Lawsuit contends Happy Meals are for kids
By Brian Kirwin | Wednesday, December 15th, 2010 | PolicyAnother reason why California should be declared a no-brain zone.
Some lame dolt and an organization of lame dolts are suing McDonald’s because…I can’t believe I’m typing this….Happy Meals are marketed to kids.
I’m not kidding.
Someone filed a lawsuit against McDonald’s because they market Happy Meals to kids. See, Happy Meals include a small toy.
“What kids see as a fun toy, I now realize is a sophisticated, high-tech marketing scheme that’s designed to put McDonald’s between me and my daughters,” said Monet Parham, of Sacramento, Calif. “For the sake of other parents and their children, I want McDonald’s to stop interfering with my family.”
Monet? First of all, there should be a law against anyone being named Monet filing a lawsuit about anything.
I’m a parent, Monet. Stop interfering with MY family!
Apparently, Money works for the government of California and she is joined by the fringe wackos at the Center for Science in the Public Interest who says “Every time McDonald’s markets a Happy Meal directly to a young child, it exploits a child’s developmental vulnerability.”
How about every time a wacko fringe group exploits children to advance their leftist agenda?
Maybe I’ll sue them.
Their other great ideas, from their website, include a soda tax, government-imposed limits on salt, and of course, the “everyone should be a vegetarian” nonsense one often finds in these groups.
Why did I know that raising a tax would be somewhere in there?
But, no, these geniuses think that in a world of war, recession, joblessness, homelessness, deficits and debt, the most important thing to do is file a lawsuit over whether Ronald McDonald can advertise Happy Meals to kids.
What’s next? Ice cream? Candy?
People like Monet don’t need to be working for government. Anyone with such a fixation on running people’s lives to the extent that she would file a lawsuit over Happy Meals is more than a few French Fries short.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
13 Responses to "Lawsuit contends Happy Meals are for kids"
There was a movie years ago about a future NYC being put behind a high wall to keep the residents in and others out. Since I’m a nice guy I would simply recommend that we isolate California only in the budgetary sense. Cut off their access to anyone else’s money. Let the loony left put on their freak show. Make sure to televise it nonstop along with the accompanying state financial meltdown. In a split screen show the contrasting pictures of states run by conservatives. Even better, show pictures of California before it was run by the loony left. If we don’t do this we are going to join them in their misery.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bearing Drift, Virginia Harlow. Virginia Harlow said: RT @bearingdrift: Web: Lawsuit contends Happy Meals are for kids http://bit.ly/eXBytY [...]
you can sue anyone for anything… and in California, you might win…
I am always intrigued by people who think that the government should be involved in raising their children (and those of others). Monet needs to grow up and learn to be the adult. You don’t need a court judgment to say “no” to children, any more than you need a law that sets their bedtime, checks their homework, or limits their TV and computer game time.
Have you noticed that having children is the one aspect of life in our society that is not regulated, licensed, certified, or otherwise overseen by the government? You can’t get married without a license and you can’t legally die without a certificate. But having children? Anyone can do it. Perhaps in the case of people like Monet Parham it ought not to be so.
It is a parental function to control the food intake of children. McDonalds runs a legal business and as far as I know has no significant food violations in terms of its menu.
I wonder how you might feel if McDonalds were marketing cigarettes, beer, and pornography to kids instead of happy meals…
“I wonder how you might feel if McDonalds were marketing cigarettes, beer, and pornography to kids instead of happy meals…”
I wonder how you might feel if they were sponsoring mass suicides. What a dumb thing to say!
They aren’t.
What if Adolf Hitler only gave people flowers instead of killing them….
Jeez! The stupidity sometimes….
I know this is tough to grasp, BK, but its called a hypothetical. So, I take it that you would not approve. Why not? Should somebody not be allowed to sue them if they did? If so, what is your reasoning of okaying this suit? For the welfare of our kids, perhaps? See if you can continue down that path and tell me where the line should be drawn. But don’t hurt yourself in the process, ‘kay?
No, Eric, it is not a hypothetical, it is a straw man. A hypothetical is conjecture based on probable alternate circumstances. A straw man is a fallicious misrepresentation of your opponent’s position. Since selling cigarettes, beer, or pornography to minors is illegal while selling toys and fast food to them is not, your proposition is fallicious.
I know that this is a difficult concept for you to grasp, so don’t hurt your head trying too hard.
You can’t be too hard on the half troll. He learned this manner of reasoning from the current President of the US. Who learned this manner of reasoning from the leftists who learned it from …(any dictatorial group in history).
valentinus,
You’re right. After all, if he was any smarter he would be a whole troll.
If someone is unable to control the upbringing of his or her child then the best way is to place the blame on McDonald’s and the most successful partents may quickly come to some easy money.
Um,,,HisRoc, you might want understand the difference between “marketing” (or targetted advertisements) and “selling”. Then try Googling “marketing beer and cigarettes to minors” and notice that not only is it not a strawman it is concievable. It has actually been done and may be occurring to this day albeit in a subtle manner.
Noticed you did not even attempt to answer any of the questions posed by consideration of the hypothetical situation. Nice diversion. That is unless you are saying that anything goes in marketing to our children as long as it is legal – that’s one high bar you have set there.
Leave your response