SF first major city to ban toys with fast food meals

[Marokai Backbeat]

I agree this is pretty silly. It's not like getting rid of the toys will get parents to quit buying their kids McDonald's anyway, they do that because it's fast and cheap.

     Which is the main issue with the notion that this will actually do anything. They can include as many toys as they want, five-year olds are still only eating McDonald's because their parents are taking them there. Obviously the kids won't harass their parents to go there quite as much now, but let's not pretend that's a meaningful factor in the consumption of fast food by youth.

I think it will have more of an impact than you suggest, really. Toys are at times a pretty big factor in kids wanting to go to McDonald's. I know I wanted McDonald's toys all the time when I was little, when they had a toy worth getting. Even if it has only a minuscule impact, it's still better than not doing it at all.

     Ignoring that the responsibility for the children eating there rests solely with the parents?

It does, but parents are clearly irresponsible and stupid, anyway. (How dare I.) Removing one element of a child's pestering to go to McDonald's makes the parents, even if only very slightly, somewhat less likely to give in and go there.

[Mechaman]

I agree this is pretty silly. It's not like getting rid of the toys will get parents to quit buying their kids McDonald's anyway, they do that because it's fast and cheap.

     Which is the main issue with the notion that this will actually do anything. They can include as many toys as they want, five-year olds are still only eating McDonald's because their parents are taking them there. Obviously the kids won't harass their parents to go there quite as much now, but let's not pretend that's a meaningful factor in the consumption of fast food by youth.

I think it will have more of an impact than you suggest, really. Toys are at times a pretty big factor in kids wanting to go to McDonald's. I know I wanted McDonald's toys all the time when I was little, when they had a toy worth getting. Even if it has only a minuscule impact, it's still better than not doing it at all.

     Ignoring that the responsibility for the children eating there rests solely with the parents?

It does, but parents are clearly irresponsible and stupid, anyway. (How dare I.) Removing one element of a child's pestering to go to McDonald's makes the parents, even if only very slightly, somewhat less likely to give in and go there.

Parents know what's better for their kids than the State?!  OUTRAGE![/Marokai]

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well, in this case, it's fairly clear that they don't.

[patrick1]

I agree this is pretty silly. It's not like getting rid of the toys will get parents to quit buying their kids McDonald's anyway, they do that because it's fast and cheap.

     Which is the main issue with the notion that this will actually do anything. They can include as many toys as they want, five-year olds are still only eating McDonald's because their parents are taking them there. Obviously the kids won't harass their parents to go there quite as much now, but let's not pretend that's a meaningful factor in the consumption of fast food by youth.

I think it will have more of an impact than you suggest, really. Toys are at times a pretty big factor in kids wanting to go to McDonald's. I know I wanted McDonald's toys all the time when I was little, when they had a toy worth getting. Even if it has only a minuscule impact, it's still better than not doing it at all.

     Ignoring that the responsibility for the children eating there rests solely with the parents?

It does, but parents are clearly irresponsible and stupid, anyway. (How dare I.) Removing one element of a child's pestering to go to McDonald's makes the parents, even if only very slightly, somewhat less likely to give in and go there.

If you feel that way, why not just remove all of these steps and just take their kids away?  Uncle Sam can burp a baby with the best of them..... 

[Semaphore]

This probably isn't going to accomplish anything. The government can't force parents to raise their children responsibly. The government can't make people be responsible in general.

But I don't live in San Francisco, so whatever. I don't really care if fast food companies in San Francisco stop giving out shiny happy toys made in China with children's meals. They won't lose a significant number of customers because of this, and even if they did, they will just find other ways of attracting children.

[Sbane]

<snip>WHOA!...did that guy just insinuate brown people are sh**tty, ignorant parents?  <googles>...oh, he's an asian so I guess it's ok.

I think his comments have more to do with the fact that poor Black and Hispanic neighborhoods are usually full of fast food restaurants, while being devoid of grocery stores. When parents are working non stop to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, sometimes they feed their kid whatever is most convenient. And if you got a cheap, fast alternative and the kids are screaming for it because they want toys.......

Not that I support this, but nothing that guy said was remotely racist. I could imagine some white liberal saying the same thing.

[dead0man]

<snip>WHOA!...did that guy just insinuate brown people are sh**tty, ignorant parents?  <googles>...oh, he's an asian so I guess it's ok.

I think his comments have more to do with the fact that poor Black and Hispanic neighborhoods are usually full of fast food restaurants, while being devoid of grocery stores. When parents are working non stop to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, sometimes they feed their kid whatever is most convenient. And if you got a cheap, fast alternative and the kids are screaming for it because they want toys.......

Well that and it's cheap, fast and easy.  I haven't gotten a "happy meal" for my several kids in many years (I buy the "dollar" burgers and a large fry or two....it's the soda where they make all their money), but my kids still want to go to these places all the time.  I occasionally oblige because it's cheap, fast and easy.

This law isn't going to change anything other take some sh**tty toys out of the hands of kids....some of them will still be chubby, some wont.  I guess if it fixes the authoritarian joneses lefties often get then I guess it's not a horrible thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If a Republican from Mississippi said brown kids are chubby there would be a sh**t storm.

[Sbane]

If some guy from Mississippi pointed out that Blacks were fatter than the rest, and also pointed out that it may have something to do with the neighborhoods they live in as well as higher rates of poverty in their communities, I wouldn't think it would be racist. Of course a Republican from Mississippi wouldn't say that now would he? He would say Blacks don't take personal responsibility thus they are fat, cause crime, are uneducated etc etc.

And like I said I don't support this. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread and by me, parents take their kids to Mcdonalds because it's convenient. The kids might stop harassing parents to take them for toys, but I bet the effect will be negligible. And even where it does cut down on consumption rates, it will be most pronounced amongst the middle class who might have real choices and won't have to put up with their kids bugging them for toys (even here the effect should be near negligible).

[Torie]

Do a regression analysis of fats and SES by zip code, and you will find an amazingly seamless straight line, with a very high T stat that will shock you. Why is the Great OC full of leans, and Mississippi full of fats?  SSSSSSS.  

[Vepres]

And Democrats wonder why libertarians tolerate Republicans more.

[Nichlemn]

I am confused as to why the people who support softer drug laws often support harsher food restrictions, and vice versa. I mean, if it's all about personal freedom versus helping people who can't help themselves, they should go in the same direction, right? In this case you could say it's all about the children, but anti-drug campaigners would say the same. Plus, some food restriction-ists target adults, such as the NYC salt ban proposal.

[memphis]

I am confused as to why the people who support softer drug laws often support harsher food restrictions, and vice versa. I mean, if it's all about personal freedom versus helping people who can't help themselves, they should go in the same direction, right? In this case you could say it's all about the children, but anti-drug campaigners would say the same. Plus, some food restriction-ists target adults, such as the NYC salt ban proposal.

McDonalds is much more hazardous to health than marijuana.

[dead0man]

link

[Sbane]

I am confused as to why the people who support softer drug laws often support harsher food restrictions, and vice versa. I mean, if it's all about personal freedom versus helping people who can't help themselves, they should go in the same direction, right? In this case you could say it's all about the children, but anti-drug campaigners would say the same. Plus, some food restriction-ists target adults, such as the NYC salt ban proposal.

McDonalds is much more hazardous to health than marijuana.

Not to mention no one is talking about handing out toys to kids when they buy Marijuana.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I am confused as to why the people who support softer drug laws often support harsher food restrictions, and vice versa. I mean, if it's all about personal freedom versus helping people who can't help themselves, they should go in the same direction, right? In this case you could say it's all about the children, but anti-drug campaigners would say the same. Plus, some food restriction-ists target adults, such as the NYC salt ban proposal.

McDonalds is much more hazardous to health than marijuana.

Not to mention no one is talking about handing out toys to kids when they buy Marijuana.

Prop. 19 would have had a minimum age of 21, anyways.

[Lief 🗽]

I am confused as to why the people who support softer drug laws often support harsher food restrictions, and vice versa. I mean, if it's all about personal freedom versus helping people who can't help themselves, they should go in the same direction, right? In this case you could say it's all about the children, but anti-drug campaigners would say the same. Plus, some food restriction-ists target adults, such as the NYC salt ban proposal.

I don't support letting children smoke marijuana or drink alcohol.

[opebo]

Do a regression analysis of fats and SES by zip code, and you will find an amazingly seamless straight line, with a very high T stat that will shock you. Why is the Great OC full of leans, and Mississippi full of fats?  SSSSSSS.  

Because america is a class society, and there is no such thing as 'free will' in the epidemiological sense.  The owner of the powerless dictates what his body will be like.

[Torie]

Do a regression analysis of fats and SES by zip code, and you will find an amazingly seamless straight line, with a very high T stat that will shock you. Why is the Great OC full of leans, and Mississippi full of fats?  SSSSSSS.  

Because america is a class society, and there is no such thing as 'free will' in the epidemiological sense.  The owner of the powerless dictates what his body will be like.

The control of the elites is just total isn't it?  The powerless are just veritable robots programmed by some hideous sinister force in some terribly bad place. Thanks for crystallizing all of that in my mind with you pithy little work picture Opebo.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It's not the kids that want the toy that are buying the food, it's their parents for God's sake. Why can't the parents discriminate about what to buy their kids? When I was five and I only got my Chicken McNuggets and not my toy, sure I was angry, but it's not like I had any control over whether my parents wanted to buy me a toy or not. THE PARENTS ARE THE ONE BUYING THE FOOD.

[-]

But on the other hand, including little toys in happy meals and so on is very effective at getting people to buy their terrible food that literally ruins your body if you eat alot of it. Considering that this is a corporate effort aimed at little kids, basically, for lack of a better word, brainwashing them with a constant barrage of marketing and rewards for wanting the terrible food, I think I can kind of excuse something like this. Yes, parents should be more proactive on this effort, but the sad truth is, they're not. It's for the best.

^^^

[dead0man]

It's not the kids that want the toy that are buying the food, it's their parents for God's sake. Why can't the parents discriminate about what to buy their kids? When I was five and I only got my Chicken McNuggets and not my toy, sure I was angry, but it's not like I had any control over whether my parents wanted to buy me a toy or not. THE PARENTS ARE THE ONE BUYING THE FOOD.

See, lefties think they are smarter than EVERYbody else (even other lefties) and they KNOW they are smarter than "brown" people.  Now by itself that's not a horrible thing, kind of dickish, but a lot of people are dickish.  Where the lefties go tragically wrong is that they think that their superior intelligence is something that should be forced on other people.  They know McDonalds is wrong and if it's given to kids it's child abuse.  For reasons the lefties can't even fathom, other people take their kids to this den of commercialism all the time.  Especially poor people and even more especially, poor brown people.  They know this must be stopped and since most of them are authoritarians at heart, they see the govt as the best hammer for this particular nail.  Expect more of this in the future.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I am opposed to this.  While the councilors mean well, I think they're overstepping their bounds.

I think there would be less intrusive ways to work with these restaurants to make their meals healthier while still allowing the choice of a burger, fries, beverage, and toy.  I don't think McDonalds would be totally against working out a more voluntary system if they were told that the alternative was a ban.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It's not the kids that want the toy that are buying the food, it's their parents for God's sake. Why can't the parents discriminate about what to buy their kids? When I was five and I only got my Chicken McNuggets and not my toy, sure I was angry, but it's not like I had any control over whether my parents wanted to buy me a toy or not. THE PARENTS ARE THE ONE BUYING THE FOOD.

See, lefties think they are smarter than EVERYbody else (even other lefties) and they KNOW they are smarter than "brown" people.  Now by itself that's not a horrible thing, kind of dickish, but a lot of people are dickish.  Where the lefties go tragically wrong is that they think that their superior intelligence is something that should be forced on other people.  They know McDonalds is wrong and if it's given to kids it's child abuse.  For reasons the lefties can't even fathom, other people take their kids to this den of commercialism all the time.  Especially poor people and even more especially, poor brown people.  They know this must be stopped and since most of them are authoritarians at heart, they see the govt as the best hammer for this particular nail.  Expect more of this in the future.

[memphis]

If parents were really making 100% of purchasing decisions there would be no profit motive to advertise to kids. Obviously, children are making a great many marketplace choices.

[dead0man]

I think the label might not fit this time Batman.  Lefties are doing this because they know better than poor people what the poor people should feed their kids.  Acknowledging that and calling it stupid isn't a strawman, it's stating a fact.