Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/new-econo my/2010/0813/Happy-Meals-Does-McDonald-s -lure-kids-unfairly

Basically a bunch of people are thinking about finding some kind of way to ban happy meals because of the toys they give to kids. The idea here being that it's "unfair" for McDonald's to lure kids into their horrible nest of greasy evils.

What do you think about that?
If you had to hand a tall frosty mug of STFU to these people, how would you describe its size ( using the metric system ).

At 8/13/10 11:13 PM, poxpower wrote: Basically a bunch of people are thinking about finding some kind of way to ban happy meals because of the toys they give to kids. The idea here being that it's "unfair" for McDonald's to lure kids into their horrible nest of greasy evils.

makes total sense. If cigarette companies aimed their product to lure kids, we'd ban them too, right? oh wait...

The parents could just not buy the happy meal.

At 8/13/10 11:13 PM, poxpower wrote: http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/new-econo my/2010/0813/Happy-Meals-Does-McDonald-s -lure-kids-unfairly

Basically a bunch of people are thinking about finding some kind of way to ban happy meals because of the toys they give to kids. The idea here being that it's "unfair" for McDonald's to lure kids into their horrible nest of greasy evils.

I think it's partially the parents' faults. It's their responsibility in the first place to make sure their children are getting proper nutrition. Sure, the toys are cool, but I don't think a simple $0.25 toy is going to make me buy fast food for the rest of my life.
And guess what? It didn't. I eat McDonald's less than three times a month, which you might not believe.
So, all in all, these people must be running out of things to complain about.

What do you think about that?
If you had to hand a tall frosty mug of STFU to these people, how would you describe its size ( using the metric system ).

About 45 kilograms.

What happened to the fatness thread?

Wait found it

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1183 034

lol XD

I saw an ~intellectual~ on tv the other day saying "2 for 1" deals displays at supermarkets and confectionery displays around checkouts should be banned because they (supposedly) psychologically affect people in a way that makes it literally impossible to resist buying the product, comparing them to toxins in the air that we can't see and hence can't avoid breathing in.

\ :

Well, there was a time when cigarette companies used cartoons and various underhanded brand identification techniques to get children to start smoking, and naturally we look back on those times with abject horror.

McDonalds uses the same techniques to get children addicted to the greasy, salty crap that it serves, which ends up killing people at young ages. I don't see why it should be exempt from regulation.

At 8/14/10 05:45 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: McDonalds uses the same techniques to get children addicted to the greasy, salty crap that it serves, which ends up killing people at young ages. I don't see why it should be exempt from regulation.

Children don't buy mcdonalds. parents do.

Nobody is forcing them to, and so they are sqaurely to blame.

Basically, when you advocate such a regulation, you are advocating the use of coercion to prevent voluntary exchange. To suggest such a system like this will be able to solve any problems is absurd.

At 8/14/10 07:53 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Children don't buy mcdonalds. parents do.

Have you ever seen the way children react when they're in the car with their parents and they drive near a McDonalds sign? Parents end up feeding that shit to their kids just to get them to stop screaming and crying. I've seen it happen.

Not only is the food addictive to begin with, especially for a child, but these toys and various gimmicks that come along with the Happy Meals add an entirely new element to the whole thing.

The government is nobody's mother, and I will oppose any attempt it makes to convince the people otherwise. This health legislation craze has reached an absurd level. If I want to buy a soda, I'll buy the goddamn soda. If I can't buy it from the vending machine, I'll buy a six-pack and throw a bottle from there in my pocket.

At 8/14/10 05:45 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: Well, there was a time when cigarette companies used cartoons and various underhanded brand identification techniques to get children to start smoking, and naturally we look back on those times with abject horror.

McDonalds uses the same techniques to get children addicted to the greasy, salty crap that it serves, which ends up killing people at young ages. I don't see why it should be exempt from regulation.

Show me scientific proof that cheeseburgers from McDonald's are physically addictive, and I might agree with you there. But probably not; I don't even support the age limit on cigarettes.

At 8/14/10 08:32 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: Have you ever seen the way children react when they're in the car with their parents and they drive near a McDonalds sign? Parents end up feeding that shit to their kids just to get them to stop screaming and crying. I've seen it happen.

Then the parents need to grow a pair and stop spoiling the kids. This should not be that hard a concept. Anyone who can't resist buying their children something they don't need just to stop them from crying shouldn't be parenting in the first place.

At 8/14/10 09:41 AM, LordZeebmork wrote: But probably not; I don't even support the age limit on cigarettes.

You might want to nuance that a bit; otherwise you'll end up with stuff like this being legal.

Mc Donalds, shmeckdonalds. Come on now. It is dangerous when eaten far too often, but a Big Mac every once in a while won't hurt a bit. By the same logic, we should ban candy, soft drinks and chocolates and all the rest, because the taste forces kids to eat too much candy. We should all just be forced to eat raw vegan leaves of salad instead of stuff that actually tastes good, because good taste encourages people to eat unhealthy stuff and get fat.

I do agree on cutting back on Mc Donalds meals in schools and such where kids are practically forced to eat it.

At 8/14/10 09:45 AM, lapis wrote:

At 8/14/10 09:41 AM, LordZeebmork wrote: But probably not; I don't even support the age limit on cigarettes.

You might want to nuance that a bit; otherwise you'll end up with stuff like this being legal.

I don't support the current age limit. I think it should be set to the age at which people generally become capable of making rational decisions and taking responsibility for their own lives. I also think 18 is ridiculously high, and a lot of the problems with "kids these days" could be solved if people would lower that to 15 or 16.

Actually, a lot of those problems could be solved by getting parents to not fucking spoil or shelter their kids, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Why is San Francisco trying to ban this? Has anyone found the irony? San Francisco is extremely dense, with tons of walking, and has an extremely low amount of fast food per capita.

Shouldn't some fat shitty hole of a city like (Insert any City between the Rockies and Delaware River here) be doing this?

At 8/13/10 11:22 PM, LordJaric wrote: The parents could just not buy the happy meal.

Agreed. I think this is similar to those people who were trying to sue McDonald's because their food made them fat. If you have a problem with fast food, then simply do not go to the fast food restaurants. I believe Penn and Teller did an episode on this, even if I only saw the first minute of so of it. We need to take responsibility for the things we put into our bodies.

At 8/14/10 08:32 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: Have you ever seen the way children react when they're in the car with their parents and they drive near a McDonalds sign? Parents end up feeding that shit to their kids just to get them to stop screaming and crying. I've seen it happen.

Again, you have a massive problem with clever marketing that encourages people to VOLUNTARILY buy certain products, and yet you think violence is fine.

Kind of retarded, really.

Common sense seems to becoming a thing of the past, as others have said it's the parents who buy the food for their children so it becomes their responsibility.

My word...it's people who suggest this kind of crap who also advocate banning violent video games, music with profanity and anything that could potentially contain a bare buttock or two(Porn) all in the name of the children. How that 8 year old ended up weighing 200 pounds, staying indoors playing GTA IVall day while blasting "Get Low" in the background obviously has nothing to do with the parents.

Seriously though i would love to a a million man march like event with the emphasis of STFU aimed at these kind of people.

At 8/14/10 10:47 AM, Jinzoa wrote: My word...it's people who suggest this kind of crap who also advocate banning violent video games, music with profanity and anything that could potentially contain a bare buttock or two(Porn) all in the name of the children. How that 8 year old ended up weighing 200 pounds, staying indoors playing GTA IVall day while blasting "Get Low" in the background obviously has nothing to do with the parents.

Actually, San Francisco is very friendly to 1st Amendment rights. It is also the accepting home of a very strong porn and sexual scene.

This is liberal nanny-stating, not conservative nanny-stating. Not that it makes this any more or less detestable.

Its all fun and games until we remember children play a huge part in the purchase of things like cars, auto insurance etc. likewise many commercials like those end up on kid's networks, most of it is targeted at children and its apparently effective. You also have to remember companies like McDonalds pay the most for advertising then most other food companies, so children are constantly bombarded with their adverts.

Not saying its not the parents fault but the companies play a huge part in it.

The day Mcdonalds puts a gun to my head and forces me to buy a big mac is the they need regulation. Until then, consumers are willing to pay for their food - even if it's unhealthy - and the government has no right to stop them, and that includes happy meals. Little kids do not buy happy meals - parents do, and what right does the government have to prevent them?

It's stupid. The economy is tanking, global warming's on the rise, we're in two wars, government's getting bigger and bigger, and our debt is cancerous.
And what is the evil that these losers want to ban?

Happy Meals.

At 8/14/10 05:45 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: Well, there was a time when cigarette companies used cartoons and various underhanded brand identification techniques to get children to start smoking, and naturally we look back on those times with abject horror.

Wasn't it illegal for kids to buy cigarettes? What business would companies have marketing an illegal product to kids?
I notice they have banned pretty much all cigarette commercials though, which is retarded.

At 8/14/10 11:39 AM, Warforger wrote:

Not saying its not the parents fault but the companies play a huge part in it.

Yeah the point is that there's no basis for singling out McDonald's.

What they did was randomly decide that handing out a toy at McDonald's is just TOO MUCH. Nevermind handing out stupid shit in boxes of chocolate Lucky Charms or cracker jacks, no, it's MC DONALD'S!! AR DAMN YOU MCDONALD'S!!!

Anyway I doubt this will pass. Ronald will just laugh it up.

At 8/14/10 01:39 PM, poxpower wrote: Anyway I doubt this will pass. Ronald will just laugh it up.

And hey... free advertising every night on the news :D

Well it's official, San Francisco is THE GAYEST PLACE ON EARTH: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010 /08/the_other_guys_movie_poster_di.php

I may sound stupid now, but is Mc Donalds still all that bad?
They've been healthing it up a few notches in the past few years, like providing salad meals with a bunch of vegetables, some chicken strips and a vinaigrette sauce. (which is not too fat)
Where I live, their burgers have become less greasy, as wll as their fries over the course of years. They provide information about the contents of their foods and, I assume they don't pull that shit out of their asses, it's not like it really exceeds all the limits all that much.

Like I mentioned, eating at Mc Donalds in moderation, without supersizing everything, and doing so once or twice a week, doesn't sem to be that dangerous.

I do speak in experience of Mc donalds in Europe, where there is no such thing as supersize and, as I've heard from a colleague who went to the states, everything is in smaller portions. Childrens meals also provide so called healthy deserts, like pieces of fruit and all that.

I can't see much of a problem--
They can still sell a happy meal sans toy.

It's not the end of the world.

child obeisty
from a toy?
when i got happy meals i didnt even care about eating i just wanted that toy