|
Apparently, either SF kids are employed and buying their own meals, or parents are not responsible enough to be parents without the City Council's help.
McDonald's Happy Meals May Soon Be Banned in SF
Interestingly, the hamburger Happy Meal is 590 Calories, which for the math-challenged is 10 calories under the 600 calorie limit. The entire meal contains no trans fats, in compliance with the less than 35% SF ordinance stipulation. Finally, while a half-cup of fruit and 3/4 cup of veggies is not standard in a Happy Meal (and carrots and apple slices do not a Happy Meal make, IMHO), these things are available at SF McDonalds.
I don't understand the hullabaloo.
For more info on McD's nutrition, simply google McD's nutrition...Sorry, but I'm too lazy and lethargic from my ginormous Happy Meal to link it for you...
It's not the food, silly man. It's the obvious mind-control of the general public. The brainwashing of children at an early age to bow to the Holy Icon that is the GOLDEN ARCHES!!
If you look closely, Ronald McDonald bears an uncanny resemblance to Cthulhu...SHH!Don't tell anyone!!
They're on to us, Old Man...
They're on to us, Old Man...
Indeed...
|
Apparently, either SF kids are employed and buying their own meals, or parents are not responsible enough to be parents without the City Council's help.
McDonald's Happy Meals May Soon Be Banned in SF
Interestingly, the hamburger Happy Meal is 590 Calories, which for the math-challenged is 10 calories under the 600 calorie limit. The entire meal contains no trans fats, in compliance with the less than 35% SF ordinance stipulation. Finally, while a half-cup of fruit and 3/4 cup of veggies is not standard in a Happy Meal (and carrots and apple slices do not a Happy Meal make, IMHO), these things are available at SF McDonalds.
I don't understand the hullabaloo.
For more info on McD's nutrition, simply google McD's nutrition...Sorry, but I'm too lazy and lethargic from my ginormous Happy Meal to link it for you...
Yeah, and what's wrong with Joe Camel? Just because a lovable cartoon character is selling cigarettes doesn't mean kids are buying them. Yeah it's a strawman but it's the same argument, a company targeting kids because that'll increase revenue even though your product is slowly killing them. I personally don't care either way, but I think that you can definitely see the logic behind it.
They aren't preventing you from buying the crappy food, but they are saying the company can't use cheap plastic toys to entice kids to annoy the crap out of their parents until they buy the crappy food. I kinda agree with it too because the kids only want the crappy toy, if the crappy toy only comes with healthier options then they'll pick the meal with the healthier options over the meal with the crap food.
I suppose its too much to ask for the parents to be better(good) parents, huh?? I loath any form of government censorship like this or even the possiblity of such.
I love 4 things that are supposedly bad or can make you do bad things: heavy metal/hard rock music, comic books, professional wrestling and gaming. And yet I haven't flipped out and shot up my school or killed my neighbor while trying to perfom a power bomb. Nor do I engage in satanic rites and I'm pretty sure I have yet to rape and violently murder any young girls.
Wanna know why?? Because when I was growing up, my parents taught me what was right and wrong, and what it means to be a good person. I was never able to watch MTV in my house, cuz bands like Guns N Roses were "bad". But now I love GNR, Metallica and AC/DC among others.
People need to stop trying to control others actions and start working on rasing better children. Instead of banning Happy Meals, or getting rid of the "crappy toy" instead expalin to your child that McDonalds is a treat food, and thus you eat only so often.
|
|
I suppose its too much to ask for the parents to be better(good) parents, huh??
on a state level yes it is, child protective services is understaffed and overextended, and there are too many horrible parents, and obesity is an epidemic in america because we have a love affair with s!+% food that starts at a young age because of being rewarded for making terrible decisions. Kids don't understand that it's a company that only cares about increasing their profits so they package the cheapest food with a cheap plastic toy but the childs brain learns that a sandwich with only meat and cheese comes with a reward!
You can't count on good parenting when its a product that is dangerous towards children. Would you be okay with cigarette companies having a commercial saying hey kids, smokings great and every pack of cigarettes comes with a free transformer. because the parents should be responsible for stopping their kids from smoking. nevermind that an increasing number of children come from single parent homes and are latchkey kids.
I'm sorry, while I am a big believer in free speech for the individual, I do not believe in free speech for corporations, especially when their products are directly related to major health problems.
They aren't preventing you from buying the crappy food, but they are saying the company can't use cheap plastic toys to entice kids to annoy the crap out of their parents until they buy the crappy food. I kinda agree with it too because the kids only want the crappy toy, if the crappy toy only comes with healthier options then they'll pick the meal with the healthier options over the meal with the crap food.
It is because of this, that I see this type of regulation as an attack on the lower class. Huh? What? Yeah, an attack on the lower class. Here is why.
When a new kids show or movie or whatever comes out, often times they will have a tie in to a fast food restaurant with toys related to the project. Now they will also release toys into stores as well. Wealth families will be able to purchase those over priced toys from the stores directly. Poorer families often times can not. Yet a visit to McD's on pay day not only can get a meal (hamburger+apple slices+milk isn't THAT unhealthy) and also get their child a toy similar to the ones in stores. Yes, alot of times they are pretty crappy, but sometimes they are very close. Look at the recent How to Train Your Dragon toys, they were just about as good as those released in stores (in some cases I would say there were better).
This is wealthy nosey people who are telling lower income people how to raise their family and further alienating their children.
|
|
They aren't preventing you from buying the crappy food, but they are saying the company can't use cheap plastic toys to entice kids to annoy the crap out of their parents until they buy the crappy food. I kinda agree with it too because the kids only want the crappy toy, if the crappy toy only comes with healthier options then they'll pick the meal with the healthier options over the meal with the crap food.It is because of this, that I see this type of regulation as an attack on the lower class. Huh? What? Yeah, an attack on the lower class. Here is why.
When a new kids show or movie or whatever comes out, often times they will have a tie in to a fast food restaurant with toys related to the project. Now they will also release toys into stores as well. Wealth families will be able to purchase those over priced toys from the stores directly. Poorer families often times can not. Yet a visit to McD's on pay day not only can get a meal (hamburger+apple slices+milk isn't THAT unhealthy) and also get their child a toy similar to the ones in stores. Yes, alot of times they are pretty crappy, but sometimes they are very close. Look at the recent How to Train Your Dragon toys, they were just about as good as those released in stores (in some cases I would say there were better).
This is wealthy nosey people who are telling lower income people how to raise their family and further alienating their children.
Um the law doesn't get rid of the ability to sell the cheap toys as part of the meal, rather it requires exactly what you point out, apple slices and milk, instead of fries and soda. So how is this exactly an attack on the lower classes? because it requires that the lower classes eat fruit and drink milk? Oh the humanity!
The meal would also have to contain 0.5 cups of fruit and 0.75 cups of vegetables and offer less than 640 mg of sodium and less than 0.5 mg of trans fat. Breakfast would have the option of offering 0.5 cups of fruit or vegetables.
This is not a hard standard to make, it's just not as cost efficient for McDonald but it can be done and sold for the same price with a minimal effect on profit margins, but for a corporation lower profit margins = horrible facist government control
It's horrible fascist government control because the government telling you what to eat is horrible fascist government control.
+1
I tend to agree with Last Knight, but not here.
Personal freedom is also the freedom to make choices other people think are poor. The government attempt to limit what it believes are bad options (for our own good) is the kind of thinking that brought us the war on drugs. I think it's a slippery slope, and I think we are already sliding down it and picking up speed rapidly.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It's horrible fascist government control because the government telling you what to eat is horrible fascist government control.
Circular, but correct in several aspects.
1) It is forcing a company to remove choices from their menu.
2) It is restricting the consumer's choices for safe products. "Well you can't take care of your children, so we'll take the choice away from you."
3) As Andrew pointed out, the caloric/transfats of a standard happy meal are lower than what the city requires.
Now the logical answer would be for McDonalds to pull out of SanFran completely.
LKL seems to be happy with the government telling him what he can and cannot choose. Maybe we should have a law passed so you can't buy RPG products, because of what Pat Pulling said? Oh, well you can sell them, but all the weapons have to be replaced with rules for Nerf bats. And no foursided dice, because they're dangerous you might step on one.
As to the 'less profits = evil government control' Well they already offer those options. So how does this make for 'less profits'?
As to the 'less profits = evil government control' Well they already offer those options. So how does this make for 'less profits'?
Presumably McDonalds offers its current choices for kids meals because they are profitable. Taking choice away from customers will presumably make then less profitable.
It's horrible fascist government control because the government telling you what to eat is horrible fascist government control.+1
I tend to agree with Last Knight, but not here.
Personal freedom is also the freedom to make choices other people think are poor. The government attempt to limit what it believes are bad options (for our own good) is the kind of thinking that brought us the war on drugs. I think it's a slippery slope, and I think we are already sliding down it and picking up speed rapidly.
+1
Less federal government control is something I am in favor of.
Let the states make the laws that are right for them and their people.
|
|
It's horrible fascist government control because the government telling you what to eat is horrible fascist government control.Circular, but correct in several aspects.
1) It is forcing a company to remove choices from their menu.
2) It is restricting the consumer's choices for safe products. "Well you can't take care of your children, so we'll take the choice away from you."
3) As Andrew pointed out, the caloric/transfats of a standard happy meal are lower than what the city requires.Now the logical answer would be for McDonalds to pull out of SanFran completely.
LKL seems to be happy with the government telling him what he can and cannot choose. Maybe we should have a law passed so you can't buy RPG products, because of what Pat Pulling said? Oh, well you can sell them, but all the weapons have to be replaced with rules for Nerf bats. And no foursided dice, because they're dangerous you might step on one.
As to the 'less profits = evil government control' Well they already offer those options. So how does this make for 'less profits'?
No I'm not, if they were saying you can't serve happy meals, I'd be dead opposed to them, they're saying you can't include a crappy toy to entice children unless the meal meets these standards of nutrition. People can still go in there an choose to order the cheaper crappier food for their children, they just won't get the toy included.
I oppose the government telling individuals what they can and can't do, I don't have a problem with the government telling corporations that they can't get around selling crap by marketing it towards children. This law in no way says McDonald's can't sell the crap, or that parents can't make the choice to buy the crap, if it did, I'd be opposed to it. All this says is that you can't use marketing to make kids want things that are horrible for them.
This is also a state based law making a choice for that state, not a federal law or a federal initiative at all.
|
|
It's horrible fascist government control because the government telling you what to eat is horrible fascist government control.
Except that the government is in no way telling you what you can eat, so in no way does what you say make any sense.
It's horrible fascist government control because the government sanctioning unicorn hunting will cause an explosion in the gnome population that the unicorns keep down.
See how we can both make irrelevant statements? :)
It's horrible fascist government control because the government telling you what to eat is horrible fascist government control.Circular, but correct in several aspects.
1) It is forcing a company to remove choices from their menu.
2) It is restricting the consumer's choices for safe products. "Well you can't take care of your children, so we'll take the choice away from you."
3) As Andrew pointed out, the caloric/transfats of a standard happy meal are lower than what the city requires.Now the logical answer would be for McDonalds to pull out of SanFran completely.
LKL seems to be happy with the government telling him what he can and cannot choose. Maybe we should have a law passed so you can't buy RPG products, because of what Pat Pulling said? Oh, well you can sell them, but all the weapons have to be replaced with rules for Nerf bats. And no foursided dice, because they're dangerous you might step on one.
As to the 'less profits = evil government control' Well they already offer those options. So how does this make for 'less profits'?
No I'm not, if they were saying you can't serve happy meals, I'd be dead opposed to them, they're saying you can't include a crappy toy to entice children unless the meal meets these standards of nutrition. People can still go in there an choose to order the cheaper crappier food for their children, they just won't get the toy included.
I oppose the government telling individuals what they can and can't do, I don't have a problem with the government telling corporations that they can't get around selling crap by marketing it towards children. This law in no way says McDonald's can't sell the crap, or that parents can't make the choice to buy the crap, if it did, I'd be opposed to it. All this says is that you can't use marketing to make kids want things that are horrible for them.
This is also a state based law making a choice for that state, not a federal law...
I think you're making a distinction whit very little difference. Limiting the choice of the buyer or seller is not OK, but censoring the marketing of the seller is OK in your argument.
|
|
As to the 'less profits = evil government control' Well they already offer those options. So how does this make for 'less profits'?Presumably McDonalds offers its current choices for kids meals because they are profitable. Taking choice away from customers will presumably make then less profitable.
I didn't say less profits I said lower profit margins. And they offer them as options, but most people don't exercise that option meaning for the small expense of stocking a portion of the healthy option they can still operate with similar profit margins, if they had to make every meal come with that as standard fare they'd have to order more and it is more expensive, hence why McDonalds is fighting this. And it makes sense for McDonalds to fight it, I just don't have a problem with this law.
|
|
I think you're making a distinction whit very little difference. Limiting the choice of the buyer or seller is not OK, but censoring the marketing of the seller is OK in your argument.
So here's a related question for you, is it okay for a cigarette company to market products towards little kids?
I don't want cigarettes to be taken away, but I have no problem saying cigarette companies can't market to kids
Same standard here, I don't want the meals to go away, but I don't have a problem with saying that McDonalds can't market to kids.
LKL,
I have a quick question for you.
Based on what I have read from your previous posts and please correct me if I am wrong you seem to be very opposed to big companies or corporations makeing "huge" profits.
I am just wondering why?
I don't mean to thread jack but from what I have read you would support just about any law that limits the corprate profit.
Will you please provide any insight on this?
I think you're making a distinction whit very little difference. Limiting the choice of the buyer or seller is not OK, but censoring the marketing of the seller is OK in your argument.So here's a related question for you, is it okay for a cigarette company to market products towards little kids?
I don't want cigarettes to be taken away, but I have no problem saying cigarette companies can't market to kids
Same standard here, I don't want the meals to go away, but I don't have a problem with saying that McDonalds can't market to kids.
Yes.
The alternative is our current system which allows the government to decide what speech targets kids and censor that speech. The fact that some speech is felt to be bad by the vast majority of people doesn't mean the state should be able to control it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
One important difference.
Tobacco/Alcohol/etc. are controlled substances. You could 'market cigaretts to kid' but they can't buy them. Heck, in Ohio at least it's legal to serve your own kids alcohol in your own home.
Do you really want to argue that food should be a controlled substance? Really?
(Small government conservative aside, the city council can legally make this stupid rule, the people can vote them out. It doesn't make it any less stupid though).
Edit and kind of off topic:
"No I'm not, if they were saying you can't serve happy meals , I'd be dead opposed to them, they're saying you can't include a crappy toy to entice children unless the meal meets these standards of nutrition . People can still go in there an choose to order the cheaper crappier food for their children , they just won't get the toy included .
|
|
LKL,
I have a quick question for you.
Based on what I have read from your previous posts and please correct me if I am wrong you seem to be very opposed to big companies or corporations makeing "huge" profits.
I am just wondering why?
I don't mean to thread jack but from what I have read you would support just about any law that limits the corprate profit.
Will you please provide any insight on this?
Um where in the hell did you ever get that. You point me to one place ever where I've said corporations shouldn't make huge profits. If you can point me to one thread or post ever where I've ever said anything at all even closely resembling that I'd appreciate it.
In fact I think this is the first thread ever where I've ever been on the defending side of a piece of progressive legislation and that's because I'm capable of realizing a difference between saying you can't sell it with pandering to children and you can't sell it.
This law in no way prevents McDonalds from selling a happy meal, the happy meal just has to meet certain nutritional standards to be able to include a toy that serves no purpose other than to entice children. The items are still on the menu despite what posters here seem to think, and surprise you can still get the cheap plastic toy, but if you want it included for free it can't be a part of the worst nutritional option.
I said this law would effect McDonalds profits, I in no way said that I begrudge for making profit or would I support any attempt to limit their profits.
But I do understand that there is a link to fast food and obesity in the same way that there is a link to cigarettes and lung cancer, and while I don't support outlawing either or limiting the options of adults, I have no problem with saying that these things can't be marketed to children.
|
|
One important difference.
Tobacco/Alcohol/etc. are controlled substances. You could 'market cigaretts to kid' but they can't buy them. Heck, in Ohio at least it's legal to serve your own kids alcohol in your own home.
Do you really want to argue that food should be a controlled substance? Really?
(Small government conservative aside, the city council can legally make this stupid rule, the people can vote them out. It doesn't make it any less stupid though).
No I don't, nor have I ever said that, and if they were trying to pass a law that said that kids couldn't eat this food then I would be fighting it tooth and nail. But this law in no way limits what food people can buy, merely what that food can be marketed to. The food is still there and parents can still make the choice to buy it for their kids, or they can buy the healthier option that comes with the free toy. Personally I think it'd be better if there was no free toy to begin with, then parents could make choices for their kids that don't require the following 30 minutes of loud public crying because they want the toy, but I live in a dream world of leprechauns and chupacabras
|
|
I think you're making a distinction whit very little difference. Limiting the choice of the buyer or seller is not OK, but censoring the marketing of the seller is OK in your argument.So here's a related question for you, is it okay for a cigarette company to market products towards little kids?
I don't want cigarettes to be taken away, but I have no problem saying cigarette companies can't market to kids
Same standard here, I don't want the meals to go away, but I don't have a problem with saying that McDonalds can't market to kids.
Yes.
The alternative is our current system which allows the government to decide what speech targets kids and censor that speech. The fact that some speech is felt to be bad by the vast majority of people doesn't mean the state should be able to control it.
well we'll just have to agree with each other the other 98% of the time :D, I mean lets face it, in all of the various political discussions we've both been involved in, I think this is maybe the first time we've ever been on opposite sides of the fence. I think that's a pretty minor instance well within the agree to disagree margins.
LKL,
I have a quick question for you.
Based on what I have read from your previous posts and please correct me if I am wrong you seem to be very opposed to big companies or corporations makeing "huge" profits.
I am just wondering why?
I don't mean to thread jack but from what I have read you would support just about any law that limits the corprate profit.
Will you please provide any insight on this?Um where in the hell did you ever get that. You point me to one place ever where I've said corporations shouldn't make huge profits. If you can point me to one thread or post ever where I've ever said anything at all even closely resembling that I'd appreciate it.
In fact I think this is the first thread ever where I've ever been on the defending side of a piece of progressive legislation and that's because I'm capable of realizing a difference between saying you can't sell it with pandering to children and you can't sell it.
This law in no way prevents McDonalds from selling a happy meal, the happy meal just has to meet certain nutritional standards to be able to include a toy that serves no purpose other than to entice children. The items are still on the menu despite what posters here seem to think, and surprise you can still get the cheap plastic toy, but if you want it included for free it can't be a part of the worst nutritional option.
I said this law would effect McDonalds profits, I in no way said that I begrudge for making profit or would I support any attempt to limit their profits.
But I do understand that there is a link to fast food and obesity in the same way that there is a link to cigarettes and lung cancer, and while I don't support outlawing either or limiting the options of adults, I have no problem with saying that these things can't be marketed to children.
OK sorry. I guess I made the wrong assumption on my part. I did read your previous posts but maybe it was just that one sentence that really stuck with me when it shouldn't have. Hope I didn't offend and I do appreciate the clarification.
|
|
OK sorry. I guess I made the wrong assumption on my part. I did read your previous posts but maybe it was just that one sentence that really stuck with me when it shouldn't have. Hope I didn't offend and I do appreciate the clarification.
It's cool for my part I maybe got a tad defensive there, as for the most time and if you check most of my post history in political discussions you'll find that I'm a right leaning fiscal conservative, but that when it comes to social issues I'm more liberal in my views, the one difference is I see a distinct difference between a person, and a corporation. And where I generally see and desire more open markets with less regulation, I don't believe that a corporation has the same rights as an individual even if it's recognized as an individual for litigation purposes. And while I don't like government interference with the free market when it comes to adults, children are a different story.
I may have been a tad more defensive as well because from this one perspective despite my history on the political threads I've suddenly become a person who is
happy with the government telling him what he can and cannot choose. Maybe we should have a law passed so you can't buy RPG products, because of what Pat Pulling said? Oh, well you can sell them, but all the weapons have to be replaced with rules for Nerf bats. And no foursided dice, because they're dangerous you might step on one.and is
very opposed to big companies or corporations makeing "huge" profits.and wants
the government telling you what to eat
Despite the fact that this legislation in no way does any of those things.
BT seemed to be the only one making point without putting words in my mouth (and yes I'm aware that I quoted some of those lines out of context, more to exemplify how I was feeling rather than what those individuals may have specifically said, some of those were in context though), but he sees it as a infringement on free speech, which while I see how he sees it, once again in my mind corporation =/= individual.
As is parents can trade out the fries for apples, and soda for milk, and you can get chicken nuggets which is about as healthy as you’re going to get at a McDonalds.
If a parent wants their kid to eat nothing but wholesome food then they shouldn’t be taking them to a McDonalds in the first place, because no child is going to be content going to a McDonalds and getting a salad. All that packaging the toys with a salad will accomplish is a bunch of waste bins full of leafy greens, and parents having to spend more money to get their kid the toy they want and the meal they want. After all, if the parent can’t say no to their child demanding they go to McDonalds for a hunk of plastic, then what makes you think they’ll be able to deny giving the kid a cheese burger and a mcflurry to go with their throwaway health meal?
Next up. Banning those kids menus/coloring page at most restaurants. It is obviously they are marketing to kids, that is a no-no.
Interesting read perhaps:Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds
|
|
Next up. Banning those kids menus/coloring page at most restaurants. It is obviously they are marketing to kids, that is a no-no.
Interesting read perhaps:Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds
Yes because when we banned lead paint, we then went on to ban all paint altogether.
Yes because when we banned lead paint, we then went on to ban all paint altogether.Next up. Banning those kids menus/coloring page at most restaurants. It is obviously they are marketing to kids, that is a no-no.
Interesting read perhaps:Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds
So marketing to kids for potential unhealthy food is ok as long as it is not "fast food"?
|
|
So marketing to kids for potential unhealthy food is ok as long as it is not "fast food"?Yes because when we banned lead paint, we then went on to ban all paint altogether.Next up. Banning those kids menus/coloring page at most restaurants. It is obviously they are marketing to kids, that is a no-no.
Interesting read perhaps:Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds
A) kid menus are not the same as one pre-packaged meal which is advertised on TV and specifically marketed to children, they are merely low cost alternatives to the adult items or have more child friendly options. But you don't see comercials saying HEY KIDS come to our store and get a KIDS MENU. But you do see commercials saying HEY KIDS ANNOY YOUR PARENTS TILL THEY BRING YOU TO MCDONALDS TO GET A HAPPY MEAL.
B) coloring pages do not specify one meal, they're something a restaurant can have to keep kids entertained while they wait. They don't select food choice for you nor do you see comercials that say HEY KIDS come to our store to try our COLORING PAGE.
Any other unrelated except by loose association things you want to say they'll come after next.
Hey I know restaurants have windows, next they'll come saying you can't have windows in a restaurant. Am I making this game easier for you?
Hey I know restaurants have windows, next they'll come saying you can't have windows in a restaurant. Am I making this game easier for you?
Only if those windows are targeted directly to children, like happy meals and kids menus/coloring pages are.
EDIT: So what then was the problem with Joe Camel? He didn't give toys to kids, obviously then according to your specifications the use of his picture didn't motivate children at all.
|
|
I may have been a tad more defensive as well because from this one perspective despite my history on the political threads I've suddenly become a person who wantsthe government telling you what to eat
Whoa there, bub, kindly take a step backward. I don't know you or what you want, nor did I imply that I did.
You indicated that a lower profit margin for a corporation is generally seen by that corporation as equating to "horrible fascist government control".
I indicated that this law/policy doesn't represent "horrible fascist government control" because it results in lower prices for corporations, but rather because the government in any way shape or form telling people what they should probably be eating is "horrible fascist government control".
I understand what the law says (no toys unless nutritional standards are met), and what it doesn't say (government word-for-word telling people what to eat), your absurd post about unicorns which was intended to insult my intelligence aside.
There's a law pertaining to establishments not including toys with meals unless they meet nutritional standards. If you can reasonably interpret that law in any way shape or form other than "San Francisco wants to try to force kids to eat a certain way (i.e., healthier)", please go ahead and do so. They might not be telling you what to eat precisely, but they are passing litigation with the intent of changing kid's eating habits. They are parenting for these kid's parents.
Fast food is cheap and well-marketed. That's why so many Americans eat it. America is (generally) a free-market society, wherein inexpensive and slickly marketed products will become widely consumed. The companies who attain wealth by creating and streamlining such products should be commended for their business acumen, not legislated against.
You want kids to be healthier? Build a better mousetrap. Genetically engineer apples that taste like hamburgers. Invent a sweetener that doesn't rely on high fructose corn syrup and doesn't taste like a flaming bag of poo. Package it all together and then throw a cheap toy in there while you're at it. You'll be a millionaire.
TL;DR - I don't know or care what you personally want. Government making choices for people - or even beginning to look like they might be beginning to think about making choices for people - is bad.
well we'll just have to agree with each other the other 98% of the time :D, I mean lets face it, in all of the various political discussions we've both been involved in, I think this is maybe the first time we've ever been on opposite sides of the fence. I think that's a pretty minor instance well within the agree to disagree margins.I think you're making a distinction whit very little difference. Limiting the choice of the buyer or seller is not OK, but censoring the marketing of the seller is OK in your argument.So here's a related question for you, is it okay for a cigarette company to market products towards little kids?
I don't want cigarettes to be taken away, but I have no problem saying cigarette companies can't market to kids
Same standard here, I don't want the meals to go away, but I don't have a problem with saying that McDonalds can't market to kids.
Yes.
The alternative is our current system which allows the government to decide what speech targets kids and censor that speech. The fact that some speech is felt to be bad by the vast majority of people doesn't mean the state should be able to control it.
Fair enough. ;)
|
|
I understand what the law says (no toys unless nutritional standards are met), and what it doesn't say (government word-for-word telling people what to eat), your absurd post about unicorns which was intended to insult my intelligence aside.
Actually it was meant to add levity while making a point, not insult your intelligence, if you felt insulted I apologize. And for the part you quoted I specifically point out later in that same post that not everyone I quoted was quoted in context, merely to exemplify how the arguments were making me feel like my position was being represented. I said that because I knew I was quoting you out of context, but some of those other quotes were prefrenced with the equivalent of "well according to LKL..."
what does TL;DR mean? I've seen it a couple of times, but I don't know.
and I don't think the government should attempt to control what adults do, but I also don't have a problem with a state government on a state level saying companies can't market unhealthy crap to kids.
I understand what the law says (no toys unless nutritional standards are met), and what it doesn't say (government word-for-word telling people what to eat), your absurd post about unicorns which was intended to insult my intelligence aside.
Actually it was meant to add levity while making a point, not insult your intelligence, if you felt insulted I apologize. And for the part you quoted later in that thread I specifically point out later in that same post that not everyone I quoted was quoted in context, merely to exemplify how the arguments were making me feel like my position was being represented. I said that because I knew I was quoting you out of context, but some of those other quotes were prefrenced with the equivalent of "well according to LKL..."
what does TL;DR mean? I've seen it a couple of times, but I don't know.
too long, didn't read.