The penalty for saying 'no' to McDonald's is that for one meal, me and my kids don't eat fast food.
The penalty for saying 'no' to the government can be a fine or jail time. See the difference there? With McDonalds, I still have a choice, with the government, not so much. On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Maybe you miss my point. You object to the rather open desire to limit > unhealthy items by a government. But you have no objections to such > individual manipulation by a corporation. When if done by a government > you'd be spitting fire. > > What's the difference here. Is it OK for corporations to engage in > this sort of control but not government? What's the critical factor > that makes it OK if done by a company but not by a government? > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, G Money <gm0n3...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> You have to admit the toys are a real nice bit of conditioning on the >>> part of McDonalds. >>> >>> What I don't understand is that when people have tantrums over this >>> sort of thing, but have absolutely no qualms about letting private >>> corporations do the same to them. >>> >>> For instance, Kid really wants the toy. Through advertising etc the >>> kid is convinced they must have it (all their friends got one etc). So >>> he nags the parents until they relent. Then McDonalds for the cost of >>> some advertising and cheap plastic gets 4 or 5 sales out of it. In >>> addition to the positive reinforcer of the toy, the kid gets a sugar >>> rush (positive hedonic reinforcer) from the soft drink and the carbs >>> in the food, so he's more likely to want to come back again. >>> >>> So you have no problem with this sort of conditioning, but you do have >>> a problem with the local government wanting to limit the consumption >>> of flavoured sugar water and useless carbohydrates in a very open >>> manner, unlike what McDonald's does. >>> >> >> I know you are aren't directing this at me, but in a word: Yes. >> >> Are we, or are we not, a FREE country? >> >> There is nothing subversive about what Micky D's is doing. They server junk >> food. We KNOW they serve junk food. it is up to us whether we want to eat >> that junk for or not. Micky D's is in the business of getting us to eat as >> much junk food as they can. >> >> We ALWAYS have the choice not to eat there. >> >> Give me freedom any day over this nanny state crap. >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Jerry Barnes <critic...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Law curbs McDonald's Happy Meal >>> > toys<http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101103/us_nm/us_mcdonalds_toys> >>> > >>> > >>> > Excerpt: >>> > >>> > San Francisco has become the first major U.S. city to pass a law that >>> cracks >>> > down on the popular practice of giving away free toys with unhealthy >>> > restaurant meals for children. >>> > >>> > >>> > Heaven forbid that you just tell your kid no. They'll just make the >>> > decision for you. >>> > >>> > >>> > J >>> > >>> > - >>> > >>> > "Nutrition is not a private matter!" - Hitler Youth Manual >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:331090 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
