Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Gallstones]

Advertising regulations to prevent people from wanting and buying things they shouldn't (as advocated for us by co-dependent micromanagers)?

Like marijuana and cocaine for instance?

Why should the public be willing to capitulate liberty to people who have obvious boundary issues.

[maiforpeace]

This thread died and came back to life!

A little chew toy.

http://laist.com/2010/11/12/happy_meal_ ... _to_la.php

[Svartalf]

BTW, regarding the targeting of children, my local McDonald's removed the playroom. They are promoting a cafe type image now and added brewed coffee drinks--very distinctly more a targeting of adults over children.

What?????

They're marketing brewed coffee drinks??? High in caffeine? High calorie milk and cream based coffee drinks? Some with sugars, chocolates and caramels added?

Burn them! Burrrrrrrnnnnnn them!!!!!

How dare they market stuff that is not good for people? I bet those monsters sell scones and muffins too!!! Those BASTARDS!

I also advocate the burning of starberk... every single venue.

Not because of the caff, and cream, and sugar, and megacaloric treats (they even have decent cheesecake with top of the line crust).

Because they dare say that the weird juice they are selling is gourmet grade coffee. That kind of lie should be punished by purification in fire. I even hear that their beans are decent, just not properly roasted or beveraged.

[Svartalf]

I started allowing my son to drink coffee at about 8yo. He is an addict now, drinking everyday.

I only started at 17, by the time I was 21 I was downing like 3 pots a day.

[Coito ergo sum]

I started allowing my son to drink coffee at about 8yo. He is an addict now, drinking everyday.

It's not your fault. Starbucks markets to the chill'run.

Starbucks, keenly aware of the pitfalls of being seen as trying to lure kids to drink sweet, caffeinated beverages, has for years insisted that it does not market to children — even as stroller traffic jams build outside some stores and teenagers pack others.
Now, however, the company is revising its stance on kids, acknowledging that the under-18 set has become part of the coffee chain’s customer base.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20608492/ns ... umer_news/

They cover up their shenanigans - but, those capitalist running dogs know exactly what they're doing...they're getting the kids hooked early, and then they can reap all the benefits.....muaahahhahhahh.....muahahhahahahah......muaahhahahahah

[Hermit]

McDonalds sells far more food to adults than they do to children. Their advertisements are mainly not geared toward children.

40% of McDonalds' advertising is aimed at children. The children get their parents to buy the stuff for them, frequently by badgering them into giving in.

(Another libertarian lecture about freely made choices and decisions in 9... 8... 7... 6...)

[Ronja]

Coito, why do you keep on about kids needing a car to get to a McDonald's? This cannot be true even everywhere in the US. Also, you seem to insist that kids don't have the money, even though many of McDonald's offerings are just one or two dollars / euros.

Counter-example (anecdotal, but many of the kids in our kids' school are in a very similar situation):

Our kids have had a weekly allowance since they were 7 and 5 years old (starting from 1 euro and 20 cents, respectively). They are now 11 and 9, and get 5 and 3 euros per week, respectively. They almost always have at least five euros each in their wallets, usually more. They walk to school (1 km from home), the nearest mall is less than half a km from their school, and they walk there maybe a couple of times per month to buy something small, to accompany a friend to a store, or just to hang out a bit (though they prefer the library, which they visit every week, usually with friends). They also have their public commute tickets (which are good across four counties for the metro, the trams, and the region's buses and trains), and know how to get to the larger malls up the metro line on their own.

The reasons they don't go to McDonald's anymore (or HessBurger - a regional burger chain) are that 1) they have seen "Supersize me" with us, 2) they are peeved at the personnel at the nearest McDonald's, because they appear not to understand or care about "no ketchup, please, but as much cheese as I can get" for one girl and "no cheese, please, but lots of ketchup" for the other (they have gotten identical burgers more than once, and filthy looks even when the order was successful). So they go to Subways, or the café at the library, instead. Which is fine with us.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, why do you keep on about kids needing a car to get to a McDonald's? This cannot be true even everywhere in the US. Also, you seem to insist that kids don't have the money, even though many of McDonald's offerings are just one or two dollars / euros.

Kids between the ages of 0 and 12 are not permitted to engage in gainful employment. All of their funds come from their parents. How are 0-12 year olds getting to the McDonald's from home without parental knowledge or consent? Kids in New York City under 12 are just wandering alone in the streets? Most folks don't live within walking distance of a McDonalds - and if they walk a couple miles each way to the nearest one - they won't get fat eating a Happy Meal.

What are you suggesting is common? Kids just pop on their bikes and ride five miles to the McDonalds? Yes - in that sense, they may have a finsky to spend and ride their bike to a McDonalds. And, it certainly isn't most people in the US. US living is fairly spread out.

As for the dollar menu - nobody is getting fat from spending $1 at a time at McDonalds.

The main point, however, is that parents of grammar school children are supposed to be monitoring their kids.

Counter-example (anecdotal, but many of the kids in our kids' school are in a very similar situation):

Our kids have had a weekly allowance since they were 7 and 5 years old (starting from 1 euro and 20 cents, respectively). They are now 11 and 9, and get 5 and 3 euros per week, respectively. They almost always have at least five euros each in their wallets, usually more. They walk to school (1 km from home), the nearest mall is less than half a km from their school, and they walk there maybe a couple of times per month to buy something small, to accompany a friend to a store, or just to hang out a bit (though they prefer the library, which they visit every week, usually with friends).

At age 7 and 5 you allowed your kids to walk alone to a mall? If that's a common practice, I am shocked.

If a kid can get fat spending 3 or 5 Euros per week - even exclusively at McDonalds - one ought to take them to the doctor quick. That's one lunch maximum at McDonalds - it costs $6 here for a "Big Mac, medium fries, and a medium coke." Once a week won't make anyone fat - if someone is fat in that instance, it's because the rest of their diet is excessive.

They also have their public commute tickets (which are good across four counties for the metro, the trams, and the region's buses and trains), and know how to get to the larger malls up the metro line on their own.

5 year olds and 7 year olds on their own on public transportation? 11 and 9 year olds - alone on public transportation? I find that highly unlikely that it's common practice in the US to do such a thing. If that's something that Finns can do without concern in Finland, then my hat is off to Finland. You have a nice, safe country. That is not the way it is here.

Moreover - other than in Chicago and New York City, public transportation is generally limited to buses here. $8 a week ain't gunna get a kid far, and he might be able to scrape $1.07 for a burger off the dollar menu.

The reasons they don't go to McDonald's anymore (or HessBurger - a regional burger chain) are that 1) they have seen "Supersize me" with us, 2) they are peeved at the personnel at the nearest McDonald's, because they appear not to understand or care about "no ketchup, please, but as much cheese as I can get" for one girl and "no cheese, please, but lots of ketchup" for the other (they have gotten identical burgers more than once, and filthy looks even when the order was successful). So they go to Subways, or the café at the library, instead. Which is fine with us.

All good. I wouldn't allow my kids to eat at McDonalds.

Subway is no better, though. It really isn't. The reason Jared lost weight on the Subway diet was portion control, not magic related to the food or some exceptional nutritional value. Look at the lady in the videos I posted above "Micky D and Me" (available on Youtube.com). She ate exclusively McDonalds, kept her calories to 2000 a day, and lost weight. It's calories in vs calories out - everything else is a gimmick.

[Coito ergo sum]

McDonalds sells far more food to adults than they do to children. Their advertisements are mainly not geared toward children.

40% of McDonalds' advertising is aimed at children. The children get their parents to buy the stuff for them, frequently by badgering them into giving in.

(Another libertarian lecture about freely made choices and decisions in 9... 8... 7... 6...)

Such parents should not have children. If you can't say no to your kids badgering you for something, then you ought to have your children taken away by the government, because you are an unfit parent. There - a non-libertarian rant for you.

Queue authoritarian, paternalistic claptrap......10...9....8....

[maiforpeace]

Didn't we go over all of this already?

If you live in a city, and you walk home from school, the likelihood you will pass a McDonald's on the way home is huge. I live in a more rural area, that actually is pretty evolved when it comes to healthy eating habits, and the one McDonald's that isn't even near the high school is always jam packed full of teenagers. Then there are the vans galore of parents going through the drive through to buy the "kids who can't drive" their snacks. The dollar menu was designed specifically for after school snacks.

I can't be arsed to look for the post now, but earlier in this thread I posted a quote, directly from Mr. Kroc himself, that said he was happy they could now do fly overs in a helicopter instead of a plane (back in the sixties I expect), because it was a lot easier to find where the schools were, so they could open McDonald's stores nearby. I also posted numerous facts about how McDonald's includes gift certificates in school report card envelopes, does teacher promotions in schools, etc. etc.

To insist that McDonald's doesn't specifically target children in a huge portion of their advertising is utter bullshit.

[Coito ergo sum]

Didn't we go over all of this already?

If you live in a city, and you walk home from school, the likelihood you will pass a McDonald's on the way home is huge. I live in a more rural area, that actually is pretty evolved when it comes to healthy eating habits, and the one McDonald's that isn't even near the high school is always jam packed full of teenagers.

We weren't talking about teenagers. We were talking about 0-12 year olds. The vast majority of students aren't permitted to walk to school, and very few pass McDonalds restaurants on the way.

Then there are the vans galore of parents going through the drive through to buy the "kids who can't drive" their snacks. The dollar menu was designed specifically for after school snacks.

That's up to the parents.

I can't be arsed to look for the post now, but earlier in this thread I posted a quote, directly from Mr. Kroc himself, that said he was happy they could now do fly overs in a helicopter instead of a plane (back in the sixties I expect), because it was a lot easier to find where the schools were, so they could open McDonald's stores nearby. I also posted numerous facts about how McDonald's includes gift certificates in school report card envelopes, does teacher promotions in schools, etc. etc.

Schools shouldn't allow any gift cards or marketing in school report card envelopes, and I would be willing to bet that is a sporadic and rare practice.

To insist that McDonald's doesn't specifically target children in a huge portion of their advertising is utter bullshit.

Nobody insisted that. I said that most of their advertising is not targeted at children, and that's true. I never said that they didn't market to kids.

The thing is - kids below the teen years can only get money from their parents, so if the kids are getting McDonald's food more than sporadically it is because their parents buy it for them. If, like Ronja, said - 9 and 11 year olds are getting $5-$8 a week or $3-$5 Euros a week in allowance, that's hardly enough to get fat on and it's the parents' job to monitor what their kids do with money. Part of the reason for having an allowance is not to have money to waste, but to learn the value of money and money management.

In any case - if you are trying to say that 5,6,7,8,and 9 year olds are commonly walking around unsupervised to local McDonalds restaurants and buying piles of food, I think we just have to disagree there. The reality is that at that age, and up through middle school the vast majority - overwhelming majority - of food shoved into fat kids' faces is done so by their parents. If kids that age, and into the teen years are fat, there is one person or two people to blame - the parent or parents. They feed the kid to much, and if the kid eats any but the rare bit of fast food it's because an adult buys it for them.

After the age of 13 when kids start getting dropped off at the mall and riding their bikes around unsupervised, I recognize that this changes. However, to suggest that kids 13, 14, and 15, who can hardly work enough to earn a living are fat because they spend their money on McDonald's food is really a stretch. Once the kids drive and have more more money in their pockets, the unsupervised access to such foods increases.

The bottom line is this whole anti-McDonalds movement is symptomatic of an abdication of parental authority and parental responsibility. At bottom is a cry from deficient parents to be protected from "badgering" by kids for treats and snacks. In a healthy society, however, that needs to be a parental responsibility, regardless of what ads McDonalds plays on t.v.

Fuck - the amount of t.v. a small child watches should be strictly regulated. The adverts wouldn't even be an issue if parents didn't abdicate their authority and responsibility by allowing little kids to watch 4 hours of t.v. It's up to them if they do it, but don't bitch about the advertisements if you let your kids watch t.v. and much on snacks.

[maiforpeace]

Well, if most means 60% versus 40% then sure CES.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, if most means 60% versus 40% then sure CES.

I don't think you've established any percentage, and you're the one making the positive assertion that advertising to children is excessive and is the cause of obesity.

[maiforpeace]

Well, if most means 60% versus 40% then sure CES.

I don't think you've established any percentage, and you're the one making the positive assertion that advertising to children is excessive and is the cause of obesity.

McDonalds sells far more food to adults than they do to children. Their advertisements are mainly not geared toward children.

40% of McDonalds' advertising is aimed at children. The children get their parents to buy the stuff for them, frequently by badgering them into giving in.

(Another libertarian lecture about freely made choices and decisions in 9... 8... 7... 6...)

40% of advertising targeted to children is, in my personal opinion, excessive.

[Coito ergo sum]

40% of advertising targeted to children is, in my personal opinion, excessive.

With all due respect, because seraph said it doesn't make it true.