San Fran bans Happy Meal Toys

Franny

wolfamongwolves wrote:

This is a real McDonald's ad from India.

I can't be the only one to find it deeply unsettling...





"If you hook them young, then you have them for life"

No you're not the only one......clowns are freakin scary. :shock:

This is what they grow up to be......

TriumphantAngel

boycott mcdonalds.

Pepe Silvia

prfctlefts wrote:

This is just stupid. It lies on the parents to decide whether or not their kid gets a happy meal or even eats at Micky D's. When was the last time you saw a kid on a tricycle going through the drive through ? I mean what's next ? Blooming idiot already wants to regulate salt in NY. http://gawker.com/5365900/bloomberg-to- ... ll-my-salt


Here are some other laws in S.F.

No plastic bags in large chain retail stores

No bottled water bought/sold on city property

No smoking in any building or in an outside patio area. clove cigarettes are not permitted to even be sold

No. baby animals. it’s illegal to sell baby chickens ducks or rabbits

No. segways on sidewalks or bike paths because they are thought to promote laziness

No soda and juice drinks with no real fruit juice can not be sold on city property

who cares if they don't want segways on bike paths??

they also have a different minimum wage that increased with inflation and is a few bucks more than the rest of the country....i'd take that over not getting a plastic bag or having someone on a segway on a bike path or sidewalk

also as for kids on tricycles at fast food places....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOi-FuHl-kk

gimmesometruth27

how about segways being unsafe for those WALKING on the trails????


there is always some excuse or some accusation bound to make those that are trying to live a healthy lifestye look like they are the ones being irrational... :roll:

canoegirl

Daniel McDonald Medicine Man on a route to Canada via the underground railroad for slaves NY ROCKS

wolfamongwolves

prfctlefts wrote:

This is just stupid. It lies on the parents to decide whether or not their kid gets a happy meal or even eats at Micky D's. When was the last time you saw a kid on a tricycle going through the drive through ? I mean what's next ? Blooming idiot already wants to regulate salt in NY. http://gawker.com/5365900/bloomberg-to- ... ll-my-salt

Here are some other laws in S.F.

No plastic bags in large chain retail stores
No bottled water bought/sold on city property
No smoking in any building or in an outside patio area. clove cigarettes are not permitted to even be sold
No. baby animals. it’s illegal to sell baby chickens ducks or rabbits
No. segways on sidewalks or bike paths because they are thought to promote laziness
No soda and juice drinks with no real fruit juice can not be sold on city property

unsung wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

You have to be kidding.

What a bunch of righteous f-wads. Same people that want the government out of marriage (and I agree with them), now want to regulate what a business can sell or give away when all of the products are legal. F-off you douchebags.

Exactly. The government needs to stay out of private lives.

Y'know, unless you all try to back up your arguments, rather than just saying "that's stoopid cos it is", you're not that likely to convince anyone of anything.

for the record, prfctlefts, where I come from we've also taken action on plastic bags - you now have to buy them, and people generally don't, they just bring their own - and it has resulted in a massive reduction in litter and plastic in landfills, which is welcomed by pretty mucheveryone. The tax on the bags is ringfenced for use by the environment ministry in clean-up projects. So... what's stupid about that?

We've also banned smoking in pubs, and though admittedly many people don't like the inconvenience of having to step outside for a smoke, the reduction in air pollution in the pubs is massive, which is a huge boon to those who have to work in pubs, with bar staff showing 80% reductions in the amount of benzine, carbon monoxide and cotinine in their bodies and an increase in pulmonary health. Do you think they think it's stupid?

mikepegg44

eyedclaar wrote:

Must be the Republicans first step to get us back to a more wholesome America. I mean, those San Franciscoites always seemed a little too "happy", if you know what I mean. I think a more serious meal is in order....

the republicans took over government in San Francisco?

that is a much bigger story than this happy meal law, which is ridiculous. TELL YOUR KIDS NO

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

how about segways being unsafe for those WALKING on the trails????


there is always some excuse or some accusation bound to make those that are trying to live a healthy lifestye look like they are the ones being irrational... :roll:

How so?

No one is regulating that you must go to McD and get a Happy Meal. What's irrational is stupid law, and many others that just happen to be coming out of that great state of California. When's the next big one so we can dump it off into the ocean?

cincybearcat

wolfamongwolves wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

This is just stupid. It lies on the parents to decide whether or not their kid gets a happy meal or even eats at Micky D's. When was the last time you saw a kid on a tricycle going through the drive through ? I mean what's next ? Blooming idiot already wants to regulate salt in NY. http://gawker.com/5365900/bloomberg-to- ... ll-my-salt

Here are some other laws in S.F.

No plastic bags in large chain retail stores
No bottled water bought/sold on city property
No smoking in any building or in an outside patio area. clove cigarettes are not permitted to even be sold
No. baby animals. it’s illegal to sell baby chickens ducks or rabbits
No. segways on sidewalks or bike paths because they are thought to promote laziness
No soda and juice drinks with no real fruit juice can not be sold on city property

unsung wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

You have to be kidding.

What a bunch of righteous f-wads. Same people that want the government out of marriage (and I agree with them), now want to regulate what a business can sell or give away when all of the products are legal. F-off you douchebags.

Exactly. The government needs to stay out of private lives.

Y'know, unless you all try to back up your arguments, rather than just saying "that's stoopid cos it is", you're not that likely to convince anyone of anything.

for the record, prfctlefts, where I come from we've also taken action on plastic bags - you now have to buy them, and people generally don't, they just bring their own - and it has resulted in a massive reduction in litter and plastic in landfills, which is welcomed by pretty mucheveryone. The tax on the bags is ringfenced for use by the environment ministry in clean-up projects. So... what's stupid about that?

We've also banned smoking in pubs, and though admittedly many people don't like the inconvenience of having to step outside for a smoke, the reduction in air pollution in the pubs is massive, which is a huge boon to those who have to work in pubs, with bar staff showing 80% reductions in the amount of benzine, carbon monoxide and cotinine in their bodies and an increase in pulmonary health. Do you think they think it's stupid?

You don't really have to back up the government regulating personal choice that doesn't effect anyone else...it's a pretty easy argument unless you are a righteous asshole like those in San Fran.

eyedclaar

mikepegg44 wrote:

eyedclaar wrote:

Must be the Republicans first step to get us back to a more wholesome America. I mean, those San Franciscoites always seemed a little too "happy", if you know what I mean. I think a more serious meal is in order....

the republicans took over government in San Francisco?

So, that makes at least two folks who can't recognize an obvious joke. Yes, the R government took over in San Francisco. You didn't get the memo?

81

it's the continued pussification of america

we are raising mamby pamby kids

wolfamongwolves

cincybearcat wrote:

You don't really have to back up the government regulating personal choice that doesn't effect anyone else...it's a pretty easy argument unless you are a righteous asshole like those in San Fran.

Ooh, insults?! The ideal way to win any argument, right? :roll:

If it were as straightforward and simple as "government regulating personal choice", I might agree with you. But that's an misstatement of the facts, and you know it.

It is by no means people's choice that is being regulated. Nothing in this has any direct impact on whether parents choose to eat in McDonald's. They are still exactly as free to do so.

What they are regulating is irresponsible advertising of low-nutrition food that contributes to poor health in growing children that can have long-term health and developmental impacts. I consider that to be reponsible.

You have a problem with the (non-existant) regulation of people's choice, but no problem with the very real manipulation of people's choice through advertising? I find that slightly illogical.

cincybearcat

wolfamongwolves wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

You don't really have to back up the government regulating personal choice that doesn't effect anyone else...it's a pretty easy argument unless you are a righteous asshole like those in San Fran.

Ooh, insults?! The ideal way to win any argument, right? :roll:

If it were as straightforward and simple as "government regulating personal choice", I might agree with you. But that's an misstatement of the facts, and you know it.

It is by no means people's choice that is being regulated. Nothing in this has any direct impact on whether parents choose to eat in McDonald's. They are still exactly as free to do so.

What they are regulating is irresponsible advertising of low-nutrition food that contributes to poor health in growing children that can have long-term health and developmental impacts. I consider that to be reponsible.

You have a problem with the (non-existant) regulation of people's choice, but no problem with the very real manipulation of people's choice through advertising? I find that slightly illogical.

Wasn't an insult meant for you...just the idiots that put this in place. It's an insult certainly meant for them, because they are self-righteous assholes.

Regulation removes choice.

Advertisement tries to drive a certain choice, but certainly doesn't remove choice.

Bottom line, it's none of the government's business.

wolfamongwolves

cincybearcat wrote:

Wasn't an insult meant for you...just the idiots that put this in place. It's an insult certainly meant for them, because they are self-righteous assholes.

All right. I disagree, but glad it wasn't levelled at me.

cincybearcat wrote:

Regulation removes choice.

I disagree - for the reason I gave above,

cincybearcat wrote:

Advertisement tries to drive a certain choice, but certainly doesn't remove choice.

I agree - that's pretty much just what I said above

cincybearcat wrote:

Bottom line, it's none of the government's business.

Don't see how that follows, but that's what you think. I don't agree.

Outcome: stalemate. Agree to disagree.

Shawshank

wolfamongwolves wrote:

What they are regulating is irresponsible advertising of low-nutrition food that contributes to poor health

This guy might argue that point...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

Jason P

Shawshank wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

What they are regulating is irresponsible advertising of low-nutrition food that contributes to poor health

This guy might argue that point...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

I tried this diet back in college, except I used beer instead of twinkies

wolfamongwolves

Shawshank wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

What they are regulating is irresponsible advertising of low-nutrition food that contributes to poor health

This guy might argue that point...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

Well, shut my mouth.

That article even answered my first assumption - "Haub does not have any ties to the snack cake companies."

Oh well, that's me proved wrong. I'm off to MickeyD's to start making up for 15 years of stupidity...

cincybearcat

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Shawshank wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

What they are regulating is irresponsible advertising of low-nutrition food that contributes to poor health

This guy might argue that point...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

Well, shut my mouth.

That article even answered my first assumption - "Haub does not have any ties to the snack cake companies."

Oh well, that's me proved wrong. I'm off to MickeyD's to start making up for 15 years of stupidity...

Hahaha.

I wonder how many calories are in those toys anyhow.

I would have far less of a problem, maybe none depending on the specific circumstances, if the government was regulating food standards. But instead of doing that, they are regulating the marketing. I know they've done the same with Cigarettes, but in the end it has also failed because lot of people are still smoking, no?

Anyhow, agree to disagree is fine. But, what if they government regulated how much time you could spend in front of your computer because it promotes laziness?

wolfamongwolves

cincybearcat wrote:

Anyhow, agree to disagree is fine. But, what if they government regulated how much time you could spend in front of your computer because it promotes laziness?

It'd do me the world of good! Cos I'm already far too lazy to do it by myself!