Not-So-Happy Meal

[miokomioko]

I love how my words were twisted into claiming I had the right to an on-site vending machine. The fact is, they removed a long-time convenience that was probably netting them profit just because they think doing so will make them look like they are encouraging dietary health. Removing a convenience from your customers that they have been used to for years to help your own image is about the same as creating a new inconvenience where there wasn't one before. You know it's stupid and will do nothing to ultimately help their image, just like removing the toy from a Happy Meal/BK Kid's Club is simply going to make kids want the meal less when they do get fast food, which is probably a bad thing considering there's more "healthy" options for the meals focused on kids... which won't have the same draw any longer. This will not create a spike in dietary health and you know it. It's incredibly naive to believe lack of a toy will deter customers from eating shitty food or feeding it to their kids. Just like the lack of a vending machine in my apartment complex isn't going to make me drink soft drinks any less often.

[Valisk]

I don't think their objective is to necessarily deter people from eating there. I believe it's more of a "stop giving kids the impression that they are being rewarded for eating unhealthy food." I'd like to point out that this ban isn't solely targeted at McDonald's. It is referred to as the "Happy Meal ban" but it actually prevents all retail-eating places from offering toys with meals that contain over the desired fat content.

Who typically gets food with toys? Children ages 3-10. It seems like they are trying to break a cycle and not teach children at an early age that eating at those places is the right thing to do. Ofcourse it's a parent responsibility to monitor and decide what their children eat, but not everyone is a fit parent nor do they want to dictate (on this scale) what parents feed their children.

If a kid is constantly given a toy every time they get a fatty meal, a habit is going to develop. They associate receiving toys with doing something good or right. So it's more of a "remove early psychological pattern" standpoint than it is a "control what people eat" one. Fast food kids produce fast food teens which produce fast food adults. They are trying to break the cycle early when kids have less "selection power" so those habits don't replicate themselves later in life.

[miokomioko]

Who typically gets food with toys? Children ages 3-10. It seems like they are trying to break a cycle and not teach children at an early age that eating at those places is the right thing to do. Ofcourse it's a parent responsibility to monitor and decide what their children eat, but not everyone is a fit parent nor do they want to dictate (on this scale) what parents feed their children.

Right, it's a ban that only effects a meal that no one buys and eats themselves. "Happy Meals" are always supplied to kids by adults. Just like I mentioned... It's something that affects all customers who purchased these meals as a treat for their children because some parents are completely fucking retarded.

[Yugl]

I love how my words were twisted into claiming I had the right to an on-site vending machine. The fact is, they removed a long-time convenience that was probably netting them profit just because they think doing so will make them look like they are encouraging dietary health. Removing a convenience from your customers that they have been used to for years to help your own image is about the same as creating a new inconvenience where there wasn't one before.

I like how you twisted your original argument about how owners of an apartment complex should cater to your needs over their ideals into one about how it hurts their business. The fact of the matter is that you're assuming everyone is against them. There's a reason that companies go green and promote healthy diets: It helps them bring in money. You don't know if people asked for the owner to remove the vending machine or inspired them to do so. You haven't moved out of your apartment complex over this issue, so unless someone is more upset than you over this issue (and lol@them), then they're not losing out. People looking for an apartment may or may not decide to live in that complex based on whether there is a vending machine, but considering the more significant features people look for in an apartment, I doubt that it will cost them severely. Alternatively, their image can help attract customers that share their values. In short, it's a minimal (If at all existent) cost with potential for much greater gains. In short, the evidence you give us is lousy. It amounts to suggesting that adults can be classified under a single interest. Clearly, there is divergent interest group because everyone that is an adult shares the same views and these views, apparently, accord with your own.

You know it's stupid and will do nothing to ultimately help their image, just like removing the toy from a Happy Meal/BK Kid's Club is simply going to make kids want the meal less when they do get fast food, which is probably a bad thing considering there's more "healthy" options for the meals focused on kids... which won't have the same draw any longer. This will not create a spike in dietary health and you know it. It's incredibly naive to believe lack of a toy will deter customers from eating shitty food or feeding it to their kids. Just like the lack of a vending machine in my apartment complex isn't going to make me drink soft drinks any less often.

If people are going to get fast food independent of whether it comes with a toy, this won't do anything. At the same time, it's near hypocritical for you to complain about it since the approach they took does not hinder people's ability to choose what they want to eat. In other words, you can't have it both ways. You can't say "Hey, Freewill to eat myself into the hospital bed!" and then turn around and demand that policies have the outcome that does exactly the opposite. There's one fallacy in your argument.

The other point that you conveniently glanced over is the cognitive consistency outcome this has. If the goal in America is to promote healthy eating habits, then why are we rewarding people for unhealthy choices? Make the toy come with the better options instead.

In addition, you're failing to recognize that the effect of bad parenting primarily damages children and the side effects of this ultimately damage society. You're blaming the parents for buying the children the happy meal in order to get the toy. That's fine, but who does that really hurt? The child. In other words, while the fault is on the parent (So you claim), the damage is done to the child. This is when government needs to step in. Perhaps you (and a few other individuals) cannot accept this because you are examples of why such a policy is necessary. It's similar to a criminal that objects to a policy objective that bans S scenario because it reduces crime by reducing the number of people with X trait. The criminal might object because he or she see grew up in S scenario and sees nothing wrong with it. At the same time, he possesses X trait that led to his criminal activities and does not see the connection (Or refuses to recognize them). In short, you might be the problem.

Perhaps it's not about preventing people from eating "shitty" foods, but about promoting healthier foods. Sure, the child can have his unhealthy happy meal, but the new option on the table is that in order to buy the toy, they also have to buy healthier foods. For children, this means greens. For adults, opportunity cost might direct them to buying healthier foods because the main appeal of the happy meal was the toy.

Finally, while you're good at complaining about the policy change, you don't give us any consequences that result from it. Up until now you've played a losing game because on one hand, your vending machine story and subsequent complaints indicate that you want freewill regarding food options. This policy does not hinder freewill to select food options. It's not even a slippery slope in the most construed sense. On the other hand, you want policies to be effective in restricting freewill because you complain about how this policy won't fix the problem (And here, once again, is your contradiction). While it's true that this policy does not meet that goal, it's also true that it does not create new problems regarding diets and related goals. Overall, you're whining because you're not reading the policy's outcomes, you're just complaining about a tangent and irrelevant issue.

[Osiris]

Does this mean soon they won't give monopoly pieces with McDonalds for fear that people will associate unhealthy fast food with winning money?

[BerenTebogo]

2:19-2:40 is relevant.

[Hyan]

62 degrees? Pussies.

[miokomioko]

celcius

(woosh?)

[Valisk]

Does this mean soon they won't give monopoly pieces with McDonalds for fear that people will associate unhealthy fast food with winning money?

Seeing as you have to be 18 or older to claim prizes, I highly doubt it. Although I'm sure teens play the game and would just have an of-age friend or relative claim the prize, those teens are of age to make conscious decisions and be aware of the dangers of fast food (in excess).