McDonalds' Sad-Meal

[Hrafn]

Re: McDonalds' Sad-Meal

Yeah, there you go. Get some community calisthenics going. Few jumping jacks while you're railing against corporate evils and you'll have burned enough calories to be able to splurge on a burger and fries.

[Shard]

Re: McDonalds' Sad-Meal

I still think it's ridiculous to get all red-faced about a city ordinance, but I know some people have to shoehorn this into an expansive narrative that fits their ideology.

Earlier I made a dig about the South and I wanted to clarify, even though no one's commented on it. I bring it up because I don't know **** about the South aside from cultural stereotypes. It's not for me to tell people in one area of the country what's best for them. Sampson brings up hypocrisy in the quote below. It's funny to me, that this thread has people who are willfully being ignorant about SF and the circumstances of the ordinance, so they can turn this into a meat-and-potatoes value agenda writ large across the nation, and then go tell people in a different part of the country how they should live.

I really love the hypocrisy.

People are quick to denounce right-wing censorship because its based on ridiculous, primitive, voodoo religious notions, but are OK with left-wing, ivy tower paternalism.

How about dry counties, Shard? You OK with those? Alcohol is bad for people, after all, and you can always just drive to the next county over.

Yeah, dry counties don't bother me. Also, alcohol isn't being marketed to children. And, lest the details be forgotten, no one has to drive to another county to get ****ty fast food. Nothing has been banned.

How about the ban, on say, illegal drugs? Most of them have no health benefit and are detrimental. How is the ban on trans fats not equivalent to the outright ban of drugs? Are you pro-drug war?

At least be consistent.

Since we're wandering pretty far afield here, I'd say I support any sellers of food having to post the nutritional content of their food in an easy to understand manner. I don't think trans fats need to be banned, but they do need to be acknowledged and posted. I also don't care about banning illegal drugs. Not because I'm for or against their use, but because it's costly and ineffective.

I voted for the legalization of pot in CA for the same reason. I have never used it and don't intend to start, but it's a huge damn waste to prosecute users the way it's done now. If it was legalized state- or nation-wide, but individual counties opted to be sober, that would not bother me either.

Why don't we overturn Roe v Wade and let 'dem rednecks execute dos' baby killers? Isn't that a "local government being responsive to the will of its constituents"?

Oh wait, probably not. Doesn't fit in with your ideas of whats good for other people.

And here we go again, equating a city ordinance with a Supreme Court decision for the nation. No it's not local government, because it's not local. What's so hard to understand about that?

Let me spell it out for you. The Supreme Court, decides matters of law for the entire nation. Hence the word Supreme. They make decisions that affect every locality. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors, only has power to enact laws in the city and county of San Francisco. If you happen to live outside of San Francisco, your happy meals remain unchanged. Whew.

[Sampson]

Re: McDonalds' Sad-Meal

I still think it's ridiculous to get all red-faced about a city ordinance, but I know some people have to shoehorn this into an expansive narrative that fits their ideology.

I really don't give a **** about what San Fran does. I was just voicing my opinion about this topic because it was posted. There are much more pressing political issues.

Also, alcohol isn't being marketed to children.

Do you really think that the inclusion of a 2¢ toy leads to increases in fast food consumption? Really?

George Carlin had a great bit about a similar topic. Do you really think teenagers are smoking because a cartoon camel tells them to smoke? Yeah, it has nothing to do with cigarettes reducing stress or anything like that...

Since we're wandering pretty far afield here, I'd say I support any sellers of food having to post the nutritional content of their food in an easy to understand manner. I don't think trans fats need to be banned, but they do need to be acknowledged and posted. I also don't care about banning illegal drugs. Not because I'm for or against their use, but because it's costly and ineffective.

Well, I'm sorry for straw manning you.

And here we go again, equating a city ordinance with a Supreme Court decision for the nation. No it's not local government, because it's not local. What's so hard to understand about that?

Let me spell it out for you. The Supreme Court, decides matters of law for the entire nation. Hence the word Supreme. They make decisions that affect every locality. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors, only has power to enact laws in the city and county of San Francisco. If you happen to live outside of San Francisco, your happy meals remain unchanged. Whew.

I understand the concept of the Supreme Court.

What I'm saying is that your logic is faulty. You can't say "let the people of SF restrict freedom, why do you care, you don't live there" and then not give the rednecks of the south the same right.

[Shard]

Re: McDonalds' Sad-Meal

Do you really think that the inclusion of a 2¢ toy leads to increases in fast food consumption? Really?

I'd counter with: Do you think McDonald's is including a $.02 toy just for the hell of it? Out of the goodness of their hearts? I'd suggest that if it doesn't have a positive effect on their bottom line, then why bother with the expense?

I know you know enough about economics and business to recognize that there isn't any component of a food product that doesn't have its marginal costs scrutinized up and down the production ladder. Does it josh with your understanding of corporate decision-making to include anything that isn't either A) legally-required, or B) profit-making?

[Perversion]

Re: McDonalds' Sad-Meal

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, and I'm sure you both (all) know what the inclusion of the $.02 (I wish I had a "cent" key on my keyboard) toy REALLY is for. But I'm gonna state it anyway:

Obviously, the toy is a tie-in to a kids' movie, a kids' TV cartoon, or another kids' toy line. Kids see the cartoon, movie, other toy, etc, and see commercials for McDonald's, advertising the toy tie-in for whatever is being hyped at the moment. So families go to McDonald's to get the toy (along with a Happy Meal), and eat a meal themselves there.

Now flash ahead 20 years. These kids are now grown up, and are taking THEIR kids to McDonald's for the same thing. And they've been eating there themselves for the past 20 years. It has absolutely nothing to do with the toy. It has more to do with enticing an impressionable kid with a carrot dangled on a stick in front of them, and building what EVERY business wants, envys, and strives for, a "Customer For Life."


Yeah, I'm sure everyone in this topic is well aware of this, but I figured I'd mention it anyway, as it's not been touched on yet. And of course, it goes without saying that the odds favor these "Customers For Life" ending up overweight or obese, or struggling with weight issues.

I'd love to see tray liners or commercials portraying kids as little porkers instead of the healthy, active ones they of course do show.

[Dallas Alvis II]

Re: McDonalds' Sad-Meal

Let the fast food chains do whatever they want. As long as they're honest about it. People know that fast food is bad for them and for their children..

This.

[orius]

Re: McDonalds' Sad-Meal

Obviously, the toy is a tie-in to a kids' movie, a kids' TV cartoon, or another kids' toy line. Kids see the cartoon, movie, other toy, etc, and see commercials for McDonald's, advertising the toy tie-in for whatever is being hyped at the moment. So families go to McDonald's to get the toy (along with a Happy Meal), and eat a meal themselves there.

Now flash ahead 20 years. These kids are now grown up, and are taking THEIR kids to McDonald's for the same thing. And they've been eating there themselves for the past 20 years. It has absolutely nothing to do with the toy. It has more to do with enticing an impressionable kid with a carrot dangled on a stick in front of them, and building what EVERY business wants, envys, and strives for, a "Customer For Life."

So what? That's how capitalism works. Companies need to constantly expand their consumer base because their comsumers either switch to a different product or you know, die. McDonald's sells food (regardless of how crappy it is), so they're the type of company that can advertise to both kids and adults.

But then again it goes back to the parents. It's the parents' place to decide how much fast food to fatten their kids upon. It's the parents' place to decide how much they want to burn their kids' brains out in front of the TV where they will be innundated with advertising.

[Sampson]

Re: McDonalds' Sad-Meal

I'd counter with: Do you think McDonald's is including a $.02 toy just for the hell of it? Out of the goodness of their hearts? I'd suggest that if it doesn't have a positive effect on their bottom line, then why bother with the expense?

I know you know enough about economics and business to recognize that there isn't any component of a food product that doesn't have its marginal costs scrutinized up and down the production ladder. Does it josh with your understanding of corporate decision-making to include anything that isn't either A) legally-required, or B) profit-making?

No, they aren't including it just for the hell of it. It is helping them, in some way. But I don't think its through increased product sold.

I think its, as Perv kinda alluded to, companies paying McDonalds to give the toy out as a way of advertising to kids. That's why 99% of the toys McDonalds gives out are related to new movies or tv shows.

EDIT: just start looking at different fast food resteraunts' websites. You can see the toys they give out, and they're all related to movies/tv shows.

[Sailor Spoon]

Re: McDonalds' Sad-Meal

I think Perversion's point was that there are very salient points on both sides, and it's up to us to decide what we value more: health or freedom. Choosing freedom means potentially saddling ourselves with a nation full of obese men and women swimming in a sea of medical complications. Choosing health means starting to compromise some founding principles of our country in favor of protecting the fitness of the populace.

There's pros and cons to both sides. {:3

That's true but people can be healthly with the freedom of eating whatever they want it's more of finding the perfect medium.

[peachy]

Re: McDonalds' Sad-Meal

Are you telling me that some people decided that it was wrong that McDonald's decided to advertise their products to children?

Jesus Christ this is going to be worse than the time we had to get rid of Joe Camel. Damn this hippy government!