Ban Ronald McDonald?

[sandinista]

Oh...you're disappointed? Oh my Thanks for letting me know, not sure what I would have done without that knowledge. Maybe you should learn the definition of terms before using them. There is nothing close to hyperbole in the statement in question.

[Gallstones]

Oh...you're disappointed? Oh my Thanks for letting me know, not sure what I would have done without that knowledge.

• Whatever you like I suppose.

Glad to be of service in your education. Enjoy.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh...you're disappointed? Oh my Thanks for letting me know, not sure what I would have done without that knowledge. Maybe you should learn the definition of terms before using them. There is nothing close to hyperbole in the statement in question.

Calling it garbage or hit is hyperbole.

Telling me I'm on a break from mcshit is an ad hominem.

Either way, yours is a nonsense argument.

[sandinista]

Oh...you're disappointed? Oh my Thanks for letting me know, not sure what I would have done without that knowledge. Maybe you should learn the definition of terms before using them. There is nothing close to hyperbole in the statement in question.

Calling it garbage or hit is hyperbole.

Telling me I'm on a break from mcshit is an ad hominem.

Either way, yours is a nonsense argument.

No...and perhaps a little. Either way, you have no argument other than "if it makes a profit its good" which is the same as no argument at all.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh...you're disappointed? Oh my Thanks for letting me know, not sure what I would have done without that knowledge. Maybe you should learn the definition of terms before using them. There is nothing close to hyperbole in the statement in question.

Calling it garbage or hit is hyperbole.

Telling me I'm on a break from mcshit is an ad hominem.

Either way, yours is a nonsense argument.

No...and perhaps a little. Either way, you have no argument other than "if it makes a profit its good" which is the same as no argument at all.

Nobody said "if it makes a profit it's good." I did say that making a profit is not necessarily bad. Those are two entirely different things. And, "good and bad" are not determining factors as to what can and can't be sold.

[sandinista]

Oh...you're disappointed? Oh my Thanks for letting me know, not sure what I would have done without that knowledge. Maybe you should learn the definition of terms before using them. There is nothing close to hyperbole in the statement in question.

Calling it garbage or hit is hyperbole.

Telling me I'm on a break from mcshit is an ad hominem.

Either way, yours is a nonsense argument.

No...and perhaps a little. Either way, you have no argument other than "if it makes a profit its good" which is the same as no argument at all.

"good and bad" are not determining factors as to what can and can't be sold.

of course they are where are you from?

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh...you're disappointed? Oh my Thanks for letting me know, not sure what I would have done without that knowledge. Maybe you should learn the definition of terms before using them. There is nothing close to hyperbole in the statement in question.

Calling it garbage or hit is hyperbole.

Telling me I'm on a break from mcshit is an ad hominem.

Either way, yours is a nonsense argument.

No...and perhaps a little. Either way, you have no argument other than "if it makes a profit its good" which is the same as no argument at all.

"good and bad" are not determining factors as to what can and can't be sold.

of course they are where are you from?

A country like yours, where cigarettes, alcohol, Doritos, doughnuts, scones, breads, cheese, meat, deep fried fish and chips, ice cream, cake, pie, cold cuts, deep fried Twinkies, funnel cakes, cotton candy, pizza, hot dogs, french fries, lollipops and millions of other bad things are sold every day with wild abandon.

[Gallstones]

What does it mean to be bad in this context?
Is McDonald's bad?
If so why?
How?

[sandinista]

What does it mean to be bad in this context?
Is McDonald's bad?
If so why?
How?

Nothing wrong at all with cruelty to animals on a mass scale, promoting garbage to children, exploiting workers (low wages/anti union) and destruction of the environment, nothing wrong at all. As long as fat asses can keep stuffing their faces with diarrhea.

[Gallstones]

What does it mean to be bad in this context?
Is McDonald's bad?
If so why?
How?

Nothing wrong at all with cruelty to animals on a mass scale, promoting garbage to children, exploiting workers (low wages/anti union) and destruction of the environment, nothing wrong at all. As long as fat asses can keep stuffing their faces with diarrhea.

Repeating unfounded and unsupported claims is not an answer to what I asked. It is more a pathetic and predictable avoidance of honestly supporting one's position.

Perhaps someone else can answer?

[JimC]

This debate has become so polarised, it's almost pointless.

Some cannot see that there may be a number of valid objections to be made of McDonalds and its ilk, and that being a very successful piece of working capitalist machinery does not absolve an entity from criticism, or possibly from the need from some additional governmental controls if warranted by public health and labour laws. They do pay minimum wages, and explot the labour of young people (I know I'll be told that they are glad for the jobs, but the the current economic climate, beggars cannot be choosers, and rapacious corporations exploit that fact to the hilt...)

On the other hand, they are not unique in this, and it is correct to assign much of the blame for obese children to weak-willed parenting. Just as being a successful corporation does not absolve you from blame, it does not make you the source of all evil. Some in the debate would see any company in a free enterprise system as not only worthy of criticism, but needing to be totally swept away. Been tried, and some very nasty things ensued...

There is a middle ground where corporations can pursue their efficiency and profits, but constrained more effectively by rational and effective legislation, and by the valid competing interests of a strong union movement.

[Coito ergo sum]

This debate has become so polarised, it's almost pointless.

Some cannot see that there may be a number of valid objections to be made of McDonalds and its ilk, and that being a very successful piece of working capitalist machinery does not absolve an entity from criticism,

There hasn't been one person on this thread that has claimed that McDonalds is absolved of criticism, or that being a successful piece of capitalism would in any way absolve anybody from criticism. McDonalds is not absolved from criticism and successful capitalist machinery is always open to criticism.

The problem seems to be that some can't seem to separate whether the food is salable from whether people like capitalism and free enterprise in general. Some folks just lambaste McDonalds because it's a big and noteworthy player, so they bash it to further another agenda. I.e. - it's not about the food, to some folks. It's about the capitalism.

or possibly from the need from some additional governmental controls if warranted by public health and labour laws. They do pay minimum wages, and explot the labour of young people (I know I'll be told that they are glad for the jobs, but the the current economic climate, beggars cannot be choosers, and rapacious corporations exploit that fact to the hilt...)

Very often they pay over minimum wage, and the lower paid positions are generally the starting positions that really don't warrant much more than that. "Welcome to McDonalds can I take your order" followed by taking money and giving change, and "have a nice day," is not rocket science. Moreover, part of the compensation includes good health and other benefits. People can work there as high school age kids, and anyone who is uneducated.

Paying minimum wage is not "exploitation." It's paying minimum wage. I worked for minimum wage. I worked flippin' hard for $3.35 cents an hour in the 1980's - it was an opportunity from which to move on to better things. How much should a cashier at McDonald's make? $30,000 a year?

On the other hand, they are not unique in this, and it is correct to assign much of the blame for obese children to weak-willed parenting. Just as being a successful corporation does not absolve you from blame, it does not make you the source of all evil. Some in the debate would see any company in a free enterprise system as not only worthy of criticism, but needing to be totally swept away. Been tried, and some very nasty things ensued...

There is a middle ground where corporations can pursue their efficiency and profits, but constrained more effectively by rational and effective legislation, and by the valid competing interests of a strong union movement.

Well, we do have a extensive regulations on the food industry, both at the state and federal level. Restaurants are licensed and have to be inspected - farms and food processors are licensed and inspected. There is legal liability for selling bad or deleterious food, etc. There are labeling requirements, food content requirements, and all sorts of regulations.

The question is - what regulations on a burger joint are necessary and appropriate? Most folks agree that "reasonable regulations" are appropriate. We have some regulations now. If they're not reasonable, then what is?

[Coito ergo sum]

30 days on McDonalds and lose weight:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdkaQd90 ... re=related[/youtube]

[mistermack]

This debate has become so polarised, it's almost pointless.

I haven't read too much of it, so I hope I'm not just repeating points.
I can see no reason why the people, through their elected representatives, should not place any control they like on advertising aimed at children.

We protect children, we don't just expect them to make the best decisions for their own welfare. It's not some fundamental libery to be able to exploit childrens' innocence and gullibility. We all have a DUTY to protect them. Not just their parents, but the government as well.

In this country, the government spends a lot of money, trying to educate and encourage kids to eat healthily. If a private corporation is spending lots more, trying to get kids to eat shit, I think the people, through their government, has a right to protect kids, and protect their investment in health education.

[Coito ergo sum]

This debate has become so polarised, it's almost pointless.

I haven't read too much of it, so I hope I'm not just repeating points.
I can see no reason why the people, through their elected representatives, should not place any control they like on advertising aimed at children.

We protect children, we don't just expect them to make the best decisions for their own welfare.

Children between the ages of 4 and 12 don't make a decision to buy McDonald's food. For the most part, those between the ages of 13 and 16 don't either, but to some extent when they have a few dollars in their pockets they might. Once they have a job and a drivers license, they can eat where they like, and I'm pretty sure a 17 year old is capable of deciding for themselves what to eat. They are certainly old enough to see an R rated movie, so I'd think viewing Ronald McDonald wouldn't be too bad.

It's not some fundamental libery to be able to exploit childrens' innocence and gullibility. We all have a DUTY to protect them. Not just their parents, but the government as well.

The "save the chill'run" mantra is used to justify just about anything these days. The myth is that there is a clear line between "targeting children" and just regular advertisements. McDonalds sells far more food to adults than they do to children. Their advertisements are mainly not geared toward children.

In this country, the government spends a lot of money, trying to educate and encourage kids to eat healthily. If a private corporation is spending lots more, trying to get kids to eat shit, I think the people, through their government, has a right to protect kids, and protect their investment in health education.

Why don't people just have the right to eat what they want, and feed their kids what they want? Isn't it a tad bit of a waste of time to have a government ministry or agency concerned with whether people eat hamburgers?