S.F. Supes Pass Happy Meal Ban with Veto-Proof Majority

[manifold]

I don't see what the big fuck'n deal is.

So now the McDonalds in SF are no longer allowed to use cheap toys to market horrendously unhealthy food to children.

OMFG! It's Orwell's 1984

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see what the big fuck'n deal is.

So now the McDonalds in SF are no longer allowed to use cheap toys to market horrendously unhealthy food to children.

OMFG! It's Orwell's 1984

The big deal is that a society who presumes to dictate what is and isn't healthy good for children and enforce it by forbidding it also has the power to tell you that porn isn't healthy for you to read--you might get addicted and become a sex offender; beer isn't healthy for you to drink--you might drink so much that you'll become an alcoholic; desserts aren't healthy for you to order in a restaurant--you might develop diabetes; etc. etc. etc. Let's ban all but free range eggs and organic vegetables.

Where does something like this stop? Who is smarter than you to decide what YOU and/or your kids should be eating, reading, how you should be living, etc.?

 

[manifold]

I don't see what the big fuck'n deal is.

So now the McDonalds in SF are no longer allowed to use cheap toys to market horrendously unhealthy food to children.

OMFG! It's Orwell's 1984

The big deal is that a society who presumes to dictate what is and isn't healthy good for children and enforce it by forbidding it also has the power to tell you that porn isn't healthy for you to read--you might get addicted and become a sex offender; beer isn't healthy for you to drink--you might drink so much that you'll become an alcoholic; desserts aren't healthy for you to order in a restaurant--you might develop diabetes; etc. etc. etc. Let's ban all but free range eggs and organic vegetables.

Where does something like this stop? Who is smarter than you to decide what YOU and/or your kids should be eating, reading, how you should be living, etc.?

Ludicrous hyperbole is never a compelling argument.

McDonald's can still sell the shitty food, they just can't give away a shitty toy with it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see what the big fuck'n deal is.

So now the McDonalds in SF are no longer allowed to use cheap toys to market horrendously unhealthy food to children.

OMFG! It's Orwell's 1984

The big deal is that a society who presumes to dictate what is and isn't healthy good for children and enforce it by forbidding it also has the power to tell you that porn isn't healthy for you to read--you might get addicted and become a sex offender; beer isn't healthy for you to drink--you might drink so much that you'll become an alcoholic; desserts aren't healthy for you to order in a restaurant--you might develop diabetes; etc. etc. etc. Let's ban all but free range eggs and organic vegetables.

Where does something like this stop? Who is smarter than you to decide what YOU and/or your kids should be eating, reading, how you should be living, etc.?

Ludicrous hyperbole is never a compelling argument.

McDonald's can still sell the shitty food, they just can't give away a shitty toy with it.

Hyperbole? Okay, if that's your definition of an illustration. I have generally found though that taking away one small 'right' out of 'concern for the kids' generally provides fuel and courage to take away another, then another, then another. You obviously don't see it that way and approve the well intentioned ability of others to dictate to you what you should and should not provide for your children in such matters. But each to their own.

 

[manifold]

The big deal is that a society who presumes to dictate what is and isn't healthy good for children and enforce it by forbidding it also has the power to tell you that porn isn't healthy for you to read--you might get addicted and become a sex offender; beer isn't healthy for you to drink--you might drink so much that you'll become an alcoholic; desserts aren't healthy for you to order in a restaurant--you might develop diabetes; etc. etc. etc. Let's ban all but free range eggs and organic vegetables.

Where does something like this stop? Who is smarter than you to decide what YOU and/or your kids should be eating, reading, how you should be living, etc.?

Ludicrous hyperbole is never a compelling argument.

McDonald's can still sell the shitty food, they just can't give away a shitty toy with it.

Hyperbole? Okay, if that's your definition of an illustration. I have generally found though that taking away one small 'right' out of 'concern for the kids' generally provides fuel and courage to take away another, then another, then another. You obviously don't see it that way and approve the well intentioned ability of others to dictate to you what you should and should not provide for your children in such matters. But each to their own.

More hyperbolic nonsense.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ludicrous hyperbole is never a compelling argument.

McDonald's can still sell the shitty food, they just can't give away a shitty toy with it.

Hyperbole? Okay, if that's your definition of an illustration. I have generally found though that taking away one small 'right' out of 'concern for the kids' generally provides fuel and courage to take away another, then another, then another. You obviously don't see it that way and approve the well intentioned ability of others to dictate to you what you should and should not provide for your children in such matters. But each to their own.

More hyperbolic nonsense.

I already conceded that as your opinion, however prejudiced it might be.

Personally, I prefer to make the choice for me and my kids whether I want to purchase a Happy Meal with a toy or not. I would much prefer to make that choice than have others make it for me. I'm just funny that way.

 

[Trajan]

I don't see what the big fuck'n deal is.

So now the McDonalds in SF are no longer allowed to use cheap toys to market horrendously unhealthy food to children.

OMFG! It's Orwell's 1984

The big deal is that a society who presumes to dictate what is and isn't healthy good for children and enforce it by forbidding it also has the power to tell you that porn isn't healthy for you to read--you might get addicted and become a sex offender; beer isn't healthy for you to drink--you might drink so much that you'll become an alcoholic; desserts aren't healthy for you to order in a restaurant--you might develop diabetes; etc. etc. etc. Let's ban all but free range eggs and organic vegetables.

Where does something like this stop? Who is smarter than you to decide what YOU and/or your kids should be eating, reading, how you should be living, etc.?

Ludicrous hyperbole is never a compelling argument.

McDonald's can still sell the shitty food, they just can't give away a shitty toy with it.

thx for your opinion, but what bus. of it is yours or theirs?

 

[TossObama]

California is a beautiful, well maintained State. However, the people look sickly, underfed and they behave strangely. Something is way way wrong in California.

As well, you cannot get a decent cup of coffee in California OR a good meal. Here in Texas we happen to know what good food and good coffee are.

Anyway, driving back from California I had the CB radio on and a bunch of Truckers were talking. One said he could hardly wait for a big earthquake to break California off into the ocean. Hoots, hollers, high fives and honks of approval went on all the way to Arizona!

It's curious that California being a leading agricultural State has such puny, sickly looking citizens.

Maybe what they need are MORE Happy Meals.

 

[manifold]

Personally, I prefer to make the choice for me and my kids whether I want to purchase a Happy Meal with a toy or not. I would much prefer to make that choice than have others make it for me. I'm just funny that way.

Imposing restrictions on what businesses are allowed to sell and how they're allowed to market is certainly nothing new. Are you opposed to it in all cases or is there something about this instance that particularly offends your ideals?

 

[manifold]

The big deal is that a society who presumes to dictate what is and isn't healthy good for children and enforce it by forbidding it also has the power to tell you that porn isn't healthy for you to read--you might get addicted and become a sex offender; beer isn't healthy for you to drink--you might drink so much that you'll become an alcoholic; desserts aren't healthy for you to order in a restaurant--you might develop diabetes; etc. etc. etc. Let's ban all but free range eggs and organic vegetables.

Where does something like this stop? Who is smarter than you to decide what YOU and/or your kids should be eating, reading, how you should be living, etc.?

Ludicrous hyperbole is never a compelling argument.

McDonald's can still sell the shitty food, they just can't give away a shitty toy with it.

thx for your opinion, but what bus. of it is yours or theirs?

you're welcome

I didn't say it was my business, or yours. But it's also none of our business if some junky wants to shoot up heroin, right? Yet we have laws against it.

 

[chanel]

Stupidity offends my ideals. They are not serving cigarettes or weapons to children; they are harmless collectibles. The food is not banned. Just the toy. RiDICKulous.

 

[Foxfyre]

Personally, I prefer to make the choice for me and my kids whether I want to purchase a Happy Meal with a toy or not. I would much prefer to make that choice than have others make it for me. I'm just funny that way.

Imposing restrictions on what businesses are allowed to sell and how they're allowed to market is certainly nothing new. Are you opposed to it in all cases or is there something about this instance that particularly offends your ideals?

I have no problem with insisting that businesses sell products that are fundamentally safe or that include appropriate safety information/warnings. I have no problem with insisting that businesses meet certain safety and health standards related to exits, occupancy, or other potentially hazardous issues. In other words, sure set policy that protects the public from unknown or unforeseen hazards as much as possible.

The toys in the Happy Meals are not illegal, violated no safety concerns and endangered nobody. To assume that the parent is incapable of deciding whether his/her kid should have a Happy Meal with a toy in it is way too big brotherish for my tastes.

 

[manu1959]

you get the shitty toy if you oder the burger and carrot sticks...order a side of fries and chuck the rabbit food....

mcdonalds will make even more money....

 

[manifold]

Personally, I prefer to make the choice for me and my kids whether I want to purchase a Happy Meal with a toy or not. I would much prefer to make that choice than have others make it for me. I'm just funny that way.

Imposing restrictions on what businesses are allowed to sell and how they're allowed to market is certainly nothing new. Are you opposed to it in all cases or is there something about this instance that particularly offends your ideals?

I have no problem with insisting that businesses sell products that are fundamentally safe or that include appropriate safety information/warnings. I have no problem with insisting that businesses meet certain safety and health standards related to exits, occupancy, or other potentially hazardous issues. In other words, sure set policy that protects the public from unknown or unforeseen hazards as much as possible.

The toys in the Happy Meals are not illegal, violated no safety concerns and endangered nobody. To assume that the parent is incapable of deciding whether his/her kid should have a Happy Meal with a toy in it is way too big brotherish for my tastes.

I understand your point. I just don't see it as being nearly as big a deal as you do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Imposing restrictions on what businesses are allowed to sell and how they're allowed to market is certainly nothing new. Are you opposed to it in all cases or is there something about this instance that particularly offends your ideals?

I have no problem with insisting that businesses sell products that are fundamentally safe or that include appropriate safety information/warnings. I have no problem with insisting that businesses meet certain safety and health standards related to exits, occupancy, or other potentially hazardous issues. In other words, sure set policy that protects the public from unknown or unforeseen hazards as much as possible.

The toys in the Happy Meals are not illegal, violated no safety concerns and endangered nobody. To assume that the parent is incapable of deciding whether his/her kid should have a Happy Meal with a toy in it is way too big brotherish for my tastes.

I understand your point. I just don't see it as being nearly as big a deal as you do.

LOL. It's not a big deal re the Happy Meal. I honestly don't care whether McDonald's offers Happy Meals anywhere. I've never ever bought one. I am pretty dogmatic about unalienable, Constitutional, legal, and civil rights though and that makes it a big deal when somebody presumes to tell me what I have to do or what I am not allowed to do in a matter that should be nobody's business but mine.

 

[manifold]

I have no problem with insisting that businesses sell products that are fundamentally safe or that include appropriate safety information/warnings. I have no problem with insisting that businesses meet certain safety and health standards related to exits, occupancy, or other potentially hazardous issues. In other words, sure set policy that protects the public from unknown or unforeseen hazards as much as possible.

The toys in the Happy Meals are not illegal, violated no safety concerns and endangered nobody. To assume that the parent is incapable of deciding whether his/her kid should have a Happy Meal with a toy in it is way too big brotherish for my tastes.

I understand your point. I just don't see it as being nearly as big a deal as you do.

LOL. It's not a big deal re the Happy Meal. I honestly don't care whether McDonald's offers Happy Meals anywhere. I've never ever bought one. I am pretty dogmatic about unalienable, Constitutional, legal, and civil rights though and that makes it a big deal when somebody presumes to tell me what I have to do or what I am not allowed to do in a matter that should be nobody's business but mine.

I still disagree that this ban does any of that.

 

[fyrenza]

Ludicrous hyperbole is never a compelling argument.

McDonald's can still sell the shitty food, they just can't give away a shitty toy with it.

Ah, but here's the rub:

No one is FORCING ANYONE to buy McDonald's food.

It's a CHOICE, much like abortion.

 

[random3434]

why yes of course, while their city falls apart, time to do something breathtakingly idiotic. They have to much tome on their hands to boot.



The supes today passed an ordinance that will require meals to meet nutritional guidelines if restaurants wish to include a toy with the food purchase. More importantly, the supes passed the so-called "Happy Meal Ban" by an 8-3 vote ― meaning it can survive a promised veto from Mayor Gavin Newsom. That's right: San Francisco done banned the Happy Meal. Robble robble.

rest at-
S.F. Supes Pass Happy Meal Ban with Veto-Proof Majority - San Francisco Restaurants and Dining - SFoodie

I just heard this on the NBC Nightly News.......and thought WTF?

Stupid!

 

[random3434]

Stupidity offends my ideals. They are not serving cigarettes or weapons to children; they are harmless collectibles. The food is not banned. Just the toy. RiDICKulous.

LOL, a Happy Meal for Adults:

Buy a Big Mac and Supersize your fries, and you get a pack of Marlboro Reds and a switchblade!

 

[Foxfyre]

I understand your point. I just don't see it as being nearly as big a deal as you do.

LOL. It's not a big deal re the Happy Meal. I honestly don't care whether McDonald's offers Happy Meals anywhere. I've never ever bought one. I am pretty dogmatic about unalienable, Constitutional, legal, and civil rights though and that makes it a big deal when somebody presumes to tell me what I have to do or what I am not allowed to do in a matter that should be nobody's business but mine.

I still disagree that this ban does any of that.

Of course it does. It denies McDonalds the choice of whether or not to serve a Happy Meal with a toy. It denies me the ability to choose to buy or not buy a Happy Meal with a toy. It takes away a personal option, opportunity, choice in a matter that should be nobody's business other than McDonalds and the customer.

It also gives license and precedence to take away more personal options, opportunities, choices, and in this case the 'slippery slope' analogy is pertinent.

Using Fyrenza's example, I'm guessing the same people who voted for this turkey would be all up in arms if the people voted to ban abortions in San Francisco. Yet the principle is the same.