No Happy Meals for SanFran

[between]

..

 

[zsdersw]

aren't they just passing a law for their own city? as opposed to, for example, the entire USA?

god forbid they be allowed to pass their own rules.

Stupid rules are stupid, no matter the jurisdiction.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

aren't they just passing a law for their own city? as opposed to, for example, the entire USA?

god forbid they be allowed to pass their own rules.

They're perfectly entitled to pass their own laws. We're also perfectly entitled to laugh at them for some of the laws they pass.

 

[matt0611]

Looks like the mayor will veto it but its a veto proof majority:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/12/california.fast.food.ban/index.html

Hilarious liberal fail. Good luck with that.

 

[MrX8503]

Of course this is more passive than other more draconian measures, but that's not really the point. Rights and freedoms are almost always taken away a little bit at a time. Given that rules and laws are antithetical to freedom, we must ensure that only the smallest amount of freedom is relinquished and that laws and rules exist only when they offer the biggest "bang for the buck"; that they accomplish the biggest improvement in the general welfare for the least cost to freedom. This measure may seem small and have a very small cost, but its benefits are even smaller, making it frivolous and not something worth doing.

I think freedom is important, but there has to be a happy medium of control, otherwise everyone would be free to do every drug or whatever they wish. Obesity costs you money, it costs me money and if it affects me, its not just an individual problem. Taking toys away doesn't give much in return, but I'm willing to guess it doesn't cost as much to implement versus doing something like revamping school lunches. Maybe its not the right answer, but we need to explore alternatives.

I believe that there can be a slippery slope to Totalitarianism, but I don't think this is the case. We tax smokers heavily and we haven't gotten any closer to government control.

The solution to this problem is already known: eat right, exercise more. There is no top-down way to force this in a free society, though, so we must focus our efforts on persuading each other to make better choices, not try to mandate them via government. Mandating personal choices via government has never worked well... and the cost to freedom that it imposes is too high for the benefit it yields.

Personal decisions to "eat right" and "exercise" doesn't work well at all. With 30% of Americans obese and 60% overweight, obviously people don't have the self control of eating right or exercising. Something needs to be done, I'm not sure what. Maybe an incentive for healthier people and higher taxes on unhealthy foods.

I love this country and I think we have a great deal amount of freedom. I don't think this case pertaining to SanFran as gotten me to think that my freedom is in jeopardy. If you think about it, the food industry has more control over what you eat than you do yourself.

 

[zsdersw]

I think freedom is important, but there has to be a happy medium of control, otherwise everyone would be free to do every drug or whatever they wish. Obesity costs you money, it costs me money and if it affects me, its not just an individual problem. Taking toys away doesn't give much in return, but I'm willing to guess it doesn't cost as much to implement versus doing something like revamping school lunches. Maybe its not the right answer, but we need to explore alternatives.

Your idea of "happy medium" is quite a bit more on the government regulation side than mine. Unlike you, I don't believe in the power of government to curb undesirable personal choices. Consequences other than those incurred from breaking a law are the real teachers in life.

I believe that there can be a slippery slope to Totalitarianism, but I don't think this is the case. We tax smokers heavily and we haven't gotten any closer to government control.

Villains who twirl their moustaches are easy to spot; those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well-camouflaged.

Personal decisions to "eat right" and "exercise" doesn't work well at all. With 30% of Americans obese and 60% overweight, obviously people don't have the self control of eating right or exercising. Something needs to be done, I'm not sure what. Maybe an incentive for healthier people and higher taxes on unhealthy foods.

Personal choices to eat right and get more exercise work 100% of the time.. when people choose to make those choices. Food is a basic need for us, and it affects us in ways we're not always consciously aware of. As a result, I'm not sure incentives/disincentives in the form of taxes is going to be terribly effective either.

I love this country and I think we have a great deal amount of freedom. I don't think this case pertaining to SanFran as gotten me to think that my freedom is in jeopardy. If you think about it, the food industry has more control over what you eat than you do yourself.

.. says the frog in the pot of water that's slowly getting hot.

 

[ShawnD1]

aren't they just passing a law for their own city? as opposed to, for example, the entire USA?

god forbid they be allowed to pass their own rules.

If they vote for stupid things in local elections, they'll also vote for stupid things in federal elections. You need to change their minds before that time comes.


This seems like a really important discussion because it's a case of government crossing the line. Classic liberals think the government should stay out of your personal business and let the free market happen, and modern day liberals tend to want the government to act as a tool for collective bargaining and to protect the little guy, but putting restrictions on McDonalds happy meals doesn't seem to fit into either of those. McDonalds was never attacking anyone. This isn't like passing a law to prevent banks from charging $50 per day when an account goes into overdraft or passing a law that prevents a credit card company from compounding interest every hour. In this case, McDonalds is the little guy being picked on and the government is the one doing it.

 

[werepossum]

Of course this is more passive than other more draconian measures, but that's not really the point. Rights and freedoms are almost always taken away a little bit at a time. Given that rules and laws are antithetical to freedom, we must ensure that only the smallest amount of freedom is relinquished and that laws and rules exist only when they offer the biggest "bang for the buck"; that they accomplish the biggest improvement in the general welfare for the least cost to freedom. This measure may seem small and have a very small cost, but its benefits are even smaller, making it frivolous and not something worth doing.

The solution to this problem is already known: eat right, exercise more. There is no top-down way to force this in a free society, though, so we must focus our efforts on persuading each other to make better choices, not try to mandate them via government. Mandating personal choices via government has never worked well... and the cost to freedom that it imposes is too high for the benefit it yields.

Damned right. When government wishes to infringe on individuals' freedom it should demonstrate a compelling public need that cannot be met without that particular government action.

 

[Amused]

Damned right. When government wishes to infringe on individuals' freedom it should demonstrate a compelling public need that cannot be met without that particular government action.

What the progressives in this thread do not realize, is that all these restrictive "for your own good" laws they support come from the very same mentality that gave us prohibition and the war on drugs.

They get people to support the laws by using the "cost to society" argument, just as they did for the war on drugs.

When you use the "cost to society" arguement to pass laws restricting rights and freedoms, you only prove that socialism is anathema to freedom.

The mentality that gave us all these restrictive laws is anything but liberal.

 

[fskimospy]

What the progressives in this thread do not realize, is that all these restrictive "for your own good" laws they support come from the very same mentality that gave us prohibition and the war on drugs.

They get people to support the laws by using the "cost to society" argument, just as they did for the war on drugs.

When you use the "cost to society" arguement to pass laws restricting rights and freedoms, you only prove that socialism is anathema to freedom.

The mentality that gave us all these restrictive laws is anything but liberal.

That's absurd.

What other formula would you use for restricting behavior other than a 'cost to society'? I can't think of a single better metric to use. Now there's an argument for how people should weigh their freedoms against the cost to society, but the idea that support of laws against behavior due to its negative impact on our country is some sort of socialist attack on freedom is sheer silliness.

What werepossum was advocating was extending the standard of review used for fundamental constitutional freedoms to all laws, which would basically render society unable to function.

 

[Amused]

That's absurd.

What other formula would you use for restricting behavior other than a 'cost to society'? I can't think of a single better metric to use. Now there's an argument for how people should weigh their freedoms against the cost to society, but the idea that support of laws against behavior due to its negative impact on our country is some sort of socialist attack on freedom is sheer silliness.

What werepossum was advocating was extending the standard of review used for fundamental constitutional freedoms to all laws, which would basically render society unable to function.

Socialism is inherently an attack on freedom. Both cannot exist together. The minute someone else pays for you, they get to control you. Think of it as having to live with your parent's rules when you live under their roof.

Prohibition and the war on drugs SHOULD have taught us that social behavior modification through rule of law is fruitless and only ends up with everyone being less free, and no better off.

But no. The authoritarian mentality lives on. And the mentality is no different. It is all a form of legislating morality. The progressives are no better than, nor different from the religious right.

The only absurdity here is that you see a difference. There is none. They ARE the same mentality. Drugs were banned in an attempt to stem drug abuse. It failed miserably. Now happy meals are banned in an attempt to stem obesity. Wanna guess how this will end? How many more restrictive food laws will be passed before you realize you can no more legislate away obesity than you can drug abuse, or teenage pregnancy, or gay sex, or alcoholism, or smoking...?

The religious right and progressive left are EXACTLY the same. They just have a different list of sins they wish to control through authoritarian force of law.

 

[xj0hnx]

Socialism is inherently an attack on freedom. Both cannot exist together. The minute someone else pays for you, they get to control you. Think of it as having to live with your parent's rules when you live under their roof.

Prohibition and the war on drugs SHOULD have taught us that social behavior modification through rule of law is fruitless and only ends up with everyone being less free, and no better off.

But no. The authoritarian mentality lives on. And the mentality is no different. It is all a form of legislating morality. The progressives are no better than, nor different from the religious right.

The only absurdity here is that you see a difference. There is none. They ARE the same mentality. Drugs were banned in an attempt to stem drug abuse. It failed miserably. Now happy meals are banned in an attempt to stem obesity. Wanna guess how this will end? How many more restrictive food laws will be passed before you realize you can no more legislate away obesity than you can drug abuse, or teenage pregnancy, or gay sex, or alcoholism, or smoking...?

The religious right and progressive left are EXACTLY the same. They just have a different list of sins they wish to control through authoritarian force of law.

Dead on. They don't get it because they agree with it. It's the EXACT same BS mentality that keeps gays from marrying, perpetuates the War on Drugs™, removes good books from schools, exactly the same need to legislate morality.

 

[ShawnD1]

Dead on. They don't get it because they agree with it. It's the EXACT same BS mentality that keeps gays from marrying, perpetuates the War on Drugs™, removes good books from schools, exactly the same need to legislate morality.

Yeah well ya see the difference here is that drugs are perfectly safe when they are taken in moderation whereas eating food is always bad and.... wait.... hmmmm.....:biggrin:

 

[BoberFett]

Well you have to admit, you are a real douchebag..just sayin

No, I'm an asshole. DominionSeraph is a douchebag. Big difference.

 

[BoberFett]

Dead on. They don't get it because they agree with it. It's the EXACT same BS mentality that keeps gays from marrying, perpetuates the War on Drugs™, removes good books from schools, exactly the same need to legislate morality.

Yep, but "progressives" are too "enlightened" to see the parallels.

 

[fskimospy]

Socialism is inherently an attack on freedom. Both cannot exist together. The minute someone else pays for you, they get to control you. Think of it as having to live with your parent's rules when you live under their roof.

Prohibition and the war on drugs SHOULD have taught us that social behavior modification through rule of law is fruitless and only ends up with everyone being less free, and no better off.

But no. The authoritarian mentality lives on. And the mentality is no different. It is all a form of legislating morality. The progressives are no better than, nor different from the religious right.

The only absurdity here is that you see a difference. There is none. They ARE the same mentality. Drugs were banned in an attempt to stem drug abuse. It failed miserably. Now happy meals are banned in an attempt to stem obesity. Wanna guess how this will end? How many more restrictive food laws will be passed before you realize you can no more legislate away obesity than you can drug abuse, or teenage pregnancy, or gay sex, or alcoholism, or smoking...?

The religious right and progressive left are EXACTLY the same. They just have a different list of sins they wish to control through authoritarian force of law.

Uhmm, social modification through the rule of law takes place in every single society on earth, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. There are some areas where it does not work, but there are plenty where it does. Seriously, your entire premise is baffling in its fundamental ignorance. Your knowledge of civics seems comparable to your knowledge of statistics. (by the way, I did notice that after insulting everyone and calling them delusional partisans, you promptly disappeared without apology when the real math came out)

All laws are attacks on freedom, because all laws are either prohibiting people from taking actions they wish to, or compelling people to do things they don't want to do. This is not a novel or interesting idea. What you guys are trying to do is a common debating tactic to try and use an individual case to disprove an entire viewpoint, which is pretty dishonest.

What's interesting though is that your response had almost nothing to do with what I wrote. You spoke negatively of using the principle of a cost to society as a basis for laws, and my post was pointing out how utterly ridiculous what you said was.

 

[xj0hnx]

Uhmm, social modification through the rule of law takes place in every single society on earth, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

That's a cop out. The fact is that progressives are trying to impose their "morality", just like the religious right.

There are some areas where it does not work, but there are plenty where it does. Seriously, your entire premise is baffling in its fundamental ignorance. Your knowledge of civics seems comparable to your knowledge of statistics. (by the way, I did notice that after insulting everyone and calling them delusional partisans, you promptly disappeared without apology when the real math came out)

All laws are attacks on freedom, because all laws are either prohibiting people from taking actions they wish to, or compelling people to do things they don't want to do. This is not a novel or interesting idea. What you guys are trying to do is a common debating tactic to try and use an individual case to disprove an entire viewpoint, which is pretty dishonest.

What's interesting though is that your response had almost nothing to do with what I wrote. You spoke negatively of using the principle of a cost to society as a basis for laws, and my post was pointing out how utterly ridiculous what you said was.

Glad to see you are good with the War on Drugs™, and keeping gays from marrying because you are so enlightened.

 

[fskimospy]

That's a cop out. The fact is that progressives are trying to impose their "morality", just like the religious right.



Glad to see you are good with the War on Drugs™, and keeping gays from marrying because you are so enlightened.

Nothing in anything that I wrote implied I was ok with either the war on drugs or discrimination against gays. Furthermore, it's impossible for any reasonable person to extrapolate those views for me based upon what I wrote or as a logical outcome of the opinions I presented.

If you can't argue against someone without making up opinions for them to hold, you probably just shouldn't say anything at all.

 

[xj0hnx]

Nothing in anything that I wrote implied I was ok with either the war on drugs or discrimination against gays. Furthermore, it's impossible for any reasonable person to extrapolate those views for me based upon what I wrote or as a logical outcome of the opinions I presented.

If you can't argue against someone without making up opinions for them to hold, you probably just shouldn't say anything at all.

You're ok with California banning toys from Happy Meals?, than it's the same mentality as people that are ok with the War on Drugs™, and people that don't want gays to marry. Rationalize one, you rationalize them all.

 

[JSt0rm]

You're ok with California banning toys from Happy Meals?, than it's the same mentality as people that are ok with the War on Drugs™, and people that don't want gays to marry. Rationalize one, you rationalize them all.

Hey retard. Its san fran that's doing the ban (not all of california) and its banning toys in meals with over 600 calories. Stop being stupid.

 

[xj0hnx]

Hey retard. Its san fran that's doing the ban (not all of california) and its banning toys in meals with over 600 calories. Stop being stupid.

Awww, poor wittle progwessive gettin' all mad? I know, realizing that you are of the same sickening mental cloth that bans all the things you cry about has got to make you all butthurt, but it'll be ok little guy.

 

[jhbball]

awww, poor wittle progwessive gettin' all mad? I know, realizing that you are of the same sickening mental cloth that bans all the things you cry about has got to make you all butthurt, but it'll be ok little guy.

well done e-jockey. Sweet computer btw.

 

[zsdersw]

Hey retard. Its san fran that's doing the ban (not all of california) and its banning toys in meals with over 600 calories. Stop being stupid.

So, San Francisco's always-informed government, complete with nutritional experts, has decreed that 600 calories is the cut-off point.

Wow.. I cannot think of anything that could matter less to nutrition and health than the number of calories.

Nuts are high in calories; is 650 calories worth of nuts more or less healthy than 650 calories in a Happy Meal? Hint: the nuts are *way* more healthy

This law is idiotic.

 

[ShawnD1]

So, San Francisco's always-informed government, complete with nutritional experts, has decreed that 600 calories is the cut-off point.

The funniest thing is when people choose the "healthier" option and order a bagel. As a general rule of food, something that is dense and heavy like a bagel is probably extremely high in calories. For lunch today I ate a 700 calorie muffin (not joking)

new rule: you can't buy beer and tequila at the same time. Trust me, it's for your own good

 

[fskimospy]

You're ok with California banning toys from Happy Meals?, than it's the same mentality as people that are ok with the War on Drugs™, and people that don't want gays to marry. Rationalize one, you rationalize them all.

Of course governments can pass laws that regulate actions it considers harmful to public health, every nation does it every day. There are lots of good regulations to pass, and lots of bad regulations to pass. I've never argued that the state lacked the POWER to ban drugs, only that banning drugs was a dumb idea. Gay marriage on the other hand is something completely different, as it abridges fundamental constitutional rights recognized by the supreme court. (how do you not know that?)

Your argument not nonsensical, and if you follow it through to the logical conclusion, really stupid.