SF first major city to ban toys with fast food meals

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

Expect more of this freedom hating bullspit in the future.  I'm sure the nanny staters here will fully endorse this trend.

[opebo]

Deadman, your outcry about 'freedom' is comical here, considering every comestible available to the american worker is under the iron control of the corporation cabal.  Yes, such laws limit the freedom of some huge dominant corporations to seduce children to consume their poisons, but lets remember - freedom is already long gone, and its demise is due entirely to said corporations.

[dead0man]

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm a bit conflicted on this one. On one hand, the civil libertarian in me hates the idea of doing something like this. It's obviously intrusive and nanny-ish.

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.

[memphis]

If liking the end of something this sinister means I hate freedom, so be it.

[dead0man]

Should we pass laws banning all promotion of things that are bad for us?  Should we ban beer ads that show people having fun?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Should we pass laws banning all promotion of things that are bad for us?  Should we ban beer ads that show people having fun?

Do they market beer to 5 year olds?

[memphis]

Should we pass laws banning all promotion of things that are bad for us?  Should we ban beer ads that show people having fun?

For children? Absolutely.

[dead0man]

aaahhh, the old "won't someone please think of the children" line.  Earth, I'm sure, will disagree with you.

A small part of this issue is when did the public sphere, culture itself, because "family friendly", that we myopically focus on goddamn kids? So much utterly ridiculous bullsh*t gets ignored because it's framed as a discussion centered around "won't someone please think of the children".

[Lief 🗽]

San Fransisco is a great city. I fully support this.

[memphis]

aaahhh, the old "won't someone please think of the children" line.  Earth, I'm sure, will disagree with you.

A small part of this issue is when did the public sphere, culture itself, because "family friendly", that we myopically focus on goddamn kids? So much utterly ridiculous bullsh*t gets ignored because it's framed as a discussion centered around "won't someone please think of the children".

Just so we're clear on this. You support beer ads that target children? Shall we include a toy with every six pack?

[??????????]

San Fransisco is a great city. I fully support this.

Not surprising to see who the authoritarians here are.

[dead0man]

aaahhh, the old "won't someone please think of the children" line.  Earth, I'm sure, will disagree with you.

A small part of this issue is when did the public sphere, culture itself, because "family friendly", that we myopically focus on goddamn kids? So much utterly ridiculous bullsh*t gets ignored because it's framed as a discussion centered around "won't someone please think of the children".

Just so we're clear on this. You support beer ads that target children? Shall we include a toy with every six pack?

No, I missunderstood your initial position and thought you just wanted to ban advertising that promoted "bad things".  I didn't know your whole problem with it was "won't someone please think of the children".  My bad.

(but yeah, 18 year olds should be able to buy beer and the gun grabbers always include 18 year olds as children when calculating gun violence....so yeah, I do think beer should be advertised to "children"...and a toy might be cool...depending on what it is)

[Zarn]

And Democrats wonder why libertarians tolerate Republicans more.

[tpfkaw]

This is a perfect example of how social liberals are no better than social conservatives from a libertarian perspective.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[hawkeye59]

San Fransisco is a great city. I fully support this.

This.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

HC

[??????????]

Worm, I am a social conservative yet believe people should be largely responsible for themselves.

[opebo]

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.

In other words, poverty is what feeds McDonalds.

[Earth]

aaahhh, the old "won't someone please think of the children" line.  Earth, I'm sure, will disagree with you.

A small part of this issue is when did the public sphere, culture itself, because "family friendly", that we myopically focus on goddamn kids? So much utterly ridiculous bullsh*t gets ignored because it's framed as a discussion centered around "won't someone please think of the children".

Thank you.

aaahhh, the old "won't someone please think of the children" line.  Earth, I'm sure, will disagree with you.

A small part of this issue is when did the public sphere, culture itself, because "family friendly", that we myopically focus on goddamn kids? So much utterly ridiculous bullsh*t gets ignored because it's framed as a discussion centered around "won't someone please think of the children".

Just so we're clear on this. You support beer ads that target children? Shall we include a toy with every six pack?

We should include Hannah Montana Twister games with every six pack, and bottle of Jager. Kids still couldn't buy it.

SF could even hand out packaged toys to prostitutes when they hand out condoms, so they can give their Johns' kids something to do while daddy gets serviced.

This is a perfect example of how social liberals are no better than social conservatives from a libertarian perspective.

What sets standard libertarians apart? After all, if you aren't socially liberal, you're just stereotypically right wing.

[opebo]

Worm, I am a social conservative yet believe people should be largely responsible for themselves.

I forget, are you for legalization of drugs, prostitution, etc.?

[Associate Justice PiT]

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.

[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.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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?