McDonald's possibly under Lawsuit for Happy Meals

The place for chatting and discussing subjects unrelated to Wesnoth.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 1757
Joined: February 10th, 2010, 1:06 am
Location: $x1,$y1

Re: McDonald's possibly under Lawsuit for Happy Meals

Post by Dixie »

But then again those Brats dolls in Gambit's commercial are probably cheap and transport "bad" values. And some music teens (which aren't adults) listen comprises all kinds of lyrics that might vehicle "bad" values, that cereal box with Dora the Explorator and possibly a toy in it is probably like a gazillion times less healthy than, say, Harvest Crunch cereals, and video games prevent kids from going outside and sport (so do books, btw), but they still all target kids. Are they all bad? Possibly, to some extent. But if we start doing this, where do we stop censoring stuff and where does individual freedom start?

Also, I think publicity is part of one's development. It's like the immunitary system (probably wrong word, pardon a non-english speaker): if you never catch any disease (aka are never confronted with publicity) as a kid, how will your body deal with it as an adult? Are you gonna go crazy over all these new products, and get the cheap thing just because it offers a car freshner with it (to retake Gambit's example)?
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny - Frank Zappa
Current projects: Internet meme Era, The Settlers of Wesnoth
User avatar
Hulavuta
Posts: 1668
Joined: October 11th, 2008, 8:17 pm
Location: United States

Re: McDonald's possibly under Lawsuit for Happy Meals

Post by Hulavuta »

Like I said, I never said that I agreed. That is the job of the parent, to censor what they think is wrong individually for their child. Plus, people ARE trying to ban those.
F:tGJ, Saurian Campaign
The Southern Chains, a fanfic
“The difference between winners and champions is that champions are more consistent."
~Sierra
User avatar
Gambit
Loose Screw
Posts: 3266
Joined: August 13th, 2008, 3:00 pm
Location: Dynamica
Contact:

Re: McDonald's possibly under Lawsuit for Happy Meals

Post by Gambit »

zookeeper wrote:
Gambit wrote: But *WHY* is it bad?
Because it is an attempt to get kids to eat crap. Do you need to again ask why that's bad?
Well yes actually. Plenty of bad food is marketed to human beings of all ages.
User avatar
Hulavuta
Posts: 1668
Joined: October 11th, 2008, 8:17 pm
Location: United States

Re: McDonald's possibly under Lawsuit for Happy Meals

Post by Hulavuta »

The point is that kids lack judgment! That's what we've been talking about the whole time!
F:tGJ, Saurian Campaign
The Southern Chains, a fanfic
“The difference between winners and champions is that champions are more consistent."
~Sierra
User avatar
zookeeper
WML Wizard
Posts: 9742
Joined: September 11th, 2004, 10:40 pm
Location: Finland

Re: McDonald's possibly under Lawsuit for Happy Meals

Post by zookeeper »

Gambit wrote:
zookeeper wrote: Because it is an attempt to get kids to eat crap. Do you need to again ask why that's bad?
Well yes actually.
Uh, ok, let's see...
Gambit effectively wrote:I don't think adults attempting to intentionally manipulate kids into liking unhealthy food solely for their own financial gain is a bad thing.
If you agree with that, then either you're trolling or no amount of reasoning you'd be ready to accept would be enough to change your mind anyway.
User avatar
Gambit
Loose Screw
Posts: 3266
Joined: August 13th, 2008, 3:00 pm
Location: Dynamica
Contact:

Re: McDonald's possibly under Lawsuit for Happy Meals

Post by Gambit »

Hulavuta wrote:The point is that kids lack judgment! That's what we've been talking about the whole time!
They also, as was pointed out already, lack money and transportation. Parents are to blame here.
I think we should be making McDonald's make its food healthier. Not make it stop handing out toys to the kids. We also need to stop enabling bad parenting (amongst other retardary like "Warning: Hot coffee is hot") with frivolous lawsuits.
User avatar
doofus-01
Art Director
Posts: 4122
Joined: January 6th, 2008, 9:27 pm
Location: USA

Re: McDonald's possibly under Lawsuit for Happy Meals

Post by doofus-01 »

If you don't buy into the moral aspect, there is the green eye-shade accounting aspect. Unlike many things that might be sold to children, McD's brand of crap is only profitable because of taxpayer subsidies. As taxpayers, we (well, those of us in the US) help pay for the corn and beef that McDonald's processes and sells to the fat little children. Then the fat little children become unhealthy adults, and we the taxpayers/medical insurance consumers pay for that again.

In no way do I shed not a tear for the infringements on McDonald's program. It can join Joe Camel.
Gambit wrote:Parents are to blame here.
We can't all choose our parents.
BfW 1.12 supported, but active development only for BfW 1.13/1.14: Bad Moon Rising | Trinity | Archaic Era |
| Abandoned: Tales of the Setting Sun
GitHub link for these projects
User avatar
Hulavuta
Posts: 1668
Joined: October 11th, 2008, 8:17 pm
Location: United States

Re: McDonald's possibly under Lawsuit for Happy Meals

Post by Hulavuta »

Gambit: Parents are to blame because they will do anything for their kids. There are many ways to solve this problem, and these people have chosen to try to stop marketing to children.
F:tGJ, Saurian Campaign
The Southern Chains, a fanfic
“The difference between winners and champions is that champions are more consistent."
~Sierra
User avatar
johndh
Posts: 591
Joined: June 6th, 2010, 4:03 am
Location: Music City

Re: McDonald's possibly under Lawsuit for Happy Meals

Post by johndh »

To those saying it should be left up to the parents, I say we've already been leaving it up to the parents for a long time, and look how badly it's failed. Frankly, many parents these days are horrible at parenting. While total freedom sounds good from an idealistic perspective, it doesn't work out so well in the real world. When people are left to their own devices, all Hell breaks loose.
It's spelled "definitely", not "definately". "Defiantly" is a different word entirely.
User avatar
PeterPorty
Translator
Posts: 310
Joined: January 12th, 2010, 2:25 am
Location: Chair, In-Front-Of-Computer

Re: McDonald's possibly under Lawsuit for Happy Meals

Post by PeterPorty »

No, no, no... I have to agree with Gambit here... The problem is not the damn plstic toys inside the damn box, is is the food itself, the food and the lack of control of the parent.

1- Food is bad for health.
2- Food brings toys.
3- Kids want the food *just* because it brings toys.
4- Parents buy it because they can't say no to their children.
5-Parents give the food to their children, instead of just giving the toy.
6-Children eat the food.

Ok, 6 errors, the food shouldn't be bad for health, it shouldn't bring toys, kids shouldn't want the food just for the toys, parents should say learn how to say 'no' to their children, parents should think a little before giving the food to the kids, all they want is the toy, children just want the toy, but they still eat the food, althought they know it's bad for them, and they don't really want it.

If ANY of the 6 errors was corrected, this wouldn't be a problem, but they choose to sue for the second one, why? because they are involved on the last four, and the first one wouldn't work for their purposes, since all they want is to stop paying for bad food. The best solution is for parents to learn to say 'no'. 1 happy meal won't do any bad, probably 2 won't either, they just have to learn how to control the kids AND themselves.
"The real world is for people who can't imagine anything better."
User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 1757
Joined: February 10th, 2010, 1:06 am
Location: $x1,$y1

Re: McDonald's possibly under Lawsuit for Happy Meals

Post by Dixie »

Personnally, the main concern I have is about freedom. Sure, the parents are bad, the food is bad, the toy strategy is bad, etc., and if McDonald were to go bankrupt, I wouldn't cry one bit. But if, as a society, we begin saying "You cannot offer toys because your food is bad, here are the quality criterias", the downward spiral to "You cannot write that book/sing that song/produce that thing/whatever because we, the governement, have decided so" is that long and far. You could be surprised. That's censorship, and I'm against it. (Anyone's ever seen the movie The Wave?)
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny - Frank Zappa
Current projects: Internet meme Era, The Settlers of Wesnoth
User avatar
johndh
Posts: 591
Joined: June 6th, 2010, 4:03 am
Location: Music City

Re: McDonald's possibly under Lawsuit for Happy Meals

Post by johndh »

Dixie wrote:But if, as a society, we begin saying "You cannot offer toys because your food is bad, here are the quality criterias", the downward spiral to "You cannot write that book/sing that song/produce that thing/whatever because we, the governement, have decided so" is that long and far. You could be surprised. That's censorship, and I'm against it. (Anyone's ever seen the movie The Wave?)
First, it sounds like you're assuming that a small change in one area will lead to a much bigger change in another area. The fact is that this isn't necessarily the case and there's no reason to assume that it is. I once had a landlord/roommate who complained that I left a glass of water on the counter top overnight and that if he permitted that, then soon people would be leaving dirty condoms laying around. Yes, he actually said that, and I'm not making this up. Granted, that's a particularly strange example from an insane man, but the point is that a small change doesn't necessarily lead to something bigger. It was a glass of water, and that's all it was. It didn't lead to dead animals in the living room, or anybody starting a campfire in the garage. Sometimes a small change is just that, a small change, and nothing more. This is especially true when the supposed result is something completely unrelated, and the fact is that regulating food content is hardly anything like regulating media.

There's a big difference between controlling nutritional content and censoring books. Freedom of speech, religion, and the press is arguably the most fundamental right in the USA (seeing as it's our first right), and there are very few exceptions to it. For example, you can't publish a book about how to kill the president, and you can't make a magazine with lewd images of children, which are both cases where it presents a "clear and present danger" (one to the president, the other to children). On the other hand, we've got all kinds of regulations about food: which chemicals can be added and which can't, how food has to be packaged and correctly labeled, how it has to be inspected, etc. Putting a cap on how much HFCS can be put into your ketchup isn't the same thing as censoring a film that talks about a controversial topic. If imposing standards on food production/distribution/content led to destroying freedom of expression, it would have already started to do so, because we're already doing it.

(Edited for clarity and to sound like less of an attempted know-it-all. :) )
Last edited by johndh on July 15th, 2010, 4:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
It's spelled "definitely", not "definately". "Defiantly" is a different word entirely.
User avatar
wayfarer
Art Contributor
Posts: 933
Joined: June 16th, 2005, 7:07 pm
Location: Following the Steps of Goethe
Contact:

Re: McDonald's possibly under Lawsuit for Happy Meals

Post by wayfarer »

Dixie wrote:
wayfarer wrote:I really find it entertaining that some still think that the name of the customer counts for something unless it is under a lawsuit.
I might have missed something as I'm not a primary english speaker, but I'm curious: what do you mean?
Neither am I. Damned I know something was wrong with the sentence.
What I meant is that the customer doesn't have any voice or value unless they fill a suit.
Health is not McDonalds business.
This girl, this boy, They were part of the land. What happens to the places we used to tend?
She's a hard one to trust, And he's a roving ghost. Will you come back, will you come back, Or leave me alone?

-Ghost Fields
User avatar
PeterPorty
Translator
Posts: 310
Joined: January 12th, 2010, 2:25 am
Location: Chair, In-Front-Of-Computer

Re: McDonald's possibly under Lawsuit for Happy Meals

Post by PeterPorty »

Well, I think here Dixie is right. If you make a HUGE company change their main adversiting technique, there isn't much difference with forcing a singer to use the word feces instead of [censored], and then to completely take it away, and each time worse.The thing is, there's nothing wrong with the way McDonalds adversites, it is the food that causes the problem. On the other hand, I've bever seen a McDoonalds comercial claiming it's food to be healthy, so it is ok for it to be bad. The real probleem here is no only the food, but the people who buy the food. Nobody forcees you to do it, if you think you shouldn't, then just don't.

I mean... come on guys, I like food myself, and I also like chicks (a lot), but I don't eat every single piece of meat I see because there's boobs on the ad! It's the same thing with the toys! and if I did wna tto buy every single piece of meat because there were boobs in it's ads, I woult tell my mom, mom, I want that meat, and she would reply 'shut up, you perv.'

Come on, learn to say 'no', and stop complaining guys, I am fed up with people trying to blame bad parenting on food companies.
"The real world is for people who can't imagine anything better."
User avatar
Pentarctagon
Project Manager
Posts: 5526
Joined: March 22nd, 2009, 10:50 pm
Location: Earth (occasionally)

Re: McDonald's possibly under Lawsuit for Happy Meals

Post by Pentarctagon »

So parents should have to work harder just because a large corporation decides to try and lure their kids into eating food that is horrible for them with a massive ad campaign? And while the parents do earn the money, the kid(s) might a) have an allowance b) earn money by doing chores or c) steal $2 for a burger every once in a while, which is really not that hard unless their parents are keeping track of every dollar in their household.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs
take one down, patch it around
-2,147,483,648 little bugs in the code
Post Reply