Santa Clara County: Supervisors ban toys with fast-food meals

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

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
LOL banning toys with fast food = the "direction this country is heading"

I have to say this again. GIVE ME A BREAK.

The amazing thing is the whiners in this thread are the same people who support the government banning same sex marriage. So apparently the freedom to have cheap Chinese toys with your nuggets is more important than the freedom to enter into a legally binding marriage contract?

YOU GIVE US A BREAK! the government needs get out of our private lives period.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
/facepalm
You totally missed my point. Yes those things are the parents' responsibility, but that doesn't mean government can't regulate those things. They can and DO.

You're right that they do, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is right. Furthermore, in your example, none of the things you mentioned were correct in the truest sense. The DOE doesn't "make sure your kids learn." It provides guidelines/rules for schools and teachers to follow, but in the end, the only people that can make their kid learn are the parents. This is a large part of the reason education stinks in this country and more money WON'T fix things -- many parents don't value education.

If you show a nipple or say the "f word" on your TV show, the FCC will FINE you even though raising their kids is parents' responsibility. There is no precedent for your position that everything other than criminal abuse is outside of the government's responsibility.

Using the FCC as an example to someone like me isn't a great idea, because they do go overboard. Furthermore, I don't believe I claimed that the government can only regulate criminal activity. In fact, I was again trying to illustrate the huge differences between the examples you used (child abuse) and this and saying that one is criminal and should absolutely be regulated by the government whereas you can't make a good argument why the other should be regulated. Because if you're going to sit there with a straight face and say this needs to be regulated "for the sake of the kids' health," I can give you a list of other things needing to be regulated as well. Where do you draw the line?

Considering how many kids want fast food just because of the stupid little toys, and as a result get hooked for life, I bet it will be pretty effective.

You don't think the parents will just drive to the next town/county and get the kids what they want?

Oh, and LOL at the "hooked for life" comment. You don't think that when the kid turns 18 and tastes his first Big Mac, he/she couldn't be "hooked for life" then? You act as if a Happy Meal is a box of crack.
 
Last edited:

Daedalus685

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2009
1,386
1
0
I'm still a bit confused how we went from:

Problem = Parents are being retarded

to

Solution = No more toys with kids meals

I'm not really sure what to do about stupid folks... though bringing to their attention that they are fucking stupid might be a start..

The problem is that the government shouldn't have to step up like this... the fact that anyone thinks it is a solution indicates a much bigger problem.

A company shouldn't blast marketing at kids because parents should be useful enough that it wouldn't work worth shit... thus capitalism would ensure that the only food profitable was healthy but for low volume snack food... sigh.


I can't accept that the only solution is to take away 'freedom' from rational people in order to save the dim witted. Find a way to educate folks such that this sort of thing isn't profitable and we wouldn't need to even consider regulating it. Mind you... I'm not sure exactly how I stand on limitting the advertisement exposure to young children, I know I'd be happier if it all vanished and strongly believe companies should avoid it but I'm not sure about how I'd feel if it was forced to go away.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
I'm still a bit confused how we went from:

Problem = Parents are being retarded

to

Solution = No more toys with kids meals

I'm not really sure what to do about stupid folks... though bringing to their attention that they are fucking stupid might be a start..

The problem is that the government shouldn't have to step up like this... the fact that anyone thinks it is a solution indicates a much bigger problem.

A company shouldn't blast marketing at kids because parents should be useful enough that it wouldn't work worth shit... thus capitalism would ensure that the only food profitable was healthy but for low volume snack food... sigh.


I can't accept that the only solution is to take away 'freedom' from rational people in order to save the dim witted. Find a way to educate folks such that this sort of thing isn't profitable and we wouldn't need to even consider regulating it. Mind you... I'm not sure exactly how I stand on limitting the advertisement exposure to young children, I know I'd be happier if it all vanished and strongly believe companies should avoid it but I'm not sure about how I'd feel if it was forced to go away.

Well said.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
care to elaborate on what porn is? what about taking them to a art show that has nude paintings? or how about the bodyworks where the bodies still sexual organs attached? would those examples get a parent in trouble?

That would be up to the lawmakers, but my point is that it is illegal in most places to show literature classified as porn to children.
 

Drako

Lifer
Jun 9, 2007
10,706
161
106
I can't accept that the only solution is to take away 'freedom' from rational people in order to save the dim witted.

But the government is so much smarter than all of us - they must decide what is best for our children!

/Throckmoron
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
But the government is so much smarter than all of us - they must decide what is best for our children!

/Throckmoron

The government is definitely smarter than kids who want a Happy Meal because it comes with some Disney toy. If you're a parent who fattens up your kid on those Happy Meals, the government is smarter than you too.

The argument that the government shouldn't regulate something because people (even kids) SHOULD be smart enough to regulate themselves, is a dead end. Following that logic, there should be no laws because people SHOULD be smart enough to police themselves.

But they're not. That's the point.
 
Last edited:

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
You might like to know that the "nanny state" of California bans paddling of children in schools, but it is allowed all through the south. I don't have children, but if I did I certainly wouldn't allow teachers to paddle my child. The selective outrage here is amusing.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Hey Hayabusa Rider, you should look at your local bylaws. Prepare to get outraged. There are laws in there that were never envisioned by old Ben Franklin, even limits on how fast you can ride your Hayabusa!


Who said Franklin was against laws which were put in place by elected officials for genuine public safety?

Tell me, what's the 0-60 speed of that toy?

Hey, how many rats can it poison?

Is it a WMD?

Those books again. You know those old fairy tales might frighten some kids. You shouldn't be allowed to read those. How about subversive things? We need to ensure that the proletariat is properly conditioned. There's no law that expressly forbids reworking the language. Hey, what about removing and changing the meaning of some words? The people would be happier if they didn't have to deal with complex concepts. It's hard to justify letting this pass, since ideas are at the heart of most wars. If we just control what can be imagined, then the government can protect us. We can have various ministries to aid that effort. The Ministry of Truth, and Love and so on.

This must be a wet dream for you.
 

Drako

Lifer
Jun 9, 2007
10,706
161
106
The government is definitely smarter than kids who want a Happy Meal because it comes with some Disney toy. If you're a parent who fattens up your kid on those Happy Meals, the government is smarter than you too.

LOL, you just don't have a clue do you?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
The government is definitely smarter than kids who want a Happy Meal because it comes with some Disney toy. If you're a parent who fattens up your kid on those Happy Meals, the government is smarter than you too.


Why don't you surrender your vote to them? You certainly can't compete with their wisdom.

Funny, but every now and again my son gets a Happy Meal and a toy and he hasn't fattened up. Your masters know best though.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
Who said Franklin was against laws which were put in place by elected officials for genuine public safety?

Tell me, what's the 0-60 speed of that toy?

Hey, how many rats can it poison?

Is it a WMD?

I think now you're getting it. Local government passing laws that violate no one's rights for the public good. Glad to see you're coming around.
 

Daedalus685

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2009
1,386
1
0
The government is definitely smarter than kids who want a Happy Meal because it comes with some Disney toy. If you're a parent who fattens up your kid on those Happy Meals, the government is smarter than you too.

The argument that the government shouldn't regulate something because people (even kids) SHOULD be smart enough to regulate themselves, is a dead end. Following that logic, there should be no laws because people SHOULD be smart enough to police themselves.


Yes they should, though no one here would ever expect to live in such a utopia it is nice to dream about.

The point is that the government should be spending its time bettering those who in fact are pretty stupid instead of passing sweeping laws that include those that are not.

Instead of outlawing toy with happy meals why not offer an incentive to sell all meals without toys, let them choose to or not... Why not offer an incentive to sell only food that is healthy (mentally and physically) instead of arbitrarily removing that which may not be?

We should be concerned that a large chunk of our population is not doing that well at things.. we should not go about removing the symptom as that accomplishes nothing. Root cause people...
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
I think now you're getting it. Local government passing laws that violate no one's rights for the public good. Glad to see you're coming around.

Ahh, the public good. The government gets to define what that is, and you must obey.

We understand you very well.

You are Winston Smith at the end of the book.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
Ahh, the public good. The government gets to define what that is, and you must obey.

We understand you very well.

You are Winston Smith at the end of the book.

The people get to define what the public good is through the republican system we have in this country. The people of this county decided that banning fast food toys is in the public good, and a law was passed, and no ones' rights were trampled.

The entire right-wing anti-government "if the government does it then it must be unconstitutional" ideology is based on conveniently ignoring that in a democracy, government is for and by the people.
 
Last edited:

Daedalus685

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2009
1,386
1
0
The people get to define what the public good is through the republican system we have in this country. The people of this county decided that banning fast food toys is in the public good, and a law was passed, and no ones' rights were trampled.

The entire right-wing anti-government "if the government does it then it must be unconstitutional" ideology is based on conveniently ignoring that in a democracy, government is for and by the people.

That is all well and good.. but in the ridiculous partisan state you find yourselves in the 49% on the losing side are still a load of pissy people.

If a law were voted on by the public I suppose it would be difficult to argue that it was not what they wanted... but this is not what happens. If you want to live in a world like that a lot of work will have to be done first.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
The people get to define what the public good is through the republican system we have in this country. The people of this county decided that banning fast food toys is in the public good, and a law was passed, and no ones' rights were trampled.

The entire right-wing anti-government ideology is based on conveniently ignoring that in a democracy, government is for and by the people.


No they did not. The article says that the people say it's none of the business of government. Three people said this would happen anyway, although there is no reasonable argument for public safety in any way. They wanted to make a statement, and they did.

They have the power, and they'll use it any way they like.

For and by the people. Hilarious. This does not follow the will of the people but it does show that people in power will use it for ridiculous purposes. You would have us dancing to their tune because they know that Happy Meal toys are dangerous.

It's funny. I have been reluctant to accept that anyone would be so worshipful of government that they would insist that it has every right to do virtually anything it wants at any time. That is so counter to what people have lived and died for here, and yet it's true. There are happy slaves. Even more, you would have us join you by force.

The only thing more foolish than a fool is arguing with one. Make your shrine and be a thrall.

I'll pass.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
The people get to define what the public good is through the republican system we have in this country. The people of this county decided that banning fast food toys is in the public good, and a law was passed, and no ones' rights were trampled.

Except for those who disagree with the law.

As long as the majority approves, it's OK? So slavery was OK until the majority was against it?
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
Except for those who disagree with the law.

As long as the majority approves, it's OK? So slavery was OK until the majority was against it?

It is hilarious that when a law passes that the left agrees with, it is "democracy in action." However, when a law passes that they disagree with or despise, we get the phrase "The tyranny of the majority."
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
It is hilarious that when a law passes that the left agrees with, it is "democracy in action." However, when a law passes that they disagree with or despise, we get the phrase "The tyranny of the majority."


Every society has it's Quislings.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
You might like to know that the "nanny state" of California bans paddling of children in schools, but it is allowed all through the south. I don't have children, but if I did I certainly wouldn't allow teachers to paddle my child. The selective outrage here is amusing.

I am trying to see a point in your post, but I don't.
 

Daedalus685

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2009
1,386
1
0
It is hilarious that when a law passes that the left agrees with, it is "democracy in action." However, when a law passes that they disagree with or despise, we get the phrase "The tyranny of the majority."

Stupidity knows no political affiliation. It is not just the left or the right.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
No they did not. The article says that the people say it's none of the business of government. Three people said this would happen anyway, although there is no reasonable argument for public safety in any way. They wanted to make a statement, and they did.

They have the power, and they'll use it any way they like.

For and by the people. Hilarious. This does not follow the will of the people but it does show that people in power will use it for ridiculous purposes. You would have us dancing to their tune because they know that Happy Meal toys are dangerous.

It's funny. I have been reluctant to accept that anyone would be so worshipful of government that they would insist that it has every right to do virtually anything it wants at any time. That is so counter to what people have lived and died for here, and yet it's true. There are happy slaves. Even more, you would have us join you by force.

The only thing more foolish than a fool is arguing with one. Make your shrine and be a thrall.

I'll pass.

If the people didn't want the law, they're free to vote for someone else next election.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
Except for those who disagree with the law.

As long as the majority approves, it's OK? So slavery was OK until the majority was against it?

What?? Did you miss the part where I explicitely said that they passed a law that violated nobody's rights? Are you saying that all laws are bad because slavery was based on law?

There is nothing unconstitutional about this law. If a county council passed a pro-slavery law that WOULD be unconstitutional.