Beware of the Happy Meals

[eatdirt426]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/beware-of-the-happy-meals-23956095;_ylt=ApQXLoLtDWHdcXCkqJnauXWz174F;_ylu=X3oDMTExYWMwdGhmBHBvcwMxMgRzZWMDY2xpcHMEc2xrA2Jld2FyZW9mdGhlaA--

Mcdonalds is being sued over their happy meal toys.

[Soulrev]

<sigh> Of course, another incompetent lazy bitch who can't raise her own children. Don't want your child to eat McDonald's? Then don't let them! Don't fucking use the excuse "Oh well when my daughter sees the commercials on tv blah blah blah the battle ensues.." BS. Turn the fucking TV off and read a book to your child and maybe they won't see the fucking advertisements, but no, keep on raising your child in front of the television but let's worry about what they're eating. Stupid fucking cunt. (and believe me I don't use that word unless I'm really passionate about it)

[TitsMcGee]

<sigh> Of course, another incompetent lazy bitch who can't raise her own children. Don't want your child to eat McDonald's? Then don't let them! Don't fucking use the excuse "Oh well when my daughter sees the commercials on tv blah blah blah the battle ensues.." BS. Turn the fucking TV off and read a book to your child and maybe they won't see the fucking advertisements, but no, keep on raising your child in front of the television but let's worry about what they're eating. Stupid fucking cunt. (and believe me I don't use that word unless I'm really passionate about it)

You my friend have hit the nail on the head.

[Scar My Machine]

Another opportunist looking for their payday/15 minutes of fame.

To quote Carlin "There's no shortage of stupidity in America."

I can't stand these "I have to save everyone by banning everything I deem unsafe for the world." kind of people.

Raise your kids your way b**ch, leave other parents to decide for themselves.

[the eternal]

I agree, but of course, this suit, like all the others, will go nowhere.

It's the exception to the rule, to make us all feel superior.

I don't support the suit, but it does bring a good point.

Kids are marketed to to death, and it's not a simple fight.

If one parent, turns off the TV, another parent will leave it on.

The next day at school the other kid will talk about how cool the new happy meal toy is, show it off

and that'll make the parent the bad guy for not going to McDs more.

Obviously, parents just need to be tougher.

Put their foot down more.

Serve as a good example, in their personal habits, and explain why their kids are not getting fries today.

But, with the marketing saturation, more than ever, it IS a battle parents have to wage---more every day.

[Scar My Machine]

Obviously, parents just need to be tougher.

Put their foot down more.

Serve as a good example, in their personal habits, and explain why their kids are not getting fries today.

But, with the marketing saturation, more than ever, it IS a battle parents have to wage---more every day.

I disagree with the last part of your post. Having grown up in the 70's - these commercials were on every bit as much as they are today. The problem we have today are parents that want someone else to blame. They refuse to accept responsibility for their lack of parenting skills. What's more easier, blame a fast food company for their kids behavior or saying to them self, "I need to do things differently so my kid will stop acting this way"......my parents would just say no. Not all the time but they did put their foot down.

Parents today, act like it's the t.v.'s or fast food companies fault for showing these commercials, which, FYI to these dumb parents, those companies pay for the kids shows to be on the air by buying advertisement time. *DUH*

What kind of commercials should they show? V8 or the ab master? Come on now - let's get real here.

Who's the parent in that woman's house anyway, her or her kid?

[the eternal]

I don't think most parents DO blame TV or fast food companies.

I think this woman is the exception, not the rule.

Otherwise you'd hear about women like her every day.

What is different is that when women like her sued McDs, it wasn't a news story.

We didn't have the internet, so dumb shit like this didn't go viral

I think most parents just don't give a shit.

They take their kids to McDs, get the happy meals, and go.

And occassionally, women like her get frustrated and lash out and sue.

And then we all post about how stupid she is, and we feel better about ourselves.

Kinda like when someone famous uses the N-word.

As far as my last line that you focused on, we have more media outlets now.

In the 70s there were 3 major channels.

Now there are 300.

And then there's the internet.

I'm not excusing her.

But I think, it does serve as a reminder to be more vigilant, and that since the 70s, we have been

trained to want fast food. Luckily, we live in a country where we can use free will to resist Madison Ave.

If we choose to.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to finish the BK stuffed burger that looked so tempting on TV earlier, that I had to go buy it.

[Soulrev]

This is why I don't own a TV anymore.

[Scar My Machine]

And occassionally, women like her get frustrated and lash out and sue.

As far as my last line that you focused on, we have more media outlets now.

In the 70s there were 3 major channels.

Now there are 300.

And then there's the internet.

I'm not excusing her.

But I think, it does serve as a reminder to be more vigilant, and that since the 70s, we have been

trained to want fast food. Luckily, we live in a country where we can use free will to resist Madison Ave.

I think what it comes down to is, people, be they parents or not, need to take responsibility for their own actions or lack there of. And what kind of parents give in to their kids every time the kid says they want this or that? Not a very good parent I'd say. And also, is it up to McDonalds to help her raise her kid? Is capitalism not what makes this country work? We're gonna sue them for a commercial? Or a toy offer? Or because, their food isn't healthy? It's fast food - not gourmet.

This lawsuit reminds me of the lady that sued McD's because she spilled her coffee on herself and it was TOO HOT, so now they have warning labels on all their coffee cups. And I think, really, is this what our society has become? People needing labels to point out the obvious? But, if it makes them feel better I suppose.

Oh and btw, there were more than three t.v. stations in Detroit during the 70's - we had 2,4,7,9 (cbc Windsor) 13,20,38,50,56, and the much not so watched 62. Sorry, couldn't resist throwing in the info.

[KatRN05]

The woman featured in the story was talking about how it was such a battle with her child about going to McDonald's to get a happy meal. She's the damn parent, she needs act like it. Who is running the show here? Her or her kid? It just pisses me off that some parents have such a hard time saying no. A toy isn't a necessity.This is why I will be such a tyrant as a parent because if my kid is going to throw a damn hissy fit about not being able to get a Happy Meal and a toy, they will just find themselves ignored til their hissy fit stops.

Edited January 26, 2011 by KatRN05

[taysteewonderbunny]

I don't understand the mother's argument. Where is the harm? Is she implying that having to say "no" to her child regarding unhealthy lifestyle choices is harming the child? Or is she saying that saying "no" to her child is harming her? OR is she saying that McDonald's marketing is negating her ability to effectively say "no" to her child?

It almost seems that this mother is alleging that in no other context would she ever have to tell her child that she or he cannot have a particular toy--but that's ludicrous. She'd have more of a case if she was attempting to establish any of the following:

1. McDonald's produces food for children that is not fit for children's consumption; that is, that for most children, consuming an entire Happy Meal is detrimental to the child's health in a single instance OR
2. the product or the product's marketing is designed to produce a real chemical or psychological dependency on the product and its regular consumption is harmful to the child's health.
3. McDonald's does not appropriately label its products whereby parents can make better educated decisions regarding their child's consumption of the product.

Even so, it doesn't seem she is alleging harm already sustained, so I don't know how she has any grounds for a suit. Especially because McDonald's has permitted the sale of the toy without the Happy Meal for years.

The only thing this woman has done that doesn't seem harebrained to me is to pick McDonald's--they have the most revenue and, consequently, the largest possible payout.

[Scar My Machine]

I don't understand the mother's argument. Where is the harm? Is she implying that having to say "no" to her child regarding unhealthy lifestyle choices is harming the child? Or is she saying that saying "no" to her child is harming her? OR is she saying that McDonald's marketing is negating her ability to effectively say "no" to her child?

It almost seems that this mother is alleging that in no other context would she ever have to tell her child that she or he cannot have a particular toy--but that's ludicrous. She'd have more of a case if she was attempting to establish any of the following:

1. McDonald's produces food for children that is not fit for children's consumption; that is, that for most children, consuming an entire Happy Meal is detrimental to the child's health in a single instance OR
2. the product or the product's marketing is designed to produce a real chemical or psychological dependency on the product and its regular consumption is harmful to the child's health.
3. McDonald's does not appropriately label its products whereby parents can make better educated decisions regarding their child's consumption of the product.

Even so, it doesn't seem she is alleging harm already sustained, so I don't know how she has any grounds for a suit. Especially because McDonald's has permitted the sale of the toy without the Happy Meal for years.

The only thing this woman has done that doesn't seem harebrained to me is to pick McDonald's--they have the most revenue and, consequently, the largest possible payout.

+ 1,000,000,000

That lady is a total dingbat (or is it, dung bat?)Anyway. To sum up my perspective, to sue a company for paying to advertise a legal product (regardless of it's geared towards children. As long as it is safe) is the most absurd thing she could possibly do.

What's next? Suing lee jeans for selling skinny jeans that she can't fit into? Or how about, suing her local mall for selling items she can't afford to purchase. Because that just makes sense right?

McDonald's isn't harming anyone with their commercials and are well within their right as a company to advertise. Does she even know how to change the channel on her t.v.?

[KatRN05]

This lawsuit is frivolous. If this bitch wins, I will be so very disappointed in the judicial system.

This is how I interpreted the Mom's case: Stupid Mom: WAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! I don't know how to say "no" to my kid when she cries that she wants her Mcdonald's toy!!!!! It's Mcdonald's fault.

Edited January 26, 2011 by KatRN05

[Enishi]

That Mom needs to grow a backbone. The insecure need to be "friends" with one's kid and the inability to tell them no does not benefit a child in the long run.

[Destroit]

Stories like this make me wish that there was a specific P.O. Box that you could send letters, so everyone in America could send her one explaining to her in clear plain logic why she is a piece of shit and should never have reproduced.

Stories like this make me wish that there was a specific P.O. Box that you could send letters, so everyone in America could send her one explaining to her in clear plain logic why she is a piece of shit and should never have reproduced.

[Hellion]

IMO throw this human waste in the Detroit river and forget about it.

People have been sued for saying I hate you to someone else.

Also telling a sue happy person that they are infact sue happy will get you sued it has happened

Yes these are the kinds of human trash that our society breeds,it's time to exile all of them to a remote island far far away.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Hellion

[LadyKay]

I have to say I simply do not understand all of this. I have a 5 year old and she rarely if ever has had a happy meal. We have gone to Wendy's a few times and when we are out and see a Wendy's she starts whining to go. To which I say no and continue on my way. Soon the whole thing is forgotten. I do not understand why this parent can not do the same thing. My goodness, happy meals have been around for how many years? We all grew up knowing what a happy meal was. But did our parents ever feel the need to sue McDonalds if we started crying for a happy meal? No, they would tell us to stop that whining and if we didn't we got a smack on the butt. At less I would have. And that would have been the end to it.

[LadyKay]

This is why I don't own a TV anymore.

Yeah and its a good thing to cause that evil TV will make you go out and buy happy meals rather you want to or not. It is all powerful, all controlling. Whooooooo!

[LadyKay]

I don't understand the mother's argument. Where is the harm? Is she implying that having to say "no" to her child regarding unhealthy lifestyle choices is harming the child? Or is she saying that saying "no" to her child is harming her? OR is she saying that McDonald's marketing is negating her ability to effectively say "no" to her child?

It almost seems that this mother is alleging that in no other context would she ever have to tell her child that she or he cannot have a particular toy--but that's ludicrous. She'd have more of a case if she was attempting to establish any of the following:

1. McDonald's produces food for children that is not fit for children's consumption; that is, that for most children, consuming an entire Happy Meal is detrimental to the child's health in a single instance OR
2. the product or the product's marketing is designed to produce a real chemical or psychological dependency on the product and its regular consumption is harmful to the child's health.
3. McDonald's does not appropriately label its products whereby parents can make better educated decisions regarding their child's consumption of the product.

Even so, it doesn't seem she is alleging harm already sustained, so I don't know how she has any grounds for a suit. Especially because McDonald's has permitted the sale of the toy without the Happy Meal for years.

The only thing this woman has done that doesn't seem harebrained to me is to pick McDonald's--they have the most revenue and, consequently, the largest possible payout.

Yeah, if her kid is screaming for the toy and she thinks the food is unhealthy, she could buy the happy meal, toss out the food, and just keep the toy. No one is forcing her kid to eat the food. So yeah, I don't get it.

[TitsMcGee]

Yeah, if her kid is screaming for the toy and she thinks the food is unhealthy, she could buy the happy meal, toss out the food, and just keep the toy. No one is forcing her kid to eat the food. So yeah, I don't get it.

Actually at McDeath as I fondly call it after working there for almost a year, you can actually buy the toys without having to buy any food.

[LadyKay]

Actually at McDeath as I fondly call it after working there for almost a year, you can actually buy the toys without having to buy any food.

Well if that is so then this women has no case.

[TitsMcGee]

Well if that is so then this women has no case.

She didn't have a case to start with, but with this added fact she really doesn't have one.

[darknight1]

TitsMcGee, it's called McDahmer's. The food does come from shady sources after all, if you could call it "food".