Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 8/16/10 12:34 AM, Gorgonof wrote: Just some topic questions, Should McDonalds be allowed to advertise on kid shows? I remember old Mcdonalds commercials and they gave me a view of Mcdonalds that was much, much better than the utter rubbish they really are, although I've never been overweight either. I don't think I personally would've hassled my parents about fast food because my dad would've smacked me upside the head if I tried that whiny bullshit. Which brings me to another question, should we really be letting parents who would feed their kids lots of greasy crap even raise children?

Should we!?!? My, Gosh! No! A parent who feeds thier kid McDonalds should be reported to Children and Youth Services immediately! Get them outta that abusive home and into the System where they're safe and away from that 'love' thier parents give to them. Let's pay some social worker $25 bucks an hour to do what the bigshot at CYS tells them is good for that poor little abused kid. It'll all be better for him now. You'll see.

---

At 8/16/10 12:48 AM, magicsalt wrote: Should we!?!? My, Gosh! No! A parent who feeds thier kid McDonalds should be reported to Children and Youth Services immediately! Get them outta that abusive home and into the System where they're safe and away from that 'love' thier parents give to them. Let's pay some social worker $25 bucks an hour to do what the bigshot at CYS tells them is good for that poor little abused kid. It'll all be better for him now. You'll see.

Uhhh... dude....

I grew up occasionally eating that garbage and I turned out healthy, I'm clearly referring to people who let their children eat way to much, not feeding your kids properly and letting them become unhealthy is abuse, or rather neglect, and I think that's where the government should get involved.

---

At 8/16/10 12:28 AM, magicsalt wrote: Really? Cool. You go live in that world where some ass in an office somewhere, who just happens to think he knows better than you about everything in your life, can tell you what you can or can not eat. Let's also pay that guy with your tax money. I'm sure you'll be plenty happy then.

Once again, I am not arguing in favour of being told what I can and can't eat. You people need to learn to read.

At 8/16/10 12:09 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So? Nobody is forcing anyone to buy anything

I never said they were. Did you go to the same school as magicsalt?

This is such a retarded reason to buy something.

...?

It doesn't say "eat mcdonalds and you'll be thin and healthy".

Again, I never said it did. Not even McDonalds would be dumb enough to try something so blatantly false. Instead they opt for the next-best technique, which is as I said; getting stick-thin models and athletic types to advertise their artery-clogging food.

Wouldn't this make kids be more likely to engage in sporting activities, given the apparent 'connections' children make?

And does it? No. Hence the alarmingly high childhood obesity figures.

And I meanyou CAN be athletic and healthy and eat mcdonalds.

You can be a smoker who doesn't have lung cancer as well.

I eat it 2-3 times a week and I made the state finals for running this year.

Hats off.

Whenever you advocate for a state control you are advocating the initiation of force.

"State control" is far too broad a term for what we are talking about. I know why you chose that term, though. Because it conjures up images of 1984 and North Korea and KGB agents beating people senseless. Get a grip on reality; we are talking about McDonalds possibly being required not to package toys along with their kids' meals as a way of preventing children from developing an association between unhealthy food and happiness-inducing gimmicks.

This would be true only if you believe that mcdonalds should be free to ignore these kind of regulations completely.

You honestly think that a company being made to adhere to basic regulations is tantamount to holding their managers at gunpoint? You unbelievable fool.

If it wasn't for these so-called "violent" (your words) regulations that govern the capitalist system we wouldn't have things like consumer protection acts, minimum wage, overtime, maximum working hours, trade unions, and all these various other things that business owners would quickly do away with if there weren't laws preventing them from doing so.

---

Once again, I am not arguing in favour of being told what I can and can't eat. You people need to learn to read.

No, you argue to impose yet more regulations, touting the evil fast food joint lures kids with unfair marketing techniques, such as sports stars endorsees, happy meals and toys, on some unfounded notion that maybe a child concludes that such distractions construe good times.

You want to hold the business responsible for the parent's actions. It's not the toys that need regulated out of the meal, but rather the parents who need to make better decisions for thier children. Fries aren't less salty for the lack of a happy meal toy. I know you don't like the "parental choice" argument, but It is not the kid who is taking the parent to the store or buying the food.
Leave misguided regulations out of it and get to the heart of the problem.

---

At 8/16/10 03:33 AM, magicsalt wrote: No, you argue to impose yet more regulations, touting the evil fast food joint lures kids with unfair marketing techniques, such as sports stars endorsees, happy meals and toys...

Correct. Bizarre how you can state my actual position right now, after I pointed out how wrong you were regarding it, whereas before you couldn't.

Unless you deliberately completely altered what I was saying before just to try and make it fit your own argument.

on some unfounded notion that maybe a child concludes that such distractions construe good times.

How exactly does my position constitute an "unfounded notion" when the effectiveness of the marketing techniques we're discussing is self-evident?
We already know that they work to great effect... that's why McDonalds use them... and that's why we are discussing them right now. Completely the opposite of unfounded.

You want to hold the business responsible for the parent's actions.

No, I want to hold the business responsible for the business' actions.

It's not the toys that need regulated out of the meal, but rather the parents who need to make better decisions for thier children.

I agree. And if we take the U.S. as an example (since we are discussing San Francisco in this case anyway), for a country which boasts of having the greatest Universities in the world, the world's highest standard of living, and other such claims, the parents within that country have systematically proven that they are incapable of taking responsibility for the health of their own children.

Western societies are rapidly developing this idea that it is the government's responsibility to raise their kids for them. The United Kingdom is guilty of this.

Fries aren't less salty for the lack of a happy meal toy.

The absence of the happy meal toy removes the association between salt-induced euphoria and the toy itself.

Leave misguided regulations out of it and get to the heart of the problem.

The solution, as with most problems and situations in life, lies in education. If parents were to take a more, I don't know, informative approach when raising/feeding their children, we would see a generation grow up who can make good choices for themselves.

Until parents stop being so lazy and irresponsible, I see no problem with adding another harmless regulation into the thousands that corporations are already expected to follow.

Just as a side note, it's amazing to observe how North Americans react when someone threatens to slightly alter their precious Happy Meals, in sharp contrast to how they didn't seem to give a shit when their government started illegally wiretapping American citizens.

---

Fatty foods are a problem in society today, I wouldn't mind if they regulated their marketing strategies just a little.
Imagine if we lived in a world where most people were healthy, and had lots of endorphins.i think that with the growing trend of obesity in the world they SHOULD warn people of the negatives of fast food.

I don't even have to post a link up, just type in google 'Why fast food is unhealthy'
There is a lot more unhealthy facts besides it just being fattening.

---

At 8/16/10 12:09 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

You honestly think that a company being made to adhere to basic regulations is tantamount to holding their managers at gunpoint? You unbelievable fool.

It's true though. It obviously never gets to this stage because its obviously easier to do what they say than deal with their bullshit.

But ALL laws are ultimately backed by the physical force of the state.

Basically you believe that: Companies promoting "positive associations" with their products = BAD AND EVIL AND WRONG, but forcing people to do things = a-okay

If it wasn't for these so-called "violent" (your words) regulations that govern the capitalist system we wouldn't have things like consumer protection acts, minimum wage, overtime, maximum working hours, trade unions, and all these various other things that business owners would quickly do away with if there weren't laws preventing them from doing so.

And so your quite blatant economic illiteracy is quickly revealed.

Minimum wage: the minimum wage results in less jobs, which actually PREVENTS long-term increases in real (as opposed to nominal) wages. Also, this is a perfect example of violent regulation.
Employers can be THROWN IN JAIL for signing VOLUNTARY CONTRACTS with their employees under minimum wage laws.

But anyway, you don't make things better by regulating labour, you make things better by increasing the demand for labour. On a free market there would be far more jobs, which would result in the cost of labour being bid up as employers compete for workers.
When you do things your way, we get less employment and less production and ultimately less wealth, which is bad for everyone.

---

At 8/15/10 03:31 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Actually, Mc Donalds does have this sorted out. they provide nutritional information on their website and where I live it is on the wall and on every placemat or so.

But again, that doesn't necessarily satisfy conditions of perfect or near perfect information. In order to do that, not only would the information need to be available, but the parents would need to actually read it and have the capacity to interpret it. So even if all relevant nutritional information pertaining to the happy meal foods were available, and received by the parents; the parent's would still need to have the capacity to make good use of that information.

Most parent's don't understand that >35 g of fat a day is considered excessive, even for an adult, let alone a small child. Most parent's don't understand that eating 2g of sodium or more a day is a potential health risk (not to mention, addictive). I mean, we live in a culture that is generally somewhat hostile against the idea of a healthy diet. There has been some serious flak produced via the mainstream media, against 'health freaks' , vegans, etc. It's ridiculous, the barriers against making educated dietary decisions are deeply rooted within our culture.

Moving on to the actual health information that mcdonalds provides. I find it detestable that they portray happy meals with milk and apples instead of the traditional frys and soda. Which, as we all know, is the standard happy meal (yes, even today). But even the supposedly healthy "cheeseburger happy meal" with apples and milk has somewhere around 900mg of sodium in it. If you switch out the apples for fry's and the milk for soda the sodium comes close to 1100mg of sodium, with something like 25-30g of fat. In one meal? Ridiculous.

And again, this might all be justifiable if there really no subversive elements to the advertisements that surround this food, but there are. McDonald's commercials portray their consumers as fit, active, healthy, etc, and these are all blatant lies. To top it off they target their addictive, ridiculously unhealthy products at children, through subconscious associations of mcdonalds with being 'fun', 'hip', 'cool', whatever. It's wrong.

At 8/15/10 03:57 PM, LordZeebmork wrote: Ah, but are the sugars, fats, and salts present in similar levels to Happy Meal burgers?

Yes. God forbid you be assed to actually do your own research and discover this yourself. Happy meals contain the same essential properties of the vast majority of mcdonald's food. Including high sodium, high fat, and other more minute (but essentially unhealthy) properties like HFCS.

Is that because of some natural failure on the part of the consumers, or because of the consumers' expectation that the government will protect them?

The former. Even if the latter was true, it's a non factor. Taking away government food safety regulations isn't going to lead people into being more responsible consumers, its going to lead to them looking towards some new organization. In other words, verifications of safety via FDA, USDA inspection will be replaced with inspection via some third party (most likely conglomerated with mcdonalds or some other sect of the fast food industry). People look for ways to relieve themselves of the responsibility of thinking for themselves. This is just how human behavior functions.

The resistance isn't extreme and the knowledge required is minimal.

Assertions based on nothing more than your own personal bias. The fact of the matter is that unless you've taken a college course in biology, and have been exposed to the various studies revealing the health detriments of high fat foods, high sodiums foods, HFCS, rGBH growth hormones, chemical preservatives, and on and on, it's unlikely that you have the capacity to fully understand the health detriments of fast food. "Fast food is bad for you" means nothing unless it's given context, and all too frequently that message is outshouted by the advertising world, which works to portray McDonald's customers as hardcore athletes and dainty models.

There's no immediate advantage to eating healthy, there's no immediate disadvantage to eating unhealthy. Add in the fact that messages about the 'healthiness' of McDonalds are conflicted in the mind of the average consumer + the time/price utility of McDonalds itself, and it's clear that the system is rigged against the consumer making a truly healthy decision. Especially so when the consumer we're talking about is a child, who's only information pertaining to fast food has come from what they've seen from advertisements on television.

Ah, but what am I saying. Stopping these subversive advertising practices would be a textbook infringment on Mcdonald's god given right to market poisonous foods to children. We can't have that. I guess the children will have to die on principle.

---

At 8/16/10 03:42 PM, Musician wrote:

right to market poisonous foods to children.

Why ban the marketing and not the food?

I think the solution is better education ( seriously lacking right now. Like SERIOUSLY ) and taxing that shitty food.

Singling out McDonald's accomplishes nothing at the end of the day, it just sounds stupid.

---

At 8/16/10 09:20 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: But anyway, you don't make things better by regulating labour, you make things better by increasing the demand for labour. On a free market there would be far more jobs, which would result in the cost of labour being bid up as employers compete for workers.
When you do things your way, we get less employment and less production and ultimately less wealth, which is bad for everyone.

......Which is then outsourced to other countries so that its cheaper thus ruining our economy and worsening our unemployment rate.

---

At 8/14/10 08:32 AM, yurgenburgen wrote:

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.

Learning how to not give in to you child's every demand is an important part of being a parent. It's still the parent's fault.

---

At 8/14/10 01:44 PM, poxpower wrote: 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

Chicago buses tried the same thing with GTA IV ads (which didn't even have guns on them). It was a policy of forbidding ads by M rated games. That was thrown out due to the first amendment so I betcha this would be to if the film makers tried to fight it.

---

At 8/15/10 05:38 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 8/15/10 02:03 AM, fli wrote: 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.

You can live without equal marriage rights

its not the end of the world

stop being a fucking whiner

You can live without uncensored internet/privacy/video games etc. stop being a whiner.

---

At 8/16/10 06:06 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Knowing California I bet they would because of it Liberal Views, is alright to smoke Marijuana and have Same sex Marriage but you can have happy meals because its entrapment for children to eat unhealthily.

So San Francisco represents all of California? When the fuck did that happen?

---

At 8/14/10 09:41 AM, LordZeebmork wrote: 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.

It's not physically addictive, but neither is cocaine, or even alchohol. It's mentally addictive. I'm not saying if you're fat as fuck, it's not your own damn fault, because it is, but because children don't understand how bad McDonald's is for them, they want it anyway, and shitty parents are more than happy to give it to them as a quick-fix to get them to shut the fuck up.

---

At 8/16/10 04:50 PM, FatherTime89 wrote:

You can live without uncensored internet/privacy/video games etc. stop being a whiner.

What's the difference between loving individuals staying with each other, and marriage?

Nothing.

Not exactly like the Government telling you "you can't use the internet... ever."

Telling someone they can't be state-sanctioned "married" doesn't mean they can't have EVERYTHING in a typical marriage.

So how about you just shut the fuck up, alright?

---

This problem probably would not occur if parents would just tell their children how much those damn toys suck and waste space...

They are better off chasing an ice-cream truck, and learning to save whatever allowance their parents give them getting ice-cream...

oh look, I found out how to teach kids how to exercise and control their money!

---

At 8/16/10 05:28 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/16/10 04:50 PM, FatherTime89 wrote:

You can live without uncensored internet/privacy/video games etc. stop being a whiner.

What's the difference between loving individuals staying with each other, and marriage?

Nothing.

Wrong. Marriages enjoy state sanctioning and comes with many state sponsored benefits. Also married couples don't have to live together. Take the many soldiers overseas who have spouses back here.

Not exactly like the Government telling you "you can't use the internet... ever."

Telling someone they can't be state-sanctioned "married" doesn't mean they can't have EVERYTHING in a typical marriage.

It does.

So how about you just shut the fuck up, alright?

Nope although the whole point was to show how utterly stupid the 'you don't need it therefore it's OK to ban it' line of reasoning is.

---

I'm on the fence about this one.

McDonalds clearly advertises to children... big playpins, bright colors, toys, and even a clown for a spokesperson. For every McCoffee commerical I see, I see 4 commericals where Ronald McDonald creates a magic wonderland for children.

On one hand, it's the parents fault for feeding their children unhealthy food out of shear lazyness. But at the same time I feel like big business should also take responsibility for their actions. McDonalds knows their food is unhealthy, and they know it has adverse effects on children... so where do you draw the line?

I don't think banning Happymeals is the answer... but maybe there should be some regulation on how much a company like McDonalds can target children. Maybe it's time they get rid of the clown or something.

I don't know... I feel like something should be done... but I don't know what.

---

At 8/16/10 09:20 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
Minimum wage: the minimum wage results in less jobs, which actually PREVENTS long-term increases in real (as opposed to nominal) wages. Also, this is a perfect example of violent regulation.
Employers can be THROWN IN JAIL for signing VOLUNTARY CONTRACTS with their employees under minimum wage laws.

Well, I guess it's a fine idea to let people work for a pay that is less than they require to make monthly rent and pay for their food. At least they have a job, right?
As for voluntary contracts, I guess there are those people who are just desperate for a job, living in poor housing conditions and are fine with it. But this way they set a precedent where companies in general can pay less wage to their employers and can market their jobs so those who work for no money get it. People would no longer be able to demand better pay, cause there are tons of people who have been replaced somewhere else and are desperate for work, just like the days when their was no such thing as rights for the workers and labour unions etcetera. There's a reason why socialism became a big hit at some point, you know.

At 8/16/10 03:42 PM, Musician wrote:
But again, that doesn't necessarily satisfy conditions of perfect or near perfect information. In order to do that, not only would the information need to be available, but the parents would need to actually read it and have the capacity to interpret it. So even if all relevant nutritional information pertaining to the happy meal foods were available, and received by the parents; the parent's would still need to have the capacity to make good use of that information.

Yeah, on rollercoasters parents should also be capable of understanding that it is very important to comply to safety regulations, like sitting still in the ride and all. But I bet there are still some jackasses out there who just don't bother with them and when something happens sue the park because it was not clear enough they shouldn't pull shenanigans out there, even if there is a large sign in front of the ride.
Personally, i find those labels not that hard to read at all, advised daily dosage is on them and all.

There has been some serious flak produced via the mainstream media, against 'health freaks' , vegans, etc. It's ridiculous, the barriers against making educated dietary decisions are deeply rooted within our culture.

That's indeed one thing that crossed my mind. What constitutes as a healthy diet? Some will say Mc Donalds daily is fine, some will say Mc Donalds once a week or once a month is not that bad an habit. Some will say Mc Donalds is something to be avoided to the max. some people will say that eating meat is killing people. Should there ever be a day that veganism becomes mandatory? That the government should say stop to meat poduction and force full vegan menus in restaurants or even at school?
But I kind of digress. Mc donalds every once in a while won't kill you anymore than eating a pizza or any other standard meal, really.

Moving on to the actual health information that mcdonalds provides. I find it detestable that they portray happy meals with milk and apples instead of the traditional frys and soda. Which, as we all know, is the standard happy meal (yes, even today).

But there is still the option to pick the healthy one, right? And I figure that it comes with a toy as much as the other one.

But even the supposedly healthy "cheeseburger happy meal" with apples and milk has somewhere around 900mg of sodium in it. If you switch out the apples for fry's and the milk for soda the sodium comes close to 1100mg of sodium, with something like 25-30g of fat. In one meal? Ridiculous.

Se earlier, it is known by some that fast food is not all that good for you, but some will argue that a happy meal should consist of a leaf of salad and a carrot and that's it.

And again, this might all be justifiable if there really no subversive elements to the advertisements that surround this food, but there are. McDonald's commercials portray their consumers as fit, active, healthy, etc, and these are all blatant lies.

Because everyone who visits Mc D is a fat unhealthy pig of a man, a heartbeat away from a massive cholesterol induced heart attack?
I stand by the notion that Mc D once in a while with moderation isn't all that bad.

To top it off they target their addictive, ridiculously unhealthy products at children, through subconscious associations of mcdonalds with being 'fun', 'hip', 'cool', whatever. It's wrong.

Furthermore, doesn't this critique also go to any other commercialisation of meat products, like pizza restaurants, hotels, government advertisement of meat/milk products,...

---

At 8/16/10 05:53 PM, FatherTime89 wrote:

It does.

Not in california, where they've had the same benefits for years.

Nope although the whole point was to show how utterly stupid the 'you don't need it therefore it's OK to ban it' line of reasoning is.

lol, you obviously don't know his position on gay marriage, do you?

---

At 8/16/10 06:45 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/16/10 05:53 PM, FatherTime89 wrote:

It does.

Not in california, where they've had the same benefits for years.

Nope although the whole point was to show how utterly stupid the 'you don't need it therefore it's OK to ban it' line of reasoning is.

lol, you obviously don't know his position on gay marriage, do you?

I'm guessing he's for it because he called it marriage equality I was just simply reinforcing his point that you don't need it isn't a reason to ban things.

---

At 8/16/10 09:20 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: It's true though. It obviously never gets to this stage because its obviously easier to do what they say than deal with their bullshit.
But ALL laws are ultimately backed by the physical force of the state.

Are you suggesting this is in any way a bad thing?
Would you rather you lived in a time and place where business owners had every right to employ you and your children for 16+ hours a day, at a next-to-nothing wage, and keep all the surplus for themselves?

Basically you believe that: Companies promoting "positive associations" with their products = BAD AND EVIL AND WRONG

Not necessarily. Again, you are taking what I am saying and altering/exaggerating it to make it seem like I am saying something I'm not.
I am all for companies advertising their products with positive associations. I am not supportive of companies using blatantly fraudulent marketing/advertising techniques to get children addicted to crap that will kill them.

but forcing people to do things = a-okay

Again, you choose your words carefully to make it sound like I am some kind of advocate of police states. If by "forcing people to do things" you mean "forcing people to obey completely reasonable laws which are in place to prevent them from exploiting others", then yes.

Minimum wage: the minimum wage results in less jobs, which actually PREVENTS long-term increases in real (as opposed to nominal) wages.

Hahaha, are you seriously suggesting that countries without minimum wages hand out wage increases periodically? You said yourself that the minimum wage results in less jobs. Picture a society without minimum wages, and where employers aren't required to provide their staff with any set wage.
What you get is a place where potential employees will offer to take less pay than their fellow men just to keep themselves in work.
No employer would offer to pay a worker more than another if there were plenty of people willing to work for less.

Also, this is a perfect example of violent regulation.

It's a perfect example of completely reasonable and fair regulation which people all over the world have historically fought and died to implement, and unfortunately is still unheard of in various corners of the world.

Employers can be THROWN IN JAIL for signing VOLUNTARY CONTRACTS with their employees under minimum wage laws.

What specifically are you referring to? Can you provide any examples?

But anyway, you don't make things better by regulating labour, you make things better by increasing the demand for labour.

Wrong on so many levels. And this is getting besides the point anyway because we weren't debating the regulation of labour, we were discussing the regulation or marketing.

On a free market there would be far more jobs, which would result in the cost of labour being bid up as employers compete for workers.

History has already proven you wrong on that. If the capitalist system was unregulated, as it has been in the past, it results in employers forcing people to work harder, in horrible conditions, for little pay.
How can a completely free market create more jobs when employers have the right to demand that each of their employees do the work of two employees? It simply doesn't.
We are left with a society where people agree to take less pay and work twice as hard just to be able to survive.

But then again, this is basic logic.

When you do things your way, we get less employment and less production and ultimately less wealth, which is bad for everyone.

Uh huh. So countries that insist on regulating their workplaces and their means of production, like the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Australia, Japan, and so on, are all miserable poverty-stricken shit holes where people don't get enough to eat and the workforce is exploited on a daily basis?

Even countries that don't have official minimum wages but still actively enforce rules regarding working conditions, etc, like Germany, Denmark, Iceland, Austria, and so on, are still nice places. Compare this to places like Nigeria and any Middle Eastern desert country you can think of, where employers are practically free to do whatever they want regardless of the negative consequences.

---

"Again, you choose your words carefully to make it sound like I am some kind of advocate of police states. If by "forcing people to do things" you mean "forcing people to obey completely reasonable laws which are in place to prevent them from exploiting others", then yes."

I find it funny that you bitch about wording then try to pretend selling children toys is exploiting them.

---

"I am not supportive of companies using blatantly fraudulent marketing/advertising techniques to get children addicted to crap that will kill them."

So you think including a toy is somehow fradulent marketing? Do you even understand what 'fraud' means?

They claim they'd give them a toy and they give them a toy. There's no fraud because they aren't lying to people.

---

I personally don't see anything wrong with McDonald's "Happy Meal" marketing strategy.

They sell food children like, and bundle it with toys children like.

That's not 'underhanded marketing.' That's just marketing.

If parents let their children make decisions for themselves, that's their dumb/lazy decision. A parent is responsible for teaching their children good and bad, and if they allow their children to eat crappy food because they associate the toy with it, then that's the parents' fault.

If you don't do your research or choose to eat crappy food anyway, that is your constitutional right to stupidity. If a child does it, it's the parents' right to raise their kid stupidly. Many children grow up to be unhealthy because of this, but damn, you can't take responsibility for people's bad decisions. That's America.

For the record, I'd use the same argument about the candy cigarettes. If a parent is dumb enough to allow their child to buy that and not warn them about the dangers of smoking, it's sad but inevitable. People are easy to deceive, but if something isn't an outright lie then it is protected by law.

---

I say to just ban then toy.

---

At 8/16/10 07:58 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: I find it funny that you bitch about wording then try to pretend selling children toys is exploiting them.

I find it funny that you are incapable of composing all your thoughts into one post.

At 8/16/10 08:01 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: So you think including a toy is somehow fradulent marketing? Do you even understand what 'fraud' means?

"Fraudulent" would be a perfect word to use to describe McDonalds' approach to advertising. Fraud is basically dishonesty.

---

At 8/16/10 06:52 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: Are you suggesting this is in any way a bad thing?

yes, because I'm opposed to violence

Would you rather you lived in a time and place where business owners had every right to employ you and your children for 16+ hours a day, at a next-to-nothing wage, and keep all the surplus for themselves?

Plenty of people earn above the minmum wage.

Does the government tell employers to do this?

No, of course not. They have skills that are in demand and hence are competed for.

I am all for companies advertising their products with positive associations. I am not supportive of companies using blatantly fraudulent marketing/advertising techniques to get children addicted to crap that will kill them.

THERE IS NOTHING FRAUDULENT ABOUT THEIR ADVERTISING.

Again, you choose your words carefully to make it sound like I am some kind of advocate of police states. If by "forcing people to do things" you mean "forcing people to obey completely reasonable laws which are in place to prevent them from exploiting others", then yes.

"Force" is a concrete absolute. It means to use coercion to MAKE people do things against their will.

"reasonable laws" and "exploitation" are entirely abstract subjective, terms that can be bent and twisted to mean whatever the hell you want them to.

Hahaha, are you seriously suggesting that countries without minimum wages hand out wage increases periodically?

No, because they aren't free markets. There are a shortage of jobs, which results from a lack of economic growth, which results from a lack of free market. If these poor nations had minimum wage it would simply mean more people unemployed and poor.
In poor countries the minimum wage takes away their comparative advantage and investment simply shifts to areas with lower wages. Being low payed is shit, but it beats not being paid at all.

You said yourself that the minimum wage results in less jobs. Picture a society without minimum wages, and where employers aren't required to provide their staff with any set wage.
What you get is a place where potential employees will offer to take less pay than their fellow men just to keep themselves in work.

Minimum wage is only a small part of it. But anyway, like I said, on a free market there would be more jobs and so employees are more in demand.
Although China is FAR from a free market, as they have liberalised their economy there have been far more jobs, which have enabled employees to be more fussy about the job they take, and as a result real wages have risen.

It's a perfect example of completely reasonable and fair regulation which people all over the world have historically fought and died to implement, and unfortunately is still unheard of in various corners of the world.

so basically you're a communist i.e. don't believe in private property

What specifically are you referring to? Can you provide any examples?

Say I'm looking for a job, but no one is hiring. If I say to an employer "Hey, will you give me a job if I agree to work for $5 an hour (assuming min wage is say, $10/hour)?"
and he says "Sure. Sign this employment contract agreeing to this wage and these conditions nad you can work for us"

Then he can be violently forced to go to prison.

Wrong on so many levels.

So basically, you believe that people DON'T pay more for something the less the (relative) supply is i.e. supply and demand?

History has already proven you wrong on that.
If the capitalist system was unregulated, as it has been in the past,

WRONG

How can a completely free market create more jobs when employers have the right to demand that each of their employees do the work of two employees? It simply doesn't.

On a free market, more firms are more profitable. To the extent that these firms are profit-maximising, they will expand their operations with this profit in order to make more profit (by opening new stores, factories etc).
This results in a demand for more workers to run these new factories or whatever.
When everyone wants more workers, they will have to offer better wages/conditions etc to lure workers away from other firms.
Firms don't " have the right to demand that each of their employees do the work of two employees", because if on a free market a firm demanded that their workers do twice as much work for equal pay, then the workers would have the freedom and ability to simply work for another firm who doesn't. And this would happen, because 1, they need more workers to make more money, and 2, by keeping workers away from their competitors they are at a competitive advantage.

But then again, this is basic logic.

No its simple-minded foolishness.

Uh huh. So countries that insist on regulating their workplaces and their means of production, like the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Australia, Japan, and so on, are all miserable poverty-stricken shit holes where people don't get enough to eat and the workforce is exploited on a daily basis?

Nope, but things would be much better. Everyone in these countries are complaining about prices of things being too high, and with more production things would be cheaper.

Compare this to places like Nigeria and any Middle Eastern desert country you can think of, where employers are practically free to do whatever they want regardless of the negative consequences.

This kind of direct comparison is very ignorant/dishonest.

Firstly, Africans nations have the lowest standards of economic freedom in the world. Secondly, they have extremely violent governments who seize the nation's wealth and resources whenever it suits them.

This means that there will be an extremely low level of economic development and low level of foreign investment. hence, less jobs, and lower wages, worse conditions etc in western nations with comparatively free markets, their economic development means that they can afford to have the kind of regulations they do, but it just means things will be far below their optimal level. These poor nations, however, can't afford this.
A heavily regulated workforce in these places would make things so much worse.
It would rob them of their comparative advantage and would mean more poverty.

Seriously though your worship of minimum wage is foolish.

Why not just set everyone's minimum wage at US$40,000 a year?
Seriously, why not? That's sounds like an entirely fair and reasonable thing, no?

Wouldn't this mean that no one is poor any more??