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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I spoke with a group of my friends about this when it was proposed. The consensus was that when we were kids and wanted happy meals, the toy was, by far, the LEAST appealing part of the meal. I don't think I ever spent more than 3 seconds with the toy before I went, "Well, this is f'ing lame" and tossed it. Kids eat happy meals because .... they like junk food.

i still love chicken nuggets, haven't had any in awhile, but they are the shit.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Yesterday, I had Burker King for lunch and McDonald's for dinner. Maybe I'll get KFC for lunch today!

edit: and I should add that I am of fantastic health and physical fitness, despite eating fast food now and then. The SF city council apparently thinks I don't exist.

Doesn't matter if you run everyday. We used to have contests who could pig out the most back in collegiate sport days ...three large pizzas no problem for me at pizza hut buffet I was sure to burn it out at two a days or wrestling drills. Problem is running is often times harder than dieting for people.

You NEED lots of salt too, more than McDonalds gives you if you're intensely active or legs lock up at night.

But most people shouldn't eat that garbage.
 
Last edited:

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
11
81
Doesn't matter if you run everyday. We used to have contests who could pig out the most back in collegiate sport days ...three large pizzas no problem for me at pizza hut buffet I was sure to burn it out at two a days or wrestling drills. Problem is running is often times harder than dieting for people.

I almost never run....its a matter of moderation. Most people couldn't sustain fast food for every meal over a length of time, but you can eat fast food from time to time with no adverse effects, regardless of your exercise routine. Its all about moderation.

I spoke with a group of my friends about this when it was proposed. The consensus was that when we were kids and wanted happy meals, the toy was, by far, the LEAST appealing part of the meal. I don't think I ever spent more than 3 seconds with the toy before I went, "Well, this is f'ing lame" and tossed it. Kids eat happy meals because .... they like junk food.

Yea, the throckmorton's of this thread seem to think the only reason people want a Happy Meal is for the toy. Do they want the toy? Sure...but they also want the greasy burger/nuggets, the fries, the soda, the playground at most locations. Its not like if you take away the toy, no kid will ever want a happy meal again. They're just putting a ridiculous restriction on a business for the sake of being a nanny state.
 

L00PY

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2001
1,101
0
0
He certainly did. He repeated "Well, we can't force Netflix, a private company..." about 3 times and on the third time, you can see where he finally realized it and looked shocked.
I disagree. He just failed to come up with the right comparison. You can't force Netflix, a private company, to send out a particular DVD. That would be like forcing Ford to put an IPod into every F150 they sold. However, you can regulate that automakers must put seat belts into every car they sell.

The Joe Camel ban is another example of the same thing. You can't force RJ Reynolds to use the 1913 Fred Otto Kleesattel drawing they commissioned as their main logo instead of an anthropomorphic camel with a penis for a nose. However, you can force tobacco companies to stop using cartoon characters that target children.

The question is really what is appropriate advertising to children? Is okay to push Highlights but not Hustler? What about Maxim? Is okay to push carrot juice but not cognac? What about energy drinks?

And just to be clear, there are already some existing Happy Meals that can be sold with toys once that ordinance goes into effect. How many kids do you think will pick the cheeseburger and fries meal without a toy over the chicken nuggets and fruit with a toy? They'll still be able to buy both. I may not agree with this sort of legislation, but I do think it would create a positive health benefit for kids whose parents feed them McDonald's.
 

Argo

Lifer
Apr 8, 2000
10,045
0
0
I have chips, sugary cereals, cookies, ice cream and all kinds of crap in my house...OMG, my kids are unhealthy and are obese. Guess what:

14 year old boy - 5'4" 98lbs
12 year old girl - 5'5" 95lbs
9 year old boy - 4'7" 75lbs

It's about quantity control. My kids still go to McD's and the young one still gets a happy meal, but they don't go every week. We do fast food/pizza about once a week - even most diet and atkins programs tell you to splurge one meal a week. I control this, I don't need the government doing it. What's next, remove toys from cereal boxes?

But it's governments job to raise your kids not yours! Don't you get it? </sarcasm>
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
I disagree. He just failed to come up with the right comparison. You can't force Netflix, a private company, to send out a particular DVD. That would be like forcing Ford to put an IPod into every F150 they sold. However, you can regulate that automakers must put seat belts into every car they sell.

To use a better example, what prevents them from forcing Netflix not to send certain movies to customers in their city?

The question is really what is appropriate advertising to children? Is okay to push Highlights but not Hustler? What about Maxim? Is okay to push carrot juice but not cognac? What about energy drinks?

The operative word here is children, which I've taken the liberty of bolding. Parents are legally responsible for their children and if their kid is throwing a fit because they won't take him to McDonald's after he just saw the new toy offer, should we blame McDonald's for the kid's behavior? Didn't some lady just file a suit against McDonald's because her kid threw a fit? The point I'm making is that it doesn't matter what McDonald's advertises; it is up to the parent to decide what's best for the kid and to discipline the kid if necessary. Throwing your arms up in the air, saying "I give up! I can't fight McDonald's!!" and then giving the kid a Happy Meal is poor parenting.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
I disagree. He just failed to come up with the right comparison. You can't force Netflix, a private company, to send out a particular DVD. That would be like forcing Ford to put an IPod into every F150 they sold. However, you can regulate that automakers must put seat belts into every car they sell.

So it's OK to force Ford to include a product from a seatbelt manufacturer in their product, but not a product from an electronics company? What exactly is the difference?
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
thy this experiment:

give a 6 year old $5 and send them to to the counter and see if they get served. I'm pretty sure they will.

You really don't get it do you? That's right you (the parent) give your kid a $5 and send them to the counter at the McDonalds you (the parent) brought them to. The point is that parents are in charge of their kids, crazy concept huh?

Right, because kids don't get allowances and they don't have feet to walk to a restaurant...

I'm guessing you live in namby pamby land where kids aren't even allowed out of the house.

Allowed out of the house, yes, allowed to walk three miles through town to the nearest McDonalds at 7 years old, no. Idiot.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
I don't see what's wrong with banning toys from fast food. Same reasoning as banning cartoon characters from selling cigarettes.

There's nothing stopping kids from still buying fast food, but it takes away the non-food incentive...

Kids over 8 likely don't want a happy meal. How about instead of regulating whether or not a toy is included with a crappy burger... how about regulating shitty parenting.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Kids over 8 likely don't want a happy meal. How about instead of regulating whether or not a toy is included with a crappy burger... how about regulating shitty parenting.

You can't even ban a parent from striking a child...
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I disagree. He just failed to come up with the right comparison. You can't force Netflix, a private company, to send out a particular DVD. That would be like forcing Ford to put an IPod into every F150 they sold. However, you can regulate that automakers must put seat belts into every car they sell.

The Joe Camel ban is another example of the same thing. You can't force RJ Reynolds to use the 1913 Fred Otto Kleesattel drawing they commissioned as their main logo instead of an anthropomorphic camel with a penis for a nose. However, you can force tobacco companies to stop using cartoon characters that target children.

The question is really what is appropriate advertising to children? Is okay to push Highlights but not Hustler? What about Maxim? Is okay to push carrot juice but not cognac? What about energy drinks?

And just to be clear, there are already some existing Happy Meals that can be sold with toys once that ordinance goes into effect. How many kids do you think will pick the cheeseburger and fries meal without a toy over the chicken nuggets and fruit with a toy? They'll still be able to buy both. I may not agree with this sort of legislation, but I do think it would create a positive health benefit for kids whose parents feed them McDonald's.

Ah, a voice of sanity - wasted on most who you are answering.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
11
81
And just to be clear, there are already some existing Happy Meals that can be sold with toys once that ordinance goes into effect. How many kids do you think will pick the cheeseburger and fries meal without a toy over the chicken nuggets and fruit with a toy? They'll still be able to buy both. I may not agree with this sort of legislation, but I do think it would create a positive health benefit for kids whose parents feed them McDonald's.

Ehm - when I was a kid, I'd take the better tasting food without a happy meal 100% of the time. The toy was a bonus, not the driving factor.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Here's a hint for you: No toys means the unhealthy food is less appealing to kids. It's not exactly a leap to realize that fast food consumption will go down from its current level if the toys are banned. Have you never even taken care of a child? They'll pester you to "go to McDonalds" largely because of the advertising, including those stupid little toys. It's not just the food.

Parents are supposed to prevent their kids from smoking, but we still restrict cigarette advertising... Parents are supposed to prevent their kids from watching mature movies, but we don't let kids go into theatres alone if they're underage.

Have you seen kids toys these days? They kick ass compared to what we had in my day. Have you seen Micky D's toys? Basically the same crappy toys as 10 years ago.

Kids like happy meals because unhealthy fattening food tastes good. Parents buy kids happy meals because fast food is fast, easy, and relatively cheap. Around here you can already substitute fruit for the fries and they even sell healthy salads at Micky D's. They just don't sell many of them because the fries taste better.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
And just to be clear, there are already some existing Happy Meals that can be sold with toys once that ordinance goes into effect. How many kids do you think will pick the cheeseburger and fries meal without a toy over the chicken nuggets and fruit with a toy? They'll still be able to buy both. I may not agree with this sort of legislation, but I do think it would create a positive health benefit for kids whose parents feed them McDonald's.

The first time? A bunch of kids will take the toy.

Every time after that? The one without the crappy toy they play with for 10 secs because the unhealthy food tastes way better.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Have you seen kids toys these days? They kick ass compared to what we had in my day. Have you seen Micky D's toys? Basically the same crappy toys as 10 years ago.

Kids like happy meals because unhealthy fattening food tastes good. Parents buy kids happy meals because fast food is fast, easy, and relatively cheap. Around here you can already substitute fruit for the fries and they even sell healthy salads at Micky D's. They just don't sell many of them because the fries taste better.

the fruit for fries thing is seriously a few years old, so is getting milk or juice instead of a soft drink.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
i still love chicken nuggets, haven't had any in awhile, but they are the shit.

Fucken gross. I don't even see how y'all eat half that shit. Does not even look like real chicken. If I'm desperate on a road trip I'll get the angus burger they have. Still gives me soft stool but at least eatable.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Weird. I raised two kids, both have always been quite active athletically - spending a lot of time outdoors engaged in physical activities. We used to eat out 3 or 4 times a week, including McD's & getting pizza, because it was cheap and fast. Get out of work at 5, get home by 5:15, and have to be at soccer practice by 6? I can't remember the kids ever caring about the craptastic toys in the Happy Meals. But, when they were much younger, they loved the McD's playland.

Maybe San Fran should ban playland at McD's - my kids were attracted by the physical activity & actually got exercise at McD's. Wendy's didn't have a playland, so we didn't go there.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Sucks for you, but for every one of you there are people who hear about SF on TV and come visit. SF has always been a liberal city, and one of the most visited ones, especially relative to its size.

The most ultra left wing liberals in SF are the carpet bagging transplants. People who are born and raised in the city or have lived in the city since early childhood aren't usually ultra left leaning, especially if they live or work in the less glamorous parts of town that NIMBY's shy away from or only visit to be hip and trendy.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Get a pressure cooker. You can cook gourmet meals in 15 min max and cheaper. I'm actually writing a book on it now. Hope to get my own show:p
 

L00PY

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2001
1,101
0
0
So it's OK to force Ford to include a product from a seatbelt manufacturer in their product, but not a product from an electronics company? What exactly is the difference?
Actually it's not okay to force Ford to include a product from a seatbelt manufacturer in their product. It is okay to force the entire auto industry to abide by certain safety guidelines, such as requiring seat belts and airbags. Again, the San Fransisco ordinance doesn't specify McDonald's nor happy meals, but rather requires fast food with toys to meet nutritional standards. That's the difference.

To use a better example, what prevents them from forcing Netflix not to send certain movies to customers in their city?
I'd argue that there are already many cities that have laws on the books that makes it illegal for Netflix to send certain movies to customers in their city. While they may not carry hardcore pornography, I'm sure they've some items in their catalog that would run afoul of some local anti-obscenity legislation.

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.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
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.

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.