Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Coito ergo sum]

They should be allowed to advertise BUT they should never be allowed to do THIS!

I agree, but that's more of a function of British libel laws, which are very much sided with those who accuse other people of libel. And, McDonald's did prove that much of what Morris and Steel said was false and/or completely unsubstantiated. McDonald's won, but they wound up looking bad nevertheless.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I voted no.

I despise McDonalds for their ubiquitousness, their disgusting 'food',

They have good coffee, and their Egg McMuffin sandwich is actually quite good. 18g of protein, 30g of carbs, 300 calories, 12 g of fat. Egg McMuffin and a coffee - add a hash brown for 150 calories, 9g of fat, and 15g of carbs, and that's not too bad. 450 calories for breakfast. It's an English Muffin, real egg, canadian bacon and a slice of cheese.

Even a Big Mac is not that bad - it's a burger with 540 calories. Add medium sized french fry and you are up to 920 calories for lunch. Add a diet coke (0 calories) and you can eat breakfast and lunch at McDonald's and be at 1370 calories. Have a sensible dinner and you're good to go.

Isn't the real problem "overeating"?

When I said that their food was disgusting, I wasn't referring to the nutritional content (which has improved relatively recently following criticism, IIRC) but simply that I find it bland, over-salted and meh.

[Coito ergo sum]

I voted no.

I despise McDonalds for their ubiquitousness, their disgusting 'food',

They have good coffee, and their Egg McMuffin sandwich is actually quite good. 18g of protein, 30g of carbs, 300 calories, 12 g of fat. Egg McMuffin and a coffee - add a hash brown for 150 calories, 9g of fat, and 15g of carbs, and that's not too bad. 450 calories for breakfast. It's an English Muffin, real egg, canadian bacon and a slice of cheese.

Even a Big Mac is not that bad - it's a burger with 540 calories. Add medium sized french fry and you are up to 920 calories for lunch. Add a diet coke (0 calories) and you can eat breakfast and lunch at McDonald's and be at 1370 calories. Have a sensible dinner and you're good to go.

Isn't the real problem "overeating"?

When I said that their food was disgusting, I wasn't referring to the nutritional content (which has improved relatively recently following criticism, IIRC) but simply that I find it bland, over-salted and meh.

Fair enough - some people don't like it. Some people do, though. I lump it in with other "comfort foods." Like, a big bowl of spaghetti with meatballs, and parmesan cheese, or a pizza with pepperoni, sausage, onions and green peppers...mmmmmmmmm......oh, and grilled cheese and ham sandwiches with french fries - oooo, and especially if you add a slice of tomato and some finely chopped sauteed onions to the grilled cheese sandwich....mmmmmmmmm.....

[Coito ergo sum]

Ronald McDonald After He Loses His Job

[Tails Turrosaki]

This was on the news over the weekend:

http://www.slashfood.com/2010/03/29/act ... tirement/2

This kind of thing just gets me riled up. I have no problem with "activists" stating their opinion, writing articles and books, boycotting what they don't like, and trying to persuade, in the marketplace of ideas, that something like Ronald McDonald is bad. However, inevitably, these pukes try to force their demented "do as I say" mentality down everyone's throats via legislation. They want an outright ban.

They want to make it illegal for McDonald's to use their clown mascot to advertise their product. I mean... WTF? You just knew this road was going to be traveled when we sat back and let these freaks make Joe Camel illegal...

I say yes, ban 'im.

The clown mascot is child friendly. This attracts children to their greasy, fattening foods.
America is already fat enough, thanks.

[Coito ergo sum]

Maybe Burger King has the better advertising idea anyway....lol

[Coito ergo sum]

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – San Francisco has become the first major U.S. city to pass a law that cracks down on the popular practice of giving away free toys with unhealthy restaurant meals for children.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101103/us_ ... nalds_toys

Whew!

Thank the deity of your choice! San Francisco has ridden to the rescue of the citizenry. Recognizing that it is a reasonable exercise of governmental authority to tell you that if you want to sell donuts or ice cream or sandwiches...you can not also sell a toy with them at the same time. Clearly, the reason is that kids want toys, and if you sell toys with your food, then kids will want that food, and we can't have that. Parents will be unable to say "no" to their children, and of course, child pressure on parents to buy them meals accompanied by toys is why kids are fat and unhealthy.

[Trolldor]

Already made a thread on that topic, and quite frankly the rising rates of obesity clearly show that the 'developed world' doesn't have the ability to control itself so yes the intervention is necessary.
Not to mention how much effort McDonald's has gone in to inflicting a life-time conditioning on its customers - or, more specifically, their children.

[maiforpeace]

Already made a thread on that topic, and quite frankly the rising rates of obesity clearly show that the 'developed world' doesn't have the ability to control itself so yes the intervention is necessary.
Not to mention how much effort McDonald's has gone in to inflicting a life-time conditioning on its customers - or, more specifically, their children.

If they sell a healthy meal, they can sell a toy with the meal.

The marketing department and R & D for menus at McDonald's might have to work out of the box and do something different...oh, my!

[Coito ergo sum]

Already made a thread on that topic, and quite frankly the rising rates of obesity clearly show that the 'developed world' doesn't have the ability to control itself so yes the intervention is necessary.

Of course, if we base our decisions on "reason" then we would require some evidence that eliminating the sale of food and toys together actually reduces obesity....but, why both with reason and evidence, when we can act on knee jerk, emotional responses.

And, liberty requires the right to make choices, not just "the right" choices.

Not to mention how much effort McDonald's has gone in to inflicting a life-time conditioning on its customers - or, more specifically, their children.

LOL - they sell hamburgers and french fries. They aren't doing anything more than any other restaurant in that regard.

How right wing authoritarian are you, anyway? You want the government in charge of our diets? LOL Talk about an invasion of privacy...

[leo-rcc]

If they sell a healthy meal, they can sell a toy with the meal.

The marketing department and R & D for menus at McDonald's might have to work out of the box and do something different...oh, my!

And you don't consider this belittling a tad anal?

[Coito ergo sum]

Already made a thread on that topic, and quite frankly the rising rates of obesity clearly show that the 'developed world' doesn't have the ability to control itself so yes the intervention is necessary.
Not to mention how much effort McDonald's has gone in to inflicting a life-time conditioning on its customers - or, more specifically, their children.

If they sell a healthy meal, they can sell a toy with the meal.

LOL - you really advocate the government being the arbiter of that?

Mai mai mai...please, o' please....tell me you are not in favor of this pseudo-scientific emotional clap-trap?

The marketing department and R & D for menus at McDonald's might have to work out of the box and do something different...oh, my!

Or, maybe it's a free country, and if people don't want to eat their they don't have to. I never go to Steak & Shake or Arby's, because I don't like the food. I know many people who don't go to McDonald's because they don't like it. It's called freedom, privacy and the right to choose.

Of course, there are those folks who don't like McDonald's AND want to make sure that nobody else gets the courtesy of being able to make their own decision. They want to legislate away that decision - you want to buy happy meals once in a while because your kids like them, and they are a nice, inexpensive, tasty treat! Oh, no! Not for you...you're not allowed to make your own consumer purchasing decisions....

[maiforpeace]

If they sell a healthy meal, they can sell a toy with the meal.

The marketing department and R & D for menus at McDonald's might have to work out of the box and do something different...oh, my!

And you don't consider this belittling a tad anal?

Yes. And it will be even more so if I go eat a few big macs.

Sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for a corporation that has made billions and billions of dollars selling their unhealthy food made from factory farmed animals.

EDIT:

Already made a thread on that topic, and quite frankly the rising rates of obesity clearly show that the 'developed world' doesn't have the ability to control itself so yes the intervention is necessary.
Not to mention how much effort McDonald's has gone in to inflicting a life-time conditioning on its customers - or, more specifically, their children.

If they sell a healthy meal, they can sell a toy with the meal.

LOL - you really advocate the government being the arbiter of that?

Mai mai mai...please, o' please....tell me you are not in favor of this pseudo-scientific emotional clap-trap?

The marketing department and R & D for menus at McDonald's might have to work out of the box and do something different...oh, my!

Or, maybe it's a free country, and if people don't want to eat their they don't have to. I never go to Steak & Shake or Arby's, because I don't like the food. I know many people who don't go to McDonald's because they don't like it. It's called freedom, privacy and the right to choose.

Of course, there are those folks who don't like McDonald's AND want to make sure that nobody else gets the courtesy of being able to make their own decision. They want to legislate away that decision - you want to buy happy meals once in a while because your kids like them, and they are a nice, inexpensive, tasty treat! Oh, no! Not for you...you're not allowed to make your own consumer purchasing decisions....

Nobody is taking anyone's choices away...if they really want the toy they can go buy that crappy meal and buy the toy - they will just have to buy the healthy meal too to get the toy. How horrible...they might actually be exposed to healthier eating that way. It's not like they need the toy for their nutrition or their health.

[Coito ergo sum]

The precedent of this stuff is very troubling. If the city can ban toys with meals, then it can ban onion rings. Want to go to Outback or Cheddars for some tasty onion rings? Oh, no. Not good for you. You have freedom of choice, but not to eat what the government says is wrong.

I think the government ought to ban lettuce in restaurants, because of the risk of contaminated vegetables. If I get enough folks on city council to be with me, there's no reason we can't do that, right? It's just a matter of whether the cause is popular....


And, maiforpeace - I have no "sympathy" for McDonald's either. But the issue really isn't whether they are worthy of sympathy. It's whether there is a rational basis behind limiting the sale of food and a toy together (both being lawful products), and whether this is a proper exercise of government power.

If it's the treatment of animals that you are concerned with, or the relative health of the food, then this toy ban is way out in left field.

Many things are unhealthy. Is it really the government's business?

[leo-rcc]

If they sell a healthy meal, they can sell a toy with the meal.

The marketing department and R & D for menus at McDonald's might have to work out of the box and do something different...oh, my!

And you don't consider this belittling a tad anal?

Yes. And it will be even more so if I go eat a few big macs.

Sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for a corporation that has made billions and billions of dollars selling their unhealthy food made from factory farmed animals.

So what? No matter what your personal misgivings are for a company, that does not take away the fact that it is completely asinine for a government to interfere with the way a business sells their product. A product by the way that you, the parents of those children, the children themselves, are not forced at gunpoint to buy. It is ridiculous.