Get Real Real wrote:
Ever ridden in a car with a friend's brainwashed child that screams and cries like a banshee because you won't stop and buy the brat the meal with the toy?
It is horribly manipulative advertising.
And who is responsible for whether kids are exposed to said advertising? Their parents.
1) Our kids are fatter than ever (as is everyone else...looking at you middle America)
2) Fast food is terrible for you
3) Marketing food to kids is a great way to get them habitually consuming the product
4) Libertarian arguments aside, hard to see why this isn't a good thing
namegoeshere wrote:
1) Our kids are fatter than ever (as is everyone else...looking at you middle America)
2) Fast food is terrible for you
3) Marketing food to kids is a great way to get them habitually consuming the product
4) Libertarian arguments aside, hard to see why this isn't a good thing
I like how you summarily dismiss Libertarian arguments. What foods do you want banned to make us healthier? Are there any freedoms you are not willing to give up?
namegoeshere wrote:
1) Our kids are fatter than ever (as is everyone else...looking at you middle America)
2) Fast food is terrible for you
3) Marketing food to kids is a great way to get them habitually consuming the product
4) Libertarian arguments aside, hard to see why this isn't a good thing
Except that it really doesn't accomplish anything. It's all postulating. As Mr. Obvious has already stated, they are simply going to charge $0.50 for the toy. If a parent is bringing their child to McDonalds because the child wants a toy and the parent is unable to say 'no', $0.50 isn't much of a barrier. In fact, if the toy can now be bought separately, I'd assume some kids will end up getting an adult value meal (Big Mac, Quarter Pounder, etc), with said $0.50 toy, leading to kids ingesting more calories.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
namegoeshere wrote:1) Our kids are fatter than ever (as is everyone else...looking at you middle America)
2) Fast food is terrible for you
3) Marketing food to kids is a great way to get them habitually consuming the product
4) Libertarian arguments aside, hard to see why this isn't a good thing
I like how you summarily dismiss Libertarian arguments. What foods do you want banned to make us healthier? Are there any freedoms you are not willing to give up?
Haha freedoms buddy? Is this going against your legal right to be fat? Are you one of those people who wants to promote NAAFA (National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance)? Why don't you also start some fat pride parades and claim that being fat is a "healthy alternative life-style." Oh is there medical research that fat people are more likely to get sick and die because of their behavior than those who aren't? Nah we can just ignore all that, it's a healthy lifestyle.
Go create some diabetic-obese-heart failure alliance in your high school and demand that all healthy food in your school and in local grocery stores be banned and replaced with more fried stuff. Definitely don't want to infringe on your rights!
The Waterboy wrote:
Haha freedoms buddy? Is this going against your legal right to be fat? Are you one of those people who wants to promote NAAFA (National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance)? Why don't you also start some fat pride parades and claim that being fat is a "healthy alternative life-style." Oh is there medical research that fat people are more likely to get sick and die because of their behavior than those who aren't? Nah we can just ignore all that, it's a healthy lifestyle.
Go create some diabetic-obese-heart failure alliance in your high school and demand that all healthy food in your school and in local grocery stores be banned and replaced with more fried stuff. Definitely don't want to infringe on your rights!
Well you have the right to be a dumbass and obviously no one is infringing on that.
I kinda like the idea. kids can still eat greasy fattening food, just no toy with it. if they put toys with the yogurt parfaits or Junior Smoothies or came up with a reduced fat chicken nugget, I bet a lot of kids would want those meals.
it would leave kids with the option of the instant gratification yummy food or the healthier food that comes with something lasting (a toy).
just my thoughts.
My daughter turned 7 today and we went to McDonalds for a Happy Meal.
This thread inspired me.
We're good for a while.
The Waterboy wrote:
Haha freedoms buddy? Is this going against your legal right to be fat? Are you one of those people who wants to promote NAAFA (National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance)? Why don't you also start some fat pride parades and claim that being fat is a "healthy alternative life-style." Oh is there medical research that fat people are more likely to get sick and die because of their behavior than those who aren't? Nah we can just ignore all that, it's a healthy lifestyle.
Go create some diabetic-obese-heart failure alliance in your high school and demand that all healthy food in your school and in local grocery stores be banned and replaced with more fried stuff. Definitely don't want to infringe on your rights!
Nope, I guess you haven't read the whole thread. I haven't eaten at McDonald's (or its kin) since 1997 and have no interest at all in doing so.
I guess you want to government to tell you what is okay to eat. Can they also tell you what is okay to watch? What is okay to wear? What is okay to think?
Independent thinker wrote:
Except that it really doesn't accomplish anything. It's all postulating. As Mr. Obvious has already stated, they are simply going to charge $0.50 for the toy. If a parent is bringing their child to McDonalds because the child wants a toy and the parent is unable to say 'no', $0.50 isn't much of a barrier. In fact, if the toy can now be bought separately, I'd assume some kids will end up getting an adult value meal (Big Mac, Quarter Pounder, etc), with said $0.50 toy, leading to kids ingesting more calories.
What McDonald's really ought to do is offer a $0.50 discount if the customer chooses to buy a Happy Meal along with the toy. That way the Happy Meal would be an incentive to buy the toy, instead of the other way around. Is there anything in the law that prohibits that?
That article made me want McDonald's.
mmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
That article made me want McDonald's.
Even if you don't get a toy with it?
"Well reasoned arguments by marginalized people I don't like aside, hard to see why this isn't a good thing."
Mr. Obvious wrote:
The Waterboy wrote:Haha freedoms buddy? Is this going against your legal right to be fat? Are you one of those people who wants to promote NAAFA (National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance)? Why don't you also start some fat pride parades and claim that being fat is a "healthy alternative life-style." Oh is there medical research that fat people are more likely to get sick and die because of their behavior than those who aren't? Nah we can just ignore all that, it's a healthy lifestyle.
Go create some diabetic-obese-heart failure alliance in your high school and demand that all healthy food in your school and in local grocery stores be banned and replaced with more fried stuff. Definitely don't want to infringe on your rights!
Nope, I guess you haven't read the whole thread. I haven't eaten at McDonald's (or its kin) since 1997 and have no interest at all in doing so.
I guess you want to government to tell you what is okay to eat. Can they also tell you what is okay to watch? What is okay to wear? What is okay to think?
I did read the thread and it makes no difference if you have eaten it or not. You are apathetic: you decide that you won't live like that both don't disagree with or even care about people that do. You think it's their choice and it's their life so whatever they want is cool.
And yea, I wouldn't mind government having more regulation. I AM NOT SAYING that parents don't have a role at all, I am just saying that it would help. Ideally, both parents and government would be able to coordinate. But anyone would be a fool thinking that government deciding what food to eat wouldn't cut down on obesity, or porn being illegal wouldn't cut down on the amount of rape, or violent movies/music wouldn't cut down on people committing horrendous violent acts. Yes, parents do need to be involved with their kids but they need help. Today's parents have a much HARDER job to teach kids because of the new outside influences that didn't exist before, so therefore their jobs shouldn't be the same. It is easier for them to teach their kids to be healthy when only healthy food is available as opposed to unhealthy food being available, so therefore yes, government should say what foods you can't eat.
I meant to say "but* don't disagree," not "both"
The Waterboy wrote:
And yea, I wouldn't mind government having more regulation. I AM NOT SAYING that parents don't have a role at all, I am just saying that it would help. Ideally, both parents and government would be able to coordinate. But anyone would be a fool thinking that government deciding what food to eat wouldn't cut down on obesity, or porn being illegal wouldn't cut down on the amount of rape, or violent movies/music wouldn't cut down on people committing horrendous violent acts. Yes, parents do need to be involved with their kids but they need help. Today's parents have a much HARDER job to teach kids because of the new outside influences that didn't exist before, so therefore their jobs shouldn't be the same. It is easier for them to teach their kids to be healthy when only healthy food is available as opposed to unhealthy food being available, so therefore yes, government should say what foods you can't eat.
Many people who run over 50 miles a week end up having knee problem. These knee problems can lead to surgery, which puts an unnecessary strain on the healthcare system. I proposed that no person should be allowed to run over 50 miles per week from now on, under punishment of law. Anyone would be a fool thinking that government deciding that high mileage were illegal wouldn't cut down on knee problems.
Ahem wrote:
The Waterboy wrote:And yea, I wouldn't mind government having more regulation. I AM NOT SAYING that parents don't have a role at all, I am just saying that it would help. Ideally, both parents and government would be able to coordinate. But anyone would be a fool thinking that government deciding what food to eat wouldn't cut down on obesity, or porn being illegal wouldn't cut down on the amount of rape, or violent movies/music wouldn't cut down on people committing horrendous violent acts. Yes, parents do need to be involved with their kids but they need help. Today's parents have a much HARDER job to teach kids because of the new outside influences that didn't exist before, so therefore their jobs shouldn't be the same. It is easier for them to teach their kids to be healthy when only healthy food is available as opposed to unhealthy food being available, so therefore yes, government should say what foods you can't eat.
Many people who run over 50 miles a week end up having knee problem. These knee problems can lead to surgery, which puts an unnecessary strain on the healthcare system. I proposed that no person should be allowed to run over 50 miles per week from now on, under punishment of law. Anyone would be a fool thinking that government deciding that high mileage were illegal wouldn't cut down on knee problems.
Are you retarded? Running while overweight causes knee problems, not just running over 50 miles. You just made up some retarded fact you can't back up. Most knee injuries come from people running too much when overweight because their muscles can't take that stress. How convenient that this thread is talking about being overweight. Again, it would make sense to place food on regulation so people running aren't overweight and don't get knee injuries. So nice try to mock my post and nice try to make an argument: both attempts were horrible.
The Waterboy wrote:
Are you retarded? Running while overweight causes knee problems, not just running over 50 miles. You just made up some retarded fact you can't back up. Most knee injuries come from people running too much when overweight because their muscles can't take that stress. How convenient that this thread is talking about being overweight. Again, it would make sense to place food on regulation so people running aren't overweight and don't get knee injuries. So nice try to mock my post and nice try to make an argument: both attempts were horrible.
I appreciate the ad hominem attacks, it really proves your point. My analogy was far from horrible. You gave several examples where government intrusion that would provide "some" benefit, thus validating it. You seemed to ignore the trade off. For my example, while some knee surgeries are because the runner is overweight, I personally know three guys who had to have knee surgery because of running, and they were in great shape. Had they never started running competitively, they would have never had these surgeries. By your logic, this alone would make it worth outlawing.
First, I'm a liberal.
The only way that I think it is ok to have socialized healthcare is if there are mandates for food and exercise. If you follow the healthy-living mandates, exercising regularly (for those without serious illness) and eating healthy, then you can be covered. If you smoke, don't workout and eat fried food everyday, you aren't covered.
ehhhhhhhh wrote:
First, I'm a liberal.
The only way that I think it is ok to have socialized healthcare is if there are mandates for food and exercise. If you follow the healthy-living mandates, exercising regularly (for those without serious illness) and eating healthy, then you can be covered. If you smoke, don't workout and eat fried food everyday, you aren't covered.
How would you monitor these things?
Could I be covered? I workout, eat right, and don't smoke. However, I skydive and ride motorcycles. I've never had an accident in either one. The proble is that if I do have an accident it is likely to be an expensive one.