No Happy Meals for SanFran

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Seat belts would probably have come along anyway, even if the government didn't require them.

SNIP

"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.

Agree completely.

Seat belts came about way before a government mandate. Volvo had seat belts in the nineteenth century, literally before there WERE automobiles. American manufacturers offered them prior to the Model T. Automobile manufacturers such as Volvo, Nash, Chrysler, Ford, De Soto, and Saab among others offered them factory-installed (rather than after-market) before the federal government even thought about making them a requirement. Volvo in particular patented the modern three-point harness and offered it as an option before the federal government mandated even lap belts. Even when the federal government did mandate seat belts, it followed about half the state governments.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
overheated rhetoric aside this makes sense if you look at the base nature of the happy meal. Its an advertisement...Its targeted advertisement to children.


For instance my nephew is 8 and loves happy meals......if he sees a commercial for them he will start to ask for them incessantly until he gets one. While he LOVES apples when he gets a happy meal he HAS to have frys... If the lure of the toy was never there he would have never had the reason to ask for McDonalds....


They are not banning happy meals per se. they are banning giving out toys with the meals.Is that so hard to understand?

How many of you blow hards have children?
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Wall o' Nanny State text™

It's the parents responsibility to raise their children, and watch what they eat, you nanny staters that want to punish the whole because of the morons need to f.o.a.d.

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.

It isn't my responsibility to take care of other peoples health, and watch what they eat for them.

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.

It isn't your place, or the governments place, you/government, should increase education about healthy eating instead of taking away from those that aren't stupid enough to cram a Happy Meal™ or two a day down their kids throat.


This isn't about taking away people's choices,

That's exactly what it is.

The underlying issue is not that people are necessarily stupid, but people CAN be manipulated into doing stupid things. Clearly.

No, they are stupid, and can be manipulated. Clearly.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Cleary the marketing he talked about has worked on you. Ignorance truely is bliss isnt it?

Really? I can't remember the last time I hate at McDonald's. I also don't let my child tell me where we're eating, no matter how many toys they put in their kids meals.

I guess "liberals" are just shitty parents and need the government to do it for them.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,283
134
106
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.

I've seen advertisements for
Shake Weights
Footpads to remove "toxins"
Super towels
Dicers
Cash for gold
and
boob aprons

Yet I haven't been tempted to by any of this crap. Heck, I don't go out and buy a new car each time I see a car commercial.

To say "Marketing made me do it" is retarded. Personal responsibility isn't beyond the realm of human capabilities. People that do stupid things based on commercials are stupid.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
overheated rhetoric aside this makes sense if you look at the base nature of the happy meal. Its an advertisement...Its targeted advertisement to children.


For instance my nephew is 8 and loves happy meals......if he sees a commercial for them he will start to ask for them incessantly until he gets one. While he LOVES apples when he gets a happy meal he HAS to have frys... If the lure of the toy was never there he would have never had the reason to ask for McDonalds....


They are not banning happy meals per se. they are banning giving out toys with the meals.Is that so hard to understand?

How many of you blow hards have children?

I do, I'm just not a shitty parent like your relatives seem to be.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
11
81
This is pathetic legislation - and if you disagree with me, you are wrong.

Not only is it absurd to say you can't give a toy with a happy meal, their nutritional guidelines are based on bullshit. One of the main criteria is that under 35&#37; of the calories come from fat...hey idiot hippies, its long been proven that fat is *not* the devil.

If McDonald's wanted to comply, basically they'd cut down on the burger and include some sort of sugar-coated "fruit" that would actually be even less healthy & lead to more cases of diabetes.

Great job, hippies. Your attempt to control the private decisions of companies & parents will actually lead to more children dying. Morons.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
32
81
This is over the top, but I am all for posting calories next to menu items at fast food locations. Let us decide...but let us make an informed decision.
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
While I support legislating a healthier society (basing such legislation on credible, peer reviewed, scientific research), as long as I am forced pay for the healthcare of others via taxes, this would be rather low on my priority list of such legislation.
 
Nov 3, 2004
10,491
22
81
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times and -- whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you know you guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3% of the population, and we'll -- we'll be fine, don't worry about us. That's not leadership."

- Barack Obama

Just part of the Democrat agenda. Progressives have Kim il-Sung/Jung-il syndrome - they are self-proclaimed experts on literally everything. There is nothing, from macro economic theory to what your child eats for lunch, about which they do not consider themselves so much better qualified that their wishes should supersede your own by law. This madness merely spreads outward from San Francisco to cover the entire land in its shadow.

What, you mean you can't think that your actions will have serious ramifications for the future?
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,898
7,427
136
This is over the top, but I am all for posting calories next to menu items at fast food locations. Let us decide...but let us make an informed decision.

Good idea but I really don't think Micky-D's or any fastfood restaurant is gon'na do that because they don't want the public to know something that might give them pause on anything on their menu. Rich fatty foods just flat out taste good and they want us to remain oblivious to that on the one hand and addicted to the taste and texture of their food on the other.

I'm pretty sure that dietary data on their menu items is well documented elsewhere, but having it up front by law would be nice too.
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
overheated rhetoric aside this makes sense if you look at the base nature of the happy meal. Its an advertisement...Its targeted advertisement to children.


For instance my nephew is 8 and loves happy meals......if he sees a commercial for them he will start to ask for them incessantly until he gets one. While he LOVES apples when he gets a happy meal he HAS to have frys... If the lure of the toy was never there he would have never had the reason to ask for McDonalds....


They are not banning happy meals per se. they are banning giving out toys with the meals.Is that so hard to understand?

How many of you blow hards have children?



If you take the toy out you might as well take the happy out.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Good idea but I really don't think Micky-D's or any fastfood restaurant is gon'na do that because they don't want the public to know something that might give them pause on anything on their menu. Rich fatty foods just flat out taste good and they want us to remain oblivious to that on the one hand and addicted to the taste and texture of their food on the other.

I'm pretty sure that dietary data on their menu items is well documented elsewhere, but having it up front by law would be nice too.

That's in the healthcare bill:
http://fastfood.ocregister.com/2010...ll-force-chains-to-post-calorie-counts/56247/
Government takeover of fast food! Repeal and replace!
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
11
81
Good idea but I really don't think Micky-D's or any fastfood restaurant is gon'na do that because they don't want the public to know something that might give them pause on anything on their menu. Rich fatty foods just flat out taste good and they want us to remain oblivious to that on the one hand and addicted to the taste and texture of their food on the other.

I'm pretty sure that dietary data on their menu items is well documented elsewhere, but having it up front by law would be nice too.

Its been the law out here for awhile now. Fast food places comply.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Poor people and dumb people will still find ways to make their kids fat. They should be able to buy them, but I would like to see any publicly-funded medical care taken away. The public shouldn't be paying for fat people's health problems.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
At the end of the day, we're all responsible for ourselves (and how we raise our children). No amount of government regulation is going to eliminate, prevent, or even significantly reduce stupid behavior. Given that fact, it makes most of all that government regulation exclusively an exercise in feel-good futility; expanding power for a select few at the expense of the freedoms of all.

True freedom depends on the ability and potential for making mistakes. When we make mistakes we (hopefully) learn something. Absent that freedom we would have an entirely different world.

Is something wrong because the government says it is? No.. something's wrong because it has harmful consequences for ourselves or others. Action, reaction; cause, effect. There is no escaping it.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
overheated rhetoric aside this makes sense if you look at the base nature of the happy meal. Its an advertisement...Its targeted advertisement to children.


For instance my nephew is 8 and loves happy meals......if he sees a commercial for them he will start to ask for them incessantly until he gets one. While he LOVES apples when he gets a happy meal he HAS to have frys... If the lure of the toy was never there he would have never had the reason to ask for McDonalds....


They are not banning happy meals per se. they are banning giving out toys with the meals.Is that so hard to understand?

How many of you blow hards have children?

Children and three grandchildren, and yet I don't need government telling me whether or not a happy meal may contain a toy. I am however glad that there is now a city to which those of you unable to parent without government supervision can move, so that government can constrain your choices and thereby make you happy. And I'm REALLY glad it's so far away from me.

Perhaps government can just ban television, radio and billboards, so your nephew won't know anything to ask for. Better yet, government can just seize him and raise him in a manner you would find appropriate, since your family is obviously unable to do so on its own.

Sheesh! Amazing that some people find a boot on the neck to be so comfy and reassuring.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
For instance my nephew is 8 and loves happy meals......if he sees a commercial for them he will start to ask for them incessantly until he gets one. While he LOVES apples when he gets a happy meal he HAS to have frys... If the lure of the toy was never there he would have never had the reason to ask for McDonalds....

So if he asks enough times he gets something? Sounds great. Your nephew will be tempted with far greater things in his future. Maybe this is a great opportunity to start teaching him about life.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
One more reason not to move to San Francisco.

Happy Meals are crappy nutrition and McDonald's makes major marketing efforts to get kids to demand them, but it's still up to the parent to be the adult and say "No!" when needed. I never had a problem telling our kids they had to eat nutritional food at least at most meals.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
31
91
Well the Republicans are in charge now (landslide of course), so soon I'll be opening up Hooters^2: Waitresses offering up a dozen wings for $50 with a free side of BJ.
Can't regulate me.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Its been the law out here for awhile now. Fast food places comply.

I wish I had a $1 for every time I asked the kid at the counter for a nutritional guide at a fast food restaurant and got a deer in the headlights look in return.

I'd be replying to this post from my yacht in the Caribbean right now.

As for McDonalds, they are one of the last fast food joints to allow any somewhat healthy alternative substitution (apple dippers...complete with gelatinous sugar...er...caramel) in place of the fries, for an additional charge of course.

I've always wondered why I get charged extra add tomatoes to a burger but to hold the processed fat that they dye and call cheese, I never get it discounted. Logic would dictate that, if they are charging you .20¢ add it to something that it doesn't normally come on, then they should deduct it when you ask them to not put it on something that it normally does. For some reason, that never happens....go figure.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,512
16,233
146
For instance my nephew is 8 and loves happy meals......if he sees a commercial for them he will start to ask for them incessantly until he gets one.

You nephew has shitty parents.

A kid with good parents stops asking at the first answer of "no."

Don't take away everyone's freedoms because your family can't control themselves or their kids.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
This is over the top, but I am all for posting calories next to menu items at fast food locations. Let us decide...but let us make an informed decision.
When they give you a tray, there is a piece of paper on it. If you flip that paper over, you'll see the nutritional information.
If you want to see it before you buy anything, it's posted on the wall next to the ordering area. I usually read through it while I'm waiting for my food :)


Does your sibling not teach his/her children the meaning of the word "no"?
Hippies don't let you say no. If the child has a tantrum about wanting a happy meal and you pop em in the mouth so they shut the hell up, you go to jail for child abuse. A leash is child abuse too. The government requires you to let your kid run out into traffic and throw a temper tantrum in the middle of the road. Forcefully grabbing their arm is bad, but letting them die when a half ton truck hits them is good.
Hippies hate America. They're also directly responsible for global warming because they stonewall every attempt to build nuclear power plants.