bad parents, under the same logic as to why we take abusive kids away from abusive parents? I think that's another thread on this forum though, so perhaps this should go there.
-
If it is actually abuse then yes. Say, a parent forcing their kid to eat Mcdonalds every day for all meals. Sure, maybe because that would be really unhealthy for anyone, especially a child. But, a child going maybe once a day, I'm not too sure.
The real question, can you just take kids away from parents for just being a lousy parent? I'd say no. It would have to be some kind of abuse.
-
I'd say that it's more a social responsibility of their neighbors, doctors, family and friends to teach them a lesson on raising their kids. I'm not saying that that would fix all problems, but the major responsibility should be there.
-
Never mind, I'm clearly way too stupid to engage someone of your vastly superior intellect in this discussion. :|
lol I'm sorry man. I didn't mean to sound so confrontational. It's just, reason must be applied to these debates. There are always exceptions to every rule.
I know that! And I've tried very hard to be even-handed here. If you read my posts, you'll see that, I think. Alright, it's all good. Kudos to you for apologizing, I probably overreacted anyway. :)
-
If it is actually abuse then yes. Say, a parent forcing their kid to eat Mcdonalds every day for all meals. Sure, maybe because that would be really unhealthy for anyone, especially a child. But, a child going maybe once a day, I'm not too sure.
The real question, can you just take kids away from parents for just being a lousy parent? I'd say no. It would have to be some kind of abuse.
No, you can't take them away for just being idiots, otherwise, most of my nieces and nephews would have their kids removed by the state, but with that said, there should be some standards, shouldn't there?
Like I mentioned above, before I flipped out, sometimes, the state can intervene and it really does affect a positive change in the life of an innocent child.
-
Yes but typically the state won't intervene on something that would ruin it for other people and intervene on crimes. Like, say they banned McDonalds in a state outright, or restricted their menu because kids were getting fat. That'd be ridiculous. Because it would be ruining McDonalds for people who like what they offer. Not everyone is irresponsible about it, just the irresponsible ones. We don't need lame blanket laws for a few idiot people. I mean to say McDonalds is a threat to the public is totally wrong.
The only threat to those kids are bad parenting and lack of exorcise. Any normal healthy kid can go eat mcdonalds twice a week and be totally fine.
There is just absolutely no need for government to intervene in McDonalds business practices.
-
There is just absolutely no need for government to intervene in McDonalds business practices.
Here we agree. In fact, I've always agreed that the happy meal ban was ill-conceived.