San Francisco bans Happy Meals

so, let me get this straight, this proposal will eliminate obesity among children in San Fransico? Does anyone know what one of the biggest culprits is in childhood obesity? Anyone? Soda. Kids have access to sugary sodas everywhere. Coke and Pepsi have made deals with school districts all over the nation to kick back a percentage of their profits for the priviledge of selling sodas in our schools. The AMA said they should be called liquid candy. If you really want to stop the scourge of childhood obesity, ban sodas. Ban any drink that adds sugar. I mean if you really want to kick the nanny state in to overdrive, ban that. Ban candy bars, another treat kids can buy at their schools because the school district has made a deal with the devil for money. McDonalds was an easy target here. Everyone knows that too much McDonalds will make you fat. But in San Fransico, they don't trust parents to make the right decisions. Matter of fact, they don't trust their citizens at all. They want a controled state, where every decision you can make has already been cleared by the central authority. The funny thing is, lefties, who will tell you that the government should stay out of the prohibition on drugs and alcohol (and they are right I might add) will in the same pungent lung full of halitosis tell you that the government knows better when it comes to prohibiting food.
 
I hope someone else in your family is teaching the kids to read and write.

A socialist would be someone who wants to pass their costs onto others. Childhood obesity and obesity in general does that. It cost EVERYONE more money in insurance premiums. It costs employers in lost work days. Children treated for obesity are roughly three times more expensive for the health care system than children of normal weight.

So you really don't have a problem with socialism.
Has nothing to do with the fact that San Fran has socialized medicine. This is the thing you don't seem to understand. They give you things you THINK you want so they can then start to control all aspects of your life. Our government passed the Patriot Act because they knew we all wanted to feel safer, then they used the safety issue to tap our phones, read our emails, etc, and still used "safety" as their buzzword, all the while erroding the privacy in our lives. You on the left are the same as the ones on the right. Nannyism to protect me from obesity, smoke, gay marriage, drugs, you name it. I don't want to live in a world where EVERYTHING is controlled.

"REPENT HARLEQUIN!" said the Ticktock Man.
 
That's an excellent point. They probably should. Ronald McDonald has probably resulted in the deaths of more people then Joe Camel did. Considering what we know now about the dangers of these products, products which if used as intended that have the same kind of long term health consequences as tobacco and alcohol, maybe they should consider doing that. That and they should be forced to disclose the dangers and risk of consuming their products on a habitual basis.
Ok, and the bright happy colors? The use of popular and/or happy music in advertisement? Should those go as well?

The smiling king from Burger King
Wendy from Wendys
All celebrity endorsements

Should all those go as well?
 
What's baffling to me is how this line of thinking is even considered mainstream. Up until the last 100 years or so, the human race as we know it was concerned with eating anything at all. In fact that's still true in a lot of the world. And as humans, we have a BIOLOGICAL URGE TO CONSUME FAT. Our brains are 60% fat, so it's small wonder why we love it and are driven to consume a lot of it. We have not evolved beyond the need/desire for it.
 
What floors me is Mott has decided that Child Obesity is the fault of McDonalds that just offers their food for sale, but the parents seem, in his argument to be totally blameless. Their little shit kids scream "HAPPY MEAL!" and they have no choice but to go get one. I have not one, but TWO four year olds, a 7 year old, a 10 year old and a 12 year old. They get McDonalds once or twice a month at the most. Matter of fact, for the month of October there was no purchases made at the golden arches at all. In September, the blonde 4 year old had to have a throat culture done and so his bravery was rewarded with a happy meal. The only such purchace at all in September. Now, my question is, with all of these kids around, how is it that I manage to avoid caving to their McDonalds requests, which come at least weekly. Oh that's right! I am the adult here. I don't have to cave to their desires. I can say "nope". Perhaps I should go on the road and teach other parents how to say "nope" as well. I mean, if it as hard as aBcdefgn says it is I could probably make a fortune teaching the seminar. Hmmmmm, I wonder if McDonalds would cater the thing?
 
What floors me is Mott has decided that Child Obesity is the fault of McDonalds that just offers their food for sale, but the parents seem, in his argument to be totally blameless. Their little shit kids scream "HAPPY MEAL!" and they have no choice but to go get one. I have not one, but TWO four year olds, a 7 year old, a 10 year old and a 12 year old. They get McDonalds once or twice a month at the most. Matter of fact, for the month of October there was no purchases made at the golden arches at all. In September, the blonde 4 year old had to have a throat culture done and so his bravery was rewarded with a happy meal. The only such purchace at all in September. Now, my question is, with all of these kids around, how is it that I manage to avoid caving to their McDonalds requests, which come at least weekly. Oh that's right! I am the adult here. I don't have to cave to their desires. I can say "nope". Perhaps I should go on the road and teach other parents how to say "nope" as well. I mean, if it as hard as aBcdefgn says it is I could probably make a fortune teaching the seminar. Hmmmmm, I wonder if McDonalds would cater the thing?

It seems 'reasonable' to me an easy way to eliminate little shit kids screaming "HAPPY MEAL!" is to remove the HOOK. Little shit kids do not have the cognitive skills to realize it is a hook.
 
It seems 'reasonable' to me an easy way to eliminate little shit kids screaming "HAPPY MEAL!" is to remove the HOOK. Little shit kids do not have the cognitive skills to realize it is a hook.

Kids (and adults) like McDonald's because it tastes good. Removing that toy isn't going to change that. If the toy was the only issue we would never see kids at places like Burger King, Wendy's, Carl's Jr. etc. that don't offer happy meals with toys.

You can eliminate kids screaming Happy Meals by their parents not taking them there (well they still may scream they want to go but not for long if they know it won't work).
 
It seems 'reasonable' to me an easy way to eliminate little shit kids screaming "HAPPY MEAL!" is to remove the HOOK. Little shit kids do not have the cognitive skills to realize it is a hook.
And that they love the taste of the food as well is because they're too stupid to realize it's an inherent biological craving?
 
It seems 'reasonable' to me an easy way to eliminate little shit kids screaming "HAPPY MEAL!" is to remove the HOOK. Little shit kids do not have the cognitive skills to realize it is a hook.
Bullshit! This is left wing do gooderism. I was born in 1965. For all of my childhood there was no such thing as a happy meal. I still loved me some McDonalds hamburgers. They were way better than mom's burger (McDonalds ain't got no egg). I didn't need a toy to make me LOVE the hamburgers at McDonalds. I used to want to go there all the time. But lo, my father was a strict and stern man and so McDonalds was only for the rarest occassions. I would scream "McDonalds!" at the top of my little parasitic kid lungs to no avail. You blaming the toy for kids wanting to eat McDonalds all the time is like blaming the candles for kids wanting to eat cake all the time. If we just took off those damn candles kids would never want eat some chocolate cake.
 
Bullshit! This is left wing do gooderism. I was born in 1965. For all of my childhood there was no such thing as a happy meal. I still loved me some McDonalds hamburgers. They were way better than mom's burger (McDonalds ain't got no egg). I didn't need a toy to make me LOVE the hamburgers at McDonalds. I used to want to go there all the time. But lo, my father was a strict and stern man and so McDonalds was only for the rarest occassions. I would scream "McDonalds!" at the top of my little parasitic kid lungs to no avail. You blaming the toy for kids wanting to eat McDonalds all the time is like blaming the candles for kids wanting to eat cake all the time. If we just took off those damn candles kids would never want eat some chocolate cake.
You're certainly living up to your name sake. Trying to POISON CHILDREN!
 
Bullshit! This is left wing do gooderism. I was born in 1965. For all of my childhood there was no such thing as a happy meal. I still loved me some McDonalds hamburgers. They were way better than mom's burger (McDonalds ain't got no egg). I didn't need a toy to make me LOVE the hamburgers at McDonalds. I used to want to go there all the time. But lo, my father was a strict and stern man and so McDonalds was only for the rarest occassions. I would scream "McDonalds!" at the top of my little parasitic kid lungs to no avail. You blaming the toy for kids wanting to eat McDonalds all the time is like blaming the candles for kids wanting to eat cake all the time. If we just took off those damn candles kids would never want eat some chocolate cake.

Listen, removing the HOOK used to entice kids to choose a road to 'Frumpy Meal' is not going to solve childhood obesity, but it's not going to compromise and corrupt capitalism either. Maybe a smart McDonalds exec will see an opportunity to entice parents to drive their kids there by placing a toy in a meal that is filled with healthy and nutritious food in a biodegradable box.

But there is one tenet of a true free market that is being ignored here. You can't get rich by making other people poor. Those kids walk away with poorer health, and a future filled with heath issues, peer ridicule, lower self esteem and very expensive medical bills. That is not my definition of a 'happy' meal.
 
Notice how Bfgrn completely avoids discussing how people want to eat the meals regardless of the toy.

That has been my point from the beginning. If the MEAL is so desirable, then let's apply the conservative litmus test...'personal responsibility' the MEAL must be personally responsible to entice consumption. The 'toy' is a form of subsidy, which is welfare.


It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus
 
Bullshit. There's no difference between a happy meal toy and Joe Camel. Preserving public health and regulationg the limits by which corporations can market harmful products is a legitimate function of our government and always has been.

But they are not stopping advertising aimed at the buyer. They are trying to regulate nonsense.

The number of children made obese by McDonald's toys in 0. The toy is an extra gimmick they throw in, but of little or no consequence. This legislation is designed to bypass the parent's responsibility and is just a "feel good" piece of regulatory power grabbing.
 
Listen, removing the HOOK used to entice kids to choose a road to 'Frumpy Meal' is not going to solve childhood obesity, but it's not going to compromise and corrupt capitalism either. Maybe a smart McDonalds exec will see an opportunity to entice parents to drive their kids there by placing a toy in a meal that is filled with healthy and nutritious food in a biodegradable box.

But there is one tenet of a true free market that is being ignored here. You can't get rich by making other people poor. Those kids walk away with poorer health, and a future filled with heath issues, peer ridicule, lower self esteem and very expensive medical bills. That is not my definition of a 'happy' meal.

Kids don't buy Happy Meals parents do. Parents who buy Happy Meals to such an excess as to cause obesity will not stop doing so because there is no toy. Obese children are obese because they have parents who don't take responsibility for their childrens health...period! This is a stupid legislative power grab that makes pinheaded politicians "feel good".
 
Listen, removing the HOOK used to entice kids to choose a road to 'Frumpy Meal' is not going to solve childhood obesity, but it's not going to compromise and corrupt capitalism either. Maybe a smart McDonalds exec will see an opportunity to entice parents to drive their kids there by placing a toy in a meal that is filled with healthy and nutritious food in a biodegradable box.

But there is one tenet of a true free market that is being ignored here. You can't get rich by making other people poor. Those kids walk away with poorer health, and a future filled with heath issues, peer ridicule, lower self esteem and very expensive medical bills. That is not my definition of a 'happy' meal.

It is one more chink in the armour. What the left seems daft about is that absent real serious health problems, it is not up to the government to tell business what they can and cannot sell. You want to compare happy meals to cigarettes, (not you in general) but the comparison fails. Cigarettes in moderation still are not good for you. Kids being able to purchase cigarettes should be regulated because smoking cigarettes is not good for you and nicotene crosses the blood brain barrier and attaches itself to the brain. Happy Meals are not bad for you, unless you eat them all the time. I saw Super Size Me and saw what happened when he ate McD's for breakfast lunch and dinner for 30 days straight. THAT is bad for you, but a happy meal once in while is not going to harm a child. Christ if you want to jump on another company, go after the makers of X-Box and PS3. Those two boxes keep kids on their plump asses for hours and days at a time. When I was a kid we were outside playing football and baseball, or riding bikes. I am sure you can make a good argument for banning video games as well. The whole problem with banning shit is it gives people the idea that they are not responsible for their own lives. It's not their fault they don't cook meals at home, it is that god damn McDonalds who puts toys in the box that are making my kids fat. It is the X-Box and PS3 that have made my kids fat. I am a great parent who just can't overcome the lure of "How to Train Your Dragon" actions figures and Mortal Combat. When did we abdicate our responsibility to ourselves and our children? Because when you pass laws like this it is exactly what you are doing.
 
so, let me get this straight, this proposal will eliminate obesity among children in San Fransico? Does anyone know what one of the biggest culprits is in childhood obesity? Anyone? Soda. Kids have access to sugary sodas everywhere. Coke and Pepsi have made deals with school districts all over the nation to kick back a percentage of their profits for the priviledge of selling sodas in our schools. The AMA said they should be called liquid candy. If you really want to stop the scourge of childhood obesity, ban sodas. Ban any drink that adds sugar. I mean if you really want to kick the nanny state in to overdrive, ban that. Ban candy bars, another treat kids can buy at their schools because the school district has made a deal with the devil for money. McDonalds was an easy target here. Everyone knows that too much McDonalds will make you fat. But in San Fransico, they don't trust parents to make the right decisions. Matter of fact, they don't trust their citizens at all. They want a controled state, where every decision you can make has already been cleared by the central authority. The funny thing is, lefties, who will tell you that the government should stay out of the prohibition on drugs and alcohol (and they are right I might add) will in the same pungent lung full of halitosis tell you that the government knows better when it comes to prohibiting food.

mott the poople is a prime example of such retardnesses
 
That has been my point from the beginning. If the MEAL is so desirable, then let's apply the conservative litmus test...'personal responsibility' the MEAL must be personally responsible to entice consumption. The 'toy' is a form of subsidy, which is welfare.


It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

lawd you are a retard...it can't be subsidy if you are PAYING for the toy you fucking moron....

thats like saying sexy girls selling beer are a subsidy...well....in my dreams...but hey :clink:
 
It's not nannyism and the loss of freedoms, it's your first point...parents letting their kids run things

The definition of a 'meal'
–noun
1) the food served and eaten esp. at one of the customary, regular occasions for taking food during the day, as breakfast, lunch, or supper.

The damn kid shouldn't eat a toy, so it shouldn't be part of a 'meal'

I can't wait for the laws to pass that weigh fat people before they can enter the market, and then tell them what they can purchase.

That's when we will really see how well the government knows better than us!

:rofl:
 
Back
Top