dude i tried to tell you, its thread specific. it all depends on which side I am arguing from.
don't try to be like the posters who want to pigeon hole me into a category. "that AE guy is gay hating, Jesus loving republican." In thread A I may be, but when I support the freedom of choice in thread B, or support gay rights in thread C, don't get all crazy, and say but...but... in another debate you said this. Cause all i'm gonna be like is that was that thread.
I'll totally cuss you out in one and agree with you in another. I'm reading content posted, not being a fan one poster, or trying to hate one poster, unfortunately i feel sometimes like I am alone in this.
You might want to change tact: you're starting to sound reasonable to me....
everyone has their moments.
even a blind squirrel finds a nut, once in a while.
Its sleazy and intrusive. We've banned that sort of market from cigarette companies because their product are unhealthy, and I think the same case could be made against fast food.
cigarette companies marketed to kids? not in your lifetime. maybe in the 1940s.
I think your sort of idea of banning everything that is unhealthy is a dangerous way of thinking.
A flippant response like that makes it sound like you don't have much experience with children...
Why is that?
McDonalds is easy for the parents too. And kids tend to get what they want. Spoiling their desires with cheap gimmicks like clowns and playpens could be called "evil" when your product is designed to be all taste and no nutrition while min/maxing cost and profit. Certainly, trying to get kids to eat healthier food would be a nobler cause.
Well my parents didn't do that. Maybe I am spoiled by having really good parents. I shouldn't assume that your parents did the right thing.
sorry man, but I think crash has this one. I hate to agree with that person for anything, but fast food is cheaper than making food.
and a lot faster. just get everything off the $1 menu, everyone get's a Mcdouble or a McChicken, and you are drinking water.
4 people x $1 = $4.00 let's say $4.50 with tax. you can feed the whole family for under $5 and it took 3minutes to prepare, and serve to them.
I noticed in your link there was a meal that cost $1.11 per person, yet it took ALL DAY LONG to prepare. that is kind of impossible when both parents are working to pay the bills, and the children are at school all day. sure the Au pair could make that cheap dish but if you have an Au Pair then why are you concerned with cheap meals?
I still do not think they were targeting children. I went to the real source and read the document in its context, rather than the chopped up version on wikipedia.
They wanted to increase their sales among high-school students, teens and young adults (aged 14-24), but saying they marketed to children is a little silly. I don't care if a 6 year old knows who Joe Camel is or not, that is not marketing to children.
Nobody's talking about banning everything that is unhealthy. My point was about marketing. Marketing unhealthy and addictive products to children... like McDonald's does.
what kind of addiction? outside of caffeine, I cannot think of anything particularly addictive about the food, but I would love to see some evidence of the addictive properties of Mcnuggets.
I'm talking about the way things ought to be (we shouldn't market bad shit to kids) and you're talking about the way things are (bad things are marketed to kids).
Now would be the time to quote the relevant material that shows that they were not marketing to children. But even then, can we really trust the accused here? Of course they, themselves, are going to claim that they weren't doing anything wrong.
I live in a nation where you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I know you are from the People's Republic of Illinois and concepts like that are difficult to comprehend.
14 year olds are children.
I consider Mammals of breeding age to no longer be children. At what age do sexually mature mammals cease to be adolescents?
What would you prefer to call "provinding product information and a positive product image to children through an appealing cartoon character" if not "marketing"?
you probably do not own any makeup, or perfume. yet if you went to Macy's to buy some for a female, I bet you know of a couple brands. Is it because those brands were marketed to you? or is it because they have been around for a long time and you recognize the brand, the name?
Making you hamburgers seem cool to kids and them loading them up with all flavor and no nutrition as cheaply as possible is not an honorable approach.
i disagree. hamburgers are not healthy food. there is no honor in selling the fatty portion of oxen period. it shouldn't ought to be either, because its not healthy food. now if there goal was to take healthy food and make it unhealthy on purpose then you may have a point.
You implied you had read something that suggested they weren't targeting children... and we're not in court. I realize readin' these letter-symbols and followin' a discussion can be hard.
yeah, they were targeting young smokers. in the 14 to 24 age range, i linked it, if you have trouble reading, don't blame it on me.
I don't care to quibble over whether or not a 14 year should be considered a child.
Ronald McDonald exists for children.
of course you don't care to quibble, because I'll school you on this. I would shy from me as well. good call.
Ronald McDonald does exist for children, but I have not seen anything on the addictive nature of a bigmac.
That's why you need to consider the other important part I posted where they go on to admit marketing to children.
what you posted was some quoted mined material from wikipedia. I dug up the original document, and they were not targeting children, according to that document. you are supporting a fallacy.
But, brands that are for women most definately do market to the men because they know the men will be buying thier products for the women in their life.
show me an estee lauder add that targets men.
Even if its common knowledge that your product isn't healthy to begin with, I still don't see any merit in promoting it to children to hook them while they're young so you can have life-long loyalty. Its sleazy.
i still disagree. I got an Atari 2600 in 1983 when I 4 years old. I had thought it was from Santa (but it was my parents). I do not consider my parents or Atari a SLEAZY company for selling a product that is unhealthy to a child.