McDonald's versus the Busy Body PC Police

reply to post by lifeform11


ok so we agree? this was my original point, thanks for reinforcing it

reply to post by lifeform11

its not about agreeing its about choice. and if things like the O.P. is allowed to happen then it becomes a slippery slope, and before you know it everybody's lives will be micro managed by some group who think you should be not allowed to do this or that.

Exactly, and my sentiments also. This whole scenario stinks of "book burning".
We just can't have this in a free society.
I don't eat McDonalds. (I'm a Wendy's girl), nor would I allow Kraft cheese in my home. Ew.
But we can't tell other people what they can and cannot do. It is indeed a slippery slope.

Education is the answer.

reply to post by Wally Hope

I didn't say kids force their parents. Why do parents, who know McDonalds is crap, still take their kids there? Because its an easy lazy way to appease the kids.

Parents allow their kids to eat all sorts of crap. Parents know full well the problems with allowing their children to eat candy, but when administered in moderation, candy is not as dangerous as when administered regularly. Most parents make great efforts at balancing the number of times they tell their child no, with the number of times they acquiesce. They do this, not out of laziness, but because they recognize that their child is a human being with a will of their own. They do not want to destroy that will in the name of discipline, and often discover that the lessons of discipline are better taught by allowing a modicum of freedom.

As to McDonald's specifically, as I have stated a few times in this thread, that company has created locations where playgrounds are available for the children. If you have never experienced the joy a child exhibits while climbing in the contraptions provided by McDonald's while you sit quietly watching, then it is understandable why you would simply just dismiss it as laziness. These children not only have the opportunity to play, ( a necessary mechanism of childhood, and indeed, even adulthood), they have an opportunity to play with children they've never met, which is a necessary social skill in their development.

I was trying to point out that parents use McDonalds as a substitute to what they should be doing, and kids grow up thinking that IS the way to raise kids.

I respectfully disagree, and have demonstrated that disagreement by attempting to explain the benefits of their playgrounds. It is a contained environment where parents can keep a close eye on their children while allowing them the necessary room to grow and play, and still have something to eat while doing it.

Know no one knows any better.

Parents know better than you are willing to allow.

McDonalds knows and exploits this fact by aiming their products at kids.

McDonald's appeals to a wide variety of demographics, including children. Joe Camel was a nefarious form of advertising. Ronald McDonald and the Hamburgler made more sense. Prior to fast food restaurants creating a family environment where children are encouraged to be children, parents were all to often forced to make a decision of leaving their children with a baby sitter so they could go out alone to eat, or taking their children with them and forcing them to behave as adults instead of allowing them to be kids. McDonald's decidedly made a decision to create an environment where it was okay for kids to be kids. This not only appealed to kids, it appealed to parents who agreed with the concept.

Kids are the reason most parents take their kids to McDonalds for happy meals with a free toy.

It's more than a free toy. It is economics, and time constraints, and as I continue to insist, the playgrounds are a big factor.

McDonalds is exploiting the situation by offering an easy way for parents to make their kids temperately happy.

Again, this is where I say exploitation is a virtue and not a vice. McDonald's recognized a demand, and supplied it.

But the kids are fed crap, yes burgers and fries are crap for kids and adults. We have an obese and unhealthy population.

The obesity problem cannot be squarely placed on McDonald's alone. The obesity problem is complex and to simplify it as being a problem with McDonald's does nothing at all to get us towards a sound handling of the obesity problem. Most parents do not take their kids to McDonald's daily, or even weekly, and on average it is once or twice a month, and for some less than that, and yet the obesity problem exists. It can't possibly be because parents are taking their kids to McDonald's once or twice a month. Taking a harsh look at what the public schools are feeding their children would probably be a better handling of the situation, as well as taking a hard look at what they are feeding their own children at home.

We have kids growing up thinking buying and giving gifts is how to show love, creating a very shallow population. All done to maintain profits for someone, not for the health of the kids, or adults.

Perhaps in your household, buying and giving gifts was the model of how to show love, but not in my household, nor was it the model of my parents, nor is it the model of most of the families I know. As to maintaining health for kids, this is the concern of parents, not businesses, unless those businesses are catering directly to that concern. As I have stated in this thread, McDonald's has made attempts to create healthier choices and put them on their menus, but what consistently sells is the crap.

I'm not talking about anyone personally here on this board, just the general population. You personally may not fit the stereotype, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Look, there is an obesity problem, I will most assuredly agree with you on this. However, this obesity problem can just as easily be correlated with the ever increasing power grabs of the FDA, and Congress' regulatory schemes. While correlation does not prove causation, it is certainly worth having a discussion on what the hell Congress and the FDA are doing that would create more power for themselves while watching the health of the populace decline.

How is it that so many of you can't see that regardless of McDonald's being a giant heartless corporation, this type of attack on them is not ok? I just see so many people who have said in here, "how can you defend McDonald's?" Well they have to be afforded the same freedoms we want for ourselves.

I think McD's is a heartless corporation and the food is generally to barely be considered food but this is not the way to address this! Just like it's not ok to take away a "terrorists" right to a trial by jury or any of their other rights!

If you allow this, which is basically a thinly veiled attack on a freedom (probavly being done solely for attention) then you are no better than the worst freedom hating SOBs of the world.

It is a sad state of education indeed when so many cannot pick out why this type of attack on McD's is not ok.

BTW the correct way to stop them as opposed to a baseless attack on their freedom? Stop going there for food!

reply to post by Aquarius1

This is my post above, I did not say hundreds of people died...wasn't aware that there was one, just one Jack in the Box in Michigan, they must be conforming to our meat laws, there used to be Jack in the Box all over the Detroit area..

My sincerest apologies sweetheart. I don't know why I read hundreds in your post. I should have been more careful.

Wait...are you saying that the Jack in the Box in Michigan is really just a different type of business selling inflatable products, and not the Jack in the Box restaurant?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Yes it's an inflatable company, if I hadn't click on the link I wouldn't have known that, I did the seach because I couldn't beleive there was a Jack in the Box in Michigan.

We have very strick meat and dairy laws here, no filliers, grrizzle or bone and limited fat, our cheese laws are strick also regarding the amount of water added, I know 20% is allowed in California because I lived in the Bay Area and sold Fanchises for Straw Hat Pizza who were ultimately bought out by Pizza Hut, Pizza Hut and Lilltle Ceasars, a Michigan Corporation, got their cheese from out of state because of too much water in California cheese, not sure where Pizza Hut got their cheese but know Little Ceasars got theirs from Michigan.

Sorry if I am a wee bit off topic, I know you must have misread it Jean Paul, no problem.

If you don't like the idea of a special interest group taking away your kids toys, here are the people who gave more than $5,000,00 last year to support The Center for Science in the Public Interest:

Fiscal Year 2009 (July 1, 2008- June 30, 2009

Louis & Anne Abrons Foundation
Amaturo Family Foundation
The Barkley Fund
Harold & Stephanie Bronson
Center for Communications, Health and the Environment (CECHE)
Keith & Elaine Christian
Arie and Ida Crown Memorial Fund
Everett Public Service Internship Program
The Freed Foundation
The Grodzins Fund
Mr. & Mrs. David J. Hensler
Kern Family Fund
John Ogden Memorial Fund
Kurz Family Foundation
Park Foundation
Philancon Fund
Maria Sarath Ragucci
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment
Saperstein Family Fund
Flora L. Thornton Foundation
John & Lee Wacker
Lucy R. Waletzky, M.D.

Do a Google search for their addresses and write them to express your anger in a kind way and ask them to not support this organization in the future.

reply to post by romanmel


Thank you for making the effort to supply this information so that people can take a proactive and effective way in dealing with the dubious tactics of the CSPI. Your effort is more than greatly appreciated.

Dear CSPI,

I'll decide what I want to give to my children. I don't recall seeing you in the delivery room, or your name on the birth certificate.

What I have found interesting about this is, every time my sister and I have taken her children to Mc Donalds, they want the happy meal for the toy. They don't care about the food, they just want that toy. Then, they want to run off and play on the slides and stuff while the food sits. Half the time now, she doesn't buy the food, just the toy, then off they go.

Anyway, what country do I live in again? What happened to freedom of choice? If they start telling parents what they can and cannot buy for their children, what will be next? And no, I'm not a proponent of junk food. But a child having something that's not so good for them once in a blue moon is not going to kill them. If we want to get serious about toxic things, let's start with children's toothpaste that's loaded with fluoride, but I digress.

Originally posted by Wally Hope
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I was trying to point out that parents use McDonalds as a substitute to what they should be doing, and kids grow up thinking that IS the way to raise kids. Know no one knows any better. McDonalds knows and exploits this fact by aiming their products at kids. Kids are the reason most parents take their kids to McDonalds for happy meals with a free toy. McDonalds is exploiting the situation by offering an easy way for parents to make their kids temperately happy. But the kids are fed crap, yes burgers and fries are crap for kids and adults. We have an obese and unhealthy population. We have kids growing up thinking buying and giving gifts is how to show love, creating a very shallow population. All done to maintain profits for someone, not for the health of the kids, or adults.

Everyone knows it's crap. But that's not the issue. This is America and we should all still have freedom of choice. Yes, even the parents who choose to feed their kids crap. I don't want a nanny state. Some people feel the need to put their nose into other's lives and tell them how to live. Personally, I don't want to tell another person how to eat and how to live, that's their business and choice.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Their point is that children do not have a right to receive a toy from McDonald's Happy Meal. In truth, their point is an insidious attempt to gain publicity by threatening to sue a very visible corporation. As I have all ready pointed out, neither they, nor you, attacked any other fast food corporation for the same tactics, nor have you or they attacked Cracker Jack's for using toys as a marketing tool. Both of you have reserved your attack solely for McDonald's.

The title of this thread is: "McDonald's versus the Busy Body PC Police"

I was posting in this thread. I sort of thought that would mean we were talking about McDonald's. I don't like how the other companies market to children either. Whether it is frozen food, fast food, ice cream, etc. Any company that markets to children is being irresponsible.

I do have an problem with all restaurants though, they should all have the basic nutritional information next to all of their items. With fast food establishments this would be on the menu board that they use inside and at drive thrus. More information should be available in supplementary booklet (which it is, though only because of legal pressures). With sit-down restaurants it should be on the menu next to each item with a full detailed analysis at the back of the menu.

Unfortunately, there isn't a legal basis to do anything about it. I do think that there should be more oversight on such advertisements though. Advertisements aren't protected under the first amendment in the same way that the rest of speech is.

I have pointed out that A.) You rely on ad hominem attacks on McDonald's by attempting to link McDonald's success to false memes', implying the were put out by them.

How is that an ad hominem attack?

An ad hominem:

A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.

It wasn't a personal attack, I wasn't actually using implying that their entire success was based on 'false memes', only partially.

B.) The CSPI most assuredly relies upon ad hominem attacks on McDonald's in their press release. My use of "busy body" is relatively tame compared to their use of "stranger in the playground" "creepy" and "predatory" to describe McDonald's.

Two wrongs don't erase logical fallacies. I didn't support that language from them, did I?

Who are you to criticize any parents at all? What business is it of yours what parents do?

Well, eventually their children are going to grow up having the vote and using the same services I do. I'd prefer if they were healthy in both their mind and body. The body part is sort of what we're getting at here. I don't want higher levels of obesity to clog up the medical system.

They have unalienable rights to make the decisions they think are best for their children.

Well, not inalienable, they have limitations.

Taking their children to McDonald's occasionally is not a crime.

Did I ever say it was?

Further, McDonald's has built in several of their franchises, playgrounds for children to play in. Children adore these playgrounds.

Yes, and then they pester their parents to go to McDonald's and play at them, meaning they have to buy food there.

And so what if children adore them? Children aren't exactly the smartest group in the world. They're naive and easily fooled by marketing gimmicks.

But seriously, who are you to offer up advise on what "some parents" can do to acquire "better habits"?

A rationally thinking citizen? I mean, I can advise people all I want about anything if I feel like it. I have a right to free speech, don't I? I'm also someone who knows more than a bit about nutrition and more than a bit about marketing and advertising.

Also, I don't have any children, I simply said I have time to cook.

That's who you are!

Oh noes, someone who doesn't have children is offering up parental advice?! Oh wait, people can offer advice about things they don't have direct experience with.

Parenting is something that isn't a specialist skill. More or less anyone can do it to some degree. That's why you don't need a license to raise a child. Since I know something about nutrition, I can say that it would probably be better for the children to eat nothing from McDonald's until their adult life, and even then it wouldn't be the best idea.

I know enough about marketing to understand that some companies are more aggressive in their marketing techniques to children. They push harder with children than they do with adults because children respond to the advertising better, making it money well spent.

I would agree that cooking quickly is hardly anything to brag about, and yet you do it.

It's not like it's all other meals, and I'm not bragging.

Your backpedaling and now claiming that McDonald's thrives on the premise of fast food, is disingenuous, as you did not offer this up in your initial post, and instead repeatedly used the word myth, in order to imply that McDonald's used a falsehood that home cooked meals take time.

How can you thrive on the premise of fast food if you're not implying that other food takes time?

Simple marketing logic. If you don't create an atmosphere in which your products claims have merit, what's the point in making them? Just like cigarette companies used to thrive on the idea that their smoke was safer (until the government stepped in and pointed out there wasn't such thing as a safe cigarette), they necessarily were implying that their competition had more dangerous cigarettes.

They may not be directly asserting it, but they're still thriving over the misconception.

Relying upon the premise of fast food as a business model is not at all creating a falsehood that cooking at home takes time.

Again, yes it does. It has to be faster than all other options for them to maximize the general premise.

In fact, it is a competitive model used to compete with other restaurants that take longer to cook and serve meals than fast food restaurants do.

That is only a portion of it. When was the last time you saw McDonald's advertise itself as an alternative to other restaurants?

The only restaurant that I can think of that used advertising in that sort of comparative sense was Steak & Shake, calling fast food establishments "workaurants" because of how much of the work you have to do between waiting in line, filling your own drink. etc

Thus, your argument that McDonald's has thrived on the "myth" that home cooked meals takes time, and that it is better to patronize them rather than cook at home, is a lie.

How is it a lie? For one thing, a lie would be something I willingly state while knowing it is false. You're saying I'm being willingly deceptive rather than being simply wrong. That's one thing I also do not like to see on these forums. Anyone who disagrees with people isn't wrong, they're liars.

And again, they still thrive on it. They abandoned their break-centered marketing slogan for a reason.

You follow your assertion that you haven't lied with a lie, and that lie is that because their nutrition facts don't meet your standard of what quality means, that they have created an illusion of quality control.

Again, when did I lie?

It's not that the nutrition facts don't mean my standard, they don't meet the nutritional standards.
Here's what I'll be referring to, from the clown's mouth.

Their smallest burger at 3.5 OZ, on its own without a serving of fries has 22% of your daily sodium allowance.
Adding 0.5 OZ of cheese brings it up to 31%
Their small 5.8 OZ double cheeseburger, on its own as well, has 48%

The odd thing is that their Happy Meal facts don't cover percentages of daily allowance.

Now the Mayo Clinic has some great nutritional standards for kids. (And I hear they're the sort of people who can talk about nutrition) and I'll be posting their standards for 4-8 year old girls and boys as well as their 9-13 girls and boys standards, so there will be four sets of standards in order: 4-8 girls, 4-8 boys, 9-13 girls, 9-13 boys.

Let's take their lowest calorie meal for children (to give McDonald's the benefit of the doubt), the cheeseburger with apple dippers and apple juice.

It has:

490 calories

1,200 to 1,800, depending on growth and activity level
1,400 to 2,000, depending on growth and activity level
1,600 to 2,200, depending on growth and activity level
1,800 to 2,600, depending on growth and activity level

13 grams of fat

25 to 35% of daily calories (33 to 47 grams for 1,200 daily calories)
25 to 35% of daily calories (39 to 54 grams for 1,400 daily calories)
25 to 35% of daily calories (44 to 62 grams for 1,600 daily calories)
25 to 35% of daily calories (50 to 70 grams for 1,800 daily calories)

6 grams of saturated fat
(not listed)

1 gram of trans fat
(not listed)

40 mg of cholesterol
(not listed)

810 mg of sodium

1,200 milligrams a day
1,200 milligrams a day
1,500 milligrams a day
1,500 milligrams a day

79 grams of carbohydrates

45 to 65% of daily calories (135 to 195 grams for 1,200 daily calories)
45 to 65% of daily calories (158 to 228 grams for 1,400 daily calories)
45 to 65% of daily calories (180 to 260 grams for 1,600 daily calories)
45 to 65% of daily calories (203 to 293 grams for 1,800 daily calories)

2 grams of which is fiber

25 grams a day
25 grams a day
26 grams a day
31 grams a day

43 grams of which is sugar
(not specifically listed)

15 grams of protein

10 to 30% of daily calories (30 to 90 grams for 1,200 daily calories)
10 to 30% of daily calories (35 to 105 grams for 1,400 daily calories)
10 to 30% of daily calories (40 to 120 grams for 1,600 daily calories)
10 to 30% of daily calories (45 to 135 grams for 1,800 daily calories)

350 mg of calcium

800 milligrams a day
800 milligrams a day
1,300 milligrams a day
1,300 milligrams a day

2.5 mg of iron
(not listed)

300 IU of Vitamin A
(not listed)

249 mg of Vitamin C
(not listed)

Now for their highest calorie item: Cheeseburger, Small French Fries, 1% Low Fat Chocolate Milk Jug (8 fl oz)

700 calories

1,200 to 1,800, depending on growth and activity level
1,400 to 2,000, depending on growth and activity level
1,600 to 2,200, depending on growth and activity level
1,800 to 2,600, depending on growth and activity level

27 grams of fat

25 to 35% of daily calories (33 to 47 grams for 1,200 daily calories)
25 to 35% of daily calories (39 to 54 grams for 1,400 daily calories)
25 to 35% of daily calories (44 to 62 grams for 1,600 daily calories)
25 to 35% of daily calories (50 to 70 grams for 1,800 daily calories)

9 grams of saturated fat
(not listed)

1 gram of trans fat
(not listed)

50 mg of cholesterol
(not listed)

1060 mg of sodium

1,200 milligrams a day
1,200 milligrams a day
1,500 milligrams a day
1,500 milligrams a day

88 grams of carbohydrates

45 to 65% of daily calories (135 to 195 grams for 1,200 daily calories)
45 to 65% of daily calories (158 to 228 grams for 1,400 daily calories)
45 to 65% of daily calories (180 to 260 grams for 1,600 daily calories)
45 to 65% of daily calories (203 to 293 grams for 1,800 daily calories)

5 grams of which is fiber

25 grams a day
25 grams a day
26 grams a day
31 grams a day

31 grams of which is sugar
(not specifically listed)

26 grams of protein

10 to 30% of daily calories (30 to 90 grams for 1,200 daily calories)
10 to 30% of daily calories (35 to 105 grams for 1,400 daily calories)
10 to 30% of daily calories (40 to 120 grams for 1,600 daily calories)
10 to 30% of daily calories (45 to 135 grams for 1,800 daily calories)

510 mg of calcium

800 milligrams a day
800 milligrams a day
1,300 milligrams a day
1,300 milligrams a day

3.5 mg of iron
(not listed)

770 IU of Vitamin A
(not listed)

10 mg of Vitamin C
(not listed)



I'm sorry, but there's objective data to say that the quality if low.

However, McDonald's is in full compliance with the FDA requirements of quality control and assurance, and has been praised by countless industry trade magazines, such as:

That doesn't mean their food is 'quality' it just means that it isn't going to make you sick by eating it. FDA requirements are about safety, not how healthy the food is.

Food Safety Magazine

It’s not surprising, then, that for a restaurant chain that does billions in revenue sales per year, maintaining food safety across its supply chain is not just a good business initiative, it is paramount to customer safety and business success. At the center of the McDonald’s operation is a supplier food safety and quality assurance program that ranks as a corporate top priority. Suppliers and franchisees must follow rigorous quality and safety guidelines if they want to work with McDonald’s, because in a high-profile business that bases success on a consistent customer experience no matter where you are in the world, setting explicit food safety and quality expectations for suppliers and restaurant employees is the only way to make it work.

Food safety doesn't equal food quality.

The above quote reveals that you are not alone in the perception that McDonald's is not a high quality restaurant, but the reality is that it is you who are operating under an illusion, and not anyone who believes that McDonald's operates under high standards of quality assurance.

You're pushing the goal posts back. I told you that it isn't high quality in a health context, you're turning it into a business context

Quality is consistency.

McDonald’s is not high-quality because it is considered a premium product, but because it consistently satisfies customer expectations. If a customer wants a quick, tasty meal in 3 minutes for about 5 bucks, then they know that’s exactly what they’ll get at McDonald’s. Read more: practicalanalyst.com...

I'm sorry, but 'tasty' and 'quick' and 'consistent' don't necessarily imply healthy. I never said that any of those three were incorrect, did I? Well, I'd argue tasty. I don't like the taste of fast food, but that's a personal issue.

They would thrive if their food wasn't consistent or didn't pass safety standards. If 10% of their sales were tainted they'd be out of business in weeks.

Further, and more specific to this thread, there is the matter of

(snip)

I never defended this group and I explicitly pointed out that there isn't a legal issue. I said there was a responsibility issue. Responsibility is when the corporation has to do things without legal pressure.

Here is part of the legal reasoning as to why Cohen's case was dismissed:

The nutritional values contained in the McDonald's Nutrition Facts document are only correct as applied to adults and children over the age of four years of age. This is uncontested. The NLEA, however, requires, inter alia, that labeling for foods that are intended for children under the age of four shall not include declarations of daily percent for such things as total fat, saturated fat and sodium.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's healthy. Again, I demonstrated that it lacks nutritional quality.

We strongly note that the McDonald's Nutrition Fact sheet never mentions or makes reference to its Happy Meal menu item. We also have very strong reservations about Cohen's attempt to categorize french fries and hamburgers as foods that are intended for children under the age of four. However, supposing for the sake of this discussion that the items that appear on the McDonald's Nutrition Facts document are indeed intended for children under the age of four, then the document violates this regulation because the daily percent values for these categories appear on the McDonald's Nutrition Facts document. Additionally, the McDonald's Nutrition Fact document contains a caloric footnote that should also not be included on labeling for foods that are intended for children under the age of four.

Again, they're not in violation of the law. I said the issue wasn't legal.

The ruling was that McDonald's had been in full compliance with the standards set by the Nutrition Labeling Education Act.

And I'm not disagreeing. There's a law that is in place and is being followed. I do think that the law is too lenient. The problem is that the food isn't healthy at all.

If you honestly believe that the only reason people patronize McDonald's is because of their speed in serving the food, then you don't have a clue as to what is going on.

I never said it was the only reason.

There are people who actually like the taste of McDonald's food, and while you may not have a nice thing to say about that, it is not your business what other peoples tastes are.

Yes, but that taste is derived from being unhealthy. They get that taste specifically because their food is overloaded with fat, sugars, and sodium. Our brain, still not having adapted to the wide availability of food in the modern age, thinks 'Wow, this has a lot of energy in it, let's eat as much as possible so we feel better in the long wait until our next meal!'

Further, McDonald's has an extensive "value" menu where a person can buy several different foods, such as a double cheeseburger, for a dollar.

Yes, the double cheeseburger that, on its own has:
440 calories
35% of your daily fat suggestion
54% of your daily saturated fat suggestion
1.5 grams of trans fat
26% of your daily cholesterol suggestion
48% of your daily sodium suggestion
11% of your daily carbohydrate suggestion

I bolded the ones that you should clearly be concerned about from a single 5.8 OZ sandwich.

Plenty of people do so, and you are willfully ignoring this in order to throw ad hominem attacks at McDonald's.

Again, which name did I call McDonald's?

To quote The Princess Bride

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Ad hominem is 'name calling'. I'm not calling them any names nor am I attacking the members or the corporation. I'm criticizing their business practices.

Not all fast food chains, not other restaurants with equivalent nutritional standards as McDonald's, and certainly not microwavable food items bought at the grocery store, just McDonald's.

Because this is a thread about McDonald's. If it were about fast food in general, I'd be talking about Jack in the Box and their horribly unhealthy deep fried tacos and other insanely unhealthy items. I'd talk about Taco Bell, KFC, Wendy's, sit down restaurants, that disgusting chocolate chip pancake wrapped around a sausage and dipped in syrup microwavable abomination

But we're talking about the clown company in this thread. It's in the thread title

Secondly, of course McDonald's thrives on making it seem like it's more worth it to buy fast food than to cook at home. If they emphasized home meals they wouldn't make a dime.

You are ridiculously ignorant in what you think is the reason McDonald's thrives.

Well, it's one of them.

McDonald's is a restaurant franchise competing with other restaurants for the business of people who have made the choice to go out and eat instead of stay in and cook. That is the fact of the matter, and McDonald's no more makes it "seem like it's more worth it to buy fast food" than any other fast food restaurant does.

And I never said that other restaurants didn't do it either. I pointed out that McDonald's, like other 'fast food' establishments, thrives on the idea that it's faster to not eat at home. All restaurants thrive on one version or another that there is a benefit to not eating at home.

They are simply competing with other restaurants for your business. It is that simple.

Yes, but that idea is a portion of their strategy.

Either you are clueless, or you are willfully lying. In either case, it isn't good.

Wow, you went from consistently saying that statements of mine are lies to hedging.

They call it fast food to distinguish it from other restaurants where the food takes longer to be made and served. It has nothing at all to do with home cooked meals. It is a business model developed to compete with restaurants.

It's to compete with both restaurants and the home front. All restaurants are competing with two factors, the home and the competition. Fast food restaurants are competing specifically with sit down restaurants and other fast food establishments as well as the home.

If they ignored the home as a factor then they wouldn't be very good business people.

It's becoming increasingly clear you don't do much thinking at all.

Ad hominem. You're attacking my character for reasons that don't pertain to the discussion

I simply said that I don't think it would sell 'on its own' which means without:
Marketing
Brand recognition
etc etc

I'm saying if you simply tried to sell those burgers without the McDonald's corporate model, it wouldn't work.

Preparing a decent home cooked meal most assuredly does take time, and most parents would not classify hamburgers as a decent home cooked meal.

You keep stating that it takes time. Does 15 minutes for a meal for 5 count as "time"?
And why doesn't a burger count? If you make it properly it can be a quite lovely meal.

Indeed, you attack McDonald's for their nutritional statistics, and then turn around and declare hamburgers healthy.

Misrepresenting my statement.
"Healthier than McDonald's" =/= "healthy"
Just like saying "Shorter than Shaq" =/= "short"
It's a question of standards. If you're saying something is healthier than McDonald's you're not saying much.

There are many parents who when cooking home cooked meals actually take the time to marinate the beef or chicken they cook, who actually use fresh fruits and vegetables of which they prepare instead of frozen or canned foods, and who actually prepare their own sauces and dressings. This takes time.

Let's see, marinate beef or chicken...that takes 30 minutes of which 25-29 is letting it sit. Using fresh vegetables? Well, I'd say between chopping and cooking that takes anywhere from 10-20 minutes, which can be done while marinating. Preparing your own sauce and dressing.? 5-15 minutes to prepare the ingredients, another 10 to cook it.

Let's see...that would top out at an hour. An hour isn't exactly a long time to prepare a meal.

However, the difference between such a meal, and a quickly thrown together meal is what constitutes "home cooked" meals.

Here's the lovely thing, my family immigrated to America when I was 2, we ate a lot of Mediterranean cuisine.
Carbonara, which is hardly a 'thrown together' meal takes about 15 minutes.
Hell, pretty much any pasta with a home made sauce can be made in about 30 minutes.

If you want it to take longer, you can (except the carbonara, it would get soggy and gross). But that doesn't mean it has to.

When people talk nostalgically about "home cooked" meals, they are not referring to the bowl of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese mom made.

You need to get your mind out of the culinary gutter. There are plenty of nice quick meals to make that are a hell of a lot better than that.

Hell, even a simple sandwich with tomato paste, olive oil, and tuna is a quick alternative to McDonald's.

You have taken the time to show a list of McDonald's slogans, but in no way does this list support your initial contention that McDonald's has perpetuate falsehoods about they being better than home cooked meals.

I simply was providing that they don't do anything to say that home cooked meals are better.
"All American Menu" is implying there's something good and patriotic about the food
"Look for the Golden Arches" is a brand recognition slogan
"Go for the Goodness At McDonald's" they're saying their food is good.

Their slogans typically address that their food is really good and that people love their food.

Uh-huh. These are the very first words you used in this thread:

Aside from the fact that there's a distinct ad hominem argument in the OP title

From the get-go you took an aggressive attitude, and continued with a passive aggressive attitude with this:

Pointing out that there's a distinct ad hominem is honest, not aggressive.

there's an actual point that everyone is missing: Children don't need McDonald's.

As if anybody needed it explained to them that children don't need McDonald's.

How is that 'passive aggressive' if it didn't need to be pointed out? It was a simple statement of fact. Children can grow up fine without Happy Meal toys, so why is there such a big fuss over it?

This is understood so clearly, that McDonald's went out of their way to create a fun, friendly environment for children, by adding toys in their Happy Meals and building play grounds on their premises, precisely because they get the point that children do not need McDonald's, but you arrogantly presume that people have some how missed that point.

I wasn't saying that everyone everywhere missed that point, I was saying it hadn't been discussed in the thread.

So now you're actually ceding the point that McDonald's is directly marketing to children. How is that responsible? Children are ignorant, they haven't been exposed to the world and shouldn't be targeted with marketing.

McDonald's should be more responsible than that, even if they aren't doing anything illegal.

One does not have to qualify their remarks with the phrase; "this an authoritative statement" in order to appear authoritative. You offered up an assertion that was premised on its correctness, but the premise was not correct, and for this reason, did not make sense.

I didn't intend to appear authoritative in any way.

And some of the statements are correct.
McDonald's (like other restaurants of both the fast and regular speed variety) thrive at the very least on the premise that there is an advantage to eating their rather than at home.

Your use of the word myth, used three times, to equate McDonald's image with falsehoods is an ad hominem attack on McDonald's.

"Myth" isn't name calling.. They simply perpetuate a myth for financial gain. They might not do it actively, but it's there passively.

An ad hominem would be "McDonald's is an institution of liars that perpetuates myths because they're greedy sons-of-whores".

At worst you could say that I'm defaming the character of the institution, but that isn't name calling at all.

Your insistence on using the word "myth" to mean falsehood, is name calling.

Who am I calling a name?
And those things are falsehoods. Definitively false.

By claiming that McDonald's relied on falsehoods in order thrive, you are calling them fraudulent and liars.

I'm not calling them fraudulent or liars, I'm saying their business model is assisted by myths.
All business models can be assisted by myths, specifically those that offer services or products that aren't necessary.

Any electronics company thrives on the idea that their product is necessary, even if it isn't. Even if they don't spread it explicitly, they imply that there is a very good reason for you to buy the product beyond personal satisfaction.
Nobody really "needs" a phone with all the features of the iPhone, but Apple is happy to let people think that.

They aren't liars, they're good business people.

That is not just name calling, it is defamation.

Name calling at defamation are two separate things

Name calling is when I say something specifically about your character (eg, You don't think for yourself) or call you a specific name (eg, You are nothing more than a sheep)

Defamation is willingly saying something that you know to be false about someone or some institution for the purpose of destroying their image.

Now, if I'm saying something that is false, I'm not doing so knowingly.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I think you're probably right that it's unfair to single out McDonalds in this regard and this group does seem to be going after them for the reasons you state.

However, I think there's also a wider issue here. Is it ever ethical to advertise to children?

Also, as an aside, can I just clear something up? You don't work for McDonalds do you?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Aside from the fact that there's a distinct ad hominem argument in the OP title, there's an actual point that everyone is missing: Children don't need McDonald's.

In fact, we should be keeping our kids away from it. Have you ever looked at the nutritional information for a Happy Meal? This stuff is ridiculous

I don't understand why parents today don't have the time to cook for their children. I don't exactly have a lot of leisure time these days, but I still take the ten-twenty minutes it needs to prepare a proper meal.

McDonald's has thrived on two things:
The myth that home cooked meals need to take time
The myth that it's worth it to go there instead of cook them.

The first myth is simply false, I can whip up a quick pasta in the time it takes for the water to boil + 5-10 minutes depending on the type of pasta. I can make all sorts of meals with chicken in half an hour, probably less if I have the butcher cut up the chicken for me.

The second myth actually has economic ramifications. If you look at things more rationally, you'll see that their food is actually more expensive than cooking it yourself. You end up paying for their whole process when you could save yourself all that money by being responsible. Then they add a little piece of plastic crap, which I myself grew up enjoying far too much than I think is healthy, to make kids nag their parents about it.

Advertising shouldn't be aimed at children for food, they're not the ones buying it.

I agree with you that parents should take better care of watching what their children eat. Perhaps using McDonalds as a reward. But it is the parents responsibility not the governments. If people need the gov. to watch what they and their children eat, do those people deserve to eat I wonder. Maybe we should just let some people die for the sake of the gene pool.

reply to post by russ212


I do agree that this isn't a legal issue except for a possible higher level of scrutiny of marketing practices aimed towards children, I do think that both the parents and McDonald's have to exercise greater levels of responsibility

Beware the Lobby Groups and NGO's.
They are a clear and present danger funded generally by those who would usurp your power and drive your government to become something neither you nor your government ever intended to become.
It is not "your" business as a free man to intervene in "my" business as a free man if I do not harm your property, liberty or person.
We must remember this and return to freedom under the common law.

S & F. Great post. It's bad enough when the government Itself steps in and tries to take control of parenting. Now, we have some little-known organization with a wild hair in a dark place wanting to tackle their Goliath of choice: McKee Dees. As far as I'm concerned that organizatin can go fly a kite, to put it extremely mildly.

They presume that parents can't think for themselves and are victims of screaming kids who froth at the mouth for Happy Meals. Sure, the toys are fun, but the kids wouldn't ask for Happy Meals if they didn't like the food. Yeah, McDonald's food has TONS OF NASTY STUFF (preservatives, probably MSG --guessing with that one--, nitrates, nitrites, chemical soups), but as a "once in a while" treat, it's not going to hurt anyone too much.

I was just having a conversation, today, with a colleague who is/was in the forensics and recovery business. He said that during WWII the Germans were so strapped for vegetables and fruit for their soldiers and the public, that they heavily fertilized their crops to speed up the growth. They *laced* everything with growth-inducing chemicals and fertilizers to the point where cutting into a tomato produced a chalky white colored interior, but it was a "tomato" and could feed. When German soldiers were subsequently killed on the battlefield, Allied soldiers noticed that the Germans (who'd been eating this chemical rich diet) would turn a strange, greenish color when decomposing, where Allied soldiers (with fresher, naturally grown food, for the most part) would decompose normally.

Today, most Americans eat genetically modified vegetables and fruits. Our meat is in a cocktail of chemicals, preservatives, artificial flavors, artificial sweeteners (the deadly aspartame) and growth hormones. Not only that, cows, pigs, chickens and you-name-it are fed animal by-products. The government has made it illegal for cattle/meat companies to test 100% of their product for mad cow (WTF?).

And that is "normal" grocery store food. Bringing this back to McDonalds... Well, it's highy and heavily processed. The meat is the cheap stuff. It's filled with all the chemicals and hormones that you can imagine.

Yet, it's delicious. I love McDonalds, and we eat there semi-regularly. My son loves their McNuggets. It's evil. It's also a choice. We eat there more often than we should, especially lately when it's so busy. BUT... it's our ***CHOICE***. It's not up to an organization to ban toys in Happy Meals to decide for us what we eat.

If they win this battle over Happy Meal toys, they'll be coming after something else next. It's like the story about the government coming to take other people away until there is no one to keep them from taking you away. Only now it reads:

"At first they came for Happy Meal toys, and I did nothing, because it didn't concern me. Then they came for the Big Mac, and still, I did nothing. And then they came for the milk shakes and mochas. I did nothing. They came for quarter-pounders and fries. And I just watched. Finally, they came for the McFish. And there were no other sandwiches to stop them from taking my beloved McFish."

FAST FOOD ENTHUSIASTS UNITE!!!!!

I totally blame the parents if they buy their kids fast food. If you buy your kid fast food more than 1 time per week you fail in a very important aspect as a parent. You might as well be giving them hard drugs. You cant just give them the recommended calorie requirement and say "All done", you have to consider nutritional content as well, it is far more important that just making sure your kid is not hungry any more. Fast food is killing this country. Also it was mentioned before but fast food is pretty darn expensive now day's. So why opt for it? You can easily make a meal in the time it takes to get to the fast food place for cheaper too.
Don't get me wrong though I used to eat fast food every day. My parents took me their all the time because it was quick and easy. Kids just go along with it not realizing the implications. Kids cant judge things like this (at least most anyway). When I was 17 I realized why I was the fat kid in high school, it was because of my parents and 15 years of fast food. I then cut out fast food and soda out of my diet completely and within a year I lost 80 pounds. I still love my parents of course but I do resent them a little bit for not being more aware of what they were doing to me.

I am all for a free market economy but fast food needs to be illegal. Its horrible stuff.

in the Public Interest, using toys to lure small children into McDonald’s is unfair and deceptive marketing and is illegal under various state consumer protection laws.

that's funny.. completely ludicrous -- most marketing methods are deceptive per se

reply to post by TheKnave

I totally blame the parents if they buy their kids fast food.

absolutely truth but no everyone can allow oneself to buy normal food instead of plebe-food mcdonalds-like/prone corps are pure criminal organizations -- it's just matter of fact.