McDonald's possibly under Lawsuit for Happy Meals

[zookeeper]

Is this the responsibility of McDonald's or the parent?

Both, obviously. Parents have the responsibility of taking care that their kids don't eat crap regardless of what McDonald's does and McDonald's has the responsibility of not trying to trick kids into eating crap regardless of what their parents do.

I don't see why there'd be a need to make it any more complicated than that.

[wayfarer]

Do you really need the then thousenth rewarmed gadged? Of course you must consume unlimited growth unlimited consume.

That is your responsibility as a good consumer McDonalds just helps you to fullfill it with the whole advertisment package. Nothing more nothing less.
Of course it is complicated.
Or do you really need toilet paper that comes with 1000 flavours and different tastes from a dozen manufactures?

[Hulavuta]

But that still leaves the question: Should McDonald's not stop and therefore help the people who DO fall to this weakness? Sure, it was their fault, but is it a good idea just to leave them alone and not help them just because they didn't have discipline? Wouldn't eliminating it kind of "force" discipline? And there's still the ethics of targeting kids who don't know any better and parents who would do anything for their kids.


(I can't believe I'm questioning the ethics of McDonald's)

[Gambit]

Did you even watch the video? This is about kids. YOUNG kids. Kids that are just learning to read.

So is this. What is your point?

[Midnight_Carnival]

I have eaten mc donalds 1/2 a time (don't ask) it tasted of cardboard and had the consistency of soggy bread. I have little to say on their aleged food, only that I wouldn't buy it for a dog.

But on the toys, I do have something to say.

You know these days materialism, brand-hyperconciousness and just plain perversity have made the things we buy for our children more expenisve, more complex, more fragile and more 'safe', also more specialised. This means that they are less useful, less intelectually stimulating (require less imagination) and less...
well, let's not be technical, less fun.
Toys are not sold to be entertaining, to alow children to have fun, toys are sold to trick kids into thinking they could be having fun if they could only buy the whole set, buy the second set, buy the other series, etc...

The toys you get in mc donalds food (and yes, the lack of capitalistion is deliberate) often contains conspicious brand names and is of limited entertainment value, but compared to the toys you get in toy shops it is a remarkable improvement. This goes for rubbish you find in cerial boxes as well.

I think Zaphod said something like "don't try to outwierd me, I get wierder things than you free with my breakfast cerail."

[Dixie]

While I mostly agree with what midnight said previously (hell, when I was a kid, the toys I played most with were a set of 12 unarticulated indian plastic figurines), and while I wouldn't be sad one bit if McDonald's just closed up forever as I try to avoid eating there as much as possible (again, midnight's cardboard and soggy bread description perfectly suits my perception), I'm not sure making a law suit over it is the solution.

I mean, if we go that way, should there stop being legos because an uncareful parent let his two years old suffocate to death for eating one (I hope it has never happened, btw), should there stop being coffee because a clumsy parent has spilt his boiling hot cup on his child? Should we stop baking dessert entirely because some people abuse it and become fat? Hell, we might just as well all go live in little white, padded cells and do nothing but exist. I mean, of course publicity is bad, even at my age it bugs me, but if they don't learn to deal with it as children, they never will. Same goes with moderation and all. And the child hating his parent for not going to McDonald? If the parent doesn't overtly spoil his child, he can just put limitations and turn this into a reward: "No McDonald's this week, you haven't been nice, etc. etc.". The child will be sad, maybe angry, but it will pass and he will understand.

Anyway, my two cents.

[Darkmage]

Overall, yeah, I might have not explained correctly before, my intention before was not to say: Yeah, c'mon let's ban publicity sice it is "bad" and corrupts children; Just all the way around, I criticised(Although I did not openly said), that permissive behaviour of some parents with the children that somewhat give them anything they want, or dummy-strict that use the, as before said: "If you behave correctly rewar will be ...(whatever crappy food you want)", or even the extra-restrictive, banning everything the child wants just because he wants to do something.

About the "Law can't replace common sense." I find it obvious, that's what I meant, in a way, about the auto-discipline VS imposed discipline.

About the food, I have nothing to say(Since I do not eat meat), but for the potatoes, that sincerely, I can cook in 30 minutes and are more tasty and less salty(even most of the times I don't even put salt on them), and have kind of more substance...(The MD's ones need a nice bunch of salt to be IMO eatable, and definetly, that quantity of salt is not that healthy for a small child and not likely for an adult.[Of course depending of if you like those potatoes with salt or not anyway...])

Obviously, for me, parent behaviour is an important fact for this, I would say key fact, but outer calls to the children happen exist, and a parent can't be over-protective, until the child is mature enought.

[Hulavuta]

Did you even watch the video? This is about kids. YOUNG kids. Kids that are just learning to read.

So is this. What is your point?

That's completely completely completely different. For one, I could probably do that when I was around that age (like 3-5) about something I liked/was interested in, because you are interested it's much easier. Second, she likes Star Wars huh? Well what if McDonald's happened to have Star Wars toys in their happy meals? She would want to go.

Star Wars is cool, and kids can easily like it and remember it. Nutrition isn't something *most* kids would be interested in.

EDIT: After reading the description of the video, it implies somewhat that she isn't super interested in Star Wars but it's mainly because she's smart. But, talk to every three year old you know. Are they ALL that smart? Not likely...

[Gambit]

No. My point is that having something to do with children means little to nothing (unless there is violence involved). Involving children in a situation does not make it automatically bad. In fact I find it's generally the opposite.

[wayfarer]

I really find it entertaining that some still think that the name of the customer counts for something unless it is under a lawsuit.

[Hulavuta]

No. My point is that having something to do with children means little to nothing (unless there is violence involved). Involving children in a situation does not make it automatically bad. In fact I find it's generally the opposite.

But....the entire point was that McDonald's is using Happy Meals to target children. I never said it made it automatically bad, but in this case, it happens to be bad.

[Dixie]

No. My point is that having something to do with children means little to nothing (unless there is violence involved). Involving children in a situation does not make it automatically bad. In fact I find it's generally the opposite.

But....the entire point was that McDonald's is using Happy Meals to target children. I never said it made it automatically bad, but in this case, it happens to be bad.

So what, we're going to stop producing any kind of toy, children sized-clothes, Sesame Street (or other such programs) diapers and whatnot that concerns children? As I said, I don't like McDonald's either, but I think this has no sense...

I really find it entertaining that some still think that the name of the customer counts for something unless it is under a lawsuit.

I might have missed something as I'm not a primary english speaker, but I'm curious: what do you mean?

[Hulavuta]

I didn't get it either, and I'm a native speaker.

Dixie: I don't agree with eliminating it. I am simply debating with Gambit about kids.

[Gambit]

No. My point is that having something to do with children means little to nothing (unless there is violence involved). Involving children in a situation does not make it automatically bad. In fact I find it's generally the opposite.

But....the entire point was that McDonald's is using Happy Meals to target children. I never said it made it automatically bad, but in this case, it happens to be bad.

But *WHY* is it bad? You, or rather the plaintiff in the case you linked to, have/has no reason other than because kids are involved. McDonald's has meals built around kids, of course they will target kids with their marketing. What; do you want them to market the kids meals towards adults or something? Free... uh... car deodorizer in every Happy Meal!

You make no sense.

In other news; OMG THIS COMMERCIAL IS TARGETING LITTLE GIRLS WE HAVE TO SUE THEM!

[zookeeper]

But....the entire point was that McDonald's is using Happy Meals to target children. I never said it made it automatically bad, but in this case, it happens to be bad.

But *WHY* is it bad?

Because it is an attempt to get kids to eat crap. Do you need to again ask why that's bad?