Ban Ronald McDonald?

[sandinista]

Thanks for the link!

[Coito ergo sum]

What else would he say?

I would be curious what the rate is for non-factory farmed meat.

[Azathoth]

Meh, staph is on everything. As long as you have a healthy immune system it is nothing to worry about.

[pErvinalia]

I see the conversation has moved on from the OP. I only read the first page or two. What was the final determination on whether Ronald should be banned? I see Coito was blabbing on about "free people" or something like that. I was wondering if Coito thinks it would be alright if I acted like the free person I am and had consensual sex with children? I can't see how he would have a problem with it, given he seems ok with corporations poisoning our children.

[Azathoth]

There should be a subsection of godwin's law for invoking paedophilia Nobody is poisoning anyone's kids. You as a parent should be responsible for what they eat. If you can't say no to them and let them eat tasty shite from MvDonalds every day that is your fault not the big evil corporation's

[pErvinalia]

It might be my fault as a parent, but it is all of society's interest to protect those that can't really protect themselves. We protect kids in other ways, so why should this be any different?

[Azathoth]

It shouldn't. They should take kids off parents who are too incompetent to stop them getting to elephantine proportions. It is as abusive as starving them.

[pErvinalia]

True. But if we can stop it before it happens then I think that is better option, IMO.

[Azathoth]

Why shouldn't my kids get a toy and a picture of a fucked up scary clown on the rare occasions they get fast food as a treat because of a few idiots who can't look after their kids properly?

[pErvinalia]

I don't know. Why can't your kids get a few smokes every now and then? Bloody do-gooders. Next they'll ban alcohol from kids.

[Coito ergo sum]

I see the conversation has moved on from the OP. I only read the first page or two. What was the final determination on whether Ronald should be banned? I see Coito was blabbing on about "free people" or something like that. I was wondering if Coito thinks it would be alright if I acted like the free person I am and had consensual sex with children? I can't see how he would have a problem with it, given he seems ok with corporations poisoning our children.

There is a significant difference between "conduct" and "speech." An advert is the latter. Fucking children is the former.

Banning Ronald McDonald doesn't stop the sale of the food. If the food is poison, then ban it. Banning a clown is not the same thing as banning the food, or banning poison.

I'm most certainly not "o.k." with corporations poisoning children. I would support the ban of poisonous food, and I support significant standards applied to food safety. Banning clowns, however, is another matter. If you press your mind to it, you might puzzle out the difference someday.

[Coito ergo sum]

True. But if we can stop it before it happens then I think that is better option, IMO.

Banning a clown doesn't stop it.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't know. Why can't your kids get a few smokes every now and then? Bloody do-gooders. Next they'll ban alcohol from kids.

If you were talking about banning the food because it is dangerous, then you would have a point. But, you're not. You're talking about banning a clown. And, some other folks are talking about banning toys.

[maiforpeace]

True. But if we can stop it before it happens then I think that is better option, IMO.

Banning a clown doesn't stop it.

The article I posted seems to indicate that despite all the efforts of CIA and others to put pressure on McDonald's to limit their marketing targeted at children, that it hasn't affected their bottom line. So, if banning a clown isn't going to stop it, then why is McDonald's so adamant about holding on to Ronald and the Happy Meal?

My guess is that the reason why their bottom line hasn't been affected much is because all the marketing to children in the past was effective...they created a generation of adults that are addicted to McDonald's and are now customers for life. If they were to limit their marketing to children today, the effect would only be realized later on when those children become adults.

[pErvinalia]

I see the conversation has moved on from the OP. I only read the first page or two. What was the final determination on whether Ronald should be banned? I see Coito was blabbing on about "free people" or something like that. I was wondering if Coito thinks it would be alright if I acted like the free person I am and had consensual sex with children? I can't see how he would have a problem with it, given he seems ok with corporations poisoning our children.

There is a significant difference between "conduct" and "speech." An advert is the latter. Fucking children is the former.

Banning Ronald McDonald doesn't stop the sale of the food. If the food is poison, then ban it. Banning a clown is not the same thing as banning the food, or banning poison.

I'm most certainly not "o.k." with corporations poisoning children. I would support the ban of poisonous food, and I support significant standards applied to food safety. Banning clowns, however, is another matter. If you press your mind to it, you might puzzle out the difference someday.

That was a point in and of itself. You and others are banging on about freedomTM and kids and their parents being able to eat McDonald's without the do-gooders getting in their way. Well they still can even if they do ban the clown. What banning the clown will do is make the indoctrination of kids a little less likely. But you and others can still feed your kids that shyte if you want. It's hardly any imposition on anyone's 'freedom' as you and another seem to be all worried about.