If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Nine-year-old girl asks McDonald's CEO why he forces kids to eat at McDonald's. Oh, and her mother is a "nutritional activist"   (usatoday.com) divider line 288
    More: Stupid, Mcdonald, shareholders' meeting, CEO Don Thompson, mothers  
•       •       •

9084 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 May 2013 at 5:34 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



288 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-24 04:18:37 PM

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: udhq: a), either companies need to stop targeting children with advertising, or else schools need to teach kids how to intelligently "consume" those 15,000 commercial messages per day they are exposed to.

 Why should schools be doing this?  Do you want 10 million teatards screaming in your face about "Socialism"?

Targetting children with advertising is perfectly legitimate.  Attempting to ban it runs into first amendment issues.  Deceptive Advertising is something completely different, but God forbid you should try to regulate something like that, because, you know, "big government" and "socialism". and "regulation is evil" and all that stupid crap.


Why should schools be doing this?  Because this country is full of educated adults who think as long as multinational corporation X stamps "low fat" or "diet" on that bag of deep fried garbage, that means they can eat unlimited amounts of it.  And to see the consequences of that, all you need to do is to go outside and look around.
 
2013-05-24 04:22:00 PM

udhq: UnspokenVoice: Nothing. I'm sure that Larry Bird ate at McDonald's. I bet you every single professional basketball player has eaten there.

And yet, if I lied with as much impunity about McDonalds' products as they did, I would be jailed.  In fact, I would be hauled into court if I even told inconvenient truths about their food too loudly.

*farkied in derpy green as "corporatist bootlicker"*

And to you I say good day sir.


You still haven't shown me where they have a commercial that lies. Not one... You are the liar. Now, what state do you live in and what is your real name so I can report you to their Department of Child Services? You shouldn't even be allowed around children.

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: udhq: a), either companies need to stop targeting children with advertising, or else schools need to teach kids how to intelligently "consume" those 15,000 commercial messages per day they are exposed to.

 Why should schools be doing this?  Do you want 10 million teatards screaming in your face about "Socialism"?

Targetting children with advertising is perfectly legitimate.  Attempting to ban it runs into first amendment issues.  Deceptive Advertising is something completely different, but God forbid you should try to regulate something like that, because, you know, "big government" and "socialism". and "regulation is evil" and all that stupid crap.


He is incompetent as a parent and unwilling to teach his children anything. It is society's responsibility to raise his crotch fruit.
 
2013-05-24 04:23:57 PM

mooseyfate: YOU are making a joke about Personal Responsibility? YOU?!


Hey, I'm the only one here arguing that EVERYBODY should be held responsible for their choices.

You're the one saying people should get a free pass on personal responsibility if they work for a multinational corporation.
 
2013-05-24 04:24:42 PM

udhq: UnspokenVoice: Nothing. I'm sure that Larry Bird ate at McDonald's. I bet you every single professional basketball player has eaten there.

And yet, if I lied with as much impunity about McDonalds' products as they did, I would be jailed.  In fact, I would be hauled into court if I even told inconvenient truths about their food too loudly.

*farkied in derpy green as "corporatist bootlicker"*

And to you I say good day sir.


Oh, sorry, I forgot to mention - linking to an article about people LYING about McDonald's isn't helping your case. You really are a dumb ass who shouldn't have had children. You're a horrific person and will surely ruin them. Give them up for adoption.
 
2013-05-24 04:28:35 PM

UnspokenVoice: You still haven't shown me where they have a commercial that lies. Not one... You are the liar. Now, what state do you live in and what is your real name so I can report you to their Department of Child Services? You shouldn't even be allowed around children.


I've shown you two, and you've shown me that you don't speak the language of advertising, that you need a talking head saying explicitly what advertising executives know enough to say implicitly through imagery and symbolism.

BTW, since nuance is clearly not your strong suit, "Good day sir" means I've come to the conclusion that you have nothing to add, and that we're done here.
 
2013-05-24 04:28:38 PM

udhq: Jument: The free market says that the public wants disgustingly unhealthy fast food. Shouldn't they be allowed to have it?

No, the free market doesn't say that the public wants disgustingly unhealthy fast food.

When kids do something (like eat at McDonalds) because they've been conditioned with 15,000 incomplete, misleading sales pitches per day since birth, that isn't a "free market".

In order to have a "free market", consumers must have access to all the information necessary to make their decision.  That means:

a), either companies need to stop targeting children with advertising, or else schools need to teach kids how to intelligently "consume" those 15,000 commercial messages per day they are exposed to.

b), all these ads need to be required to TELL THE TRUTH, and by that I mean the WHOLE truth; there needs to be a message attached to each ad stating that this food is not safe to consume more than once a month or so, or else a message stating that when used as directed, this food will cause obesity, diabetes, heart disease and early death.


Oh please. People are ultimately responsible for themselves and as for targeting children, so what? Step up and parent your damn children. Advertisers have always and will always bombard your children trying to get them to pressure you to buy stupid shiat that you don't need. You don't have to buy it for them if you don't want to.
 
2013-05-24 04:28:58 PM

udhq: mooseyfate: YOU are making a joke about Personal Responsibility? YOU?!

Hey, I'm the only one here arguing that EVERYBODY should be held responsible for their choices.

You're the one saying people should get a free pass on personal responsibility if they work for a multinational corporation.


If you buy something the onus is on YOU to be responsible with its use. Just like if you have children the onus is on YOU to control what they eat. Face it, you're still wrong and still stupid. This conversation is only going to make you look dumber and dumber. Or, you can ignore me as you claimed you would but we both know you're still reading this. Dumb ass.
 
2013-05-24 04:29:17 PM

udhq: Hexsun: First, you clearly don't understand what a free market system is, so your points are inherently invalid, but even if they weren't:

a) What you fail to accept is that it is not McDonald's job to police what you eat. It's their job to provide a product people want and to sell that product the best they can within the bounds of the law. Any social responsibility a company takes beyond that is optional and really just another angle at increasing their bottom line. Typically, large companies become more socially responsible because they have to, they're trying to capitalize on the current market, or maybe lure in more investors. There are plenty of reasons, but none of them are because they really care about you. McDonalds offering healthier options was designed to pull in more customers, particularly the goldenmillennial market. McDonalds isnot responsible for raising your children. Neither is any other business, not even public schools. If you can't handle that, then don't have children.

Look, when you choose to walk into a McDonalds and buy a burger, there are 2 parties choosing to enter into a transaction that is (at least presumably) mutually beneficial.  Why on Earth shouldn't those 2 parties share equally in the consequences of that transaction?  Why should "personal responsibility" only apply to one of the parties?

Why should being under the umbrella of an almost omnipotently powerful billion-dollar corporation absolve one from all personal responsibility for one's actions and choices?

No one is FORCING McDonalds to make money by selling you a burger.  So why the need to protect them from their responsibility for choosing to participate in that transaction???

It seems that if people here were REALLY in favor of libertarian-style freedom, they wouldn't feel the need shield McDonalds from the consequences of their choices.


Because when you walked into McDonalds, you made the choice. You chose to eat the horrible, unhealthy food therefore you are "personally responsible" for the consequences. McDonalds "personal responsibility" falls to their bottom line. If they didn't make food people wanted, they would be out of business. Their responsibility ends with producing food that complies with the law and telling me what's inside it. It really is that simple. Afte that, the ball is in my court.

How am I under McDonalds power?  I haven't eaten there in months, but I almost certainly will again someday. No one is FORCING me to buy the burger, so why should McDonalds be responsible?  You think that I'm trying to protect McDonalds, but I'm not. I don't care at all about McDonalds. They could go out of business tomorrow and it wouldn't affect my life at all (besides the general hit to economy).

People aren't trying to shield McDonalds, they're trying to keep people from taking away their freedoms. If I want to open a restaurant that sells nothing but lard, that should be my choice. What you want is more forced, unnecessary control on business. Maybe we should chemically restrict breeding instead. Then, only if some one has proven that they are financially, emotionally, and psychologically stable, would they be allowed to have children. Same net effect of improving the quality of children, just a different route, place the reponsibilty where it belongs. It would do far more global benefit then anything we could ever do to McDonalds or any other restaurant.
 
2013-05-24 04:31:00 PM

udhq: UnspokenVoice: You still haven't shown me where they have a commercial that lies. Not one... You are the liar. Now, what state do you live in and what is your real name so I can report you to their Department of Child Services? You shouldn't even be allowed around children.

I've shown you two, and you've shown me that you don't speak the language of advertising, that you need a talking head saying explicitly what advertising executives know enough to say implicitly through imagery and symbolism.

BTW, since nuance is clearly not your strong suit, "Good day sir" means I've come to the conclusion that you have nothing to add, and that we're done here.


Of course you have nothing to add, you had nothing to build on. The important part isn't that you respond, the important part is that you read what I write. You've lied, you've continued even after being shown you were wrong, and the worst part is you have children. Put them up for adoption before you ruin them too with illogical thinking and a lack of responsibility.
 
2013-05-24 04:32:47 PM

Hexsun: Maybe we should chemically restrict breeding instead. Then, only if some one has proven that they are financially, emotionally, and psychologically stable, would they be allowed to have children.


No, now you're talking about taking away his rights. He can't have that.
 
2013-05-24 04:38:05 PM

UnspokenVoice: Hexsun: Maybe we should chemically restrict breeding instead. Then, only if some one has proven that they are financially, emotionally, and psychologically stable, would they be allowed to have children.

No, now you're talking about taking away his rights. He can't have that.


Exactly. I figure he's probably a troll anyways, but it's OK because I needed to rant. I have an upper limit for stupidity and I've hit it pretty hard this week.
 
2013-05-24 04:40:03 PM

Jument: Oh please. People are ultimately responsible for themselves and as for targeting children, so what? Step up and parent your damn children. Advertisers have always and will always bombard your children trying to get them to pressure you to buy stupid shiat that you don't need. You don't have to buy it for them if you don't want to.


I agree!  People are ultimately responsible for themselves.  So why is it so offensive to say that McDonalds should also be held responsible for it's decision to participate in these transactions?

And advertising to children isn't necessarily just about getting them to beg their parents for what they see in the ad, it's about conditioning them from a young age, to associate product X with emotion X, in order to create life-long cognitive consumer habits.  Even a kid who's never eaten at McDonalds knows that as a brand, it's all about fun, social engagement, and being physically active, even if the actual consequences of using their products are the exact opposite of this.
 
2013-05-24 04:40:16 PM

Hexsun: UnspokenVoice: Hexsun: Maybe we should chemically restrict breeding instead. Then, only if some one has proven that they are financially, emotionally, and psychologically stable, would they be allowed to have children.

No, now you're talking about taking away his rights. He can't have that.

Exactly. I figure he's probably a troll anyways, but it's OK because I needed to rant. I have an upper limit for stupidity and I've hit it pretty hard this week.


I understand. I feel a lot better. Maybe there is something to that whole bullying the mentally handicapped thing after all? I'm going to go push a nun over and, when I get to court, I'm going to claim it was therapeutic.
 
2013-05-24 04:47:28 PM

Hexsun: Because when you walked into McDonalds, you made the choice. You chose to eat the horrible, unhealthy food therefore you are "personally responsible" for the consequences. McDonalds "personal responsibility" falls to their bottom line. If they didn't make food people wanted, they would be out of business. Their responsibility ends with producing food that complies with the law and telling me what's inside it. It really is that simple. Afte that, the ball is in my court.


You would have a point if we were talking about eating habits in general, but we're not.  We're talking about a very specific transaction that involves 2 parties, each making the decision to participate of their own free will.

I'm not arguing in favor of stripping anyone of the freedom to make that choice or the consequence of that choice.  You are, for some reason.  You seem like a pretty reasonable and intelligent guy, especially in contrast to your little friend here, but it sounds like you're maybe not the libertarian you think you are.
 
2013-05-24 04:56:47 PM

hardinparamedic: Am I the only one that is stupid and nieve

... ?

Does  the spelling of the second prove the first?
:)
 
2013-05-24 04:57:31 PM
Reading this thread makes me wanna get a $1 McDouble after work. Too bad I ate a late lunch today.
 
2013-05-24 04:58:42 PM

Albert911emt: Yeah, so much THIS. If you don't like it, fine, don't eat there. But some people do like eating there, and who the hell are you to try and interfere in what others choose to eat?


I'm Michael Bloomberg, biatch!
 
2013-05-24 05:05:31 PM
I just don't GET this. I don't like seafood, I don't go to Red Lobster. If I were a "nutritional activist" (which I read as "yet another someone trying to force their lifestyle choices on everyone else") I wouldn't eat at McDonald's. I wouldn't fill my kid's mouth with my opinions and have them speak for me, though, it's disingenuous and not fair to the kid (I'm looking at the hyperreligious who do this, too). I think of "nutritional activism" the same way I think of "animal rights"--with a sigh of resignation and a fair bit of annoyance. Nutritional advisor=good (mostly because they'll help you if you ask but they don't run up to you in public and start demanding that you do as they do), just as "animal welfare" is better than "animal rights." When my kids were small, we got McDonald's once a month. That's it. They didn't argue about it because they knew that was it. If you're so lazy/greedy you have to eat there four times a week, you need a smack in the head.
 
2013-05-24 05:46:12 PM

udhq: Hexsun: Because when you walked into McDonalds, you made the choice. You chose to eat the horrible, unhealthy food therefore you are "personally responsible" for the consequences. McDonalds "personal responsibility" falls to their bottom line. If they didn't make food people wanted, they would be out of business. Their responsibility ends with producing food that complies with the law and telling me what's inside it. It really is that simple. Afte that, the ball is in my court.

You would have a point if we were talking about eating habits in general, but we're not.  We're talking about a very specific transaction that involves 2 parties, each making the decision to participate of their own free will.

I'm not arguing in favor of stripping anyone of the freedom to make that choice or the consequence of that choice.  You are, for some reason.  You seem like a pretty reasonable and intelligent guy, especially in contrast to your little friend here, but it sounds like you're maybe not the libertarian you think you are.


The thing is, what you are asking is additional burden (which I consider to be undue) be place on companies. I'll try to be generic here since what you want would really apply to any company. You want them to fully expose every possible negative side effect that comes from every possible usage scenario in a 30 second window while still competing with other products that are not necessarily any better. I don't feel that is the correct place to put the onus.

No one will argue that fast food (or hundreds of other products) is particularly good for you. We may argue the level of harm or the semantics of "good" but fast food is not an ideal food choice. There are certain facts essentially everyone knows and there are certain societal expectations that we (used to) follow. One such fact is that fast food is not super healthy. You can make healthier choices, but it's still not super healthy. One expectation is that parents raise/police/monitor and care for their children. Children want to do things they shouldn't all the time. Almost as much as they don't want to do thing they should. We don't let them make these decisions on their own because they simple aren't capable yet. I may be irritated by a company that targets children with something I don't want them to have much of, but I'm still the one that has to tell them no. Then I let that company know by not buying their product. That is the absolute most important thing to most people. We see it all the time. All the "healthier" choices in fast food now are a result a general change in social attitude. People didn't need ads telling them

Regulation of the kind you seem to want, and it would have to be regulated, would cause product prices to rise significantly, across the board, even in "good" products. Companies would have to compile that information. Right now, they compile some but much of the negative info is from outside sources, which no company in their right mind would accept. I'm not saying those sources are wrong, but if a company is obligated to expose every possible negative side effect that comes from every possible usage scenario then they would absolutely want to verify the results themselves. Look at how much scrutiny we put drugs through? Imagine that for every product. We do it for drugs (among many reasons) because they are sufficiently complex to warrant that level of attention. The average person can't look at golimumab and know what it does, what it's made of and what might happen if you took 100 of them. The same cannot be said for hamburger, no matter who makes it. There is a reasonable expectation of knowledge. I could go on about the various things that would have to change to accommodation the level of active transparency you're asking, but this is just a silly internet post. Suffice it to say, we'd be paying more for everything and it wouldn't really change anything. People already know it's bad for them, they don't care.

I believe that passive transparency is sufficient. We make the specific information freely and readily available to anyone that wants it and at a high level, via education/parenting/mentoring/whatever, we provide the appropriate guidance. We've never had this level of access to information and we make good, though not great, use of it. Do you honestly think that any kind of warning or disclaimer is going to have any effect? Since everyone would have to use them, nothing would really change. It never has in the past and it likely never will because the most important thing to remember is that, as a collective group, we just don't care. Maybe someday we will, but I predict that if/when that day comes it will be on the back of parents stepping up and raising their kids better.

Also, I don't think of myself as libertarian. I think of myself as rational, logical, and reasonable. All things in moderation, including obligations we place on corporations.
 
2013-05-24 05:58:40 PM
Activists? 100 years ago that woman would have been food on someones plate.

activists are right up there with philosophers on the absolutley useless self important nonsense scale.
 
2013-05-24 06:02:10 PM
Aside from the mcnuggets, there is absolutely NOTHING cheap at McDonalds. It's expensive as all hell these days.

If you want to eat unhealthy, at least eat somewhere cheap.
 
2013-05-24 06:05:12 PM

Nabb1: I don't like McDonald's for my kids, either. That's why it's only a special treat and not a regular thing for them. I'm just not sanctimonious about it, nor do I blame McDonald's for forcing the occasional indulgence upon me.


Personally I think we're really missing the point in that McDonald's marketing has historically been geared pretty heavily towards children, though to be fair all fast food places have followed suit. I guess these days media saturation has rendered McDonald's marketing towards kids to be hardly noticeable, but it is pretty creepy the way parents will condition their kids to like McD's and then biatch that little Tommy can roll down the street as he's so rotund.
 
2013-05-24 06:32:03 PM
McDonald's DOES purposely target children. They want to get the branding in early so they can snag lifelong customers.

They don't actually hold a gun to your head and force you to order.
 
2013-05-24 06:42:16 PM

Marcintosh: PapaChester: I read about this. I hate these kinds of people. Don't like the food? Then don't eat there! Your kids want to go but you don't want them to? Say no, idiot!

This is the mother farking U.S.A.. No one is forcing you stupid adults to eat at McDonalds

The fact that they have cheap and healthy options makes these people look even more foolish. Good for the CEO, standing up for his company.


"McDonalds is the place to rock."
W. Willis

Please bear in mind the advertising budget for McDonalds.  People forget that advertising isn't an informative product, it's a persuasive product and so while you might not be swayed by the advertising, millions of others are drawn in like moths to the flame.


I have no pity for stupid.

Stupid DESERVES every bad thing that comes their way.
 
2013-05-24 06:48:53 PM
Hexsun:.....

I'll try to argue my case as concisely possible, but you say what I'm expecting of corporations is unreasonable.  I couldn't disagree more.  I think what you're expecting of individuals, especially those that are targeted by corporations like McDonald's is unreasonable.

McDonalds became the juggernaut it is today because it appealed to the middle class.  About 20 years ago, against McDonads' best efforts, the middle class started to catch on that this "food" was killing them.  Since then, McDonalds has largely lost the middle class, and has only expanded by moving "downmarket", i.e. targeting poorer and less educated people with it's advertising and menu (this is what the dollar menu was all about.)

Today, McDonalds' target demographic is a young, urban, single mother with a sub-high school education.  And you're asking that person to be able to fight back against a machine that is able to access her and her children 15,000 times a day through various media with misinformation.  Even to a really intelligent person who knows better, that wears a person down, especially when you're living the stressful lifestyle of a single working parent.  That's the goal of McDonalds' advertising; not to convince you that their food is good for you, but to wear down your ability to say "no" with it's ubiquity.  When that stopped working on the middle class, they went after the poor, and when it stopped working as well on the poor, they went after children.

You mention drugs, but you fail to mention that the US is one of the ONLY places on the planet that allows public advertising of prescription drugs.  I don't think ANYONE outside of the pharmaceutical industry would argue that that policy has been good for the American public.  All it has caused is people without a medical education self-diagnosing and then shopping for doctors to give them the pills they saw on TV.  You have people becoming convinced they have pathological restless leg or dry eye, or people with depression asking for Abilify (about $4/pill) when EVERY study ever conducted has shown Citalopram or Wellbutrin to be more effective at a tiny fraction of that cost.

So, what am I asking for?  Common sense restrictions on advertising.  Just like have on cigarettes, just like we have on beer.  Every notice about 10 years ago they added a simple "drink responsibly" to the end of every beer commercial?  That was not an undue burden on the beverage industry, nor has it ruined their sales.  But it has been effective, and a similar message would be effective with the food industry.  You see, it's not like consumers hear that and make a conscious decision to not drink beer, but it DOES help stem the tide against over-consumption when those 15,000 sales pitches a day are balanced out with 20 or so suggestions to consume responsibly.  All of sudden, you're not "worn out" so quickly by saturation advertising.  It's subtle, but it does make a small, but statistically significant difference.

Anyway, TLDR, I'm sure, but I do appreciate your POV.  It is reasonable and well stated, but at the end of the day, the corporations of "Big Food" are doing just fine, thank you very much.  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the target's of their ad campaigns, who are currently suffering through an epidemic of obesity and related diseases.  That being the case, I'm ok with erring on the side of public health vs. corporate accommodation, until those corporations are able to find a way for the 2 to coexist.
 
2013-05-24 09:14:43 PM

PapaChester: Marcintosh: PapaChester: I read about this. I hate these kinds of people. Don't like the food? Then don't eat there! Your kids want to go but you don't want them to? Say no, idiot!

This is the mother farking U.S.A.. No one is forcing you stupid adults to eat at McDonalds

The fact that they have cheap and healthy options makes these people look even more foolish. Good for the CEO, standing up for his company.


"McDonalds is the place to rock."
W. Willis

Please bear in mind the advertising budget for McDonalds.  People forget that advertising isn't an informative product, it's a persuasive product and so while you might not be swayed by the advertising, millions of others are drawn in like moths to the flame.

I have no pity for stupid.

Stupid DESERVES every bad thing that comes their way.


You don't have to be stupid to be effected by commercials.  It's why we have them- to persuade you to buy stuff so they will keep purchasing the television programming you watch.  Actually television is more like a commercial interrupted by a story.

And you might like to have a drink now and again, to kill the bug up your ass.
adios
 
2013-05-24 10:04:42 PM
So mom's an uppity biatch, then?

I don't like fast food, either.  You know how I've come to grips with it in my life?  I DON'T FARKING EAT THERE.

Seems easier than being a raging attention whoring asshole.
 
2013-05-25 01:09:07 AM

GreenAdder: IInstead, for the next five hours, he tied me to a chair and played Ludwig Von Beethoven while shoving hamburgers into my gob. It was like "A Clockwork Orange," but with sesame seeds.


Can I be next?
 
2013-05-25 01:43:57 AM

TuteTibiImperes: There are some people who won't be happy until fast food restaurants have to pay for ads showing obese people talking about all of the medical problems that their overindulgence led to, similar to what tobacco companies have to do now.


I might have more sympathy for the plight of the poor, regulated tobacco companies if they hadn't spent decades manipulating their product and lying about it under oath.
 
2013-05-25 02:32:37 AM

udhq: 15,000 times a day


You stuck around in here telling lies THAT long? I'm impressed but I guess it is easy for stupid people to stay focused on one simple task. You should work in a factory and stop abusing your children, put them up for adoption. Refusing to respond to me because I've refuted every single argument you've tendered is childish and an admission of error. If you're able to admit your error then why do you keep bleating? Nobody else is going to agree with you because you're wrong.

15000 times a day... LOL That's rich! Seriously, put your children up for adoption. It's the only way to keep them safe. Does your real name start with the letter B? I want to watch your local paper so that I can see the fallout from this. It is bound to be entertaining as all hell.

Either way, I'm pretty sure you're just trolling. Nobody can be that dumb. Seriously, it is pretty much impossible to be that dumb and not have already died from stabbing oneself with a fork while trying to eat. I'm just not sure what you're expecting to get from trolling. If it was attention then, well, I guess you got it. There are easier ways to get attention though and you could have used that same effort to get attention that wasn't negative.

"Adolescent exposure to television food advertising also increased by 11%, averaging 16.2 food ads per day, and representing the highest level of exposure seen in the past nine years."

Source: http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/reports/RuddR eport_TVFoodAdvertising_6.11.pdf

Yeah, you're a liar. You accuse them of lying, have yet to show them actually lying, but have continued to lie yourself. How is it you can complain about lies when the only one telling lies is you? Yeah, I'd ignore me too. I'd refuse to respond, pout, and whine. Pathetic... You could man up and admit you're wrong but frail egos usually prevent that.

I suppose I'm being pretty rough on you. I think it was your repeated lies that were the final decision maker on my part. The anonymity of the internet is the one place where you can actually be honest no matter what. You failed at even that. Pathetic... Just pathetic.
 
2013-05-25 04:27:00 AM
Just pointing out that we still have yet to see even one example of a McDonalds ad lying about a product, or an ad promoting "unlimited and immoderate use" of their product.

Just some average commercials and a whole bunch of pseudo-psychology and conjecture.

Heh
 
2013-05-25 05:30:54 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Just pointing out that we still have yet to see even one example of a McDonalds ad lying about a product, or an ad promoting "unlimited and immoderate use" of their product.

Just some average commercials and a whole bunch of pseudo-psychology and conjecture.

Heh


Yep.  Udhq is bullshiat.
 
2013-05-25 07:00:45 AM
 
2013-05-25 07:04:00 AM

Mr.Tangent: NSFW language


and boobies.
 
2013-05-25 07:29:25 AM

udhq: I'll try to argue my case as concisely possible, but you say what I'm expecting of corporations is unreasonable. I couldn't disagree more. I think what you're expecting of individuals, especially those that are targeted by corporations like McDonald's is unreasonable.


Asking people to engage their brains for a few seconds and exercise the tiniest modicum of self-control? Not only is that reasonable and realistic -yes, even in the face of ubiquitous advertising- it would do our society so much good in so myriad ways completely unrelated to this. The marketers would indeed hate it, as it would render our people less susceptible to manipulation through propaganda, but I think that's something everyone outside that industry -even in government, if pitched as a countermeasure to psy-ops- can agree is a good thing.

And we did this, once. Then someone started spreading the meme that it was unreasonable of a society to expect things of its citizens. We see today where that has gotten us. This grand cultural error must be corrected, and stifling speech will do nothing for that.
 
2013-05-25 07:36:48 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: McDonald's DOES purposely target children. They want to get the branding in early so they can snag lifelong customers.

They don't actually hold a gun to your head and force you to order.


McDonald's doesn't need to target children to get their branding in
 
2013-05-25 07:54:38 AM
He points to BMI as being a measurement of obesity that can be flawed, and that has skewed the numbers. Other experts too have pointed out that muscular people-- like Pitt and Schwarzenegger, for example -- have BMIs that would put them in the obese category, based on what they weigh in relation to their height. Yet insurance companies mostly use BMI in their calculations of whether the insured person is overweight.
Calorie-counting is another thing that Ernsberger points to as being mostly futile. "You can gain one pound per year by eating 10 extra calories a day - which could be 3 M & Ms, or one sip of soda. Or you could burn 10 calories fewer per day by taking 200 fewer steps."
No one can count calories to within significant degrees of accuracy, he says, so it's rather a pointless practice.
His main point, says Ernsberger, is this: "I'm not saying you can be healthy at any size. I am saying you can improve your health at any size. The relationship between weight and health is not absolute."


http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2012/12/is_there_really _a n_obesity_epi.html
 
2013-05-25 08:01:16 AM
Despite the assertions that obesity is causing our society great harm, however, many scientists and activist groups have disputed the level of danger that it actually poses. Indeed, a recent analysis presented in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) by Katherine Flegal of the CDC and her colleagues calls the severity of the dangers of excess body fat into question, indicating that the number of overweight and obesity-related deaths is actually about 26,000-about one fifteenth the earlier estimate of 400,000 (Flegal et al. 2005).

....

During this campaign, however, there were some notable dissenters. Paul Ernsberger, a professor of nutrition at Case Western Reserve University, has been doing research since the 1980s that led him to assert that obesity is not the cause of ill health but rather the effect of sedentary living and poor nutrition, which are the actual causes. Another prominent researcher, Steven Blair, director of the Cooper Institute of Aerobics Research in Dallas, Texas, has been an author on several studies indicating that the risks associated with obesity can be significantly reduced if one engages in regular physical activity, even if weight loss is not present. According to Blair, weight loss should not be ignored but a greater focus should be placed on physical activity and good nutrition. Both Ernsberger and Blair indicated to me that they thought the new research by Flegal and her colleagues provides a more accurate picture of the mortality risk associated with obesity.
......
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/obesity_epidemic_or_myth/
 
Displayed 38 of 288 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report