San Francisco, when The Daily Show ridicules your nanny govt, you may wanna cool it

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
As a society we do need to step in on occasion, define limitations, and set things right.

In things like punishments for rape and murder. Or things like speeds limits on our roads.

Certainly not on something as fucking stupid as a toy from McDonalds. No way, thats just asinine.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
That is a very, very slippery slope and is the attitude many of us are referring to -- the "we know what's best for you" attitude.

Not just slippery it's expensive - each air bag is $700. Each seat beat is $200. Each o2 sensor $40 each mass air flow sensor $300 and so on and so forth.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
I think you scared him off

wow you guys sure got me. I went to sleep woke up and worked for 13 hours before heading back to at...


Ill make sure to staple my eyes open so I can make sure to answer back just in case next time.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
wow you guys sure got me. I went to sleep woke up and worked for 13 hours before heading back to at...


Ill make sure to staple my eyes open so I can make sure to answer back just in case next time.

Dodge #4. Look, just fess up. You came here whining about people making the same old tired arguments but it seems like you were the one who was posting without thinking by not having watched the clip. You tried to make up for it by saying you watch "John and the guys" all the time (as if you know them personally or something). Anyway, I'll let you get the last dodge in. Your evasion speaks for itself.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
Dodge #4. Look, just fess up. You came here whining about people making the same old tired arguments but it seems like you were the one who was posting without thinking by not having watched the clip. You tried to make up for it by saying you watch "John and the guys" all the time (as if you know them personally or something). Anyway, I'll let you get the last dodge in. Your evasion speaks for itself.

I dont have to answer to you. I watched it, formed my own opinions and went to sleep. This need of yours to have some sort of win in an online discussion is rather sad.



BTW your constantly make asinine assumptions and expect people to answer your baseless ramblings...sad really..

You have no idea who I know and what I do....


waiting for you to tie this into some muslim conspiracy..
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,330
126
Finally, while I agree that many (if not all) of these lessons should start and end with the parent, the sad fact is that not every parent has the best interests of their child in mind. As a society we do need to step in on occasion, define limitations, and set things right. Again, while I might not agree with this city ordinance, the politicians that have pushed for it, or the talking heads arguing over it, I do think that its effects, both on the health of our children and on government intrusion on our personal lives, are relatively mild and benign in the larger scheme of things.

To what ends? How far are you willing to push that line?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
I dont have to answer to you. I watched it, formed my own opinions and went to sleep. This need of yours to have some sort of win in an online discussion is rather sad.



BTW your constantly make asinine assumptions and expect people to answer your baseless ramblings...sad really..

You have no idea who I know and what I do....


waiting for you to tie this into some muslim conspiracy..

Wow you don't even see the irony in your own post do you? So you're claiming you know Jon Stewart now? Please do share with the rest of the class if that's the case. That would be interesting. I would be happy to say I made a bad assumption if you really do know him. But honestly it's more likely you don't and that you would like about it to save some face.
 

L00PY

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2001
1,101
0
0
To what ends? How far are you willing to push that line?
When it comes to protecting children from a potentially addictive combination of salt, sugar, and fat, and when the additional burden is placed upon large corporations with no real additional cost to consumers or the public at large, I've little problem with that line being nudged forward. Clearly there's some point where government intrusion has gone too far. I'm less forgiving of the actions of the TSA, some police behavior during stop and identify / stop and frisk cases, or even the most recent bans on caffeinated alcoholic beverages. I just don't think the fight for McDonald's right to advertise to our kids is one that needs to be staunchly defended as others around here.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
When it comes to protecting children from a potentially addictive combination of salt, sugar, and fat, and when the additional burden is placed upon large corporations with no real additional cost to consumers or the public at large, I've little problem with that line being nudged forward. Clearly there's some point where government intrusion has gone too far. I'm less forgiving of the actions of the TSA, some police behavior during stop and identify / stop and frisk cases, or even the most recent bans on caffeinated alcoholic beverages. I just don't think the fight for McDonald's right to advertise to our kids is one that needs to be staunchly defended as others around here.

... all rights should be defended equally regardless of how silly you think they are or not. I'd also like to know how you think this shouldn't be staunchly defended, but why should it be at all? Why are you ok wasting tons of government resources over something so stupid as this when there are much more pressing matters to deal with?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,490
20,034
146
When it comes to protecting children from a potentially addictive combination of salt, sugar, and fat, and when the additional burden is placed upon large corporations with no real additional cost to consumers or the public at large, I've little problem with that line being nudged forward. Clearly there's some point where government intrusion has gone too far. I'm less forgiving of the actions of the TSA, some police behavior during stop and identify / stop and frisk cases, or even the most recent bans on caffeinated alcoholic beverages. I just don't think the fight for McDonald's right to advertise to our kids is one that needs to be staunchly defended as others around here.

Translation: I don't give a fuck because it's not my bull getting gored.
 

L00PY

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2001
1,101
0
0
... all rights should be defended equally regardless of how silly you think they are or not. I'd also like to know how you think this shouldn't be staunchly defended, but why should it be at all? Why are you ok wasting tons of government resources over something so stupid as this when there are much more pressing matters to deal with?
There's an argument to be made that it should be defended on free speech rights. However it need not be as staunchly defended as the right to commercial speech is lesser category than say political speech. It's also my personal opinion that the right of commercial speech by a corporation is even less than that by an individual, but that's a slightly different topic.

Commercial speech is already regulated to prevent misleading and unlawful advertising. I suppose the question then becomes whether you (or the justices involved) feel that this ordinance would pass the four prong test established in the 1980 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission case.

And I hardly feel that tons of government resources will be spent on enforcing this city ordinance. Nor do I feel that the threat of obesity on our society should be ignored. Our unhealthy habits are a drain on our health care system and adversely affect our ability to recruit and maintain the best military force in the world. On a more local level as obesity strikes our public employees, from police to firemen, garbage collectors to EMTs, are all negatively affected by our fattening population.

I'd say the closest example I've witnessed that mirrors this ordinance was NYC requiring chains to post calorie counts on their menus. I also didn't have a problem with that back then for similar reasons. Of course the restaurant lobby challenged it on 1st Amendment issues, but it was upheld and the corporations all managed to make their menus work.