No Happy Meals for SanFran

[nageov3t]

I'd rather see most kids cereals get banned.

Fruit Loops is NOT breakfast. Should be categorized as candy.

fruit loops isn't actually that bad.

I want to say it's like 10 calories more per cup than corn flakes?

 

[trenchfoot]

A: Every parent has the right to feed their children whatever they think is OK for them to eat.

B:You mean like mistreating your children by feeding them food that makes them obese and thusly more susceptible to gout, high blood pressure and diabetes (among other maladies) you say?

A: Yeah, that too. Every parent has the right to abuse and mistreat their children that way. It's not the govenment's job to regulate what our kids can and cannot abuse themselves with.

B: Oh, so kids drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes should not be against the law too then huh?

A: That's right. It should be up to us knowledgeable parents to decide whether our kids may or may not suffer from the results of becoming addicted to alcohol, tobacco and fatty, salt laden fast foods. It makes the kids happy, and the kids know fully well what's good for them or not, so it's their choice too you know? So those laws are unconstitutional and unprofitable to the good folks who manufacture these fine, wholesome products and must be struck down.

And what the heck, there are millions of obese, tobacco and alcohol addicted parents who think it's perfectly fine for their children to be obese and addicted to alcohol and tobacco too. They can get free medical treatment at any ER, they're not violating anyone else's rights, they have absolutely nothing to do with the skyrocketing cost of healthcare, so what's the problem?

It's our right as parents to let our children abuse themselves any way we want.

So there.....:hmm: lol

 

[ShawnD1]

Isn't it ironic that those that are complaining the loudest that we must specifically block Sharia law from "infiltrating" our laws to keep the Mooslims from gettin' their Jihad on are now stating that it is freaking corporate America's institutional right to get whining kids to bug the shit out of their parents for a 700 calorie/27g fat/88 carb/31g sugar lunch just to get the latest Shrek toy.

Let's play devil's advocate here....

Which one do you really think will do more short/long term damage to our country, having restaurants have to stop promoting slop that isn't fit for pigs by trying to bride kids or telling two adults that they can legally enter into a contractual agreement to have a dispute decided upon specific ground rules as long as they entered into it under their own volition?

And what's wrong with eating 700 calories of food? Growing people need to eat. Lots.

It's also worth noting that "good" food has just as many calories as "bad" food. Looking at McDonalds' nutrition guide, the 4 piece chicken happy meal with white milk is 520 calories. With apple juice instead of milk, it's 510 calories. With Sprite, it's 520 calories. So which one do you want for your kid? Do you want the 100% sugar sprite, the 99% sugar apple juice (apples are sweet for a reason), or the fat/protein milk? They're all about the same calories except the milk has more nutrients, and you know your kid ain't gonna drink water instead.

Or you could eat what I ate as a kid. My favorite thing to eat was macaroni and cheese with real butter and a large glass of chocolate milk. It definitely was not low in calories. I was always very skinny as a kid, and yes I played video games that whole time.

 

[PeshakJang]

Like the way that car makers put seat belts in cars 'most effectively' by the rewards and punishments of using your wallet, not by the government requiring them.

Clearly, the issue of nutrional fast food has been 'most effectively' met by the use of your wallet. That's why so many communities already have these nutrtional improvements.

Or, maybe while 'your wallet' is one important thing, it's quite ineffective sometimes, and government involvement is more effective, but it sounds good so you say it?

The level of hyperbole in the thread - spouting German fascism slogans - over improving nutrition for childrens' mills shows the irrational craziness of the opponents.

Talk about Godwin's Law, no issue for them is too small to end the world over.

What's this, adding a mandatory cost to their government-contracted trash bill for recycling services? Uber Hitler! Mourn the freedom of the human race! Heil trashman!

I'm not even discussing the actual issue of the boundaries of state power, but noting the impossibility of a discussion of those boundaries with such irrational people who open with 'THE NAZIS WON WWII!"

By the way, WHO IS THE HITLER GOVERNMENT TO TELL PARENTS THEY CANNOT BUY CIGARETTES AND ALCOHOL FOR THEIR KIDS? That's INFRINGEMENT of parental rights!

The government knows how to raise your children better than you the parents do! Tyranny!!!!1!

LOL... Craig isn't even trying to sound intelligent anymore. Straight to tantrum.

 

[zsdersw]

Like the way that car makers put seat belts in cars 'most effectively' by the rewards and punishments of using your wallet, not by the government requiring them.

Seat belts would probably have come along anyway, even if the government didn't require them.

Clearly, the issue of nutrional fast food has been 'most effectively' met by the use of your wallet. That's why so many communities already have these nutrtional improvements.

"So many communities" are just as stupid as San Francisco in this regard.

Or, maybe while 'your wallet' is one important thing, it's quite ineffective sometimes, and government involvement is more effective, but it sounds good so you say it?

People like you, who view government involvement as "more effective", are taking away a crucial choice that consumers must make for themselves and take responsibility for.

Replacing personal responsibility with government rules is not the way to a more perfect union.

"Oh, I don't have to think for myself which product to buy because the government has regulated everything to the point that they're all perfectly safe". <-- This is a very dangerous and, unfortunately, a very real attitude in America.

 

[nageov3t]

when happy meals are illegal, only the criminals will have happiness.

 

[BoberFett]

"Oh, I don't have to think for myself which product to buy because the government has regulated everything to the point that they're all perfectly safe". <-- This is a very dangerous and, unfortunately, a very real attitude in America.

It's astounding isn't it? "Liberals" (intentionally quoted) want a country where the consumer doesn't have to think for themselves. Then when that consumer who is also a voter doesn't think as they enter the voting booth, they can't understand why they vote the "wrong way."

Stupid "liberals."

 

[trenchfoot]

when happy meals are illegal, only the criminals will have happiness.

LOL, Have we learned nothing from the gov't experiment with Prohibition?

Public school meals are on the hit list too.

 

[matt0611]

It's astounding isn't it? "Liberals" (intentionally quoted) want a country where the consumer doesn't have to think for themselves. Then when that consumer who is also a voter doesn't think as they enter the voting booth, they can't understand why they vote the "wrong way."

Stupid "liberals."

They're progressives.

Don't you get it? This is progress.

 

[nageov3t]

LOL, Have we learned nothing from the gov't experiment with Prohibition?

Public school meals are on the hit list too.

public school meals should be fair game.

imo, they should have a caloric maximum (based on whatever nutritionists and doctors determine to fit around the average needs) and some of the BS rules like french fries counting as a vegetable really need to be reevaluated.

but the difference is that going to McDonalds (and ordering whatever you order) is pure choice, whereas for many kids living in poverty, free breakfasts and lunches at schools are a prime food source and they don't have a choice in what those meals contain.

 

[BoberFett]

public school meals should be fair game.

imo, they should have a caloric maximum (based on whatever nutritionists and doctors determine to fit around the average needs) and some of the BS rules like french fries counting as a vegetable really need to be reevaluated.

but the difference is that going to McDonalds (and ordering whatever you order) is pure choice, whereas for many kids living in poverty, free breakfasts and lunches at schools are a prime food source and they don't have a choice in what those meals contain.

Seems reasonable to me. If the government is paying, they can determine what the nutritional requirements are. If I'm paying, the government can fuck off.

 

[LumbergTech]

Seems reasonable to me. If the government is paying, they can determine what the nutritional requirements are. If I'm paying, the government can fuck off.

except that by that logic you are always paying because the government doesnt have money of its own

 

[Craig234]

Seat belts would probably have come along anyway, even if the government didn't require them.

Yes, the period 1900-1955 without them was just a brief waiting period. They were just about to do it - right after they finished their fight against those laws.

"So many communities" are just as stupid as San Francisco in this regard.

Except the point was sarcasm and there are no such communities, because your 'most effective' approach has not worked at all. Zero times.

People like you, who view government involvement as "more effective", are taking away a crucial choice that consumers must make for themselves and take responsibility for.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes I'm in favor of that, sometimes I'm not.

The fact is, consumers are not making that 'crucial choice' very well, and not taking responsibility for it very well.

Is that enough, shoudl any situation where consumers make bad choices be one where the government steps in to force things? Of course not.

My point was that you can't have a discussion about the issue with hyperbolic nuts who spout Nazi slogans over the smallest issue.

Replacing personal responsibility with government rules is not the way to a more perfect union.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

The 'personal responsibility' cult that has proslytized for billionares for decades isn't the end all and be all, either. It's one important part of the culture - to a point.

The thing is, it prevents any rational discussion, turning people into ranting nuts, as they've been indoctrinated.

Limiting the marketing ploy of unhealthy food vendors to link the unhealthy food with toys that causes parents problems is not the same as the Nazis, whether it's right or wrong.

Why have speed limits or stoplights instead of having 'personal responsibility' allow drivers to make their own choices not to drive too fast or to stop as safety dictates? Tyranny!

"Oh, I don't have to think for myself which product to buy because the government has regulated everything to the point that they're all perfectly safe". <-- This is a very dangerous and, unfortunately, a very real attitude in America.

No, that's a very backwards way of looking at the service the government provides to REDUCE risk, thereby greatly reducing injuries and problems, as a benefit.

There's a real lack of common sense, reflecting the ideological nature of indoctrinated people.

After a history since the beginning of our country of dangerous substances being misrepresented by unscrupulous sellers harming citizens, the government providing regulation and safety protection is not an appropriate public service preventing injury - as it does - but a dangerous activity, destroying liberty of choice and harming people lulling them into too much dependancy on government-required testing.

Funny, the same people who decry the government's regulation serve the interests of the vendors who want less testing, weakening the testing to where it's less reliable - and then blame the resulting increase in error and injury on the government testing, instead of their gutting of it.

As I said, you can't much talk with people who spout Nazi slogans over this. It's one of the many results of decades of indoctrination.

We've always had such nuts - the fluoridation of water being a communist plot to take over America being one example, but that was a fringe without the support of a massive industry to sell this ideology. The funny thing is, one of the top forces behind this propaganda effort is the Koch brothers - who inherited their father's ideology, as he was a co-founder of the John Birch society, the leading spouter of the fluoridation paranoia. And they're having a big effect on the country today.

Countering unhealthy food marketing = Nazis. Yes, the ideological right is doing just fine.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Some of you would have a much stronger argument against this if the average person was actually taking personal responsibility instead of eating themselves sick and teaching their children to do the same. I don't understand this chronic denial that marketing does indeed work and gets people to do what they otherwise would not do. The billions and billions of dollars spent on it annually confirm this. I see no problem with government stepping in and curbing marketing tactics that 1) are directly aimed at children and 2) have a negative impact on, quite literally, the health of society. This isn't about taking away people's choices, it's about limiting corporate influence on them. The underlying issue is not that people are necessarily stupid, but people CAN be manipulated into doing stupid things. Clearly.

 

[Daedalus685]

I guess as a Canadian with social health care my view is certainly different..

But I'd certainly support a tax on fast food (some of it) to offset the drain on the health system its use provides..

That being said, if I want a burger I'm damn well going to have one.

Educating folks not to be fat asses is likely more helpful than a billion "no you can't do this so we are taking it away" statements though.

I must say though... the distinction between feeding children what is a few steps above poison and physically or emotionally assaulting them is not as wide of a gap as many seem to believe. I can certainly see society shifting to the point that feeding children unhealthy food is no different than bruising them.

 

[BoberFett]

except that by that logic you are always paying because the government doesnt have money of its own

Sure, but that's a different argument about the role of government.

Once a role has been established and the taxes set up to support it, it is the governments money for all intents and purposes.

 

[BoberFett]

Some of you would have a much stronger argument against this if the average person was actually taking personal responsibility instead of eating themselves sick and teaching their children to do the same. I don't understand this chronic denial that marketing does indeed work and gets people to do what they otherwise would not do. The billions and billions of dollars spent on it annually confirm this. I see no problem with government stepping in and curbing marketing tactics that 1) are directly aimed at children and 2) have a negative impact on, quite literally, the health of society. This isn't about taking away people's choices, it's about limiting corporate influence on them. The underlying issue is not that people are necessarily stupid, but people CAN be manipulated into doing stupid things. Clearly.

Clearly, you are stupid.

 

[nageov3t]

except that by that logic you are always paying because the government doesnt have money of its own

I see it as an issue of choice... I can't think of many realistic situations in which a kid has to eat a fast food meal (and can't chose any of the semi-healthy options on the menu). my mom teaches grammar school in the inner city; for many of her students, their options are free school lunches or starving.

But I'd certainly support a tax on fast food (some of it) to offset the drain on the health system its use provides..

is there evidence that eating fast food in moderation causes significant health problems?

 

[Daedalus685]

I see it as an issue of choice... I can't think of many realistic situations in which a kid has to eat a fast food meal (and can't chose any of the semi-healthy options on the menu). my mom teaches grammar school in the inner city; for many of her students, their options are free school lunches or starving.



is there evidence that eating fast food in moderation causes significant health problems?

Moderation? Likely not extensively.. But a moderate price increase wouldn't hurt me either.

Though, it depends on how you define significant.. Having a big mac is certainly not as good for you as an apple and steamed vegetables. Likely any effects from moderate or small exposure are stochastic, and thus would still increase probabilities of illness in any volume. Not any different from radiation or smoking I'd reckon.

 

[soulcougher73]

Clearly, you are stupid.

Cleary the marketing he talked about has worked on you. Ignorance truely is bliss isnt it?

 

[ShawnD1]

A: Every parent has the right to feed their children whatever they think is OK for them to eat.

B:You mean like mistreating your children by feeding them food that makes them obese and thusly more susceptible to gout, high blood pressure and diabetes (among other maladies) you say?



It's our right as parents to let our children abuse themselves any way we want.

So there.....:hmm: lol

This just in: all parents who buy happy meals for their kids are guilty of child abuse. Liberals actually think this :awe:

 

[Daedalus685]

This just in: all parents who buy happy meals for their kids are guilty of child abuse. Liberals actually think this :awe:

It wasn't so long ago that you could make fun of the same statement with using a switch. Many still think physical punishments like a switch should still be allowed, but the point is it is illegal and quite clearly abuse in this day and age. So don't be too shocked if the same thing happens with diet b the time you are a grandparent.

Times do change and harm is harm, whether deterministic or not.

I don't consider it child abuse, but I can understand how it might eventually be considered as such.

At any rate it is pretty poor parenting if done regularly, and it does harm a child. Whether it should be punished as abuse or not I would likely say no.

 

[Craig234]

This just in: all parents who buy happy meals for their kids are guilty of child abuse. Liberals actually think this :awe:

What if they buy the children happy meals twice a day every day, and it's the large majority of what they're fed, and leads to medical problems?

This would qualify for my '95% of what it's claimed liberals views are is false' point, but I'll just note your post appears based on emotion/ideology, not any actual reasonable opinion.

 

[ShawnD1]

It wasn't so long ago that you could make fun of the same statement with using a switch. Many still think physical punishments like a switch should still be allowed, but the point is it is illegal and quite clearly abuse in this day and age. So don't be too shocked if the same thing happens with diet b the time you are a grandparent.

I may not agree with the food you eat, but I'll defend to the death your right to eat it.

 

[DesiPower]

Who is this "San Francisco's board of supervisors". are these govt employees? is tax payers are paying their salaries and that thats what they are doing with their time, IMO, THEY should be banned from living