#98QBKiller Posted November 4, 2010 Author Share Posted November 4, 2010 98QB, I don't understand why you keep saying other things could do more and then conclude that this doesn't do anything. There's no logic in that argument. I'm saying that if lawmakers want to really do something about childhood obesity, they would start by attacking the root of the problem, not waste time and money on ineffective, band-aid fixes that make it appear that they're doing something. Someone else said it already but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I suppose you could look at this as the beginning of a big push to change things, which is entirely possible, but not very likely IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Slippery slope...Do you drink? Do you smoke? Do you do drugs? Do you drive over the speed limit? Do you engage in any high risk behavior? Do you play sports? Do you eat sweets? Do you go to bars? Night Clubs? Strip clubs? Do you live in a low income neighborhood with high violence? If you answer yes to any of these then you should be uninsurable. :doh: So, in other words, we should subsidize the bad behaviors of others because we can't differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable choices? Communist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 When you have a system where you pull your own weight, people don't care what you do. Our current system doesn't require to people to pull their own weight. I am healthy, I eat right and exercise, and I own an insurance policy. I am pretty confident that my premiums are subsidizing the poor eating habits of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 So, in other words, we should subsidize the bad behaviors of others because we can't differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable choices? Communist. Isn't that precisely what we do with providing govt ins? Why don't insurance companies treat it like smoking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 you can already find that information if you're a responsible parent. putting it on the menu next to the item is pointless. people already have the means and ability to make responsible choices for their children, and they don't do it. if you really think this will lead to parents making more responsible choices....well, that's a foolish line of thought my friend. Of course I can find that information. But I would prefer to have it posted on the menu just as I prefer to have the price posted on the menu. I guess I could go find that information too if McDonalds decided I didn't need the price on the menu. But that would be irritating, just as it is irritating that I have to go "find" caloric content. Panera Bread now posts calories right next to their prices for each menu item and its very helpful. Panera could tell me to go find the caloric content elsewhere but I appreciate their help in making me an informed consumer. I have made better decisions as a result of the information they provide. And I have no idea what choices other parents would make for their children if nutrition facts were displayed more prominently. I do know that I don't want MY choices for MY children restricted because other parents make different choices which seems to be the direction San Francisco has gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 This is the perfect storm of conservative outrage. San Francisco regulating the marketing of fast food to little kids. Oh the humanity. There are more "slippery slopes" in this thread than at Six Flags Hurricaine Harbor, and all of them are ridiculous. ps - I think this ordinance is a waste of time, but cmon, what are you really so outraged about? This is about marketing crap to kids. Kids can't buy cigarettes, kids can't buy pornography, we don't let kids do what they want whenever they want. So they have to get the apple slices to get the stupid Happy Meal toy, or you have to pay 85 cents extra for the toy, what the hell is the big deal about that? MAH FREEEDOM!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 So Predicto, as you're actually in San Francisco.. did the city council do this on their own, or did they have voter support ? the eyes of the Bumble are upon theee.. or at least your sig anyway ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Really hoping that The Daily Show covers this story. BTW, is this a coincidence, or did they intentionally wait to vote on this until one day after elections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 So Predicto, as you're actually in San Francisco.. did the city council do this on their own, or did they have voter support ?the eyes of the Bumble are upon theee.. or at least your sig anyway ~Bang The voters could not care less about this either way. A handful of activists care about it, and the City Council passes symbolic stuff like this every once in a while to keep them happy. And the rest of us say: "ok well, that's a waste of time" and shrug our shoulders because it doesn't actually change anyone's life one bit. There are probably less than 20 McDonalds in San Francisco, and so a couple dozen more kids are going to get apple slices. BFD. Besides all San Francisco cares about right now is the Giants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 This is the perfect storm of conservative outrage. San Francisco regulating the marketing of fast food to little kids. Oh the humanity.There are more "slippery slopes" in this thread than at Six Flags Hurricaine Harbor, and all of them are ridiculous. ps - I think this ordinance is a waste of time, but cmon, what are you really so outraged about? This is about marketing crap to kids. Kids can't buy cigarettes, kids can't buy pornography, we don't let kids do what they want whenever they want. So they have to get the apple slices to get the stupid Happy Meal toy, or you have to pay 85 cents extra for the toy, what the hell is the big deal about that? MAH FREEEDOM!!! So you agree with punishing the kid who--once a month--might want to eat french fries with his hamburger? lol ... Why not take ALL the toys out of ALL the Happy Meals? Then, give tax breaks/incentives to those companies who spend resources trying to provide and promote healthier foods in their childrens menus? Or, keep all the toys in all the Happy Meals and still do the same thing? I just feel like I have irritable bowel syndrome when I hear any politicans--small and local or big and federal--passing laws and ordinances that either accomplish abso-stinkin-lutely nothing or make things worse. It's like only 10% of the politicians seem capable of thinking down the road or maybe even want to. And if I see people nodding their heads in approval for a useless intiative and patting the pols on their collective backs, I gotta say something lol (not that this thread actually had much of that last part, I'm just talking in general)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Really hoping that The Daily Show covers this story. BTW, is this a coincidence, or did they intentionally wait to vote on this until one day after elections? Actually a coincidence. This has been in the works for a while, but it got send back to committee a couple times to get enough votes to make it veto proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 So you agree with punishing the kid who--once a month--might want to eat french fries with his hamburger? lol ...Why not take ALL the toys out of ALL the Happy Meals? Then, give tax breaks/incentives to those companies who spend resources trying to provide and promote healthier foods in their childrens menus? Or, keep all the toys in all the Happy Meals and still do the same thing? I just feel like I have irritable bowel syndrome when I hear any politicans--small and local or big and federal--passing laws and ordinances that either accomplish abso-stinkin-lutely nothing or make things worse. It's like only 10% of the politicians seem capable of thinking down the road or maybe even want to. And if I see people nodding their heads in approval for a useless intiative and patting the pols on their collective backs, I gotta say something lol (not that this thread actually had much of that last part, I'm just talking in general)... You are right - this is a meaningless gesture local government response to a genuine, nationwide problem. So what? Not the first time that has ever happened in local politics in America. I'm just amazed how much this meaningless gesture pisses off some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I think it's a silly way to address obesity but if the local govt. in San Fran believes it's the best method for THEIR local obesity problem then who are we to complain? This is how government was intended to work. Local laws for local issues. I wish this approach would be taken in all legislation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I think if I'm McDonald's, I immediately replace the Happy Meal toy with a business card with the phone numbers of the city council members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 There are probably less than 20 McDonalds in San Francisco, and so a couple dozen more kids are going to get apple slices. BFD. Scary how close to being right on the nose you were. Apparently there are 21. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I think if I'm McDonald's, I immediately replace the Happy Meal toy with a business card with the phone numbers of the city council members. You really think anyone in any actual McDonalds is going to care about this? You really think that any KID even cares about this? It's not like Happy Meal toys were actually banned. You just have to order the apple slices, or pay an extra buck - you still get the toy. The only people who give a damn about this are 50 holier than thou activists in San Francisco and 50 million conservative guys on message boards with their collective panties in a bunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Blaming food instead of the parents that feed it to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Scary how close to being right on the nose you were. Apparently there are 21. Yeah, fast food chains don't do that well here. Too many good cheap take out restaurants. Most people looking for a quick bite get a burrito or some asian noodles or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Blaming food instead of the parents that feed it to them? I don't think its about "blame." It's not a criminal law. It's about looking for solutions. (not that this is a real solution - it isn't - but the fat kid problem is certainly real) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 The only people who give a damn about this are 50 holier than thou activists in San Francisco and 50 million conservative guys on message boards with their collective panties in a bunch. From my COLD, DEAD HANDS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Isn't that precisely what we do with providing govt ins? Yup. And it's precisely what private insurers do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-3-2011/san-francisco-s-happy-meal-ban Duh @3:30 :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 Awesome clip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Eric Mar is one of the most irritating people on the planet. That clip was great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I see two sides to this. McD should have the right to serve whatever they wish. But on the other hand, Americans are obviously clueless when it comes to diet & health. We (including kids) are huge! But it's not like banning a happy meal with curve the problem... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.