McDonald's versus the Busy Body PC Police

sF good post. By the way speaking of marketing toward children, my daughter insisted that we bought this sponge bob taco dinner kit. What I want to know is there is nothing inside that taco kit that resembles spponge bob. It just has a picture of him on the box and cost me 2 dollars more than any other kit on the shelf.

sF good post. By the way speaking of marketing toward children, my daughter insisted that we bought this sponge bob taco dinner kit. What I want to know is there is nothing inside that taco kit that resembles spponge bob. It just has a picture of him on the box and cost me 2 dollars more than any other kit on the shelf.

There's nothing wrong with McDonald's in moderation. The problem comes when you add on the junk like fries and soda. I eat at McDonald's about once a week or so. I buy two regular hamburgers for 89 cents apiece. They consist of a bun, a small amount of ketchup and mustard, re-constituted onions and a pickle, plus a modest amount of hamburger for less than 500 calories and 26 grams of protein. Given that I ought to eat about 2,000 calories and 70 frams of protein a day, that's a fairly cost-effective way to get a good percentage of it.

I would apprercuate it very much of the NGOs and governments of the world stayed out of my life and let me make my own decisions for myself and my children. Just - Get - Out!!!

Originally posted by schuyler
There's nothing wrong with McDonald's in moderation. The problem comes when you add on the junk like fries and soda. I eat at McDonald's about once a week or so. I buy two regular hamburgers for 89 cents apiece. They consist of a bun, a small amount of ketchup and mustard, re-constituted onions and a pickle, plus a modest amount of hamburger for less than 500 calories and 26 grams of protein. Given that I ought to eat about 2,000 calories and 70 frams of protein a day, that's a fairly cost-effective way to get a good percentage of it.

I would apprercuate it very much of the NGOs and governments of the world stayed out of my life and let me make my own decisions for myself and my children. Just - Get - Out!!!

In that kind of moderation yes, its not sooo bad for you. But really, how many other families are that careful? How many other families super size and get a large milk shake? I am no prophet but mark my words In 20 years 1/2 of the united states are going to be obese, 3/4 are going to be overweight and heart attacks into late 20's will be common.
While I do agree that it is the persons choice to eat fast food and slowly kill them selves, it is not their children's choice. They just go with the flow and by the time their 18 and over weight they will resent you for not thinking in advance. I have experience in that.Now I am not targeting you specifically, I was using 'you' in a broad term.

My only point is that you cannot defend fast food with a simple "my choice" statement. Fast food are cancer, diabetes and heart attack factories. While they technically break no law, I still believe this is something that is a special case. Our future as a people is on the line here. For real.

reply to post by TheKnave

i guess your prophecy is rather optimistic: food industry just will increase applying of synthetic materials & GMO because that's useful way to defeat a food's shortage

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

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

John Steinbeck's novel Of Mice and Men is not literally a story about mice and men. Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is not literally about a Greek mythological figure shrugging. Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle isn't literally about geographical jungles.

I was posting in this thread. I sort of thought that would mean we were talking about McDonald's.

Since you're being so literal minded, the title is: McDonald's versus the Busy Body Police. Your bias is clear, and that is fine. Your bias is most welcome, but the disingenuous nature by which you present your bias should be spoken to. If you want to address the problems the CSPI claim to have concerns about, then they go well beyond McDonald's, this is a fact.

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.

Marketing to children is more correctly one of the topics of this thread, although by no means the sole topic. That said, you've stated your argument, and that is you think marketing to children is irresponsible. Of course, you don't really make an argument, you simply just declare it irresponsible without explaining why you think that is. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, you have also admitted that you do not have any children. This is an important piece of information to consider when analyzing your opinion. Why shouldn't children be the target of marketing campaigns? Of course, and I have all ready indicated, that certain products should not be market specifically towards children, such as cigarettes, and alcohol. However, what of toys? Who should Barbie be marketed too? Who should Barney the Dinosaur, Sesame Street and their products be market towards, if not children?

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.

While some restaurants, particularly sole proprietor restaurants do not do this, McDonald's does indeed do so, and even comes remarkably close to your stringent demands. How ironic then that you have spent so much time taking McDonald's solely to task, especially since they are a company that actually does what you are proposing here. While they don't supply nutritional information at the drive thru's, once you've walked in they do have a large poster of nutritional information easily seen and very close to the menu. When going through the drive thru, all you have to do is ask McDonald's for a printed brochure of their nutritional information, and they will gladly give it to you. It is not they who are being unreasonable in this regard, it is you and people like you who keep insisting the efforts they make are not enough, and go even further demanding that small businesses must comply with the same rules and regulations that corporations do, with absolutely no regard to the tremendous expense such a demand makes. In effect, such an unreasonable demand, caters specifically to the corporatist agenda, and harms the small business dramatically.

Unfortunately, there isn't a legal basis to do anything about it.

I would argue that technically speaking you are correct, and such demands do not have any legal basis. However, Congress and the SCOTUS obviously disagree and have gone well beyond their authority and have done much of what you are suggesting.

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.

This is a false assertion. Advertising is free speech until it becomes guilty of fraud or other harmful practices. Advertising cannot knowingly harm other people. Beyond that, the right to speak freely is absolute.

How is that an ad hominem attack?

You are attempting to link the validity of a premise to the characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. That is an ad hominen. Beyond ad hominem, the link you've attempted to make is based upon a false premise.

Ad Hominem

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

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

This is what you wrote:

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.

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

First of all, labeling the CSPI busy body PC police is not an ad hominem neither by the definition you supplied, nor by the one I did. A busy body is a person who meddles or pries into the affairs of others, and this is precisely what this private organization is doing. They have gone beyond challenging the practice of using toys to market a good, and into the realm of meddling and prying by insisting they will sue McDonald's if they do not acquiesce to the CSPI's demands. They have not been given any legal authority to do this, they have taken it upon themselves to appoint themselves as PC police.

Conversely, in their press release, they used imagery such as "stranger in the playground", conjuring up pedophilia to link it to McDonald's, and flat out called them "predatory" and "creep" to further this image. That is undoubtedly and ad hominem, as well is your assertion that McDonald's has engaged in fraudulent marketing in order to succeed. That was you intent when using the word "myth". You certainly didn't use that word, (no less than three times), to imply that McDonald's was an iconic and heroic figure or god of legend.

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.

This does not in any way give you the right to meddle into the private affairs of other people, nor does it give you the right to dictate what choices a parent can make outside of demonstrable harm. The obesity claim, while valid, does not give you a right to target a single business and dictate how they market their products. Obesity is a problem, but the problem is one of personal accountability. People have to take responsibility for their own health. As far as the medical system goes, that system is not a public system, and there has been no Constitutional mandate making it a part of government.

Well, not inalienable, they have limitations.

Inalienable is not defined by its limitless nature:

Inalienable defined:

That cannot be transferred to another or others

Inalienable rights are rights that were not given to people by any authority. The purpose of making the distinction of inalienable rights is to make clear that when it comes to parenting it is a right that has not been granted them, but is inalienable. Yes, there are limitations to that right, and parents cannot willfully harm their children. Taking their children to McDonald's and allowing them to have a Happy Meal that comes with a toy is not in any way a willful act of harm.

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

So what? What business is this of yours?

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.

Children are far smarter than you give them credit for being. Indeed, much of adults lack of ethics are not genetic traits but learned behavior. Children are taught to lie, they don't come to it naturally. You ask so what if children adore the playgrounds at McDonald's? Come back and take that attitude with me once you have children of your own. Tell me, once you have your own child, that their happiness doesn't matter to you.

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.

You have made the decision to enter this thread and defend the actions of the CSPI, which goes well beyond advising people and into dictating what parents can and cannot do. Further, while you are free to offer up advice, when you offer that advice unsolicited, you run the risk of discovering its exact value to those you are advising.

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.

Earlier you implied that you were a "rationally thinking citizen" and now you are dismissing the value of experience. A rational thinker would not hire a pilot with no experience in piloting to fly a plane for them. A rational thinker would not go to a person with no direct experience with cancer and seek out medical help for that cancer. A rational thinker would not go to someone with no direct experience with law and seek their advice on legal matters. Why would a rational thinker lend more credence than deserved on parenting advice to a person who has no direct experience with parenting?

Parenting is something that isn't a specialist skill.

Parenting is most assuredly a specialized skill. It takes tremendous effort and lot's and lot's of practice.

More or less anyone can do it to some degree.

All people have the inalienable right to be parents, but the skill that comes with parenting is, like any skill, something that takes serious effort and practice.

That's why you don't need a license to raise a child.

You don't need a license to be a writer either, but does that mean that writing isn't a skill? You don't need a license to be a cook, but does that mean that cooking isn't a skill? You don't need a license to garden, but does that mean that gardening isn't a skill?

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.

You can say it all you want. What you can't do is prevent parents from ignoring you, or even from listening to you and then disagreeing with you, and making their own decision.

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.

Unless that marketing is to market products such as alcohol, or cigarettes or other products that are illegal for children to consume, then so what? Business that market cleaning products do not tend to market towards children, and for good reason. Children have no interest in cleaning products. McDonald's markets directly towards children because they cater to children.

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

I have all ready addressed this question. The fast food paradigm is a competitive model used to compete with restaurants that demonstrably take longer to prepare and serve their meals.

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.

Your convoluted logic is baffling. Cigarette companies did not begin marketing the fraudulent claim that their cigarettes were safe until governmental agencies and other organizations began showing links between smoking cigarettes and poor health. It is not as if cigarette companies could not sell their product until they created this fraudulent marketing scheme. People have been smoking tobacco for centuries.

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

McDonald's is thriving because of sound business decisions. You can take that to the bank, and many people who invest in McDonald's do. For the record, I am not one of those investor's nor have I ever been employed for McDonald's.

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

No it doesn't. Fast food has to be faster than restaurants that don't specialize in fast food, and long before the model of fast food restaurants came out, people were relying on methods of fast food at home, such as sandwiches, and pastas, and other easily and quickly prepared foods.

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

McDonald's not only uses marketing strategies to compete with their competitors, they have diversified and have most recently begun competing with coffee houses such as Starbucks. McDonald's also uses services such as free wifi as a marketing strategy. Further, McDonald's being an international company, markets specifically to cultures. Thus, in India, McDonald's features a Veggie Mac to directly compete with other restaurants in India where beef is not nearly as marketable as it is in, say the United States.

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

You rely too much on anecdotal evidence and not nearly enough on actual research and analysis when it comes to marketing. Here are some facts about the competitive marketing strategies of fast food restaurants. There is a phrase within marketing circles known as "burger wars"

The Burger Wars is a term used in the modern United States press describing the intense competition between hamburger fast food chains McDonald's, Burger King and others. The term first came into use during the late 1970s due to an attempt by Burger King to generate increased market and mind-share by attacking the size of bigger rival McDonald's hamburgers. The competition between the companies has been exemplified by competing attack advertising campaigns; legal threats and suits; and other business clashes.

This burger war continues to this day, and is not limited to fast food restaurants that specialize in hamburgers. Thus Taco Bell has a slogan; "think outside the bun", Subway's marketing strategy, with their recent emphasis on "Jared", is a direct compare and contrast strategy to McDonald's with an emphasis on health.

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.

Fine, I have provided ample evidence to show how your assertion that McDonald's thrives based on a perception that it takes time to make home cooked meals, and that it is worth it to go there instead of cook them. You are wrong. If you continue to insist that you are not wrong, then you are lying. Take your choice, it is one or the other, but your assertion that McDonald's thrives because of a perception that it takes more time to cook at home and that it is better to eat out than eat at home is false. McDonald's and all other restaurants thrive because there is a demand for them, and they supply that demand. They did not create the demand through deceptive practices, they responded to the demand, and because of this they have thrived.

If you are willing to admit that your initial claim was wrong, I will willingly apologize for calling you a liar. Is that acceptable with you?

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

This statement, of course, suggest you are not at all willing to admit you were wrong, and if that is the case, then I stand by my assertion that you are willfully lying in order to demonize a company that can too easily be deomonized based upon truths.

Again, when did I lie?

McDonald's complies with all legal standards of quality control, and yet you insist that they only create the illusion they do. You are lying. If you have a problem with what the legal standards of quality control are then speak truthfully to that instead of misplacing your concerns on a company that is complying with those legal standards. Be honest!

Their smallest burger at 3.5 OZ, on its own without a serving of fries has 22% of your daily sodium allowance.

This is precisely the type of deceptive language I am talking about that qualifies you as a liar. Earlier you made this claim:

It's not that the nutrition facts don't mean my standard, they don't meet the nutritional standards.

McDonald's is under no legal compunction to meet the recommended daily allowance, (RDA), which was established by The United States National Academy of Science. The R in RDA is your first clue as to the legal nature of the standard set by the NAS. The R stands for recommended. When you speak of this in terms of "your daily sodium allowance", you are deceptively arguing that this is a mandate instead of a recommendation.

Allowance defined:

1. The act of allowing.
2. An amount that is allowed or granted

The RDA is not an act of legislation that regulates how much calories and and other chemicals a person can eat, or a company can serve, and any regulations in regards to the RDA comes in the form of a requirement to list and make available to the customer information on caloric content, as well as vitamin content, mineral content, and any other pertinent information in relation to the RDA. McDonald's is in complete compliance with those regulations.

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

It wouldn't be so odd to you if you had bothered to read the case law I had all ready supplied in this thread regarding Happy Meals and NLEA requirements.

Cohen maintains that the nutritional values contained in McDonald's Nutrition Facts document are only correct as applied to adults and children over the age of four.   Since children under the age of four have different nutritional requirements than do adults, the NLEA establishes separate labeling requirements for foods specifically intended for children under the age of four.  21 C.F.R. § 101.9 (2003).   In particular, the regulations accompanying the NLEA state that labeling for foods other than baby formula represented or purported to be specifically for infants and children under the age of four shall not include declarations of the percent of daily value for total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, potassium, total carbohydrate, and dietary fiber.  21 C.F.R. § 101.9(j)(5)(ii)(A) (2003).

~Cohen v McDonald's Corp.

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.

The Mayo Clinic standards are fine, but are in no way legal allowances compelling McDonald's to change their menu's. You and the Mayo Clinic are free to advise all you want, but you do not have the right to insist that these standards must be adhered to.

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.

This statement is a complete contradiction in terms. What is not healthy is arguably not safe. If you wish to have a discussion about implementing safety protocols, I am more than willing to accommodate you on this, but that means addressing the arbitrary nature of the FDA, and the NLEA, and their protocols, not ignoring them and then pretending that McDonald's is circumventing law.

Food safety doesn't equal food quality.

If you want to address the aesthetics or taste in regards to quality, this is fine, but you are attempting to link legal standards of quality control with aesthetics and taste, and this is a deceptive practice. In terms of legal practice, food safety most assuredly equals food quality.

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

No, you are pushing the goal posts back. This thread is about a non profit organization threatening to sue McDonald's over health issues, claiming they are in violation of law, when this is demonstrably false. Both you and the CSPI have every right to advise and inform people in regards to the health of food products put out by McDonald's, but neither one of you have the right to rely on deceptive practices in order to push forth your political agenda, any more than a business has a right to rely on deceptive practices to sell their product.

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.

First of all, it should be noted that at no time have I argued that McDonald's products are "tasty", and if you choose to argue over their "tastiness" you are having an argument with yourself. Secondly, your insistence on equating health issues with quality control, particularly given the legal standards set forth, is deceptive and why I continue to insist you are lying. Not about the health issue, as I emphatically agree that McDonald's products, in general, are not at all healthy, but this does not mean that they are not meeting all legal standards of quality control. There is no legal basis to sue them over this 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.

Precisely, and ironically this statement undermines your original claims of why McDonald's thrives as a business.

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.

I just went through the entirety of your posts to verify your claim, and at no point do you "explicitly" point out that this is not a legal issue. Further, this thread is all about legal issues, since the CSPI is threatening to sue McDonald's. Even further, your claim that responsibility is when the corporation has to do things without legal pressure is fallacious. Corporations are legal entities that have been granted limited liability. Conversely, sole proprietor's are not legal fictions. If corporations with their legal grant of limited liability are to be held accountable, it is most assuredly through a legal mechanism by which this will be done. The very fact that the major incentive to incorporating is the limited liability it brings demonstrates the very real need for legal oversight. Frankly, I would argue that the creation of charters for corporations is a bad idea, but that's a whole separate issue.

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

I have not read a single post in this thread where anyone has made the argument that McDonald's food is healthy. Do you understand this? Your insistence on hammering this fact in response to my arguments that McDonald's complies with all governmental regulations and standards is disingenuous. The issue is not whether or not McDonald's food is healthy or not, the issue is whether or not they have a right to market their product to children. Since they cater to children, I insist they do have a right to market to children, just as any company that creates products for children does.

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

You have only begun to make this claim in this post I am responding to, and even then the first time you make the claim, you do so erroneously, claiming that you all ready had "explicitly" done so, when in fact, you had not.

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.

Health is a personal matter. People have a right to make their own decisions regarding their health. Your posting of the Mayo Clinic recommendations is a noble effort and I applaud your efforts in advocating healthier choices regarding nutrition. I vehemently oppose your advocacy of using the law to dictate personal choices. That advocacy is not noble at all, but is wholly political. I firmly stand by your right to speak freely about this, but just as firmly stand behind peoples right to make personal and private decisions regarding parenting, and health issues.

I never said it was the only reason.

Your primary focus on why McDonald's thrives as a business has been placed upon the fast food angle.

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!'

Look, there is very little healthy about banana cream pies, or double fudge cakes, but I sure as hell will not agree that they should be prohibited. Nor will I agree that businesses should be prohibited from marketing them.

Again, which name did I call McDonald's?

You used the word "myth" three times to be equated with falsehood, and claimed that McDonald's thrives based upon the "myth" that cooking at home takes time, and that "it is worth it to go there, (McDonald's), instead of cook them. Ergo, you have made the argument that McDonald's has thrived based upon falsehoods they've perpetuated. This is an ad hominem.

Ad hominem is 'name calling'.

This is false. Ad hominem literally means "to the man", and as a logical fallacy it means that the premise of an argument is dismissed by linking the premise of the argument to the person making the argument. Dismissing a news story because it was reported by FOX News is an ad hominem. Dismissing McDonald's business success because they have thrived on "myths", is not only an ad hominem, it is also an appeal to anonymous authority, quite possibly an appeal to widespread belief, argument by laziness, argument by selective observation, and is a non sequitur, all of which are fallacious arguments. The ad hominem is the assertion that McDonald's thrives based upon fraudulent claims.

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

Criticizing business practices means addressing the actual business practices not inventing business practices that they do not engage in and asserting they do. It is just no true that McDonald's has created a perception that it is better to patronize them rather than cook at home. The perception that it is better to eat out rather than cook at home is question of variety. People make the choice to eat out instead of cook at home because they want more options in their life, and restaurants, inns and cafe's have existed for centuries. They exist because they supply a demand. By claiming that it is "myth", your premise is false, by linking that "myth" to McDonald's it becomes an ad hominem.

Because this is a thread about McDonald's.

This is not a thread about McDonald's and once again you are being deceptive. This is a thread about busy bodies who are meddling in the private affairs of people in order to aggrandize themselves. In particular, this thread addresses the CSPI's methods, and their choice to single out McDonald's for a business practice that is widespread.

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.

Again you are being deceptive! The issue is not about health, although I welcome the discussion, but when you deign to lecture me, the creator of this thread, on what this thread is about, and claim that issue is a matter of health, then you are hijacking this thread, and attempting to derail it. The issue is about busy bodies using bullying and thuggish tactics to push forth their own political agenda. It is a legitimate question as to why the CSPI, and now you, insist on singling out McDonald's for business practices that are wide spread and not unique to McDonald's.

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

Busy body PC police is also in the title but you have steadfastly avoided addressing that issue, and have simply just dismissed that aspect of the thread by declaring it an ad hominem, which is yet another logical fallacy known as argument by dismissal. While you have, erroneously I might add, addressed the busy body issue by declaring it an ad hominem, you have largely dismissed this argument, only occasionally offering an agreement that the CSPI's tactics are questionable. However, in regards to the issue of butting into peoples personal affairs, you have largely dismissed the argument that this is not okay, instead placing your focus on McDonald's nutritional value.

Well, it's one of them.

You have not supplied one iota of evidence to support your contention that McDonald's thrives on "myths" that home cooking takes too long and it is better to eat out than cook at home.

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.

Look, I live in an area where I have access to two McDonald's that are in walking distance. One of them takes less than five minutes to get to, and the other takes about five to seven minutes to walk to. I do not patronize either franchise all that much, but when I do I usually patronize the one that takes longer to walk to because I prefer their store over the other one. This means it takes five to seven minutes to walk to that franchise, it then takes anywhere from two to seven minutes to stand in line and make my order, depending upon the hour and traffic, and then anywhere from 90 seconds to several minutes to be served. At best, I can get there, order and be served in under 10 minutes, at worst, 15 minutes. If it takes much longer than that I am not going to wait, and will just go somewhere else. Conversely, I could just stay at home and make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, with some chips and a glass of milk in under three minutes, I can make a tuna fish sandwich, or roast beef sandwich, in under five minutes, and I could opt for a much healthier meal in the form of a salad and still make it in under five minutes. That means it is faster to stay at home and eat, then it would be to go to McDonald's. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

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

Oh come on! Let's get real here. The whole concept of eating out predates McDonald's. That is a fact.

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

Do not confuse the fact that I allowed for the possibility that you might just be clueless as me "hedging".

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.

Eating out is a demand that restaurants supply. Each restaurant competes with the other restaurants to gain the customer. When competing in a supply and demand situation, the competition is between suppliers, not between those making the demands.

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

By this logic, hotels and motels wouldn't be very good at business if they didn't find some marketing strategy that convince people it was better to stay in a hotel than at home. Internet cafe's wouldn't be very good business people if they didn't create a market strategy that convinced people it is better to use their location than stay at home and use the internet there. Restaurants exist because there is a demand for them, not because they created a demand. In areas where there is little demand for restaurants, a restaurant risks the very real possibility of failure and no amount of marketing strategy will change that.

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

When I state that it is becoming increasingly clear that you do not do much thinking at all, and that is in response to you making a vacuous statement such as; "...I don't think "food" would sell on its own." This is not an ad hominem, I am not dismissing any premise by arguing that you do not do much thinking at all. I am speaking directly to the clear evidence that you do not do much thinking at all. "...I don't think food would sell on its own" is empty rhetoric. Nothing can be sold without a seller. Food does have a demand all its own, and this is what sellers rely upon when selling food.

Again, an ad hominem is the tactic of dismissing an argument based upon the person making an argument. To argue that there are no wolves threatening the community because the boy who cried wolf is a known liar, is an ad hominem. To argue simply that the boy who cried wolf is a known liar is not an ad hominem, it only becomes one when the boy who cried wolf, cries wolf, and the argument gets made that the boy's argument that a wolf is threatening the community has no validity because the boy lies.

"I don't think food would sell on its own" is not even an argument. It is simply empty rhetoric, and since you've implied in that argument that you think, I found it relevant to argue that there is not much evidence that you do.

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

The fact that you have to explain your rhetoric supports my contention it was empty rhetoric. As to the argument that food cannot be sold without brand recognition, and marketing strategies, this is not true. In the same area I live that has two McDonald's, there are numerous street vendors that sell all sorts of food every day, and they are thriving. I see food vendors serving customers daily. They do not have any brand name, nor do the advertise, but they still manage to sell their food.

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

And yet, there are countless mom and pop hamburger stands that do precisely what you say wouldn't work. Some fail, others succeed. Those who succeed do so because they have developed a customer base that values their product. Because they are a small business, they cannot afford to advertise like the corporation does, and instead rely upon word of mouth marketing, and other more affordable means, such as fliers, and coupons and mailing campaigns. They do not succeed because they have adopted McDonald's corporate model.

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.

Look, many families actually have either mothers, or fathers who actually take time to cook meals. One of those cooking processes is the use of a crock pot, which takes quite a bit of time. A slow cooker Swiss steak, for example, takes over 10 hours to prepare. A Chateaubriand takes anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour depending upon the recipe you follow, and if one is being diligent about this decent home cooked meal, the sauce used is homemade as well. If that sauce is a hollandaise sauce, this does not necessarily add to the time a Chateaubriand is made, but certainly adds to the effort one places in making a home cooked meal, and if dinner rolls are served, believe this or not, there are actually parents who bake their own bread instead of relying on store bought bread or dinner rolls. There are parents who actually make their own pastas. This is what gives meaning to the phrase; "Wow! It's been ages since I've had a decent home cooked meal", and is not in reference to the bowl of macaroni and cheese provided by Kraft and few slices of Wonder Bread.

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.

I am not misrepresenting your statement. I am speaking to the hypocrisy of your statement. Hamburgers are made out of ground round which is considerably higher in fat content than a lean cut of steak, even ground round that is marketed as being lean has a higher fat content than a filet of steak. The filet of steak is healthier, but a skinless chicken is arguably even healthier, and depending upon which information you choose to believe, it is arguable that a vegetarian diet is even healthier. Fresh vegetables. Steamed and not over cooked, or even healthier raw. You're the one who is placing so much emphasis on health, so let's not pretend that a hamburger is a healthy choice for a meal.

Let's see, marinate beef or chicken...that takes 30 minutes of which 25-29 is letting it sit.

Listen, my father was a master chef, and my mother was no slouch in the kitchen, so your fast food approach to cooking is not at all impressive. To properly marinate chicken, you want to marinate it for at least two hours so the meat has an opportunity to soak up the marination. In terms of beef, the marination process is generally reserved for tougher cuts of meat and some cuts of beef can actually be ruined by marinating them. Marination is best when done in a 24 hour period in the refrigerator.

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

You seem to have a hard time making up your mind what argument you want to go with. You began by insisting that that McDonald's has thrived on the "myth" that home cooked meals need to take time, now your arguing that an hour isn't exactly a long time to prepare a meal, but it is certainly a much longer time than it would be to simply go to McDonald's and eat there, isn't it? My mother viewed a home cooked meal as a process that required baking bread, marinating meats, preparing sauces, and cleaning and preparing vegetables. She felt as if she was in direct competition with my father, so it was important to her that time was spent making a decent meal. This doesn't mean that every night we ate fabulous home cooked meals, and because she ran the front end of the restaurant my parents owned, there were plenty of time we got served Hamburger Helper or Mac and Cheese, but in no way did any of us refer to this as a "home cooked meal", but instead saw it for what it was, which was prepackaged food thrown at us due to time constraints.

The restaurant my parents owned served French Continental cuisine, and the cooking time was anywhere from an hour and a half to over two hours depending upon what was ordered. One of the items on the menu was a black bass baked in pastry, and by far took the longest time to prepare. My father came to hate McDonald's and other fast food restaurants because of how they changed the standard for all restaurants, and even my own experience as a bartender was affected by that to some degree. Bartender's used to make their own mixes, and a sweet and sour mix was made with fresh fruits, a simple syrup solution, and soda, but there came a time when people cared less for the quality of the drink, and just wanted the drink now. This meant it was quicker to purchase prepackaged mixes and use them instead of making the drink from scratch.

McDonald's was certainly a factor in changing from a slower method of preparation and cooking, to a quicker process, but this method came about because McDonald's and other fast food restaurants responded to a demand. The demand existed, McDonald's responded to it, and has thrived because of it.

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.

Not if you're making the pasta from scratch, and if you have never experienced the joy of homemade pasta, you don't know what you're missing.

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.

Au contraire mon ami, you should need to get your mind out of the culinary gutter and come to realize there is an art to cooking, and that a decent home cooked meal takes time, care, and love.

I simply was providing that they don't do anything to say that home cooked meals are better.

So what? Are you suggesting that McDonald's should be required to do so?

"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.

Frankly, there are Europeans who refer to Americans as "McDonald's people", so McDonald's embracing this perception is not unfounded. What is your point with brand name recognition? What is your problem with McDonald's claiming their food is good? I don't agree with that assessment, and when I go to McDonald's it is not because I crave their "goodness" and has much more to do with budgetary constraints. It is their value menu that appeals to me, not their Golden Arches, or any jingoistic slogan. If I only have two dollars to spend and my cupboards are bare, sometimes I decide that two double cheeseburgers will sustain me longer than anything two dollars will buy at the grocery store. Other times, I will go to the grocery store and by fruit and bread, but I assure you when I do, I find myself hungry quicker than when I go to McDonald's, and this affects my decision making process when I choose to go to McDonald's. Also, I have no air conditioning in my office, so I will sometimes, on particularly hot days, go to McDonald's and use their free wifi while drinking coffee and eating a burger or salad. It is a win win situation.

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

So what? Are you too weak willed to avoid falling prey to their slogans? Has it ever occurred to you that some people actually agree with their slogans and think their food is good? For those people who do, who the hell are you to tell them they are wrong? And don't come back with the tired healthy argument. People are free to make their own conclusions on what good means.

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

If in fact I had engaged in ad hominems, but I didn't. I did what you are now claiming you have done. I called a spade a spade and declared the CSPI's actions that of a meddlesome and prying.

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?

You are aggressively defending busy bodies, and passive aggressively doing so by making irrelevant arguments.

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

Your reply was the third made in this thread, so it is more than a bit premature to argue that your irrelevant point was missed, just because the two people and myself before you had not bothered to address your irrelevant point.

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.

I have never argued to the contrary. Stop being dishonest! McDonald's markets to more than just children, but let's be clear here, Ronald McDonald and the Hamburgler are not tools used to market towards adults.

I don't agree with your insistence that children should not be the target of marketing campaigns. You can keep making the claim until the cows come home, but if you can't offer up any sound argument as to why you think this is a sound argument, it is just an assertion, and not an argument. Children are ignorant, but so are adults. In fact, we are all ignorant to some degree or another, this is a fact of life.

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

You are not offering up any information to support your contention that marketing directly to children is irresponsible.

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.

Do you honestly not see the contradiction in the above two statements?

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

You are using the word "myth" to mean lie or falsehood. I did not accuse you of name calling, I accused you of using an ad hominem. You support my contention by stating: They simply perpetuate a myth for financial gain. What you are saying is that their success is due to perpetuating lies. You are dismissing their success by speaking to their character, and you are falsely doing so.

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

Yes, that would be an ad hominem. Another ad hominem would be "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." While you have not called them greedy sons-of-whores, you have most assuredly called them liars, and used this false character assassination to dismiss the premise of their success.

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

You are defaming them, but you are not just defaming them, you are using defamation of character as a reason to dismiss their success. You are speaking to their character and calling that character fraudulent, and claiming this is the only reason they have thrived.

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

You are using "myth" to mean lie, claiming McDonald's is perpetuating the lie, ergo they are liars. While "those things" are certainly false hoods, it is also a falsehood that McDonald's has perpetuated these falsehoods.

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.

You know what, I am getting sick and tired of your disingenuous back and forth nonsense. Your equivocations are intolerable at this point. You believe what you want to believe, but you are far from honest in this debate.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Using Toys to Promote “Happy Meals” Is Unfair, Deceptive & Illegal, Group Says, Citing State Laws

Why are happy meals toys 'illegal' while for the last 100 years the non child safe cracker jack toys never were, nor the boxed cerials toys?.

It should be the parents call. Children that young should have an adult close by anyhow.

reply to post by ..5..


Happy Meal toys are not illegal. The press release you cited is lying. The CSPI is not concerned with telling the truth, they are concerned with gaining notoriety. They do not have a legal leg to stand on, and are recklessly defaming McDonald's just to gain attention.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
John Steinbeck's novel Of Mice and Men is not literally a story about mice and men. Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is not literally about a Greek mythological figure shrugging. Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle isn't literally about geographical jungles.

Pointless to use those comparisons. You're talking about a specific situation.

Since you're being so literal minded, the title is: McDonald's versus the Busy Body Police. Your bias is clear, and that is fine. Your bias is most welcome, but the disingenuous nature by which you present your bias should be spoken to.

Wow, you're calling me disingenuous? How have I been disingenuous

If you want to address the problems the CSPI claim to have concerns about, then they go well beyond McDonald's, this is a fact.

And I never denied that. I simply thought that mentioning as much would be...obvious.

Marketing to children is more correctly one of the topics of this thread, although by no means the sole topic. That said, you've stated your argument, and that is you think marketing to children is irresponsible. Of course, you don't really make an argument, you simply just declare it irresponsible without explaining why you think that is.

Ok, how about this: Children are both naive and ignorant due to their inexperience with the world and lack the proper reasoning techniques to understand marketing at an adult level.

I'm currently unable to find any specific studies about children and advertising, but I'm looking.

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, you have also admitted that you do not have any children. This is an important piece of information to consider when analyzing your opinion.

No, it isn't. I'm lack of children has absolutely nothing to do with the arguments I've made.

Why shouldn't children be the target of marketing campaigns? Of course, and I have all ready indicated, that certain products should not be market specifically towards children, such as cigarettes, and alcohol.

They don't understand the issues regarding food.

However, what of toys? Who should Barbie be marketed too? Who should Barney the Dinosaur, Sesame Street and their products be market towards, if not children?

That's an entirely different issue. Food, though being an issue of personal preference, is mostly an issue of nutrition for a child. Children don't really understand that concept fully.
Toys are a matter of entertainment. Children can understand the concept of fun.

Of course you can't apply a blanket statement about marketing to all products, I specifically referred to food companies.

While some restaurants, particularly sole proprietor restaurants do not do this, McDonald's does indeed do so, and even comes remarkably close to your stringent demands.

I actually acknowledged that. However, they don't post it on the menu on the wall, you have to find the sheets yourself on the side. In some franchises you actually have to ask for them. Others keep very low stocks.

How ironic then that you have spent so much time taking McDonald's solely to task, especially since they are a company that actually does what you are proposing here.

How is that ironic?
People keep using that word incorrectly.
Also you're either knowingly ignoring what I've been saying or are ignorant about my words.

I didn't single out McDonald's, you did.
You made this thread about "McDonald's vs others" not "Fast food vs others"

I simply followed suite with regard to discussion.

While they don't supply nutritional information at the drive thru's, once you've walked in they do have a large poster of nutritional information easily seen and very close to the menu.

I've never seen one of these. Of course, I'm living in Europe, so things might be different here.
...yes, I've stepped foot in there simply to buy bottled water.

When going through the drive thru, all you have to do is ask McDonald's for a printed brochure of their nutritional information, and they will gladly give it to you.

But how would it hurt to print fat content saturated fat content, sodium content, carbohydrate content, sugars etc on that?

It is not they who are being unreasonable in this regard, it is you and people like you who keep insisting the efforts they make are not enough, and go even further demanding that small businesses must comply with the same rules and regulations that corporations do, with absolutely no regard to the tremendous expense such a demand makes.

Where did I say that it would be at individual expense? I mean, if the government is going to work on regulating the food industry they could actually test out the nutritional content for the small businesses.

Simply make a clause in the law that states 'businesses making less than (insert reasonable standard here) shall be given access to government testing resources for assistance'

In effect, such an unreasonable demand, caters specifically to the corporatist agenda, and harms the small business dramatically.

You're reducing my argument to ridiculous parts. I'm not saying that a $100,000 a year mom and pop diner should be paying to test all items on their menu.

I would argue that technically speaking you are correct, and such demands do not have any legal basis. However, Congress and the SCOTUS obviously disagree and have gone well beyond their authority and have done much of what you are suggesting.

That's actually not beyond their authority. Mandating nutritional information is well within the powers of Congress.

This is a false assertion. Advertising is free speech until it becomes guilty of fraud or other harmful practices. Advertising cannot knowingly harm other people. Beyond that, the right to speak freely is absolute.

And targeting children could be seen as harmful to their development. There should be studies funded to see if children have developmental issues due to specifically targeted marketing.

You are attempting to link the validity of a premise to the characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. That is an ad hominen. Beyond ad hominem, the link you've attempted to make is based upon a false premise.

I'm not attacking any corporation directly. I'm not saying that my arguments are valid simply because of the character of that business. Again, show me exactly where I attacked any individual or business directly.

Ad Hominem

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

Which is basically saying "they're wrong because of ______" character trait or belief.
I never said that anyone is wrong based upon a characteristic or belief. If I'm wrong, please show me where I was wrong.

This is what you wrote:

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.

Did I write:
"McDonald's Has thrived on only two things"?

I said that they've thrived on it. Just like they thrive on the price of beef in America and corn base agriculture in general.
Just like they thrive on the prevalence of soft drinks in society (biggest profit margins)
Just like they thrive on personal automotive transport.

Now, what characteristic or belief am I linking which argument's validity to with that statement? Because I can't see it.

First of all, labeling the CSPI busy body PC police is not an ad hominem neither by the definition you supplied, nor by the one I did.

An ad hominem can also be loosely defined as simply attacking the character of a group or individual without reference to a specific point. In calling them "busy body" you're linking all of their arguments to their status as such.

A busy body is a person who meddles or pries into the affairs of others, and this is precisely what this private organization is doing.

Well, the color themselves a watchdog group, it's sort of what a watchdog group does.
Not saying they're a good watchdog group, but it's sort of their job.

They have gone beyond challenging the practice of using toys to market a good, and into the realm of meddling and prying by insisting they will sue McDonald's if they do not acquiesce to the CSPI's demands. They have not been given any legal authority to do this, they have taken it upon themselves to appoint themselves as PC police.

You don't need legal authority to sue someone. Though I disagree with their use of over-the-top comparisons, they have every right to do what they are doing. Any group of concerned citizens can bring forth a complaint to a private business. If they feel the business doesn't do enough to address it they can take that business to court. If the court sees no merit in the case as a legal issue they throw it out.

They're just going through the process.

Conversely, in their press release, they used imagery such as "stranger in the playground", conjuring up pedophilia to link it to McDonald's, and flat out called them "predatory" and "creep" to further this image. That is undoubtedly and ad hominem,

I never said it wasn't. I specifically said something along the lines of 'two wrongs don't make a right' but in a way that was me attempting to be more clever.

as well is your assertion that McDonald's has engaged in fraudulent marketing in order to succeed.

All marketing is fraudulent to some degree. If you receive any training in marketing you are first taught that you aren't there to feed people lies but to get people to believe the lies themselves.

Take film advertisements. The first "myth" that's allowed to perpetuate is that people need to see films in general. Then you market things to make it seem like you'll be missing out on something if you don't see it in theaters right away.
You never see a film advertisement that says "Yeah, it's alright but you should catch it on DVD in three months because it's not worth it to go to the theater for this one"
Every single film is marketed as something that needs to be seen immediately, no matter how horrible it is. But that's the simple standard they operate under.
And this is coming from a person that absolutely adores films.

I didn't say they used fraud, I just said they did their jobs by allowing people to believe myths. I never even said they openly stated it.

That was you intent when using the word "myth". You certainly didn't use that word, (no less than three times), to imply that McDonald's was an iconic and heroic figure or god of legend.

They're a company. That's already a shady enough enterprise. Almost business is shady on some level, the more so the bigger that company gets.

They thrive on myths, even if they don't create them. That doesn't make them bad, it makes them very good at their jobs.

This does not in any way give you the right to meddle into the private affairs of other people, nor does it give you the right to dictate what choices a parent can make outside of demonstrable harm.

I never said I had any right to dictate, but I'm going to meddle to a small degree. I have a right to meddle to a certain degree. If I see a child being maltreated in any way I'll meddle. I'm not going to force people do to anything, but I might simply make suggestions.

It's a form of meddling that I have every right to.

The obesity claim, while valid, does not give you a right to target a single business and dictate how they market their products. Obesity is a problem, but the problem is one of personal accountability. People have to take responsibility for their own health.

Children do not have personal responsibility for their own health. They are largely unable to understand the concepts of nutrition.

As far as the medical system goes, that system is not a public system, and there has been no Constitutional mandate making it a part of government.

It may not be 'public' in the sense of 'governmental' but it is public. Obesity rates affect the price of private health care as well. If an insurer has a pool of 1000 people to insure, do you think the prices will be higher overall for the group with 500 obese individuals or 50?

Inalienable is not defined by its limitless nature:

You can have the right taken away by the state. If you are seen as an 'unfit parent' for whatever reason you can lose your children.

Inalienable rights are rights that were not given to people by any authority. The purpose of making the distinction of inalienable rights is to make clear that when it comes to parenting it is a right that has not been granted them, but is inalienable.

I honestly disagree that it should be an inalienable right. If there is any thing in life that needs to have a standard assigned to it, it's the life of a small child.

Yes, there are limitations to that right, and parents cannot willfully harm their children. Taking their children to McDonald's and allowing them to have a Happy Meal that comes with a toy is not in any way a willful act of harm.

Well, if they are aware of the nutritional information about the food it would constitute a willful act of harm.

So what? What business is this of yours?

It's merely a point against marketing towards children. Forcing children into an adversarial relationship with their parents regarding food decisions doesn't seem like the best place to put things regarding family dynamics.

I'm not expert, but I think adversarial relationships are frowned upon in psychological circles.

Children are far smarter than you give them credit for being.

"Smart" has nothing to do with it. They simply lack the knowledge of how ingesting half of the sodium your body requires from not a meal but a single sandwich is going to harm their body.

Indeed, much of adults lack of ethics are not genetic traits but learned behavior. Children are taught to lie, they don't come to it naturally.

There have been studies into this lately that put it into doubt. But I'm not going to bring it up as an actual point as I didn't have time to review them nor are they all complete, merely as an aside that you might be interested into looking to

You ask so what if children adore the playgrounds at McDonald's? Come back and take that attitude with me once you have children of your own. Tell me, once you have your own child, that their happiness doesn't matter to you.

Their happiness matters, but not at the expense of their health. I'll find a better place to take my children for recreation.

You have made the decision to enter this thread and defend the actions of the CSPI, which goes well beyond advising people and into dictating what parents can and cannot do.

I never categorically defended their actions
They were confrontational and sensational for no reason beyond garnering attention.

Their actions regarding the inclusion of a cheap piece of plastic are slightly different. I agree that using toys to sell food to children is irresponsible, particularly when that food is unhealthy for children.
I don't think there's a legal issue with it, but I'm not a legal expert and I'll leave it to the courts for now.

Further, while you are free to offer up advice, when you offer that advice unsolicited, you run the risk of discovering its exact value to those you are advising.

Here's some unsolicited advice: Please stop being confrontational. You've been nothing but confrontational from the get-go.

Here's my advice: Put fast food companies out of business by not going there and poisoning your children's bodies with their unhealthy crap.

If you think there's no value to it, then you need to look at the nutritional data I've provided again.

Earlier you implied that you were a "rationally thinking citizen" and now you are dismissing the value of experience.

I'm not dismissing the value of experience, I'm merely implying that experience isn't the only criteria for putting forth opinions on issues.

A rational thinker would not hire a pilot with no experience in piloting to fly a plane for them.

So a rational thinker would not allow someone with no experience in parenting to parent a child?
Woops, that means no more first time parents. Bye bye population growth.

Why would a rational thinker lend more credence than deserved on parenting advice to a person who has no direct experience with parenting?

Well, let's see...experience in the ancillary issue. I have experience in nutrition and marketing. I may have never parented a child, but I know that parents shouldn't be feeding their children fast food because I'm aware of the nutritional issues that arise.

Parenting is most assuredly a specialized skill. It takes tremendous effort and lot's and lot's of practice.

And yet a lot of people do it for the first time every day. It's something that has been going on since the origins of humanity. There have been as many methods as there have been civilizations. How can that be a specialist skill?

I'm not saying it's simple. I'm not saying it's easy. I'm not saying it doesn't require practice. I'm simply saying that, by definition, anyone can do it. They just have to put in the effort.

All people have the inalienable right to be parents, but the skill that comes with parenting is, like any skill, something that takes serious effort and practice.

And again, it's something that can be done in many ways by anyone who puts their mind to it.

You don't need a license to be a writer either, but does that mean that writing isn't a skill?

Well, nobody can get published the first time they put ink to paper...if you catch my drift.
Writing in general isn't a specialized skill.
Writing a novel is
Writing a screenplay is
Writing a history book is

But 'writing' isn't.

Raising a child isn't a specialized skill.

Again, we're talking about 'specialized' skills.

You don't need a license to be a cook, but does that mean that cooking isn't a skill?

You can succeed in cooking quite easily with little effort if you're not going for the most complicated thing in the world.
Certain types of cooking are specialized, the general concept isn't.

You don't need a license to garden, but does that mean that gardening isn't a skill?

Same answer.

Anyone can raise a child. If anyone can raise a child, anyone can give advice on it. That advice should be considered purely on its own merits. Simply having experience means nothing if we don't see the results of that experience. And honestly, I'm not asking anyone to provide that because it's a bit too personal to ask about on here.

You can say it all you want. What you can't do is prevent parents from ignoring you, or even from listening to you and then disagreeing with you, and making their own decision.

And guess what? They would still be wrong
The facts have nothing to do with them making their own decision.

Unless that marketing is to market products such as alcohol, or cigarettes or other products that are illegal for children to consume, then so what?

I'm quite sure that fast food, if given to children habitually, can have more negative impacts upon them than alcohol products consumed responsibly.

And cigarettes are the perfect example: Smoke one every week or so? You'll probably be fine even though you're doing little bits of long term damage. Smoke a few every day, you're cutting a lot of time off of your life.

Fast food: Eat every once in a while, you'll probably be ok even though you're causing long term damage. But once you start eating it a few times a week, you're cutting a lot of time off of your life.

Business that market cleaning products do not tend to market towards children, and for good reason. Children have no interest in cleaning products. McDonald's markets directly towards children because they cater to children.

Yes, they cater an unhealthy product to children.

I have all ready addressed this question. The fast food paradigm is a competitive model used to compete with restaurants that demonstrably take longer to prepare and serve their meals.

And I've already addressed this reply. It must always also include the household meal as something it is competing against.

Fast food and 'slow food' restaurants both attempt to become bigger chunks of your eating habit. It's simply their business. Fast food wouldn't make much money if it was only in competition with 'slow food'. It's in competition with the people it is marketing to as well.

Your convoluted logic is baffling.

I don't see how it's convoluted.

Cigarette companies did not begin marketing the fraudulent claim that their cigarettes were safe until governmental agencies and other organizations began showing links between smoking cigarettes and poor health.

I never contradicted this. I'm talking about a specific advertising era. In the time when they said their cigarettes are healthier they were necessarily implying that their competition was unhealthy.

It is not as if cigarette companies could not sell their product until they created this fraudulent marketing scheme. People have been smoking tobacco for centuries.

Yes, but they had different claims. I was speaking about a specific era. You can't examine the entire history of a product's marketing in a thread like this when you're making a small example.

With fast food they are implying that it is faster than other food. Not just faster than other restaurants. There would be little room for market growth, with companies simply fighting over the same piece of pie.

McDonald's is thriving because of sound business decisions. You can take that to the bank, and many people who invest in McDonald's do. For the record, I am not one of those investor's nor have I ever been employed for McDonald's.

And part of those sound business decisions are marketing. I'd say that marketing is probably their strongest point.

No it doesn't. Fast food has to be faster than restaurants that don't specialize in fast food, and long before the model of fast food restaurants came out, people were relying on methods of fast food at home, such as sandwiches, and pastas, and other easily and quickly prepared foods.

I'm not sure about your experience, but I never remember the family deciding whether we should go to a sit-down restaurant or a fast food place. If we were going to go to a sit-down it was a discussion over which one.
The only discussion with fast food came into play versus home cooked meals.

I'm interested in this. Can you actually provide some marketing data? I've been scouring the internet for it and have come up empty.

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

McDonald's not only uses marketing strategies to compete with their competitors, they have diversified and have most recently begun competing with coffee houses such as Starbucks. McDonald's also uses services such as free wifi as a marketing strategy. Further, McDonald's being an international company, markets specifically to cultures. Thus, in India, McDonald's features a Veggie Mac to directly compete with other restaurants in India where beef is not nearly as marketable as it is in, say the United States.

You didn't answer my question. I was referring to non-fast food restaurants.
Starbucks can be considered a form of 'fast food' (or a subset of it).

You rely too much on anecdotal evidence and not nearly enough on actual research and analysis when it comes to marketing.

Not for lack of trying. I've been looking for some market research relating to child psychology and advertisements as well as fast food marketing against sit-downs.

Here are some facts

Here is a brief wikipedia quote that you supplied.

about the competitive marketing strategies of fast food restaurants. There is a phrase within marketing circles known as "burger wars"

The Burger Wars is a term used in the modern United States press describing the intense competition between hamburger fast food chains McDonald's, Burger King and others. The term first came into use during the late 1970s due to an attempt by Burger King to generate increased market and mind-share by attacking the size of bigger rival McDonald's hamburgers. The competition between the companies has been exemplified by competing attack advertising campaigns; legal threats and suits; and other business clashes.

Interesting, but there isn't anything here about them competing with sit-downs...

This burger war continues to this day, and is not limited to fast food restaurants that specialize in hamburgers. Thus Taco Bell has a slogan; "think outside the bun", Subway's marketing strategy, with their recent emphasis on "Jared", is a direct compare and contrast strategy to McDonald's with an emphasis on health.

Again, this has nothing to do with competing with sit-downs. I want to see fast food chains fighting against sit-down restaurants for market share, a claim you made.

I put forth the idea that 'fast' is a general term, not an industry specific one.

You know what, I'm not going to bother replying to the rest because the last quote is what matters:

You know what, I am getting sick and tired of your disingenuous back and forth nonsense. Your equivocations are intolerable at this point. You believe what you want to believe, but you are far from honest in this debate.

Guess what, I'm leaving the thread because you've engaged in nothing but hostile smears and outright misrepresentations of my positions.

Particularly the repeated assertion that I support CSPI and that I'm only attacking McDonald's.

I have better things to do with my time than argue with someone who keeps claiming that I've said things I didn't.
I may have disagreed with you but I never misrepresented your position.

You've clearly been the dishonest one and your assertions that I'm dishonest are frankly appalling. I've been on here long enough to recognize the sort of behavior pattern and know that I could provide you with any level of evidence and you wouldn't even admit that the food at McDonald's is harmful. Hell, you didn't even cede the point when I spent the time going through the MAYO clinic's child nutrition standards comparing them against the lowest calorie and highest calorie meals.
You simply ignored the arguments I provided that were based solely on facts.

I have better things to do with my time than this.

And a last thing I'll edit in:
"Myth" can mean "popularly held cultural belief" instead of "lie" or "falsehood"

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

you nicely enlightened evil of free market to the Society -- my star to you

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

you nicely enlightened evil of free market to the Society -- my star to you

Given that we do not even live in a free market society, (interesting how you chose to capitalize the word society), the rants against McDonald's, (a corporation created by government charter), are not anywhere near enlightened.

It is remarkable that Marxist's sycophant's today have no understanding of history, and do not seem to make the connection that the Age of Enlightenment, and the much more specific Age of Reason, came to an abrupt end after Kant, Hume, and Marx ushered in their muddled philosophies and double speak.

What is most tragic is that the Marxist agenda is so remarkably inline with the corporatist agenda, both fierce opponents of a free market, yet the Marxist will point to corporatism and declare it all that is wrong with free markets.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Given that we do not even live in a free market society

you're correct in our previous talking, i explained why free market always becomes a monopoly.

It is remarkable that Marxist's sycophant's today have no understanding of history, and do not seem to make the connection that the Age of Enlightenment, and the much more specific Age of Reason, came to an abrupt end after Kant, Hume, and Marx ushered in their muddled philosophies and double speak.

i said CCCP had never been as pure marxism system -- any theory has being corrected by practice. now, we, all, desperately need to build new economical System for our World as soon as possible.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Do kids NEED McDonalds? Of course they don't. When you look at what you eat and drink, you don't need any of it, really. You would be just fine eating a chicken breast and some vegetables with a bit of fruit for desert, washed down with water -- for the rest of your life.

What kids don't need is an xbox, playstation and TV. What they do need are physical activities. My kids eat McDonalds on occasion. They also play sports year round, sometimes two at a time and there is not an ounce of fat on them.

Please don't get into the tired old canard about how poor people can only afford to eat fast food. That rubbish has been disproved 1000 times and a few hundred on this site. Also don't get into the tired business of how poor folks don't have access to sports facilities. There are parks, hoop courts, parking lots, streets where kids can get exercise. I grew up in a terrible city in New Jersey and most of the time we played street hockey and basketball in the road. If anything folks on welfare have more access to physical activity since they are not working and could better spend their time on their health rather than lounging on the couch feeling sorry for themselves.

The larger question of course and the one that the OP was obviously referring to is that who's business is it? When we as a society need to rely on the government to police our diets, we have lost so much individual accountability and responsibility that we are done as a people.

I'm going to have a beer now, (don't tell anyone)

reply to post by dolphinfan

hmmm... Amicus, i prefer to be agreed with you -- completely justful point

reply to post by SarK0Y

you're correct in our previous talking, i explained why free market always becomes a monopoly.

In your previous posts in previous threads all you managed to do was explain how confused you are about what free markets are, and what monopolies are. You praise the Soviet Union which was nothing but a monopoly and attack free markets that have never even existed.

i said CCCP had never been as pure marxism system -- any theory has being corrected by practice. now, we, all, desperately need to build new economical System for our World as soon as possible.

And my argument is that new system should be an actual free market. Let the market be free of government regulation, and then, and only then, will your argument of free markets leading to monopolies be exposed as fraud, or revealed to be true. The oligopoly's of today, that have relied heavily on government regulation to shut out the competitiveness of small business, and sole proprietorship's, are a perfect example of the very real problems with government regulation.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

In your previous posts in previous threads all you managed to do was explain how confused you are about what free markets are, and what monopolies are. You praise the Soviet Union which was nothing but a monopoly and attack free markets that have never even existed.

well, my friend, we can back to here & you'll try to point me out where i was wrong in details

reply to post by schuyler


Hey, if you want to eat burgers that more than likely contain cow #, then GOOD FOR YOU!

I recommend that people watch "Fast Food Nation" before their next trip to McDs/Burger King/Wendys/etc.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You don't even know what a marxist is, do you?

But it's such a convenient smear to use against those who disagree with you, no?

Do you work for the McDonald's corporation? If so, please do tell us who you are. I've never seen someone get so defensive over McDonald's. Ordinary people do not go to the lengths that you have gone to in order to defend such a corporation.

am i the only one who finds it humorous to read so-called 'conservatives" defending a major multi-national corporation as if it had the right to be equal to an actual citizen?


McDonald's is not your friend, rubes.

reply to post by The Sword

You don't even know what a marxist is, do you?

I know what Karl Marx had to say about them:

"I am not a Marxist!"

~Karl Marx~

But it's such a convenient smear to use against those who disagree with you, no?

If Marxism is such a worthy belief system then people like you wouldn't be wavering between accusations of not knowing what Marxism is, and acknowledging that the term "smears" those who've been labeled as such.

Do you work for the McDonald's corporation?

No I don't. Never have, and never will. I will always stand up against tyranny and thuggery, even when that tyranny and thuggery is aimed at McDonald's.

If so, please do tell us who you are.

And if not, then what?

I've never seen someone get so defensive over McDonald's.

Only a sycophant of tyranny, and no doubt a Marxist, would attempt to make my defense of freedom a defense of McDonald's. The CSPI are thugs and bullies and deserve to be called out on their loutish behavior. Contrary to what you claim, I am not defending McDonald's, I am defending freedom...something you have no interest in defending at all.

Ordinary people do not go to the lengths that you have gone to in order to defend such a corporation.

Ordinary people go to great lengths to defend freedom, and your pouty protestations only underscore how facile sycophants of tyranny can be when faced with the strong defense of freedom by ordinary people.