Ban Ronald McDonald?

[RuleBritannia]

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

This be applied to any advertising. Why not ban all advertising?

[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.

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".

What I meant by that is the Marlboro Man did not set a precedent for an increase, or wave of bannings. The Marlboro Man was banned in the 70's I believe.

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

This be applied to any advertising. Why not ban all advertising?

But, we are not applying this to all advertising - we are applying it to one instance, McDonald's.

[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".

What I meant by that is the Marlboro Man did not set a precedent for an increase, or wave of bannings. The Marlboro Man was banned in the 70's I believe.

But clearly it has set a precedent because you're using it as justifition, and if Ronald McDonald is banned someone else will say "hey, we banned Ronald McDonald, why not ban X?", then someone else will say "hey, we banned X, why not ban Y?"

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

This be applied to any advertising. Why not ban all advertising?

But, we are not applying this to all advertising - we are applying it to one instance, McDonald's.

Your aplication is arbitary, because it's something you want to ban. What if someone else wants to ban something, are they justified just because that's what they don't like?

[Coito ergo sum]

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?

I was not aware that you had asked that question. I apologize for missing it.

Who will be "negatively effected" by a ban on Ronald McDonald? Well, all those similarly situated will be negatively effected, and there will be a chilling effect on all other persons who wish to use mascots of similar ilk. Chuck-E-Cheese might be effected. Burger King. Who knows? We don't know and can't know if they'd be lumped in with Ronald McDonald.

People who like McDonald's might be negatively effected. I mean, some people here seem to think it's no good, but millions of people in this country like McDonald's food.

You have speculated it will lead to more restrictions on freedom of speech.

I have stated that it is itself a restriction on freedom of speech, and without any evidence that it would achieve its stated goal there is no reason to restrict the speech.

We banned the Marlboro Man from television years ago,

And, that didn't cut down on smoking. Other factors, mainly education, raising the minimum age before it is legal to smoke, removing actual cigarettes from schools, and other such measures of ACTUALLY restricting cigarette access, plus educating the populace on the dangers of cigarettes has reduced the rate of smoking.

Plainly, the advertising restrictions don't work - there have been far stricter advertising restrictions in Europe for longer than in the US, yet smoking rates are FAR higher. In the US 35% of men smoke and in Europe 46% of men smoke. 22% of women smoke in the US and 26 percent of European women smoke. So, if the advertising restrictions caused the reductions, one might wonder why the European rate is higher....?

Further, the issue is not what happened with cigarettes or other products. The issue is IS THERE EVIDENCE that what you seek to do will achieve the result you are claiming. The burden is on you. If you have no such evidence -- then "doing something" because it "seems" good is a lot like a Christian believing because by doing so he has "nothing to lose."

and people said the same thing then about freedom of speech you are now saying.

Right...and it moved to cigarette marketing to alcohol marketing....and now on to food marketing.....but, once again, you keep bringing up the slippery slope as if that's the argument. It isn't. It's a supplementary argument. The main argument is that it, in and of itself, is plainly a restriction on expression - and an expression of opinion, and there has been no evidence that restricting this particular expression will achieve the result desired by its proponents.

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.

You summarized the evidence quite well for the supplementary/secondary argument that there is a slippery slope....cigarettes.....alcohol....now fast food....next....what? Potato chips and Cap'n Crunch?

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

I don't care that you don't care.

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.

[/quote]

You're not erring on the side of caution, you're just "erring."

I think video games played to excess are harmful to children. So, I'm going to err on the side of caution and support a law setting an age limit of 18 before a child may play a video game, and restricting video game advertising to adult media. I don't care if it hits their bottom line. When it comes to the "chil'run" I err on the side of safety....

Plus, all cereals that kids like, we're going to stop their advertising too. I don't care about free speech or their bottom lines, not when it comes to the chill'run. And, I want to make sure that toy manufacturers do not advertise on children's programming too, because they're targeting kids for junky toys, and it keeps them from learning properly. I know I don't have any evidence for it. Why do I need evidence? I err on the side of caution when it comes to chill'run.

Right? Why not?

[Coito ergo sum]

[
But, we are not applying this to all advertising - we are applying it to one instance, McDonald's.

And, that makes it make even less sense.

Just restricting Ronald McDonald is not going to do a damn thing, and there is no evidence to show that it will do a damn thing, about childhood obesity.

Plus, targeting just one person/group in this way smacks of a bill of attainder.

[sandinista]

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.

+2

I'm all for hurting corporations bottom lines. Especially one as disgusting as mcshit. Fast food also needs to be taxed like cigarettes and alcohol. Make that shit too expensive to be convenient.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

+2

I'm all for hurting corporations bottom lines. Especially one as disgusting as mcshit. Fast food also needs to be taxed like cigarettes and alcohol. Make that shit too expensive to be convenient.

That's cool. But, if your goal is to hurt their bottom lines, don't do it by being dishonest and claiming that the goal is to reduce obesity.

This is the sentiment that runs through a lot of policy decisions. We don't give a shit about "hurting" some company or group, and we may even want to hurt them, so we use some excuse to do that and claim that it is for a higher purpose.

[sandinista]

I never said it had anything to do with stopping obesity. Although, that would be one of many positives.

[Cunt]

No don't ban, that would be a free speech issue. Just ban advertising aimed at kids, including product placement in films and TV. Not all that hard.
If McD's didn't target that demographic, it wouldn't use Ronald, that's for fucking sure.

It might make more sense if the companies advertising food had to put an equal amount of advertising dollars into Health Canada's pockets with specific direction to educate people about healthy eating.

Maybe with their own clown (Stephen Harper might serve)

[RuleBritannia]

No don't ban, that would be a free speech issue. Just ban advertising aimed at kids, including product placement in films and TV. Not all that hard.
If McD's didn't target that demographic, it wouldn't use Ronald, that's for fucking sure.

It might make more sense if the companies advertising food had to put an equal amount of advertising dollars into Health Canada's pockets with specific direction to educate people about healthy eating.

Maybe with their own clown (Stephen Harper might serve)

Why is everybody constantly shifting the blame? Your body is your own responsibility, if you get fat from eating too much and not burning off the calories you consume, it's your own fucking fault.

[Cunt]

No don't ban, that would be a free speech issue. Just ban advertising aimed at kids, including product placement in films and TV. Not all that hard.
If McD's didn't target that demographic, it wouldn't use Ronald, that's for fucking sure.

It might make more sense if the companies advertising food had to put an equal amount of advertising dollars into Health Canada's pockets with specific direction to educate people about healthy eating.

Maybe with their own clown (Stephen Harper might serve)

Why is everybody constantly shifting the blame? Your body is your own responsibility, if you get fat from eating too much and not burning off the calories you consume, it's your own fucking fault.

I don't see any blame-shifting, just a government grab...

If you accept that advertising works, then it is only reasonable to think that advertising can have a negative effect, such as on diet.

When a company uses it's power to have a negative effect, it is generally wise to see that they pay to repair some of this effect (such as in mining and reclamation).

So what is your problem? You don't want to think of McDonalds having to cut their advertising budget?

[sandinista]

No don't ban, that would be a free speech issue. Just ban advertising aimed at kids, including product placement in films and TV. Not all that hard.
If McD's didn't target that demographic, it wouldn't use Ronald, that's for fucking sure.

It might make more sense if the companies advertising food had to put an equal amount of advertising dollars into Health Canada's pockets with specific direction to educate people about healthy eating.

Maybe with their own clown (Stephen Harper might serve)

Why is everybody constantly shifting the blame? Your body is your own responsibility, if you get fat from eating too much and not burning off the calories you consume, it's your own fucking fault.

It's only "shifting the blame" if you believe no one gets influenced/brainwashed by propaganda/advertising. Don't get me wrong, I do partially agree with you, but only if what you are saying encompasses the whole picture. If all drugs were legal and were advertised, if cigarettes were advertised and if there were NO laws dictating personal behavior. The problem is the hypocrisy involved with this issue. Fast/shit food is as harmful as any drug or alcohol yet there is no curb on its advertising or consumption.

[charlou]

Looking at this in its broader context - the social and economic impact of deteriorating health on society - there are pragmatic reasons for society's elected representative, their government, to act in the best interest of society as a whole. They are more obliged to do so than to protect the vested interests of corporations.

[Cunt]

Looking at this in its broader context - the social and economic impact of deteriorating health on society - there are pragmatic reasons for society's elected representative, their government, to act in the best interest of society as a whole. They are more obliged to do so than to protect the vested interests of corporations.

Along those lines, I decided once to accept 'Health Canada's' word on whether it was safe to eat a certain kind of wild meat. They said yes and I accepted it. If they were wrong, they would be footing the bill (YAY health care!) so I saw it as them protecting their interests to investigate the matter.

[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.

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?

*yawn*

Let's see now, when the food has a demonstrable link to obesity, and the banning of advertisements would have a demonstrable (as the introduction of have a demonstrable increase, if you'd actually care to research) decrease in sales, we can link that directly to a decrease in consumption. A decrease in consumption of unhealthy foods leads to combatting obesity.

Thank you and goodbye.