Do the toys in your child's Happy Meal make them fat?

68 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote Jacques Roux:

What's disturbing is radical libertarian individualists who refuse to acknowledge that they are part of a larger social order.

Show me one single libertarian work (providing you've actually READ any, which I doubt) that say that people should live alone, away from society, in a vacuum.

There are none. Society is a vitally important thing. What I am protesting is your vile view that it is ethical for the government to force people into your specific vision of society.

Just because an individual has produced a child does not make that individual any more the 'owner' of that child than the rest of We the People, especially when the natural parent does not protect -- or cannot protect -- the child from Corporate.

I specifically stated in my last comment that neither the parent NOR society owns an individual. The individual owns their own destiny from the moment they were born. As someone who grew up in a dysfunctional family and sees the dysfunction of today's society, I would know.

monsieurb54's picture
monsieurb54
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote monsieurb54:

There are none. Society is a vitally important thing. What I am protesting is your vile view that it is ethical for the government to force people into your specific vision of society.

But don't you also have a specific vision of society? And aren't you also advocating that we should all live in that vision? Just because my vision of society is different than yours doesn't automatically make it "vile." Particularly when your vision of society is held by such a small percentage of the citizenry.

BadLiberal's picture
BadLiberal
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

monsieur54 wrote, "I am not part of the Commons. I am a man who owns his own destiny. That freedom wasn't granted to me upon my pass into adulthood. I had that right as a child too."

You don't own your destiny if the corporation down the street poisons your drinking water unknown to you or the multinational food company added to much ammonia to your meat products unknown to you, or the oil company has no safety precautions and they dump millions of barrels of oil and dispersents into your local waters, or your community was built over a toxic waste dump unknown to you. How is that freedom? Oh...perhaps I miss your point. You are free to die?

Since you are independent of the commons can we assume you never took part in getting an education at public schools? called the fire department? or heaven forbid stopped at any red lights or stop signs?

louisehartmann's picture
louisehartmann
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote louisehartmann:

You don't own your destiny if the corporation down the street poisons your drinking water unknown to you or the multinational food company added to much ammonia to your meat products unknown to you, or the oil company has no safety precautions and they dump millions of barrels of oil and dispersents into your local waters, or your community was built over a toxic waste dump unknown to you. How is that freedom? Oh...perhaps I miss your point. You are free to die?

Since you are independent of the commons can we assume you never took part in getting an education at public schools? called the fire department? or heaven forbid stopped at any red lights or stop signs?

Louise, if an individual is about to be enslaved by a corporation, that still does not give another enslaving institution -- the State -- the right to interfere. The individual is sovereign.

And I have never used the fire department. Just because these things are currently provided by the State does not mean a) they are the reason we have a safe society, and b) that they have not been provided by alternative means in the past. In the 17th-18th-19th centuries fire services were provided by cooperative firms and insurance companies, and were more responsive to consumers. Schools were run locally and privately in the 18th-19th century, and the kids were smarter. They could be trained and trusted to use a gun by age 6.

monsieurb54's picture
monsieurb54
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote BadLiberal:

But don't you also have a specific vision of society? And aren't you also advocating that we should all live in that vision? Just because my vision of society is different than yours doesn't automatically make it "vile." Particularly when your vision of society is held by such a small percentage of the citizenry.

No, I am not. I am saying people should live free of force. Libertarianism includes and subsumes socialism, as long as it is not forced onto others (In fact, there is an entire subset of libertarian socialism which I support).

It's not a small percentage of the society when you take into account people who have libertarian views on things without being nominally libertarian. For instance, most progressives are mostly libertarian on war. Libertarianism just assumes a lack of force. It's irrelevant whether someone calls themself a libertarian -- if they oppose force in any capacity and support negative freedom in any capacity, they are least partly libertarian (again, small-l libertarian).

monsieurb54's picture
monsieurb54
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote monsieurb54:
Show me one single libertarian work (providing you've actually READ any, which I doubt) that say that people should live alone, away from society, in a vacuum.

There are none. Society is a vitally important thing. What I am protesting is your vile view that it is ethical for the government to force people into your specific vision of society.


I don't need to read any libertarian works. I have however read "Constitution of No Authority" by Lysander Spooner, which I threw in the trash after the first chapter. What drivel. Libertarian individualists need to understand that without the Nation there would be no individuals. The word Nation derives from the latin word Natio, which signifies a group of people who share the same birth. That means that we are all one single body, and there is no room in a body for rouge or foreign cells. They should be detected and eliminated, lest they damage the health of the society in which they live.
Quote monsieurb54:
I specifically stated in my last comment that neither the parent NOR society owns an individual. The individual owns their own destiny from the moment they were born. As someone who grew up in a dysfunctional family and sees the dysfunction of today's society, I would know.

On this issue we don't agree, not by a Longshot. Individuals ARE owned by society, for without society individuals would not exist. Think about cells in a body. Society is the body, and each cell plays an important role in the body, but an individual muscle, nerve, or bone cell would die without the rest of the body to support it. And just like a body, society must stamp out rampant individualism (cancer) through the use of white blood cells (security forces). Each cell in the body serves a purpose, but that purpose is the well-being of the body. A cell is meaningless. A hundred-thousand cells are meaningless. It is the survival of the body (Nation) that is the primary objective.

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Joined:
Jun. 20, 2010 2:33 pm
Quote louisehartmann:

The tobacco companies have millions or billions focused on your 12 year old children to smoke. Parents don't get to say no because they will sneak it when you're not around, and then kids get hooked and damaged. The tobacco execs sit in meeting as d the junk food people and figure out how to get around parents, "giving a shit."

"Giving a shit" VS. "Billions of marketing"

Needs to be regulated....so kids are protected.

I've had one kid already pass the 12 year mark and the other one is 10. Both find smoking foul and nausiating. The "billions" and the execs in the boardroom can't really compete if parents set a halfway decent example of why smoking and junkfood is a negative. It starts as rules, then grows into the why through education.

My son recently was remenissing about his earlier childhood. Looking at his friends that had taken to smoking, drugs, obesity, etc... saying that he was fortunate to have had the influence of parents that allowed him leeway to understand why we said "no" on certain things in life, but always made the time to educate him in common sense. We allowed him to fail as well, get up, dust himself off, and learn from the experience.

Most kids I see fall victim to advertising of poison unfortunately have little to no will power and have been accustomed to having a television as thier babysitter for years. It's a brainwash machine if young minds are set in front of it while mommy/daddy occupies her/his self with other things. Fewer and fewer parents it seems are willing to spend the time raising and influencing their kids. Alot of parents are as hooked on the boob tube as their kids so what do you expect the outcome will be?

I believe in self regulation. Rather than rely on a nanny state controlled life, I'd rather just not buy the crap people are trying to sell if it's not good for me. As far as spheres of influence, my kids can be influenced far greater by my wife and myself than any billions spent by those evil corporations. Throwing up your hands and declaring failure is worthless and weak. It seems to be a trend with those that want someone else to control their lives.

For my wife and I, there is no greater responsibility than raising our children. We'll do the best we can and pray that our influence is lasting. The odds are in my favor. A beaurocratic nanny state "protecting" us makes me want to vomit.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am

No one is suggesting to take away parenting rights from parents. What I am suggesting is to take away the instruments of propaganda from corporations (in this case toys) which brainwash both the children and parents into thinking McDonalds food is a good thing.

At a minimum, require fast food establishments like McDonalds to place warning labels on the Happy Meal box, wrapper, etc... so that parents can effectively parent.

Mr_Dean's picture
Mr_Dean
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:58 am
Quote meljomur:

PeeWee, what on earth does this have to do with Happy Meal toys and advertisement in the USA?

Modern political campaigns are marketing Mel. Barack Obama is a brand, and he had some of the best marketers in the world help him get elected.

I can't believe this has to be explained to you.

PeeWee Returns's picture
PeeWee Returns
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote monsieurb54:

Louise, if an individual is about to be enslaved by a corporation, that still does not give another enslaving institution -- the State -- the right to interfere. The individual is sovereign.

What?? So for example, you're saying the government shouldn't intervene in sweatshops operating in the US today? Or if women are being forced into prostitution, the government doesn't have the right to intervene?

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 10:26 am
Quote Mr_Dean:

No one is suggesting to take away parenting rights from parents. What I am suggesting is to take away the instruments of propaganda from corporations (in this case toys) which brainwash both the children and parents into thinking McDonalds food is a good thing.

At a minimum, require fast food establishments like McDonalds to place warning labels on the Happy Meal box, wrapper, etc... so that parents can effectively parent.

Taking away? Who ever suggested that?

Parents need to act like parents and give a damn about what their kids eat. Warning labels on junk food? LOL. I don't believe treating everyone like they a fcking 'tard helps anyone. Is the government the all knowing, all seeing, supreme life force in your world?

If you are going to take away advertising from companies to sell their product, why not take away all advertising for everything? How is Thom going to fund his website and radio show?

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am
Quote PeeWee Returns:
Quote meljomur:

PeeWee, what on earth does this have to do with Happy Meal toys and advertisement in the USA?

Modern political campaigns are marketing Mel. Barack Obama is a brand, and he had some of the best marketers in the world help him get elected.

I can't believe this has to be explained to you.

I think my point is why make every issue a partisan political issue. Everything is a brand in America. That's why I rather envy people like poly living without the crap that 24/7 one is told they need to fulfill the American dream.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote slabmaster:

Parents need to act like parents and give a damn about what their kids eat. Warning labels on junk food? LOL. I don't believe treating everyone like they a fcking 'tard helps anyone. Is the government the all knowing, all seeing, supreme life force in your world?

You seem to take it for granted that people will have access to or know all this information.

I agree, it seems a little absurd to put warning labels on junk food. Beyond that, I'm not sure how effective they are.

But on the other hand there are numerous cases of companies making spurious health claims. How exactly does a parent go about figuring out which, if any, health claims are true? Isn't it a proper role of the government to regulate truth claims about products?

Or when a toy is unsafe, how do you find out before disaster strikes? Isn't it better for the government to preventively say, "No, you can't sell toys with lead"?

Even in an ideal world where parents have easy access to good information, there will be parents who make poor choices for their kids. Isn't it in all of our interests to draw a line somewhere (and where is obviously a matter of debate) and say at this point, we're not going to punish the kid for his or her parent's failings?

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 10:26 am

This is probably the most ignorant and cherry picked report I have ever read on the subject, and I find it absolutely disgusting that anyone would take it seriously.

1. Toys don't make children fat, if toys were as "powerful" of an influence as you say, Louise then please tell me why Taco Bell (one of the fattiest most disgusting fast food chains in existence) is still selling Tacos to children under 10, and also kindly explain to me how Hardies FAILED to sell any of its toy laden food to kids. You want to know why? The FOOD is what sells, not the toys.

2. Toys, cartoons and food have been around since the Lone Ranger cereal of the 50s and it DIED. You want to know why? The FOOD is what sells, not the toys.

3. This study also convienently places all the blame on the Toy Companies because it assumes that the Parents are so weak minded that they are controlled by their 5 year old. Anyone who is that pathetically stupid and weak should not be a parent.

4. This study refuses to acknowledge the fat little couch potatoes aren't doing anything with their time because their parents are too lazy to get their pumpkin shaped kids out of the house and enjoying some actual physical activity. According to this study, McDonalds is to blame because Parents and Children are BLAMELESS for not getting off their pampered asses and into the fresh air.

5. The toys aren't that great. They don't shoot lasers. They don't fly. They don't do anything even remotely as awesome as a $5 toy at TARGET. If you suck so bad as a parent you can't convince your kid to get a better toy for the same cost at the freaking Toy Store, then you should just put your head in a gas oven.

6. Just because someone has a fond memory of eating bad food every once in a while, doesn't mean that memory is Satan, ok? This study is basically saying that "Because McDonalds marketed a toy to you or your child they need to be SHUT DOWN because they're EVIL and you have no free will to resist as a parent or a child! You're not to blame for getting your ass out of your chair and into a physical activity, it's a giant corporation you can sue and regulate!"

I'm a die hard liberal, but there is such thing as overregulation. This study is a piece of crap with absolutely 0 respectible value to it. Anyone who takes it seriously is someone who believes that people are so weak minded and pathetic they should be concealed from the real world and locked away into a bubble to prevent anything from damaging their fragile mental state.

I'm 31 years old, I used to eat lunch at McDonalds 3 of the 5 week days only because it had healthier food than the school lunch (school lunch is terrible), but it wasn't until just last year I hit an even remotely "overweight" ratio (I'm currently 170lb at 6"1"). For the first time in my life I'm 4 pounds overweight, and I haven't eaten regularly at McDonalds in years. In fact, last month was the first time I ate at McDonalds since 2002.

I was a string bean growing up because I exercised and I ate better at home; but according to this study I should've been a porker!

Here's a little fact for you:

The year 2000 is the beginning of the first decade in over 50 years where Children have become medically OBESE.

Toys have been sold alongside unhealthy food since the 50s.

Only an IDIOT would suddenly start blaming the toys and not the fat assed parents and kids who refuse to leave their house.

I've seen everything from people blaming Videogames to T.V., but the fact is it boils down to people with fat mentalities - they want to be fat, they want their children to be fat, if they didn't they'd actually get out and played once in a while.

And I actually have some studies to back this up:

http://www.heartland.org/publications/health%20care/article/24990/Study_...

There's one link to one study, there are hundreds more. Each one says it's not so much the food as it is people's intent on being lazy and subsequently becoming fat.

KevinConner's picture
KevinConner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

You all can say "parents need to do this" and "parents need to do that" until your blue in the face, but at the end of the day it doesn't solve squat. Again, It's just wasted rhetoric really. Should we allow child abuse and just simply say 'oh, those parents just need to be better parents' and then not have any laws in place to help fight against child abuse? That's exactly what you're saying regarding the McDonalds issue.

Now, back to actually solving the problem of brainwashing children into desiring unhealthy food. It's kind of like the Hansel and Gretel story where an evil old witch lures the children into a gingerbread house. Well, McDonalds is luring the unsuspecting children and even their parents with a silly looking clown, colorful happy meal boxes, and little plastic toys (most likely manufactured in China with toxic material). It seems innocent at first, but careful examination of the long-term health effects reveals just how damaging it is. America is the most obese country in the world and I partially blame our McDonalds culture. Obesity has been proven to cause depression, diabetes, high blood pressure, higher cancer rates, and more.

Mr_Dean's picture
Mr_Dean
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:58 am
Quote KevinConner:

4. This study refuses to acknowledge the fat little couch potatoes aren't doing anything with their time because their parents are too lazy to get their pumpkin shaped kids out of the house and enjoying some actual physical activity. According to this study, McDonalds is to blame because Parents and Children are BLAMELESS for not getting off their pampered asses and into the fresh air.

At last, a liberal with common sense.

5. The toys aren't that great. They don't shoot lasers. They don't fly. They don't do anything even remotely as awesome as a $5 toy at TARGET. If you suck so bad as a parent you can't convince your kid to get a better toy for the same cost at the freaking Toy Store, then you should just put your head in a gas oven.
Thats what I always thought. The few times I've been through a McDonalds drive thru and my kid has wanted a toy, I always looked at it thinking "how lame".

6. Just because someone has a fond memory of eating bad food every once in a while, doesn't mean that memory is Satan, ok? This study is basically saying that "Because McDonalds marketed a toy to you or your child they need to be SHUT DOWN because they're EVIL and you have no free will to resist as a parent or a child! You're not to blame for getting your ass out of your chair and into a physical activity, it's a giant corporation you can sue and regulate!"
It seems to be the popular liberal chant to determine eviliness based on not liking the product. Add a little "corporation" rhetorec to the mix, and presto! you have grounds to shut those bastards down!

I'm a die hard liberal, but there is such thing as overregulation. This study is a piece of crap with absolutely 0 respectible value to it. Anyone who takes it seriously is someone who believes that people are so weak minded and pathetic they should be concealed from the real world and locked away into a bubble to prevent anything from damaging their fragile mental state.
Agreed. The popular assault on people by the left is demeaning. Treating people like they are completely lost without the nanny state promotes hopelessness and creates a worthless and weak society.

Only an IDIOT would suddenly start blaming the toys and not the fat assed parents and kids who refuse to leave their house. I've seen everything from people blaming Videogames to T.V., but the fact is it boils down to people with fat mentalities - they want to be fat, they want their children to be fat, if they didn't they'd actually get out and played once in a while.
For most fat people, this is fact. It is their lifestyle that creates obesety. They don't give a shit, period. Thats why diet plans are a multi billion dollar business.

And I actually have some studies to back this up:

http://www.heartland.org/publications/health%20care/article/24990/Study_...

There's one link to one study, there are hundreds more. Each one says it's not so much the food as it is people's intent on being lazy and subsequently becoming fat.

Kevin, It's refreshing listening to a self proclaimed "die hard liberal" opine about common sense and responsibility. Identifying the true problem rather than play the silly blame game. If you ventured into a Tea Party rally, you'd find the same thoughts....X 10,000.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am

slab - it's nice to agree with a conservative on the few times I do.

Though I detract a bit from the last bit regarding the tea party, I am glad we agree on 99% of your post. I also want to stress I'm not really someone who likes Fast Food.

Now, there are some things I think should be regulated regarding Junk Food - MSG and certain Fat/Sodium levels need to be capped. But, I think you might agree with me or at least meet me half way on those issues too. MSG specifically needs to be banned because it's really bad. It's not just a salt, it's a salinic acid that dramatically increases chances of stroke.

BUT I digress. This thread is about Toys. It's a thread based off an asinine report with absolutely 0 legitimacy, and it shouldn't even be considered for serious debate. The report specifically fails on a number of levels to consider 50 years worth of variables combined with a comprehensive activity habbits vs eating habbits. Anyone who takes this report seriously without questioning the methods used to determine the result is someone who is either out on a vendetta mission against fast food or is easily mentally manipulated by anyone who cries murder (i.e. someone who suffers from Mob mentality).

Let me repeat - I DO NOT LIKE Fast Food. The majority of fast food I eat is stir fry which uses real meat, real vegetables and I never ask for "extra sauce". I'm not sitting here defending McDonalds because I LOVE to eat it and am a corporate shill (I really don't eat there or any of the burger joints for that matter). In fact, I am of the mind that people should avoid fast food. But, this report --- this report is just baseline idiocy, and I could not stand to let it go unanswered.

KevinConner's picture
KevinConner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The Death of the Middle Class was by Design...

Even in the face of the so-called Recovery, poverty and inequality are getting worse in our country, and more wealth and power is flowing straight to the top. According to Paul Buchheit over at Alternet, this is the end result of winner-take-all capitalism, and this destruction of the working class has all been by design.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system