Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Hermit]

You're the one who made pacifism, specifically, an issue

I was actually wondering why RB brought pacifism into the discussion when he brought it up by saying: "Banksy, a well known anti-capitalist and pacifist".

Anyway, you two can continue discussing pacifism and war. I'll pop in from time to time on the off-chance that debate regarding the thread's topic (whether or not the clown device should be banned) resumes.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're the one who made pacifism, specifically, an issue

I was actually wondering why RB brought pacifism into the discussion when he brought it up by saying: "Banksy, a well known anti-capitalist and pacifist".

Because Banksy drew the picture, and interpreting what he meant by the image (without hearing it from the artist's mouth) can often be better accomplished by understanding the context, biases and points of view of the artist. That's why mentioning his anti-capitalist and pacifist bent is relevant.

Anyway, you two can continue discussing pacifism and war.

Nobody was doing that.

I'll pop in from time to time on the off-chance that debate regarding the thread's topic (whether or not the clown device should be banned) resumes.

[Hermit]

Banksy drew the picture, and interpreting what he meant by the image (without hearing it from the artist's mouth) can often be better accomplished by understanding the context, biases and points of view of the artist. That's why mentioning his anti-capitalist and pacifist bent is relevant.

It is not relevant to the context of this thread, nor the context I used the picture in relation to the topic. The central point I made was this: The picture I linked to shows how big corporations lead children to happiness and joy - even the most miserable ones ... It's an extremely hyperbolised illustration of what corporations like Disney and MacDonald say they are doing. If you want to shift the focus to war and pacifism, start a new thread.

[RuleBritannia]

Banksy drew the picture, and interpreting what he meant by the image (without hearing it from the artist's mouth) can often be better accomplished by understanding the context, biases and points of view of the artist. That's why mentioning his anti-capitalist and pacifist bent is relevant.

It is not relevant to the context of this thread, nor the context I used the picture in relation to the topic. The central point I made was this: The picture I linked to shows how big corporations lead children to happiness and joy - even the most miserable ones ... It's an extremely hyperbolised illustration of what corporations like Disney and MacDonald say they are doing. If you want to shift the focus to war and pacifism, start a new thread.

You brought pacifism into the discussion by posting an anti-war, anti-capitalist piece of art, which is what the picture is about; connecting capitalism (and by extension, corporations such as McDonalds and Walt Disney) with war (in this case the Vietnam War).

You may of not specifically typed the words "pacifism" or "pacifist", but the picture speaks a thousand words.

It has nothing to do with the thread topic, which is the connections (or lack of) between Ronald McDonald and obesity.

[Coito ergo sum]

Banksy drew the picture, and interpreting what he meant by the image (without hearing it from the artist's mouth) can often be better accomplished by understanding the context, biases and points of view of the artist. That's why mentioning his anti-capitalist and pacifist bent is relevant.

It is not relevant to the context of this thread,

You posted the picture. Exploring what the picture means, and why it was posted, absolutely is relevant to the context of this thread, and an interpretation of an drawing's meaning has everything to do with the artist. You can't seriously expect that you can make drive-by postings of anti-war/anticapitalist art pieces without anyone else being able to comment on its context and meaning.

nor the context I used the picture in relation to the topic.

You did not initially explain any context of your use of the picture in relation to the topic. You simply posted the picture. I asked you what you thought the picture meant, and you then attacked me personally. We were left wondering about your "context" until you decided to write a paragraph about "leading the children to happiness" and whatnot.

The central point I made was this: The picture I linked to shows how big corporations lead children to happiness and joy - even the most miserable ones ... It's an extremely hyperbolised illustration of what corporations like Disney and MacDonald say they are doing. If you want to shift the focus to war and pacifism, start a new thread.

Nobody was shifting the focus to either war or pacifism. Once again, you can't seriously expect that you can make drive-by postings of anti-war/anticapitalist art pieces without anyone else being able to comment on its context and meaning.

[Svartalf]

Banksy drew the picture, and interpreting what he meant by the image (without hearing it from the artist's mouth) can often be better accomplished by understanding the context, biases and points of view of the artist. That's why mentioning his anti-capitalist and pacifist bent is relevant.

It is not relevant to the context of this thread, nor the context I used the picture in relation to the topic. The central point I made was this: The picture I linked to shows how big corporations lead children to happiness and joy - even the most miserable ones ... It's an extremely hyperbolised illustration of what corporations like Disney and MacDonald say they are doing. If you want to shift the focus to war and pacifism, start a new thread.

Don't know... to me it looked like the way the two figures were leading, you were gona get napalmed unhappy kids like the one in the pic... great piece anyway.

[maiforpeace]

Banksy drew the picture, and interpreting what he meant by the image (without hearing it from the artist's mouth) can often be better accomplished by understanding the context, biases and points of view of the artist. That's why mentioning his anti-capitalist and pacifist bent is relevant.

It is not relevant to the context of this thread, nor the context I used the picture in relation to the topic. The central point I made was this: The picture I linked to shows how big corporations lead children to happiness and joy - even the most miserable ones ... It's an extremely hyperbolised illustration of what corporations like Disney and MacDonald say they are doing. If you want to shift the focus to war and pacifism, start a new thread.

Don't know... to me it looked like the way the two figures were leading, you were gona get napalmed unhappy kids like the one in the pic... great piece anyway.

Indeed it is a good piece, and, like Svartalf I had a totally different interpretation of that piece of art. Posting it without explanation was as much of a derail as shifting the discussion to pacifism and war.

So, how about simply getting back to discussing Ronald and whether he should be banned or not?

[Coito ergo sum]

Banksy drew the picture, and interpreting what he meant by the image (without hearing it from the artist's mouth) can often be better accomplished by understanding the context, biases and points of view of the artist. That's why mentioning his anti-capitalist and pacifist bent is relevant.

It is not relevant to the context of this thread, nor the context I used the picture in relation to the topic. The central point I made was this: The picture I linked to shows how big corporations lead children to happiness and joy - even the most miserable ones ... It's an extremely hyperbolised illustration of what corporations like Disney and MacDonald say they are doing. If you want to shift the focus to war and pacifism, start a new thread.

Don't know... to me it looked like the way the two figures were leading, you were gona get napalmed unhappy kids like the one in the pic... great piece anyway.

Indeed it is a good piece, and, like Svartalf I had a totally different interpretation of that piece of art. Posting it without explanation was as much of a derail as shifting the discussion to pacifism and war.

There never was a discussion of "pacifism and war." Nobody discussed either pacifism, or war.

Pacifism was only brought up because it is an idealogical position of the artist who drew the picture. Part of art interpretation is to understand where the artist is coming from. If he was a Nazi or a Buddhist, that might change the context. Similarly, if he's an anti-capitalist and a pacifist, then that might change the context or the message gleaned from the work.

[maiforpeace]

Banksy drew the picture, and interpreting what he meant by the image (without hearing it from the artist's mouth) can often be better accomplished by understanding the context, biases and points of view of the artist. That's why mentioning his anti-capitalist and pacifist bent is relevant.

It is not relevant to the context of this thread, nor the context I used the picture in relation to the topic. The central point I made was this: The picture I linked to shows how big corporations lead children to happiness and joy - even the most miserable ones ... It's an extremely hyperbolised illustration of what corporations like Disney and MacDonald say they are doing. If you want to shift the focus to war and pacifism, start a new thread.

Don't know... to me it looked like the way the two figures were leading, you were gona get napalmed unhappy kids like the one in the pic... great piece anyway.

Indeed it is a good piece, and, like Svartalf I had a totally different interpretation of that piece of art. Posting it without explanation was as much of a derail as shifting the discussion to pacifism and war.

There never was a discussion of "pacifism and war." Nobody discussed either pacifism, or war.

Pacifism was only brought up because it is an idealogical position of the artist who drew the picture. Part of art interpretation is to understand where the artist is coming from. If he was a Nazi or a Buddhist, that might change the context. Similarly, if he's an anti-capitalist and a pacifist, then that might change the context or the message gleaned from the work.

Sorry Coito, I didn't express myself well. What I meant was that posting that photo without an explanation was as much as a derail as it would be if the discussion were to shift to pacifism and war.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sorry Coito, I didn't express myself well. What I meant was that posting that photo without an explanation was as much as a derail as it would be if the discussion were to shift to pacifism and war.

Oh, o.k. - sorry. Gotcha.

Back to the topic at hand. So, should Ronald McDonald be banned because of the childhood obesity problem.

I have found some additional information to suggest that the answer to that question, if we are to be RATIONAL about it, says - no, he should not be banned, because banning him will not reduce childhood obesity.

For every complex problem there is a simple solution— and it is always wrong. The claim that food advertising is a major contributor to children's food choices and the rising tide of childhood obesity has obvious appeal, but as an argument it does not stand up to scrutiny.

the influence of parental behaviour was fifteen times greater than that of television advertising, and subsequent studies have confirmed that this is the dominant influence on children's eating habits. Ritchey N, Olson C. Relationships between family variables and children's preference for consumption of sweet foods. Ecol Food Nutr 1983;13: 257-66.

Despite media claims to the contrary, there is no good evidence that advertising has a substantial influence on children's food consumption...

This conclusion is supported by experience from Quebec where, although food advertising to children has been banned since 1980, childhood obesity rates are no different from those in other Canadian provinces.7 A similar advertising ban has existed in Sweden for over a decade, but again this has not translated into reduced obesity rates

Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079287/

Advertising-Obesity Link Doesn't Ad Up

The self-described "food police" at the Center for Science in the Public Interest argue that "State Attorneys General and trial lawyers should consider options for using the courts to protect children from junk-food marketing." But does food advertising contribute to childhood obesity? You'd certainly think so if you read press reports about a Kaiser Family Foundation study released on Tuesday. Yahoo News took one look at the study and proclaimed that "advertising basically provides a super-size conduit from junk food straight to your child's waistline." But does Kaiser demonstrate that food advertising makes kids fat? Not at all.
"Many researchers suspect that the food advertising children are exposed to through the media may contribute to unhealthy food choices and weight gain," Kaiser claims. [emphasis added] Yet of the 40 studies covered by their extensive report, not one can make this conclusion. In fact, Kaiser admits that television watching might not cause obesity at all. According to Kaiser, the connection between obesity and TV watching could be explained this way: "Being obese may cause children to engage in more sedentary (and isolated) activities, including watching more television."

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_det ... esnt-ad-up


If we like to make decisions based on reason and evidence, why are some of us so quick to jump on solutions like "ban Ronald McDonald"? Is there another factor in play that makes us want to ban Ronald McDonald, even though there is no substantial link between obesity and advertising? Why do we want to ban the advertising, even though in countries like Sweden where they have banned all such advertising to children there has not been any measurable reduction in obesity?

[charlou]

I gather Seraph was intending for people to interpret his use of that pic in relation to the topic and his already expressed views on it, and not as the pic's message was originally intended ... ?


Anyway, back to the topic ... sort of ... coito, I suggest you check the "allow revoting" for your future polls. I've changed my mind since I voted earlier after considering the arguments further.

[RuleBritannia]

I gather Seraph was intending for people to interpret his use of that pic in relation to the topic and his already expressed views on it, and not as the pic's message was originally intended ... ?


Anyway, back to the topic ... sort of ... coito, I suggest you check the "allow revoting" for your future polls. I've changed my mind since I voted earlier after considering the arguments further.

Which way did you swing?

[charlou]

The two leaders would be level pegging if I could revote.

[leo-rcc]

The two leaders would be level pegging if I could revote.

I must say I'm surprised you voted that way in the first place then. What made you arrive to the first vote?

[Coito ergo sum]

Anyway, back to the topic ... sort of ... coito, I suggest you check the "allow revoting" for your future polls. I've changed my mind since I voted earlier after considering the arguments further.

I wonder if there is a way to change that now to allow revoting? Perhaps a moderator might be able to do it?