Controversy over McDonalds Happy Meals

[PyronIkari]

You have no clue how old I am, nor how long I have been eating the way I have. So the suspicion of it not lasting many more years is quite presumptious. What if I just started eating like this? Then I would have plenty of years, or not so many years because I used to eat healthy and eating like this will cause my body to go completely out of whack since it's not used to it. Or I could have been doing it for the past 40 years, in which case, my doctor who knows my habits has stated that I am completely healthy and has not told me that *IF I DON'T CHANGE MY HABITS I'M GOING TO DIE SOON!"

You see, you can't get your mind around the idea of black and white. And you also fail at following a conversation and that not every single point has to be exactly about the exact subject you are talking about. They are called examples and comparisons.

Just because something is labeled as "bad" doesn't make it bad. And just because something is labeled as "good" doesn't make it good. Dark chocolate is healthy in extremely small doses. It's harmful if you eat too much. You shifted to the marketing aspect. This has nothing to do with "it's telling companies what they can and cannot sell". Your words not mine. If you're saying that they must change their marketing aspect, then again, you're wrong. The reason why you can advertise cigarettes in kids magazines is because it's illegal for them to buy said magazines anyways. (I wonder if your'e really going to get into a marketing argument with me)... so marketing to kids is quite dumb. It's not even profitable for the comapny to begin with since they can't buy them. What they want to market to is people in their later teens. 17-18. So when they can get into them, they buy them so they can start young and keep buying them. But hey... that's not for this thread.

A business is not doing harm if they release a product. They have every right to advertise to whomever they want, and they have everyright to sell anything that is legal. It is up to the consumer to decide whether or not they should or should not buy/consume said product. I'm far from a republican or convervative but I don't believe that the government should spoon feed and hand walk every single person in the country and allow them and not allow them to do anything. If a kid wants a damned hamburger, it is up to the parent to tell them yes or no. If an adult wants a hamburger, it is up to them to say I'm gonig to buy a hamburger or that they think they should eat something healthier.


What's funny is I didn't tell you how those fries were even prepared completely by the way. You just automatically assumed that they were healthier... to act like your argument was valid.

Everything is about moderation and everything is up to the person who buys it. You have no right to tell me that what I'm doing is wrong if I decide to buy something that you deem as unhealthy, because for all you know, for my personal body, it's not. So get off your god damned high horse of what you think people should eat and allow them to make their own decision. When someone approaches you and ASKS FOR WHAT YOU THINK THEY  SHOULD EAT IN TERMS OF HEALTH, then you can tell them what you think. Until then, it's not up to you.

[hikanteki]

You have no clue how old I am, nor how long I have been eating the way I have. So the suspicion of it not lasting many more years is quite presumptious. What if I just started eating like this? Then I would have plenty of years, or not so many years because I used to eat healthy and eating like this will cause my body to go completely out of whack since it's not used to it. Or I could have been doing it for the past 40 years, in which case, my doctor who knows my habits has stated that I am completely healthy and has not told me that *IF I DON'T CHANGE MY HABITS I'M GOING TO DIE SOON!"

I never said or claimed that I knew how old you were or how long you've been eating the way you have, nor do I care.  What I am saying is if someone keeps on following an unhealthy lifestyle, then they'll start to break down sooner than if they don't.  THAT'S ALL.

You see, you can't get your mind around the idea of black and white. And you also fail at following a conversation and that not every single point has to be exactly about the exact subject you are talking about. They are called examples and comparisons.

I never said that every point had to be about the exact subject.  What I called you out on was 1) You telling me that I said things that I didn't say, and 2) You not being correct on specific examples (i.e. kimchi.)

Just because something is labeled as "bad" doesn't make it bad. And just because something is labeled as "good" doesn't make it good. Dark chocolate is healthy in extremely small doses. It's harmful if you eat too much.

Yes, I agree with all of this.  Example: Eggs, coconut oil, and avocados: labeled as bad by many, but actually very good.  McDonald's food: labeled as bad, and actually bad. 

A business is not doing harm if they release a product. They have every right to advertise to whomever they want, and they have everyright to sell anything that is legal. It is up to the consumer to decide whether or not they should or should not buy/consume said product. I'm far from a republican or convervative but I don't believe that the government should spoon feed and hand walk every single person in the country and allow them and not allow them to do anything. If a kid wants a damned hamburger, it is up to the parent to tell them yes or no. If an adult wants a hamburger, it is up to them to say I'm gonig to buy a hamburger or that they think they should eat something healthier.

Now you're playing legality as a trump card.  If it becomes "illegal" to sell Happy Meals that have too much bad fats/calories, then what will be your next excuse?

What's funny is I didn't tell you how those fries were even prepared completely by the way. You just automatically assumed that they were healthier... to act like your argument was valid.

^^^now THIS is you just trying to create an unnecessary argument.  If you were withholding pertinent information, then it needn't be deemed as relevant & I don't need to ask you for specifics before saying something like "there are many things worse than beef fat french fries" and "deep fried foods in lard are much less bad for you than deep fried foods in vegetable oil."  And going even further, I talked about beef fat fries being healthier than rancid vegetable fat fries.  I didn't say "those specific fries you ate are guaranteed to be healthier than all vegetable fat fries on the planet."  Are you happy now?

Everything is about moderation and everything is up to the person who buys it. You have no right to tell me that what I'm doing is wrong if I decide to buy something that you deem as unhealthy, because for all you know, for my personal body, it's not. So get off your god damned high horse of what you think people should eat and allow them to make their own decision. When someone approaches you and ASKS FOR WHAT YOU THINK THEY  SHOULD EAT IN TERMS OF HEALTH, then you can tell them what you think. Until then, it's not up to you.

PyronIkari, I never went up to anyone and told then what they should eat.  Sheesh, talk about trying to put words in my mouth.  What I said is that I support regulations making McDonalds being healthier esp. when it comes to their products that are marketed towards children.

[Ikki Yoneda]

Because now you're restricting people and telling people what they can and cannot eat. If I want to eat something unhealthy, who are you to tell me I cannot go out and buy it and eat it? Two cartoons have done an entire episode based on this very thing. King of the Hill and American Dad both did episodes about trans fat banning. You're basically saying that it's okay for the government to mandate what we can and cannot eat because some people are too stupid to make rational decisions.

It's not about telling people what they can and cannot eat, it's telling companies what they can and cannot sell.  Big difference.

A logical fallacy? Possibly an appeal to popularity. In any case, similar was attempted by ratification of the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on January 16, 1919.

There is also a related anime: "Chocolate Underground".    ;D

[LadyGlitterbow]

Even if there was no toy, the kids would still want McDonald's cause it tastes DELICIOUS! Also parents need to stop being such idiots. McDonald's is in NO WAY responsible for childhood obesity. Not even a little. It is the job of the parent to care for the child, and if that kid becomes obese, I honestly believe that is a form of child abuse and that kid should be taken away from the parent. I AM FURIOUS ABOUT FAT CHILDREN. I have seen 7 year olds that weigh more than me, eating double cheeseburgers and french fries. Don't tell me it's a restaurant's fault. Next thing you know, we won't be able to sell any junk food at all because mom can't say no.  >:(