Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 12:50 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Grandmas are writing snippy Letters to the Editor about their rights to buy Happy Meals with toys for their grandkids...and the word Nazi appears in few of these letters...as it should.


Oh, please. What exactly is Nazi-ish about this? I mean, talk about an exaggeration.

We limit the ways that alcohol and ciggies can be advertised, because they are proven to be very bad for your health - especially when taken to extremes. Both are addictive substances as well. What's the difference between that and high-sugar, high-fat meals - which are very bad for your health and addictive?

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 12:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
We limit the ways that alcohol and ciggies can be advertised
You have failed to pay attention...what is being made illegal is a product for sale, this is not about advertising. We dont forbid the sale of alcohol (we did however try it..it was a disaster), we dont forbid the sale of tobacco, hell, we dont even forbid the sale of most guns. How the hell does the government justify the forbidding of the sale of happy meals ? And dont give me some BS about how the sale is not forbidden because mcd's can reformulate the happy meal to meet what ever nutrition point is currently in the law, because it will no longer be the happy meal at that point.

Increasingly the government is deciding that it has the power to take away our freedom of choice, to which the proper response is the tell the government that they can either choose to get the **** out of our business, or else be eliminated and replaces with a government that is willing to stay in its lane.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 01:01 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
We limit the ways that alcohol and ciggies can be advertised
You have failed to pay attention...what is being made illegal is a product for sale, this is not about advertising.


Bullshit. McD's can still sell all the Happy Meals they want. They just can't use a child's toy to advertise the meals to kids, the way they currently do right now.

Quote:
We dont forbid the sale of alcohol (we did however try it..it was a disaster), we dont forbid the sale of tobacco, hell, we dont even forbid the sale of most guns. How the hell does the government justify the forbidding of the sale of happy meals ?


The government isn't forbidding the sale of happy meals. At all. You should read articles on this issue more closely.

Quote:
And dont give me some BS about how the sale is not forbidden because mcd's can reformulate the happy meal to meet what ever nutrition point is currently in the law, because it will no longer be the happy meal.


They don't have to reformulate anything. Heck, they could drop the price of the happy meal and just sell the toys separately. You really don't seem to know what you are talking about here.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 01:04 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
They don't have to reformulate anything. Heck, they could drop the price of the happy meal and just sell the toys separately. You really don't seem to know what you are talking about here.

Even if the law allowed for parents to upcharge and get the toy in the happy meal, which it does not because the toy is not allowed to be in the same package as the happy meal, this is still none of the governments concern.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 01:16 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:


“McDonald’s is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children,” said Stephen Gardner, litigation director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a non-profit health research and advocacy group based out of Washington, DC. In June, CSPI threatened to sue McDonald’s if they didn’t stop using toys to woo children. “McDonald’s use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children’s developmental immaturity – all this to induce children to prefer foods that may harm their health. It’s a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/1104/Happy-Meal-ban-No-toys-for-you

as if kids decide for themselves what they are going to eat, with no parental involvement. I dont know too may kids who order a happy meal without the parents knowledge and consent. We have done the victim culture for too long, it has encouraged the looney tunes fringe to proudly put on public display their lack of sound mind
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 01:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
re the first ban in Santa Clara county

Quote:
The ordinance imposes very specific, common-sense restrictions. Restaurants cannot use toys as rewards for buying foods that have excessive calories (more than 120 for a beverage, 200 for a single food item or 485 for a meal), excessive sodium (480 mg for a single food item or 600 mg for a meal), excessive fat (more than 35% of total calories from fat), or excessive sugar (more than 10% of calories from added sweeteners.) The criteria are based on nationally recognized standards for children’s health created by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and recommendations for children’s food published by the Institute of Medicine (IOM).

The Santa Clara County health system has seen rapid increases in children seeking healthcare for obesity-related problems at a cost of millions of dollars each year. The County even created a Pediatric Healthy Lifestyle Center to address the complex medical needs of obese children in the county.

“Childhood obesity is a critical public health issue,” said Dr. Sara Cody, Acting Public Health Officer. “If we can help parents break the link between eating unhealthy food and getting a prize, we should.”

http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/scc/aspecial?path=%252Fv7%252FSCC%2520Public%2520Portal&contentId=662e022125068210VgnVCM10000048dc4a92____

Was there a mass clamoring of citizens requesting that the government remove our freedom of choice? If so, I must have missed it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 02:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
They don't have to reformulate anything. Heck, they could drop the price of the happy meal and just sell the toys separately. You really don't seem to know what you are talking about here.

Even if the law allowed for parents to upcharge and get the toy in the happy meal, which it does not because the toy is not allowed to be in the same package as the happy meal, this is still none of the governments concern.


It absolutely is the government's concern. I'm not concerned with your resistance to the idea in the slightest, because it's born of uninformed indignation and not a sober examination of the costs society bears from obesity.

Who gives a **** if the toy is IN THE BOX or not? Sell the happy meal for 50 cents cheaper. Sell the toy for an additional 50 cents if you like. Hand the toy to the parent when you hand them their food. Nobody's rights are being trampled on here....

I'm surprised you don't argue for commercials full of sexy ladies showing how cool it is to smoke Camels, all over tv - especially kids TV. After all, if the gov't has no interest in anyone's health, and can't regulate advertising, then you would certainly support such things. Right?

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 02:06 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:


“McDonald’s is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children,” said Stephen Gardner, litigation director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a non-profit health research and advocacy group based out of Washington, DC. In June, CSPI threatened to sue McDonald’s if they didn’t stop using toys to woo children. “McDonald’s use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children’s developmental immaturity – all this to induce children to prefer foods that may harm their health. It’s a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/1104/Happy-Meal-ban-No-toys-for-you

as if kids decide for themselves what they are going to eat, with no parental involvement. I dont know too may kids who order a happy meal without the parents knowledge and consent. We have done the victim culture for too long, it has encouraged the looney tunes fringe to proudly put on public display their lack of sound mind


How ironic. The victim here is posited, as always, to be you. YOU are claiming to be a victim of the gov't. And you definitely are displaying your lack of a sound mind in response.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 02:10 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
I'm surprised you don't argue for commercials full of sexy ladies showing how cool it is to smoke Camels, all over tv - especially kids TV. After all, if the gov't has no interest in anyone's health, and can't regulate advertising, then you would certainly support such things.
I do, I am deeply ashamed that SCOTUS has supported what I believe to be the unconstitutional control of the marketing of a legal product. Government has the right to regulate the market place for shoddy products, but not to regulate marketing or the choices of the people.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 02:11 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
The victim here is posited, as always, to be you
the victims are all citizens of this once great country...
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 02:13 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
The victim here is posited, as always, to be you
the victims are all citizens of this once great country...


No, just you. It's always your indignant whining about how things are going downhill. Do you honestly not understand that you constantly adopt the stance of a victim? Do I really have to find examples from your posts? I think not, because you know very well that you do this.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 02:19 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
It's always your indignant whining about how things are going downhill
so far my assertion that things are going down hill has not been disproved. Feel free to try.

While the assertion that things are going downhill puts me solidly in the majority, my actual claim....that this civilization is deep into the death cycle and will be replaced with another one.....makes me odd.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 02:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
It's always your indignant whining about how things are going downhill
so far my assertion that things are going down hill has not been disproved. Feel free to try.


I have no interest in arguing against your idiotic opinions. I leave that up to the reader of your posts, and I don't think that it's hard for any of them to figure out.

Quote:
While the assertion that things are going downhill buts me solidly in the majority, my actual claim....that this civilization is deep into the death cycle and will be replace with another on.....makes me odd.


It's one of the things that makes you odd; and deeply and totally boring. Really boring.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 02:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
It's one of the things that makes you odd; and deeply and totally boring. Really boring.

when did your excitement level get to be my problem?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2010 02:08 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

The first study showed that male rats given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, in conjunction with the standard diet. The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas.


http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

Who here is subscribing to the delusional myth? I submit that it is yourself. You should try googling stuff like this before posting. This information took less than 30 seconds to find.

Cycloptichorn


Yes and it took even less time uncovering the inconsistent methodology used in the "test". Note this phrase,. " The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas." This of course is a very wordy way of saying that the two groups of rats were fed water with differing levels of sugar (fructose or sucrose) in them.

In the gut, sugar is sugar. No surprise that rats might drink more of a sweeter solution.

I believe you google too much and think too little.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2010 07:48 pm
From what I gathered from this, the HFCS was less than the sugars in soda but the rats still got fat. So, drinking soda is not as bad as drinking products containing HFSC. Doesn't that make sense to you?

That's one for the HDCS=bad argument.
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2010 08:54 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I have this thing about my rights. I guess you'll see what kind of person I am herein: I was pissed about the safety belt law. I don't want the state to tell me that I can't have my son's willie trimmed - and I have to tell you...

I was informed when I accepted my recent job that I had no options - I am a member of a union. Period. Yeah. It IS like 1984 to me.

These laws are intrusive and bully-ish. It's too much power over personal rights.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2010 09:34 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
These laws are intrusive and bully-ish. It's too much power over personal rights.
that's pretty much been my life-long complaint about both the democrats and the republicans, but you knew that already.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2010 11:22 pm
@Mame,
That begs the question, doesn't it? Is there a soda that does not contain HFCS?

Okay, I recently found Mexican Coke at the supermarket, but as a general rule, I don't think there's much out there for comparison.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2010 11:53 pm
@roger,
Quote:
Okay, I recently found Mexican Coke at the supermarket, but as a general rule, I don't think there's much out there for comparison.
almost none of the upper end of the sodas have HFC, some never did, and many have switched back out of the HFC over the last 5 years.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
California and its greentard/water problems - Discussion by gungasnake
Kiddie ROTH IRA for Foster Children? - Question by FosterMom626
CA Rape Laws need reform (of course...) - Discussion by tsarstepan
when to contact cps - Question by anon1234
Socialism and California - Discussion by gungasnake
Snapchat and me - Discussion by ossobucotemp
Petition to recall Gov. Moonbeam - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » california
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 07:32:47