Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Trolldor]

Thanks cunt ... I think ...


I don't usually vote in these kind of polls ... never know if I may change my mind later and I don't want my view set in stone like that ... So what did I go and do?

I still would like to know why you voted the way you did in the first place (or tell me to pawiz, that's also fine)?

I voted yes to banning a character/s used by greedy corporations to further line their already bulging pockets, at the expense of society.

I realise it's something members of society have to change for themselves if that's what they want. Well informed intelligent people are what we need, not censorship.

I voted yes not because of society, but because the advertisement's impact on children.

No evidence has been presented that it has the alleged impact on children. And, evidence has been posted that demonstrates that it does not have that impact on children.

Reading the history of Fast Food chains and their aims at conditioning children really counteract the 'free speech' claims.

Free speech includes speech that some people, or even most people, find unpalatable.

No, it doesn't. Free Speech extends to ideas, not to manipulation of children. What corporations try to do to children is no different from what religious groups do to children, force them to think in a particular manner in to the exclusion to all others.

[RuleBritannia]

No, it doesn't. Free Speech extends to ideas, not to manipulation of children. What corporations try to do to children is no different from what religious groups do to children, force them to think in a particular manner in to the exclusion to all others.

Nonsense.

[Trolldor]

Are you really that naive?

[RuleBritannia]

Are you really that naive?

Wow, if you think I'm naive it must be true.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, it doesn't. Free Speech extends to ideas, not to manipulation of children. What corporations try to do to children is no different from what religious groups do to children, force them to think in a particular manner in to the exclusion to all others.

Where do you get that?

Free speech extends to things people say, art, ideas, opinions, statements of fact, persuasion, etc.

Religious groups have both a free speech right and a freedom of religion right to make religious statements to children (well, in the US they do).

[JimC]

No, it doesn't. Free Speech extends to ideas, not to manipulation of children. What corporations try to do to children is no different from what religious groups do to children, force them to think in a particular manner in to the exclusion to all others.

Where do you get that?

Free speech extends to things people say, art, ideas, opinions, statements of fact, persuasion, etc.

Religious groups have both a free speech right and a freedom of religion right to make religious statements to children (well, in the US they do).

Not all rights are absolute. It could be argued that the deliberate psychological manipulation of children aimed to get them to eat products that are a contributing factor to poor health goes a step too far...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I voted no.

I despise McDonalds for their ubiquitousness, their disgusting 'food', their litigious attitude towards criticism, their dubious third-world investments and just because that fucking clown and those fucking arches and the fucking SMELL when you walk past one of their outlets turns my stomach and makes me want to puke (the only reason I don't, is that the contents of my stomach - even on a bad day - are worth ten times what that place sells, even regurgitated!)

But: There are plenty of other fast-food outlets that are just as bad, just not as huge and high-profile. There are worse things advertised on TV (many countries still permit tobacco adverts.) Making a martyr out of a single corporation is going to help no-one. As long as they are not making false claims in their adverts, they should be allowed IMO.

They should be allowed to advertise BUT they should never be allowed to do THIS!

[charlou]

They should be allowed to advertise BUT they should never be allowed to do THIS!

The fucking irony.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, it doesn't. Free Speech extends to ideas, not to manipulation of children. What corporations try to do to children is no different from what religious groups do to children, force them to think in a particular manner in to the exclusion to all others.

Where do you get that?

Free speech extends to things people say, art, ideas, opinions, statements of fact, persuasion, etc.

Religious groups have both a free speech right and a freedom of religion right to make religious statements to children (well, in the US they do).

Not all rights are absolute. It could be argued that the deliberate psychological manipulation of children aimed to get them to eat products that are a contributing factor to poor health goes a step too far...

Well, you can argue anything you want. However, adverts with Ronald McDonald are no more "psychological manipulation" than any other advertisement. If you allow that sort of prohibition, then you've eviscerated the right. Heck, you'll get some group claiming that atheist messages are "psychological manipulation" aimed at children and they are "contributing factors" to kids' immoral behavior. After all, it's not absolute, so whoever's opinion as to what is good or bad speech is the most popular is going to win....

[Coito ergo sum]

I voted no.

I despise McDonalds for their ubiquitousness, their disgusting 'food',

They have good coffee, and their Egg McMuffin sandwich is actually quite good. 18g of protein, 30g of carbs, 300 calories, 12 g of fat. Egg McMuffin and a coffee - add a hash brown for 150 calories, 9g of fat, and 15g of carbs, and that's not too bad. 450 calories for breakfast. It's an English Muffin, real egg, canadian bacon and a slice of cheese.

Even a Big Mac is not that bad - it's a burger with 540 calories. Add medium sized french fry and you are up to 920 calories for lunch. Add a diet coke (0 calories) and you can eat breakfast and lunch at McDonald's and be at 1370 calories. Have a sensible dinner and you're good to go.

Isn't the real problem "overeating"?

[Coito ergo sum]

They should be allowed to advertise BUT they should never be allowed to do THIS!

I agree, but that's more of a function of British libel laws, which are very much sided with those who accuse other people of libel. And, McDonald's did prove that much of what Morris and Steel said was false and/or completely unsubstantiated. McDonald's won, but they wound up looking bad nevertheless.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I voted no.

I despise McDonalds for their ubiquitousness, their disgusting 'food',

They have good coffee, and their Egg McMuffin sandwich is actually quite good. 18g of protein, 30g of carbs, 300 calories, 12 g of fat. Egg McMuffin and a coffee - add a hash brown for 150 calories, 9g of fat, and 15g of carbs, and that's not too bad. 450 calories for breakfast. It's an English Muffin, real egg, canadian bacon and a slice of cheese.

Even a Big Mac is not that bad - it's a burger with 540 calories. Add medium sized french fry and you are up to 920 calories for lunch. Add a diet coke (0 calories) and you can eat breakfast and lunch at McDonald's and be at 1370 calories. Have a sensible dinner and you're good to go.

Isn't the real problem "overeating"?

When I said that their food was disgusting, I wasn't referring to the nutritional content (which has improved relatively recently following criticism, IIRC) but simply that I find it bland, over-salted and meh.

[Coito ergo sum]

I voted no.

I despise McDonalds for their ubiquitousness, their disgusting 'food',

They have good coffee, and their Egg McMuffin sandwich is actually quite good. 18g of protein, 30g of carbs, 300 calories, 12 g of fat. Egg McMuffin and a coffee - add a hash brown for 150 calories, 9g of fat, and 15g of carbs, and that's not too bad. 450 calories for breakfast. It's an English Muffin, real egg, canadian bacon and a slice of cheese.

Even a Big Mac is not that bad - it's a burger with 540 calories. Add medium sized french fry and you are up to 920 calories for lunch. Add a diet coke (0 calories) and you can eat breakfast and lunch at McDonald's and be at 1370 calories. Have a sensible dinner and you're good to go.

Isn't the real problem "overeating"?

When I said that their food was disgusting, I wasn't referring to the nutritional content (which has improved relatively recently following criticism, IIRC) but simply that I find it bland, over-salted and meh.

Fair enough - some people don't like it. Some people do, though. I lump it in with other "comfort foods." Like, a big bowl of spaghetti with meatballs, and parmesan cheese, or a pizza with pepperoni, sausage, onions and green peppers...mmmmmmmmm......oh, and grilled cheese and ham sandwiches with french fries - oooo, and especially if you add a slice of tomato and some finely chopped sauteed onions to the grilled cheese sandwich....mmmmmmmmm.....

[Coito ergo sum]

Ronald McDonald After He Loses His Job

[Tails Turrosaki]

This was on the news over the weekend:

http://www.slashfood.com/2010/03/29/act ... tirement/2

This kind of thing just gets me riled up. I have no problem with "activists" stating their opinion, writing articles and books, boycotting what they don't like, and trying to persuade, in the marketplace of ideas, that something like Ronald McDonald is bad. However, inevitably, these pukes try to force their demented "do as I say" mentality down everyone's throats via legislation. They want an outright ban.

They want to make it illegal for McDonald's to use their clown mascot to advertise their product. I mean... WTF? You just knew this road was going to be traveled when we sat back and let these freaks make Joe Camel illegal...

I say yes, ban 'im.

The clown mascot is child friendly. This attracts children to their greasy, fattening foods.
America is already fat enough, thanks.