San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.

[Seventh Son]

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.

[Perpetual Change]

Maybe in the past but now, not at all.

[Seventh Son]

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.

[Nigerius Rex]

I disagree with PC, but I don't dislike him. You cant disagree in text without sounding mad.

[Seventh Son]

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.

[Perpetual Change]

Seventh Son, just stop. There's no issue here, mmkay? 

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.

[William Wallace]

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.

[Perpetual Change]

Here in Hong Kong, I can actually just have them delivered to my room 

[William Wallace]

Here in Hong Kong, I can actually just have them delivered to my room 

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.

[Fiery Winds]

UPDATE

https://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/happy_meal_ban_mcdonalds_outsm.php

I find this absolutely hilarious. 

[kirksnosehair]

UPDATE

https://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/happy_meal_ban_mcdonalds_outsm.php

I find this absolutely hilarious.

Hey, San Francisco:

[William Wallace]

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.

[kirksnosehair]

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. 

[bosk1]

*makes note to play in the park more than playing video games*

[rumborak]

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

[7StringedBeast]

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.

[Scheavo]

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.

[William Wallace]

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.

[Scheavo]

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.

[kirksnosehair]

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.

[Chino]

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.

[Chino]

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.

[7StringedBeast]

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.

[Chino]

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....

[7StringedBeast]

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. 

[yeshaberto]

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). 

[Chino]

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.

[7StringedBeast]

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.

[Sigz]

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.

[William Wallace]

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.

[7StringedBeast]

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.

[Scheavo]

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.

[kirksnosehair]

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.

[jsem]

What? Physically abused? You know, libertarians aren't against laws that prohibit assault or sexual misconduct.

[kirksnosehair]

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"