Happy Meal Ban: McDonald's Outsmarts San Francisco

hamburglar.gif
He's got good lawyers, that one
Update: Read about how city and health officials say they were blindsided by McDonald's.

On Thursday, Dec. 1, the city's de facto ban of the Happy Meal commences. San Francisco has accomplished what the Hamburglar could not. Or has it?

In order to include a toy with a meal, restaurants must now comply with city-generated nutritional standards. Those are standards that even the "healthier" Happy Meals McDonald's introduced earlier this year don't come close to meeting. (As SF Weekly noted in January, the school lunches our children eat aren't healthy enough to qualify, either).

And yet it seems McDonald's has turned lemons into lemonade -- and is selling the sugary drink to San Francisco's children. Local McDonald's employees tell SF Weekly the company has devised a solution that appears to comply with San Francisco's "Healthy Meal Incentive Ordinance" that could actually make the company more money -- and necessitate toy-happy youngsters to buy more Happy Meals. 

It turns out San Francisco has not entirely vanquished the Happy Meal as we know it. Come Dec. 1, you can still buy the Happy Meal. But it doesn't come with a toy. For that, you'll have to pay an extra 10 cents.

Huh. That hardly seems to have solved the problem (though adults and children purchasing unhealthy food can at least take solace that the 10 cents is going to Ronald McDonald House charities). But it actually gets worse from here. Thanks to Supervisor Eric Mar's much-ballyhooed new law, parents browbeaten into supplementing their preteens' Happy Meal toy collections are now mandated to buy the Happy Meals.

Today and tomorrow mark the last days that put-upon parents can satiate their youngsters by simply throwing down $2.18 for a Happy Meal toy. But, thanks to the new law taking effect on Dec. 1, this is no longer permitted. Now, in order to have the privilege of making a 10-cent charitable donation in exchange for the toy, you must buy the Happy Meal. Hilariously, it appears Mar et al., in their desire to keep McDonald's from selling grease and fat to kids with the lure of a toy have now actually incentivized the purchase of that grease and fat -- when, beforehand, a put-upon parent could get out cheaper and healthier with just the damn toy.

rsz_happy-meal-mcdonalds.jpg
Hard to kill...
Messages for Mar and his legislative aides -- who are, at this moment, in a Board of Supervisors meeting -- have not yet been returned.

In any event, it appears the fast food chain's sharpie lawyers have McTopped San Francisco's legislators. Count this city's lawmakers as the latest among the billions and billions served. 

--
Previously in SF Weekly:
My Voice Nation Help
691 comments
axsimulate
axsimulate

ROTFLMAO. Liberals look soooo funny with egg on their faces.

Newhawk1
Newhawk1

Bwahahaha!!! Capitalism trumps the nanny state again.

Gloating Rich Guy
Gloating Rich Guy

You're pretty much functionally retarded. It's sad.

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

 ...says the guy responding to a thread that's two months old.

Rcorley858
Rcorley858

This is so stupid.  Kids don't drive themselves to mcdonalds. There is no child at mcdonalds, who's parent did not first decide to take their kid their for something to eat.  The parents also have the choice to buy the kid whatever they want, and even if they get thier kid a salad they have always been able to buy the happy meal toy on the side.  At least you can here in ohio.  It should be the parents choice weather the mcdonalds food is what their kids eat.  this is way to  much big brother governement.  Hey government, stay out of my parenting. I will decide, when to let them splurge and have a little junk. Trying to control my choice by taking away a toy from my kid, is stupid, and wrong.  Besides, those toys aren't really motivating people to eat there, it is the prices and convenience that drives us through the drive through.  90% of those happy meal toys aren't even things our kids are interested in and they come home and get donated in a week or two. Deffinately not why I am buying the happy meal. 

Los Angeles Injury Attorney
Los Angeles Injury Attorney

Fast foods, not just for McDonald's happy meals, must really follow the city-generated nutritional standards. It's more at ease to eat foods that you know passed the requirements of a "healthier" meal.

lasveraneras
lasveraneras

The people's republic of san francisco gobsmacked by the creativity and energy of free enterprise.  As Ronald McDonald might say "Just lovin' it!"

John
John

Never met a bureaucrat who could outsmart an entrepreneur. In the early 60's they tried to charge more taxes for a fine cut of meat. By the time the law came into effect, the butcher's had changed the cut and called it something else, maintaining customers and a reasonable price for the meat.Nothing different today.

Hae
Hae

Gary Kaltbaum will not quit radio because he need to spread his paedophilia message.Gary Kaltbaum is a sick pervert.

robcypher
robcypher

"His supporters are simply amazing". Yeah, you don't sound like a fan at all.

How many of these BS Ron Paul "astroturf trolls" start out with comments like "I'm not a fan, but..." or "I'm black, and I know Ron Paul isn't a racist!".

Sad. 9_9

Azshades12
Azshades12

Why is it people want to blame all their problems on other people.. no one forces you to go eat at these places.. I have never been to a Mickey D's where they held me down and forced me to eat their food... Remember the saying just say NO!!!! You dont have to eat the food... So kudos for Mickey D's for finding away around a stupid law...

JR
JR

Depends where you live. If you live in the Haight sure but not if you live in Bayview Hunters Point.  Lower incomecommunities and communities with larger proportions of racial/ ethnicminorities disproportionately impacted by obesity have been found todisproportionately lack access to healthy foods, places for physical activity(Chaloupka, & Powell, 2009), and are disproportionately exposed to obesity-promotingoutdoor advertising (Yancey et al. 2009).

Chaloupka, F. J., & Powell, L., M. (2009). Price, availability, andyouth obesity: evidence from Bridging the Gap. Prev Chronic Dis;6(3).

Yancey, A. K., Cole, B. L.,Brown, R., Williams, J. D., Hillier, A., Kline, R. S., ... Mccarthy, W. J.(2009). A Cross-Sectional Prevalence Study of Ethnically Targeted and GeneralAudience Outdoor Obesity-Related Advertising. Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 155-184.doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00551.x

Chaloupka, F. J., & Powell, L., M. (2009). Price, availability, andyouth obesity: evidence from Bridging the Gap. Prev Chronic Dis;6(3).

Yancey, A. K., Cole, B. L.,Brown, R., Williams, J. D., Hillier, A., Kline, R. S., ... Mccarthy, W. J.(2009). A Cross-Sectional Prevalence Study of Ethnically Targeted and GeneralAudience Outdoor Obesity-Related Advertising. Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 155-184.doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00551.x

JR
JR

 In the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) report Preventing Childhood Obesity: Health in theBalance (2004), the IOMnotes significant changes in social and physical environments in recent decadesfrom neighborhood design that prevents easy access to physical activityopportunities to the ubiquitous advertising of junk foods. Lower incomecommunities and communities with larger proportions of racial/ ethnicminorities disproportionately impacted by obesity have been found todisproportionately lack access to healthy foods, places for physical activity(Chaloupka, & Powell, 2009), and are disproportionately exposed to obesity-promotingoutdoor advertising (Yancey et al. 2009).

Chaloupka, F. J., & Powell, L., M. (2009). Price, availability, andyouth obesity: evidence from Bridging the Gap. Prev Chronic Dis;6(3).

Yancey, A. K., Cole, B. L.,Brown, R., Williams, J. D., Hillier, A., Kline, R. S., ... Mccarthy, W. J.(2009). A Cross-Sectional Prevalence Study of Ethnically Targeted and GeneralAudience Outdoor Obesity-Related Advertising. Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 155-184.doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00551.x

JR
JR

There are many SF neighborhoods mostly minority and low income where there it is a lot easier to get ciggs and booze than a banana. Bayview Hunters Point, Visitation Valley for example. Mickey Ds is a lot more affordable.

JR
JR

Why are people so supportive of corporations rights to profit at almost any costs versus creating an environment that more easily promotes healthy behavior for their fellow man?  We live in such a divisive and competitive world and that is leading us down a scary path in so many aspects. Health, economics, environmental, etc.

1939393
1939393

Uhh  because government forcing a private company to change business practices is unconstitutional.  We don't live in a dictatorship no matter how well intentioned the dictator. I think you should educate yourself of the countries founding principals.

Regular Joe
Regular Joe

I'm not sure that's entirely true.  If it were, then they'd be able to discriminate or just do whatever they heck they'd want.

1939393
1939393

No... thats called infringing on other peoples rights and is illegal.  Its not related to the government interfering in their business practices

Bone
Bone

Thank You for the compliment

Agreed.  Why did you troll for so long if you could have just come out and said plainly what you were interested in?  Then to call yourself out on trolling at the end is truly a deus ex machina. Very well played, though I'm not sure what the point was.

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

Just hating kids and toys as I troll.

Bone
Bone

At the age of 5, the only thing that influenced what i ate, was the decisions by my PARENTS on what to feed me.Even your arguments argue against themselves

MrEricSir 2 hours ago in reply to Bone So you admit that you have the mind of a 5 year old, and that the inclusion or exclusion of a toy with your meal influences what you eat?

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

In other words, this law would have had no effect for you.

Why are you complaining about it so much again?

Bone
Bone

Just how does this law effect you? You don't have kids, I mean, based on your logic, it shouldn't.So then, why not heed your own advice again?

MrEricSir 39 minutes ago In other words, this law would have had no effect for you.Why are you complaining about it so much again?

Bone
Bone

So you are saying that just because a law exists, does not mean that people follow it?

MrEricSir 2 minutes ago No, I'm saying that regardless I still wouldn't kill anyone, but that doesn't necessitate or not necessitate a law.  What I would do is irrelevant; you have to look at society as a whole.

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

No, I'm saying that regardless I still wouldn't kill anyone, but that doesn't necessitate or not necessitate a law.  What I would do is irrelevant; you have to look at society as a whole.

Bone
Bone

You're saying that if murder weren't illegal, you would be a murderer?

MrEricSir wrote, in response to Bone (unregistered):

"Yeah, you gonna make a point here or what? I don't see one here. Congratulations, you're not a murderer. That point has no base here and doesn't connect at all."

Ah, but it does -- your argument is that a law doesn't need to exist if some people know better.  I'm pointing out a counterexample that refutes your claim.

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

"Yeah, you gonna make a point here or what? I don't see one here. Congratulations, you're not a murderer. That point has no base here and doesn't connect at all."

Ah, but it does -- your argument is that a law doesn't need to exist if some people know better.  I'm pointing out a counterexample that refutes your claim.

"So you agree that your parents responsibility and decision making when you were a child is what made you successful today. Cool, you just agreed with the responsibility side of the argument."

Yes, I agree that someone needs to be responsible.  But leave you and me out of this and look at the facts: children are increasingly overweight.  That means all parents are not taking responsibility.

So who SHOULD be responsible in those cases?  You still haven't provided an answer other than "society," which does not preclude government intervention.

Bone
Bone

Yeah, you gonna make a point here or what? I don't see one here. Congratulations, you're not a murderer. That point has no base here and doesn't connect at all.

So you agree that your parents responsibility and decision making when you were a child is what made you successful today. Cool, you just agreed with the responsibility side of the argument.

"You really still don't get my point? I understand yours, but i guess mine is a little complicated.My point is parental responsibility. I'll use you as an example if you don't mind, because you are the perfect example of my point. You ate happy meals, and you still turned out fine. This was due to the responsibility of your parents growing up. They raised you right and taught you how to make the right decisions that are best for you as you see fit. I wish the whole world had parents as loving as yours. Not everyone is stupid enough to be tricked or "bested" by big companies, your family wasn't.Why not take those great life lessons that you learned and try to share them with people and make the world a better place instead of just trying to tell everybody what to eat. Go out and educate them about the super market, show them other alternatives to fast food.I say teach the kids proper diet from the start, like your parents did with you, and like my parents did with me.You say, tell them what to do because they are too stupid to decide for themselves.You are almost arguing against the very method that you were raised under by your parents, education."

And I haven't murdered anyone either -- so by your logic I guess that means there's no reason for such a law to exist because people should just know better!

Problem is, they don't, and that's why laws exist.

If you really think everyone grew up with the luxuries that you and I had, you don't get out much.

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

"You really still don't get my point? I understand yours, but i guess mine is a little complicated.My point is parental responsibility. I'll use you as an example if you don't mind, because you are the perfect example of my point. You ate happy meals, and you still turned out fine. This was due to the responsibility of your parents growing up. They raised you right and taught you how to make the right decisions that are best for you as you see fit. I wish the whole world had parents as loving as yours. Not everyone is stupid enough to be tricked or "bested" by big companies, your family wasn't.Why not take those great life lessons that you learned and try to share them with people and make the world a better place instead of just trying to tell everybody what to eat. Go out and educate them about the super market, show them other alternatives to fast food.

I say teach the kids proper diet from the start, like your parents did with you, and like my parents did with me.You say, tell them what to do because they are too stupid to decide for themselves.

You are almost arguing against the very method that you were raised under by your parents, education."

And I haven't murdered anyone either -- so by your logic I guess that means there's no reason for such a law to exist because people should just know better!

Problem is, they don't, and that's why laws exist.

If you really think everyone grew up with the luxuries that you and I had, you don't get out much.

Bone
Bone

You really still don't get my point? I understand yours, but i guess mine is a little complicated.My point is parental responsibility. I'll use you as an example if you don't mind, because you are the perfect example of my point. You ate happy meals, and you still turned out fine. This was due to the responsibility of your parents growing up. They raised you right and taught you how to make the right decisions that are best for you as you see fit. I wish the whole world had parents as loving as yours. Not everyone is stupid enough to be tricked or "bested" by big companies, your family wasn't.Why not take those great life lessons that you learned and try to share them with people and make the world a better place instead of just trying to tell everybody what to eat. Go out and educate them about the super market, show them other alternatives to fast food.

I say teach the kids proper diet from the start, like your parents did with you, and like my parents did with me.You say, tell them what to do because they are too stupid to decide for themselves.

You are almost arguing against the very method that you were raised under by your parents, education.

MrEricSir 19 minutes ago "See, that proves my point. You benefited from the happy meals as a kid, and you turned out just fine. I'd assume that you're in good health, just by the pictures from your blog page is it apparent that you are not over weight either.It appears that you did not suffer any life long health problems due to the happy meals you ate as a child. You simply enjoyed the occasional treat.Now, would you say that you had good parents growing up? Parents that didn't let you have the toy and the happy meal that came with it every single time you wanted one? Parents that taught you about other foods, parents that taught you a better diet than just happy meals?You obviously had responsible parents that made better decisions for you that some of the parents of today."Sure, but "if" you have responsible parents must be a pretty big "if" when so many young people are developing severe health problems early in life.  Or maybe those successful corporate executives who bested the government can just as best a parent.  If they're that good at what they do, why not?True story: my parents found a way to make me stop asking for Happy Meals -- they made me eat the food.  Turns out I'd never eaten more than 3 bites of it before.  I was never able to finish an entire Happy Meal burger, so that ended that.Also, what is this "point" you claim to have that you occasionally refer to?  Not seeing much evidence of it yet.

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

"See, that proves my point. You benefited from the happy meals as a kid, and you turned out just fine. I'd assume that you're in good health, just by the pictures from your blog page is it apparent that you are not over weight either.It appears that you did not suffer any life long health problems due to the happy meals you ate as a child. You simply enjoyed the occasional treat.

Now, would you say that you had good parents growing up? Parents that didn't let you have the toy and the happy meal that came with it every single time you wanted one? Parents that taught you about other foods, parents that taught you a better diet than just happy meals?You obviously had responsible parents that made better decisions for you that some of the parents of today."

Sure, but "if" you have responsible parents must be a pretty big "if" when so many young people are developing severe health problems early in life. 

Or maybe those successful corporate executives who bested the government can just as best a parent.  If they're that good at what they do, why not?

True story: my parents found a way to make me stop asking for Happy Meals -- they made me eat the food.  Turns out I'd never eaten more than 3 bites of it before.  I was never able to finish an entire Happy Meal burger, so that ended that.

Also, what is this "point" you claim to have that you occasionally refer to?  Not seeing much evidence of it yet.

Bone
Bone

See, that proves my point. You benefited from the happy meals as a kid, and you turned out just fine. I'd assume that you're in good health, just by the pictures from your blog page is it apparent that you are not over weight either.It appears that you did not suffer any life long health problems due to the happy meals you ate as a child. You simply enjoyed the occasional treat.

Now, would you say that you had good parents growing up? Parents that didn't let you have the toy and the happy meal that came with it every single time you wanted one? Parents that taught you about other foods, parents that taught you a better diet than just happy meals?You obviously had responsible parents that made better decisions for you that some of the parents of today.

"Seriously though, did you ever have an occasional happy meal as a child? Did you ever enjoy the toys that came with them. I mean, sincerely, even you didn't have a few happy meals as a kid?"

Of course! (Though who ever said I was a stellar example of human health?)  Kids love getting new toys, even if they have to eat something that's not exactly food to get it.

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

"you ARE complaining about it, you are complaining that it didn't work. You are complaining that san fran was out smarted by the corporate execs that you despise."

Did I ever say I "despise" corporate execs?  Nope.I

only said that we needed to hold them accountable for what they do.  Why don't you believe in holding corporate executives accountable?  Do you believe that people who have more money than you are beyond criticism?Also, I'm not complaining it "didn't work."  We don't know if it worked.  There is zero data.  "Worked" is not a relevant word here.

"Seriously though, did you ever have an occasional happy meal as a child? Did you ever enjoy the toys that came with them. I mean, sincerely, even you didn't have a few happy meals as a kid?"

Of course! (Though who ever said I was a stellar example of human health?)  Kids love getting new toys, even if they have to eat something that's not exactly food to get it.

Bone
Bone

you ARE complaining about it, you are complaining that it didn't work. You are complaining that san fran was out smarted by the corporate execs that you despise.

Seriously though, did you ever have an occasional happy meal as a child? Did you ever enjoy the toys that came with them. I mean, sincerely, even you didn't have a few happy meals as a kid?

MrEricSir 9 hours ago I'm not the one complaining about it -- I am following my own advice.

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

I'm not the one complaining about it -- I am following my own advice.

Bone
Bone

Do you really think that having to pay 10 more cents for the toy is going to pursuade parents to NOT buy the happy meal? I mean, i see your point, but I don't think it's enough to help them change their minds

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

I don't know.  Why are you so opposed to trying new things?

Bone
Bone

So now you're in favor of passing legislation that is unclear on the consequences? That's not good.The basic fallacy with that comment is that the law is supposed to be specific on what the outcome will be. It should address the situation, propose a solution, and then explain how they are connected, meaning, explain why the proposed solution works and solves the problem.You just admitted that you don't believe in this new law, you just admitted you have no idea if it will work. So now you're limiting peoples freedoms and choices as an experiment. Do you really feel that just throwing a bunch of guesses at the problem will fix it?

I feel sorry for you, I am sorry that your city leaders left you to baselessly defend a piece of logically flawed legislation that doesn't even address the problem, but yet they've convinced you that you agree with it and understand it.

I am simply asking this, How does this new law move towards achieving the intended goal it lays out?

MrEricSir 12 minutes ago I don't know.  Why are you so opposed to trying new things?

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

You bastard! He was mine...................

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

"Is that clear? have you learned anything by being a troll? Stop fucking with people, some of them find it amusing to bring down a troll.

BTW, I saw that you have an unhealthy infatuation with oriental food. Did you enjoy your Thai lastnight?

Have a good one TROLL!

and this concludes our broadcast day, click..."

Agreed.  Why did you troll for so long if you could have just come out and said plainly what you were interested in?  Then to call yourself out on trolling at the end is truly a deus ex machina. Very well played, though I'm not sure what the point was.

Bone
Bone

Sweet! waste a week acting like a troll, then act normal for one night, merely a few hours, and we come to a conclusion. I mean, we still disagree on method slightly, slightly."Nothing wrong with trying something new" nope, there sure isn't, unless you're not wanting to try something new and somebody else is forcing you to.

Speaking of trying something new, do you like to read?With this one I'll teach by example so that you can personally live out one last analogy on the topic."The new law is to the McDonald's consumer; what all the endless magazine and catalog subscriptions that are headed your way are to you"

Is that clear? have you learned anything by being a troll? Stop fucking with people, some of them find it amusing to bring down a troll.

BTW, I saw that you have an unhealthy infatuation with oriental food. Did you enjoy your Thai lastnight?

Have a good one TROLL!

and this concludes our broadcast day, click...

"But if you exercise both, then maybe we'll all have a good outcome from this, wouldn't you agree?"

Sure.  The more we curb childhood illnesses the better, I absolutely agree.  And we'll never know if something new works until we try it.

I say why not try anything?  Seems there's no reason not to try an education campaign, and there's no reason not to try a no free Happy Meal toy campaign.  Both effectively cost the taxpayer nothing, and who knows?  Maybe both or neither will work.

San Francisco is an innovative place and we make innovative laws.  Some stick, some don't.  Openly gay city supervisor Harvey Milk created the first pooper scooper law, which is now very common in communities around the country not to mention a reason you don't step in dog shit every day.  We were one of the first American cities to try ranked choice voting, but that has caused more confusion than anything.

Nothing wrong with trying something new.

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

"But if you exercise both, then maybe we'll all have a good outcome from this, wouldn't you agree?"

Sure.  The more we curb childhood illnesses the better, I absolutely agree.  And we'll never know if something new works until we try it.

I say why not try anything?  Seems there's no reason not to try an education campaign, and there's no reason not to try a no free Happy Meal toy campaign.  Both effectively cost the taxpayer nothing, and who knows?  Maybe both or neither will work.

San Francisco is an innovative place and we make innovative laws.  Some stick, some don't.  Openly gay city supervisor Harvey Milk created the first pooper scooper law, which is now very common in communities around the country not to mention a reason you don't step in dog shit every day.  We were one of the first American cities to try ranked choice voting, but that has caused more confusion than anything.

Nothing wrong with trying something new.

Bone
Bone

Was that so hard? right there in that statement you made sense and made a very good point. You are doing what you believe in, and I am doing what I believe in.We can agree to disagree, and we can both agree that maybe BOTH of our ideas work, heck, they might even work together hand in hand. Simply being a good parent isn't enough, and neither is simply passing a law. But if you exercise both, then maybe we'll all have a good outcome from this, wouldn't you agree?

MrEricSir 39 minutes ago "You really don't believe people can make a difference?"No, I'm saying that if you believe you can personally do better than this law, try it.  Again, the status quo isn't working for everything, if you believe that you can go educate parents, then maybe it's worth a shot.

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

"You really don't believe people can make a difference?"

No, I'm saying that if you believe you can personally do better than this law, try it.  Again, the status quo isn't working for everything, if you believe that you can go educate parents, then maybe it's worth a shot.

Bone
Bone

You really don't believe people can make a difference? No law you ever make will force people to care, only sympathetic education can do that.You are suggesting that just because it's a huge task, we just give up and not even try?That's the sad part, people like that who feel like something should be done, but just lack the actual motivation to do anything, so they just rely on government to pass a law and then they feel better about not having done jack squat about the problem.

Your parents did not do that with you sir, I am confused on how you came to be so against the values that your own parents raised you with.

"Unfortunately it is not a cop-out, it is very real. here's an example that i think you might understand.Everytime my roommate needed to add another device to the home wifi network, they would have to depend on me to do it for them, instead of doing everything for them each time i simply chose to educate them. I educated them on how to add a specific mac address to the network through the router. Although they used to complain that it was too much, once i showed them how to do it, they did it themselves from then on and I never had to deal with the problem again. Through education the problem now steadily corrects itself each time it arrises. Pretty straight forward."

So your solution is that you're going to go to every parent in the city and teach them how to feed their children?

Okay, good luck!

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

"Unfortunately it is not a cop-out, it is very real. here's an example that i think you might understand.Everytime my roommate needed to add another device to the home wifi network, they would have to depend on me to do it for them, instead of doing everything for them each time i simply chose to educate them. I educated them on how to add a specific mac address to the network through the router. Although they used to complain that it was too much, once i showed them how to do it, they did it themselves from then on and I never had to deal with the problem again. Through education the problem now steadily corrects itself each time it arrises. Pretty straight forward."

So your solution is that you're going to go to every parent in the city and teach them how to feed their children?

Okay, good luck!

Bone
Bone

Unfortunately it is not a cop-out, it is very real. here's an example that i think you might understand.Everytime my roommate needed to add another device to the home wifi network, they would have to depend on me to do it for them, instead of doing everything for them each time i simply chose to educate them. I educated them on how to add a specific mac address to the network through the router. Although they used to complain that it was too much, once i showed them how to do it, they did it themselves from then on and I never had to deal with the problem again. Through education the problem now steadily corrects itself each time it arrises. Pretty straight forward.

"Some parents act different than others. This is where we disagree on how to resolve the problem. I say we educate the parents and teach them right from wrong by illustrating the cause and effect of the situation, they are setting huge bad examples for their children. I think we need to educate them on this and help them to understand that they WANT to make a better decision for them and the health of their child. By showing them the light they will be ok and take to the correct path on their own."

"We need to educate people" is a cop out and you know it.  Do you honestly think there's one person out there who believes McDonald's is good for you?

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

"Not necessarily accurate here. yes, there are more health problems now days, but the numbers haven't shot through the roof or anything. A very large percentage of the hysteria is created by the fact that there is simply more media today, as well as the internet. You used to only know what happens in your city, maybe only the neighbors that you spoke with, horror stories were very rare. Now that we have global communications and such, we have much more exposure to problems and this explains the majority of why people think things are worse now than before, because they are surrounded by negative advertizing."

[citation needed]

"Some parents act different than others. This is where we disagree on how to resolve the problem. I say we educate the parents and teach them right from wrong by illustrating the cause and effect of the situation, they are setting huge bad examples for their children. I think we need to educate them on this and help them to understand that they WANT to make a better decision for them and the health of their child. By showing them the light they will be ok and take to the correct path on their own."

"We need to educate people" is a cop out and you know it.  Do you honestly think there's one person out there who believes McDonald's is good for you?

"No, government doesn't need to do anything to fix this, WE can do this together as a society."

That's pretty much the reason for the existence of government.

Bone
Bone

Not necessarily accurate here. yes, there are more health problems now days, but the numbers haven't shot through the roof or anything. A very large percentage of the hysteria is created by the fact that there is simply more media today, as well as the internet. You used to only know what happens in your city, maybe only the neighbors that you spoke with, horror stories were very rare. Now that we have global communications and such, we have much more exposure to problems and this explains the majority of why people think things are worse now than before, because they are surrounded by negative advertizing.

Some parents act different than others. This is where we disagree on how to resolve the problem. I say we educate the parents and teach them right from wrong by illustrating the cause and effect of the situation, they are setting huge bad examples for their children. I think we need to educate them on this and help them to understand that they WANT to make a better decision for them and the health of their child. By showing them the light they will be ok and take to the correct path on their own.You seem to want to shake a finger in their face and just say, "NO, WRONG, STOP" without actually addressing the cause of the problem. Example: if your car has an oil leak, you can just keep adding oil / passing new experimental laws, or you can fix the problem and not have to deal with situation at all anymore / educate the parents to raise their children right. Pretty simple analogy, only the latter helps to protect the constitution and preserve the freedoms that we have in this great nation.No, government doesn't need to do anything to fix this, WE can do this together as a society.

MrEricSir 7 minutes ago "Now, that's the responsible parents. Lets move on to the parents that are the focus of our conversation, the irresponsible ones.I think the base that we are debating here is this, the difference in the method that we want to use to correct the situation with the irresponsible parents.Would you agree that this is the difference that we are debating?"That's only part of it.Here's my points in a nutshell, if you must:1.The status quo is broken. Children are getting fatter, developing more diseases, and nothing is being done about it. Doing the same thing repeatedly and getting the same undesired outcome is a a sign of severe stupidity. Something MUST change.2. Some parents are not behaving responsibly. Or are they?  Where does parental responsibility end, and corporate responsibility begin?  If you're going to hold shitty parents responsible, why not the shitty executives who insist it's safe to eat Happy Meals every day and hire psychologists who research marketing to children?3. Should the government even try to fix problems in the first place? There are those who say we don't consumer protection laws at all, but of course most of those people lived their entire lives in a society that had such laws, which is sort of like asking your dad for his car keys and then giving him the finger.

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

"Now, that's the responsible parents. Lets move on to the parents that are the focus of our conversation, the irresponsible ones.I think the base that we are debating here is this, the difference in the method that we want to use to correct the situation with the irresponsible parents.Would you agree that this is the difference that we are debating?"

That's only part of it.

Here's my points in a nutshell, if you must:

1.The status quo is broken. Children are getting fatter, developing more diseases, and nothing is being done about it. Doing the same thing repeatedly and getting the same undesired outcome is a a sign of severe stupidity. Something MUST change.

2. Some parents are not behaving responsibly. Or are they?  Where does parental responsibility end, and corporate responsibility begin?  If you're going to hold shitty parents responsible, why not the shitty executives who insist it's safe to eat Happy Meals every day and hire psychologists who research marketing to children?

3. Should the government even try to fix problems in the first place? There are those who say we don't consumer protection laws at all, but of course most of those people lived their entire lives in a society that had such laws, which is sort of like asking your dad for his car keys and then giving him the finger.

Bone
Bone

True, we will have to wait and see how much affect the law had as it has only been in effect for a few days. We both still know that the McD's lawyers are just waiting on stand by for the next attempt to come along though, and when it does they'll most likely just come up with another way around it, this is inevitable in business.That pretty much explains why I believe that the parents should hold more responsibility. Because most parents are grown up and understand the world we live in, we have been exposed to these marketing ploys and we stand a much better chance to make the right decision than a child does. That's also why the parents are the only ones that have the legal right to make that decision for the child.

Now, that's the responsible parents. Lets move on to the parents that are the focus of our conversation, the irresponsible ones.I think the base that we are debating here is this, the difference in the method that we want to use to correct the situation with the irresponsible parents.Would you agree that this is the difference that we are debating?

MrEricSir 3 minutes ago "They would have in effect created the same result if they had just passed a law stating that McD's has to donate 10 cents to charity for every happy meal."

Sure. But that's not what actually happened in real life. They set out to solve a problem.  Did their solution work?  Certainly not exactly way it was intended to work.  But few things work 100% on the first try in real life.

Did it have any effect at all on children's diets?  I dunno, you tell me.  There's no objective data on this (yet?)

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

"They would have in effect created the same result if they had just passed a law stating that McD's has to donate 10 cents to charity for every happy meal."Sure. But that's not what actually happened in real life. They set out to solve a problem.  Did their solution work?  Certainly not exactly way it was intended to work.  But few things work 100% on the first try in real life.

Did it have any effect at all on children's diets?  I dunno, you tell me.  There's no objective data on this (yet?)

"Did YOU read the story? because your description is inaccurate."Saying it's inaccurate isn't the same thing as explaining what was inaccurate about it.  Anyone can do the first; can you do the second?

Bone
Bone

The law did NOT ban happy meal toys, that was not the goal. As was worded by the law, the law was to ban companies from offering a FREE toy with childrens meals, which it accomplished successfully, it was a win for the law.However, they simply ask for a 10 cent donation now in exchange for the toy after the purchase of a childrens meal. The toy was never banned, only the free offering was banned.Everybody wins! San Francisco won because there are no more free toy with the meals, which was the goal of the law. McD's wins with more money for the charity. The children are unaffected, and it only costs the parents 10 cents more.They would have in effect created the same result if they had just passed a law stating that McD's has to donate 10 cents to charity for every happy meal.

Did YOU read the story? because your description is inaccurate.

MrEricSir 9 hours ago The intent of the law was to ban happy meal toys.  And it did.Again, do you even the most basic familiarity with the backstory here?  It seems like you're just making things up at this point.

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

The intent of the law was to ban happy meal toys.  And it did.

Again, do you even the most basic familiarity with the backstory here?  It seems like you're just making things up at this point.

Now Trending

San Francisco Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

©2014 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Loading...