Ban Ronald McDonald?

[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.

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?

I don't accept advertising works that way, I've seen hundreds maybe thousands of adverts for Nike shoes, yet I've never bought a pair, and it's nothing to do with the cost as I buy Puma which are just as expensive. Why do I choose Puma over Nike? I don't know, but it's nothing to do with their adverting as Nike tend to make the best adverts with hugh budgets and famous sports men and women.

[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.

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.

However I believe ALL drugs should be legal to consume and advertise.

McDonalds advertising is a victimless crime, as the adverts themselves don't force you to eat at McDonalds (if they did absolutely everbody would be eating there), the only person who can choose to eat there is you. You are sovereign and make your own decisions.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Nobody says advertising doesn't work. The question is whether eliminating Ronald McDonald from advertising will reduce the rate of obesity. Nobody has backed up that assertion with anything other than emotional woo.

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).

All food eaten in quantities over and above what a person needs to maintain body mass at its present level will make that person fatter. That's a mathematical and biological fact.

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

The point is not to cut, or increase, or maintain, McDonald's advertising budget. The point is whether there would be a reduction in the rate of obesity. Until there is some evidence for it, then EVEN IF it is an appropriate limitation on freedom of expression, it is irrational.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

Well that's what the OP related to and nobody has advanced any asserted rational basis for banning Ronald McDonald other than some vague notion that if we do so it might stop kids from getting fat.

If you have some other goal in mind, then to evaluate whether banning McDonald would achieve those goals would require that you state your reasons and your evidence.

If your goal is just to ban it because you hate corporations, then that is your right as a human being to think that.

[Coito ergo sum]

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)

LOL - healthy eating education course.

Lesson number 1 - eat vegetables, fruit, some protein and some carbs
Lesson number 2 - don't eat too much - if you're getting fatter, eat less.
Lesson number 3 - go for a walk once in a while.

That'll cost the gubment $1 billion, I'm sure.

[RuleBritannia]

*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.

You seem to believe that the only reason people are gaining weight on average is because of McDonalds advertising, it's bullshit. You're trying to find a quick fix to a complex social problem.

Why are people gaining weight on average?

> People actually work longer hours than they used to and don't have the time to cook at home every day.
> Most families have two working parents and don't have the time to cook at home every day.
> Fast food appears cheaper (though is actually more expensive over time).
> Fast food is full of sugars and fats that make you feel good.
> Children aren't taught how to cook properly at school.
> Neither are they taught by their mothers, as it would have been in the past.
> People don't get as much exercise as they once did.
> More people are working desk jobs, sitting still all day.
> Children have more to do indoors then they did in the past (TV, computer games etc.) so are more static when at home.
> Children don't get proper physical education at school.
> People have larger portions at meal times than they used to.
> People snack more between meals.
> More people own cars now, and thus get less exercise from walking.
> Unless you make an active effort to exercise people can live almost completely sedentary lives.
> Trans-fatty acids in food.
> People seem to be generally lazier (a consequence of various life style changes in recent years).
> Low-fat or low-calorie food is low in neither if multiple servings are consumed.
> People drink more soft drinks which are full of sugar.
> People just eat anything when they're hungry, without check the contents of what they're eating.

That's just a few reason off the top of my head, there's probably more, but I think I've made my point.

[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?

*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.

Link to the research. It's not my job to prove your case. Yet another Creationist tactic being used by the "pro ban" side on this. First it's burden shifting, and now it's "go do my research". What's next? You're going start asking why I won't consider "different kinds of evidence?" It's a classic Creationist scam to claim that you have demonstrable evidence, but refuse to lower yourself to the level of someone who actually PRESENTS that evidence.....

A decrease in consumption of calories of food is what decreases obesity. Eliminating McDonald's altogether would not have a significant effect on obesity because kids are fat because their parents feed them too much overall, not because they take them to McDonald's once in a while or even once a week.

For example, when a person makes a gigantic burger on the grill, or cooks their kids hot dogs at home, that is just as unhealthy as McDonalds. When parents feed their kids ice cream, cake, cookies, potato chips, Doritos and everything else, kids get fat because they intake more calories of food than their bodies need.

I'd love to see your "evidence," though. It'll be good for a laugh.

[Coito ergo sum]

*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.

You seem to believe that the only reason people are gaining weight on average is because of McDonalds advertising, it's bullshit. You're trying to find a quick fix to a complex social problem.

Why are people gaining weight on average?

> People actually work longer hours than they used to and don't have the time to cook at home every day.
> Most families have two working parents and don't have the time to cook at home every day.
> Fast food appears cheaper (though is actually more expensive over time).
> Fast food is full of sugars and fats that make you feel good.
> Children aren't taught how to cook properly at school.
> Neither are they taught by their mothers, as it would have been in the past.
> People don't get as much exercise as they once did.
> More people are working desk jobs, sitting still all day.
> Children have more to do indoors then they did in the past (TV, computer games etc.) so are more static when at home.
> Children don't get proper physical education at school.
> People have larger portions at meal times than they used to.
> People snack more between meals.
> More people own cars now, and thus get less exercise from walking.
> Unless you make an active effort to exercise people can live almost completely sedentary lives.
> Trans-fatty acids in food.
> People seem to be generally lazier (a consequence of various life style changes in recent years).
> Low-fat or low-calorie food is low in neither if multiple servings are consumed.
> People drink more soft drinks which are full of sugar.
> People just eat anything when they're hungry, without check the contents of what they're eating.

That's just a few reason off the top of my head, there's probably more, but I think I've made my point.

Kids and teenagers watch 40% more television than they did 40 years ago.

Kids and teenagers watch t.v. and play on a computer for 4-6 hours a day on average, and as a result they do not exercise nearly as much as they used to.

Kids and teenagers consume 8% more calories on average today than in 1979.

It's an easy math equation - Less exercise/more sedentary activities + More Calories = FAT.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Fast food is NOT "as harmful" as ANY drug or alcohol, not by a long shot. You made that assertion - back it up with evidence if you have it. The burden of proof is on you.

Hot dogs, hamburgers on the grill, spaghettios, chef boyardee meatball meals - macaroni and cheese - spam - Cap'n Crunch, Trix (are for kids), Snickers Bars, Candy and sweets - the list goes on and on - all that stuff is no better than McDonald's food. So, all the parents out there cutting up hot dogs and mixing them with the Mac n' Cheese, and talking about banning Ronald McDonald, need to really start using their heads a bit....pour some more whole milk over the Count Chocula -- then bitch about McDonalds.

[NoFreeWill]

I'm the only one that said "maybe".
He is rather annoying but I believe in free speech.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Why single out McDonalds? Why not ban ALL advertising on children's TV channels and on mainstream channels during children's programs. After all, all of the companies deny that they are trying to directly influence children.

[maiforpeace]

Why single out McDonalds? Why not ban ALL advertising on children's TV channels and on mainstream channels during children's programs. After all, all of the companies deny that they are trying to directly influence children.

To start:

http://www.retireronald.org/learn/about/wheres_ronald

[RuleBritannia]

Why single out McDonalds? Why not ban ALL advertising on children's TV channels and on mainstream channels during children's programs. After all, all of the companies deny that they are trying to directly influence children.

To start:

http://www.retireronald.org/learn/about/wheres_ronald

What's your point?

[Tigger]

Am I the only one who thinks Ronald McDonald should be banned because he's shit?

[RuleBritannia]

Am I the only one who thinks Ronald McDonald should be banned because he's shit?

So everything you don't like should be banned?