Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Tigger]

[Pappa]

Why is there no cheese option?

[JimC]

Why is there no cheese option?

In context, that should be a cheeseburger option...

[Tigger]

I learned a valuable phrase when I was in my third year maths degree course. Being able to use it efficiently ensured that I would always have work after I left my studies.
























































"Do you want fries with that?"

[Hermit]

yah, fuck mcshit and ronald mcshit. Ban em both, Nice to see the "ban" votes are winning out slightly.

This is how liberty dies....with thunderous applause....

You seem quite fond of quoting that slogan, and I see where you're coming from. Thin end of the wedge, and all that. I don't agree, though, that it applies in this instance. Most, if not all, western democracies have whole rafts of measures outlawing the manipulation of children for profit by aiming advertising specifically at them to increase the consumption of legal but harmful products such as tobacco and alcohol. Please don't try the line that the fattening nature of MacDonalds 'foods' is not a real problem on us again. It fucking well is. The increasingly sedentary life style of children is a separate issue altogether. And don't try the line that fast food chains are merely attempting to steal market share from each other. That suggestion is preposterous.

Aiming advertising campaigns squarely at children is an inherently pernicious and callous activity. It exploits both the children's inability to make considered decisions and the well known fact that badgering parents will too often bring them to the point of capitulation against their better judgment. Outlawing it is not a matter of eroding liberties. Rather, it makes as much sense as outlawing campaigns to increase the consumption of Marlboro cigarettes and Vodka Cruisers among teenagers.

[Trolldor]

yah, fuck mcshit and ronald mcshit. Ban em both, Nice to see the "ban" votes are winning out slightly.

This is how liberty dies....with thunderous applause....

Better than how your beloved corporations handled Occupational Health and Safety.

"These are not the guidelines you are looking for."

[Coito ergo sum]

yah, fuck mcshit and ronald mcshit. Ban em both, Nice to see the "ban" votes are winning out slightly.

This is how liberty dies....with thunderous applause....

Better than how your beloved corporations handled Occupational Health and Safety.

"These are not the guidelines you are looking for."

I don't love corporations at all. But, there are lots of things I don't love that I don't think are appropriate for "banning."

[RuleBritannia]

You seem quite fond of quoting that slogan, and I see where you're coming from. Thin end of the wedge, and all that. I don't agree, though, that it applies in this instance. Most, if not all, western democracies have whole rafts of measures outlawing the manipulation of children for profit by aiming advertising specifically at them to increase the consumption of legal but harmful products such as tobacco and alcohol.

Except that tobacco and alcohol are not legal for children to consume, fast food is.

Please don't try the line that the fattening nature of MacDonalds 'foods' is not a real problem on us again.

It's only a problem if you're too stupid to regulate your own diet.

It fucking well is. The increasingly sedentary life style of children is a separate issue altogether. And don't try the line that fast food chains are merely attempting to steal market share from each other. That suggestion is preposterous.

Your assurtion that it's "preposterous" means nothing.

Aiming advertising campaigns squarely at children is an inherently pernicious and callous activity. It exploits both the children's inability to make considered decisions and the well known fact that badgering parents will too often bring them to the point of capitulation against their better judgment.

Children don't have income. If parents are manipulated into buying their children unhealthy food becuase they want it then they shouldn't be parents. What if your kids really, really want a gun, would you just give 'em one? I think not. Grow up, being a parent is about doing what's right for your children not granting them their every wish.

Outlawing it is not a matter of eroding liberties. Rather, it makes as much sense as outlawing campaigns to increase the consumption of Marlboro cigarettes and Vodka Cruisers among teenagers.

Fast food only makes you obese and kills you if you're a moron, I have no sympathy for anyone like that, same goes for alcohol. Cigarettes are a different issue a passive smoke directly effect those who wish not to smoke.

[Coito ergo sum]

yah, fuck mcshit and ronald mcshit. Ban em both, Nice to see the "ban" votes are winning out slightly.

This is how liberty dies....with thunderous applause....

You seem quite fond of quoting that slogan, and I see where you're coming from. Thin end of the wedge, and all that. I don't agree, though, that it applies in this instance. Most, if not all, western democracies have whole rafts of measures outlawing the manipulation of children for profit by aiming advertising specifically at them to increase the consumption of legal but harmful products such as tobacco and alcohol.

Tobacco and alcohol are generally not legal until one reaches a certain age.

However, there is NO EVIDENCE that a raft of measures banning advertising of fast food restaurants on television channels primarily watched by children will reduce obesity.

Further, "banning" the image of a clown is a violation of freedom of speech in and of itself. It doesn't have to be a "slippery slope."

Please don't try the line that the fattening nature of MacDonalds 'foods' is not a real problem on us again.

Please try to distinguish one issue from another. The fattening nature of lots of foods is a problem. I never said ONCE that it wasn't. However, that is not the same issue as suggesting that advertising food or certain food should be banned or restricted by prior restraints on speech.

Of course eating too much fattening food is a problem. That's why kids are fat. They eat too much. And, that occurs PRIMARILY at home.

It fucking well is.

Never said it wasn't. However, there still is no EVIDENCE that banning Ronald McDonald is going to reduce the rate of obesity. I'm not in favor of believing things without evidence.

The increasingly sedentary life style of children is a separate issue altogether.

It, along with the increase in average daily calories, is demonstrably the cause of children's obesity rates going up these days. Ronald McDonald has not been so demonstrated.

And don't try the line that fast food chains are merely attempting to steal market share from each other. That suggestion is preposterous.

That is one of the main reasons they advertise. If you're going out to eat, they want you to eat there, and not BK, or Wendy's or Taco Bell or Chilis or Applebees or whatever.

Aiming advertising campaigns squarely at children is an inherently pernicious and callous activity.

Determining whether an advertising campaign is "aimed at children" is largely an arbitrary and vague process. Take "Joe Camel" for example. People said that was "aimed at children" - but when he was common Camel cigarettes advertising, he was in Playboy Magazine and other adult magazines. Just because something is a cartoon or a clown doesn't make it "aimed at children."

Chuck-E-Cheese is "aimed at children," no? How about Disney World? And, parents take their kids there and that whole place is all about gluttony - the amount of food consumed there is ridiculous. No more advertisements of Disney World on t.v. when "kids might be watching?" Right? Ban Mickey Mouse?

Ban Cap'n Crunch and Count Chocula too! They are "aimed squarely at children" - those pernicious and callous motherfuckers! And, don't get me STARTED on Trix! Silly Rabbit! Trix ARE FOR KIDS!!!!!!!!

It exploits both the children's inability to make considered decisions and the well known fact that badgering parents will too often bring them to the point of capitulation against their better judgment. Outlawing it is not a matter of eroding liberties.

Outlawing free expression is not about eroding liberties? That's a new one....

And, Prohibition was not about eroding liberties either...lol

Rather, it makes as much sense as outlawing campaigns to increase the consumption of Marlboro cigarettes and Vodka Cruisers among teenagers.

Just about as much sense, that's true.....

[Trolldor]

NO EVIDENCE that a raft of measures banning advertising of fast food restaurants on television channels primarily watched by children will reduce obesity.

Absolute speculation, unfounded too, especially when given the fact that there are demonstrable increases in sales by products with advertisements aimed at children.

[Coito ergo sum]

NO EVIDENCE that a raft of measures banning advertising of fast food restaurants on television channels primarily watched by children will reduce obesity.

Absolute speculation, unfounded too, especially when given the fact that there are demonstrable increases in sales by products with advertisements aimed at children.

No. What is absolute speculation is that banning things like Ronald McDonald on children's television will reduce obesity. The burden is on the people making that claim, not on me. Stop shifting the burden of proof like a Creationist, for crying out loud.

It's not a relationship from advertising to sales that is being alleged here. It's advertising to OBESITY. Kids are fat, and this is demonstrated with evidence that I have presented before, because they are burning fewer calories and taking in more calories on a daily basis than they were decades ago. There is a 40% increase in time spent sedentary in front of televisions and computer screens, and an 8+% increase in the average number of calories per day. That translates directly into weight game.

You could eliminate McDonald's restaurant altogether - every single one of them - and it wold not stop kids from getting fatter. Why? Because most of their calories, the vast majority, come from sources other than McDonalds. The home is the primary source of calories -- kids sit at home, watch t.v., and eat. Then they eat dinner. They've done less moving around, and more eating. That's what causes people to get fat.

If you have evidence that banning Ronald McDonald, or limiting t.v. time of the McDonald's ads directed at kids (not all McDonald's ads are directed at kids, since most of their business is to adults...) will reduce OBESITY in children, then please, by all means, present it. Until then, you're free to stick with your "believe without proof," if you like.....what's that called again?

[Tigger]

NO EVIDENCE that a raft of measures banning advertising of fast food restaurants on television channels primarily watched by children will reduce obesity.

Absolute speculation, unfounded too, especially when given the fact that there are demonstrable increases in sales by products with advertisements aimed at children.

No. What is absolute speculation is that banning things like Ronald McDonald on children's television will reduce obesity. The burden is on the people making that claim, not on me. Stop shifting the burden of proof like a Creationist, for crying out loud.

It's not a relationship from advertising to sales that is being alleged here. It's advertising to OBESITY. Kids are fat, and this is demonstrated with evidence that I have presented before, because they are burning fewer calories and taking in more calories on a daily basis than they were decades ago. There is a 40% increase in time spent sedentary in front of televisions and computer screens, and an 8+% increase in the average number of calories per day. That translates directly into weight game.

You could eliminate McDonald's restaurant altogether - every single one of them - and it wold not stop kids from getting fatter. Why? Because most of their calories, the vast majority, come from sources other than McDonalds. The home is the primary source of calories -- kids sit at home, watch t.v., and eat. Then they eat dinner. They've done less moving around, and more eating. That's what causes people to get fat.

If you have evidence that banning Ronald McDonald, or limiting t.v. time of the McDonald's ads directed at kids (not all McDonald's ads are directed at kids, since most of their business is to adults...) will reduce OBESITY in children, then please, by all means, present it. Until then, you're free to stick with your "believe without proof," if you like.....what's that called again?

In this particular instance I'd call it "worth a go".

[maiforpeace]

Coito, one question of mine you have skirted several times now is...

Who exactly is going to be negatively affected if Ronald McDonald is banned? Anyone else besides McDonald's and it's shareholders?

You have speculated it will lead to more restrictions on freedom of speech. We banned the Marlboro Man from television years ago, and people said the same thing then about freedom of speech you are now saying. If you can provide me evidence that such bannings will lead to more and more restrictions of our freedoms then I might take your concerns more seriously.

Sorry, but I don't care if McDonald's bottom line is negatively affected.

Even if there is no evidence that banning Ronald McDonald is going to reduce obesity in children (yet) I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to the health of children.

[Tigger]

Coito, one question of mine you have skirted several times now is...

Who exactly is going to be negatively affected if Ronald McDonald is banned? Anyone else besides McDonald's and it's shareholders?

You have speculated it will lead to more restrictions on freedom of speech. We banned the Marlboro Man from television years ago, and people said the same thing then about freedom of speech you are now saying. If you can provide me evidence that such bannings will lead to more and more restrictions of our freedoms then I might take your concerns more seriously.

Sorry, but I don't care if McDonald's bottom line is negatively affected.

Even if there is no evidence that banning Ronald McDonald is going to reduce obesity in children (yet) I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to the health of children.

+1
As I said above, "worth a go".

[RuleBritannia]

Coito, one question of mine you have skirted several times now is...

Who exactly is going to be negatively affected if Ronald McDonald is banned? Anyone else besides McDonald's and it's shareholders?

You have speculated it will lead to more restrictions on freedom of speech. We banned the Marlboro Man from television years ago, and people said the same thing then about freedom of speech you are now saying. If you can provide me evidence that such bannings will lead to more and more restrictions of our freedoms then I might take your concerns more seriously.

Sorry, but I don't care if McDonald's bottom line is negatively affected.

Even if there is no evidence that banning Ronald McDonald is going to reduce obesity in children (yet) I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to the health of children.

You've actually contradicted yourself, you're using the banning of the Marlboro Man as justification for banning Ronald McDonald and at the same time claiming that it hasn't led "more restrictions on freedom of speech".