JohnG@lt wrote:
Maybe in your neck of the woods. Over here it doesn't discriminate. You're more likely to see someone in a suit and tie eating a quick lunch in one of their ads than you are to see poor people. I don't eat it often or regularly but I do enjoy a Big Mac from time to time.Jaekus wrote:
Maccas is indeed targetted towards the lower socioeconomic end of society, but as just stated, has little to do with intelligence or lack thereof.
Which shows exactly how much you are missing the point.JohnG@lt wrote:
Maybe in your neck of the woods. Over here it doesn't discriminate. You're more likely to see someone in a suit and tie eating a quick lunch in one of their ads than you are to see poor people. I don't eat it often or regularly but I do enjoy a Big Mac from time to time.Jaekus wrote:
Maccas is indeed targetted towards the lower socioeconomic end of society, but as just stated, has little to do with intelligence or lack thereof.
You "don't eat it often or regularly". Lots of people do. They are usually poorer and typically not as well educated.
I've had times where I eat it 3-4 times a week. I like their breakfast, especially this monstrosity:Bertster7 wrote:
Which shows exactly how much you are missing the point.JohnG@lt wrote:
Maybe in your neck of the woods. Over here it doesn't discriminate. You're more likely to see someone in a suit and tie eating a quick lunch in one of their ads than you are to see poor people. I don't eat it often or regularly but I do enjoy a Big Mac from time to time.Jaekus wrote:
Maccas is indeed targetted towards the lower socioeconomic end of society, but as just stated, has little to do with intelligence or lack thereof.
You "don't eat it often or regularly". Lots of people do. They are usually poorer and typically not as well educated.
It's delicious.
"Product description
The "standard" McGriddles sandwich consists of bacon, egg and American cheese served on a small pancake injected with maple flavoring. Both the top and bottom griddle cakes are embossed with the McDonald's logo." I prefer mine with sausage instead of bacon.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Did I comment on their target market or their clientèle?JohnG@lt wrote:
Maybe in your neck of the woods. Over here it doesn't discriminate. You're more likely to see someone in a suit and tie eating a quick lunch in one of their ads than you are to see poor people. I don't eat it often or regularly but I do enjoy a Big Mac from time to time.Jaekus wrote:
Maccas is indeed targetted towards the lower socioeconomic end of society, but as just stated, has little to do with intelligence or lack thereof.
There isn't a person on the planet that is forced to eat at McDonald's because of their socioeconomic situation. Buying a box of pasta and a can of sauce can feed a family of four for $4. Going to McDonald's would cost the same family $20 even if they only chose items from the Dollar Menu. Your entire argument is complete rubbish.Bertster7 wrote:
Which shows exactly how much you are missing the point.JohnG@lt wrote:
Maybe in your neck of the woods. Over here it doesn't discriminate. You're more likely to see someone in a suit and tie eating a quick lunch in one of their ads than you are to see poor people. I don't eat it often or regularly but I do enjoy a Big Mac from time to time.Jaekus wrote:
Maccas is indeed targetted towards the lower socioeconomic end of society, but as just stated, has little to do with intelligence or lack thereof.
You "don't eat it often or regularly". Lots of people do. They are usually poorer and typically not as well educated.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I have no idea what you think you're responding to there.JohnG@lt wrote:
There isn't a person on the planet that is forced to eat at McDonald's because of their socioeconomic situation. Buying a box of pasta and a can of sauce can feed a family of four for $4. Going to McDonald's would cost the same family $20 even if they only chose items from the Dollar Menu. Your entire argument is complete rubbish.Bertster7 wrote:
Which shows exactly how much you are missing the point.JohnG@lt wrote:
Maybe in your neck of the woods. Over here it doesn't discriminate. You're more likely to see someone in a suit and tie eating a quick lunch in one of their ads than you are to see poor people. I don't eat it often or regularly but I do enjoy a Big Mac from time to time.
You "don't eat it often or regularly". Lots of people do. They are usually poorer and typically not as well educated.
No one has been saying it is cheap or affordable for poor people. But they are predominantly the ones who buy it.
You seem to be trying to analyse the situation and draw your own conclusions based on what you see. That's never going to give you an accurate picture. You need to take a step back.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-04-30 10:55:38)
toy companies target kids
They do.11 Bravo wrote:
toy companies target kids
Sometimes in dodgy and immoral ways, but usually not.
I've had many arguments with my dad about it - since he used to be the advertising account director for Mattel and KFC in Europe. He used to appear on lots of TV and radio debates about this stuff, which is why I'm quite familiar with this stuff.
I think it's despicable, but then it's funding the deposit for my mortgage - so that does make me a terrible hypocrite....
Nope. The sight of your spam and lack of debate was. Feel free to join or kindly get the fuck out.JohnG@lt wrote:
Are you a vegan? Was the sight of meat offensive to you?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
reopened for 'debate'
Ah, another person that failed to read the article where it says it targets restaurants, not just McD's, not just fast food. Kind of sad that these things need to be readdressed.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's like picking on Wal Mart. Any store that sells things cheaply should be outlawed so that poor people can know the wonders of shopping at Crate & Barrel and Whole Foods instead.
It doesn't matter if they actually like shopping in those places, they're just uninformed and too stupid to know any better. We must make the decision for them.
marine stop being a cunt and recognize a valid argument
yes, toy companies target kids... and to what end? to sell a toy that offers entertainment and fun
mcdonalds target kids... to what end? to psychologically influence their future consumer-behaviour; to spread the acceptability and commonality of unhealthy food in an every-day lifestyle; to consume unhealthy high-calorie food for the reckless benefit of having a shitty playtoy.
you're not this stupid. you spend more time on these forums whining and calling out people for not adhering to your little 'appropriate forum behaviour' code. so fucking follow it yourself or shut the fuck up. you know that your posts arent d&st worthy but then you're happy to spend half of your time calling out ruislepa and side-tracking discussions with 3 pages of ad hominem bullshit. grow the fuck up or fuck off.
yes, toy companies target kids... and to what end? to sell a toy that offers entertainment and fun
mcdonalds target kids... to what end? to psychologically influence their future consumer-behaviour; to spread the acceptability and commonality of unhealthy food in an every-day lifestyle; to consume unhealthy high-calorie food for the reckless benefit of having a shitty playtoy.
you're not this stupid. you spend more time on these forums whining and calling out people for not adhering to your little 'appropriate forum behaviour' code. so fucking follow it yourself or shut the fuck up. you know that your posts arent d&st worthy but then you're happy to spend half of your time calling out ruislepa and side-tracking discussions with 3 pages of ad hominem bullshit. grow the fuck up or fuck off.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Oh, so I should look at data that shows the average income of McDonald's consumers then? Does that data take into account cost of living in the area or the amount of competition in the area? Most of the towns I've driven through in America might have but a handful of restaurants so there isn't a lot of choice.Bertster7 wrote:
I have no idea what you think you're responding to there.JohnG@lt wrote:
There isn't a person on the planet that is forced to eat at McDonald's because of their socioeconomic situation. Buying a box of pasta and a can of sauce can feed a family of four for $4. Going to McDonald's would cost the same family $20 even if they only chose items from the Dollar Menu. Your entire argument is complete rubbish.Bertster7 wrote:
Which shows exactly how much you are missing the point.
You "don't eat it often or regularly". Lots of people do. They are usually poorer and typically not as well educated.
No one has been saying it is cheap or affordable for poor people. But they are predominantly the ones who buy it.
You seem to be trying to analyse the situation and draw your own conclusions based on what you see. That's never going to give you an accurate picture. You need to take a step back.
Or how about the fact that people who can't afford to fly tend to drive a lot more and drive thru establishments are convenient? You're right, I should never trust my own eyes when making a decision
Face it berster, your entire argument is elitist and fails both due to your preconceived biases and the fact that you aren't using logic. How about this whopper of an argument, how about it has to do with the fact that poor people in general have very poor cooking skills? Maybe they choose McDonald's because they can't cook and it's less expensive than going out to a normal sit down restaurant. Sure, cooking is extremely easy, but the vast majority of people seem to have a hard time doing anything more difficult than boiling water. So what now? Are you going to legislate cooking classes for everyone as part of general education requirements?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
toys can kill people? i reckon toys killed more people than mcd's tbh.Uzique wrote:
marine stop being a cunt and recognize a valid argument
yes, toy companies target kids... and to what end? to sell a toy that offers entertainment and fun
mcdonalds target kids... to what end? to psychologically influence their future consumer-behaviour; to spread the acceptability and commonality of unhealthy food in an every-day lifestyle; to consume unhealthy high-calorie food for the reckless benefit of having a shitty playtoy.
you're not this stupid. you spend more time on these forums whining and calling out people for not adhering to your little 'appropriate forum behaviour' code. so fucking follow it yourself or shut the fuck up. you know that your posts arent d&st worthy but then you're happy to spend half of your time calling out ruislepa and side-tracking discussions with 3 pages of ad hominem bullshit. grow the fuck up or fuck off.
you are being the cunt, cunt.
just trying to figure it out here....do we care about the health of kids or marketing to kids? cuz if its health this argument fails.
Which reinforces the point further. The companies deliberately target low income areas.JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh, so I should look at data that shows the average income of McDonald's consumers then? Does that data take into account cost of living in the area or the amount of competition in the area? Most of the towns I've driven through in America might have but a handful of restaurants so there isn't a lot of choice.Bertster7 wrote:
I have no idea what you think you're responding to there.JohnG@lt wrote:
There isn't a person on the planet that is forced to eat at McDonald's because of their socioeconomic situation. Buying a box of pasta and a can of sauce can feed a family of four for $4. Going to McDonald's would cost the same family $20 even if they only chose items from the Dollar Menu. Your entire argument is complete rubbish.
No one has been saying it is cheap or affordable for poor people. But they are predominantly the ones who buy it.
You seem to be trying to analyse the situation and draw your own conclusions based on what you see. That's never going to give you an accurate picture. You need to take a step back.
Why aren't there lots of other restaurants there?
Face it - your argument is based in fantasy with no solid evidence to support any of it, just some delusional opinions.Bertster7 wrote:
Or how about the fact that people who can't afford to fly tend to drive a lot more and drive thru establishments are convenient? You're right, I should never trust my own eyes when making a decision
Face it berster, your entire argument is elitist and fails both due to your preconceived biases and the fact that you aren't using logic. How about this whopper of an argument, how about it has to do with the fact that poor people in general have very poor cooking skills? Maybe they choose McDonald's because they can't cook and it's less expensive than going out to a normal sit down restaurant. Sure, cooking is extremely easy, but the vast majority of people seem to have a hard time doing anything more difficult than boiling water. So what now? Are you going to legislate cooking classes for everyone as part of general education requirements?
The fact that most fast food customers are poorer and less well educated is just that, a fact. Why that is the case is quite clear, especially when you look at the reams of research from the marketing departments and advertising agencies about this sort of stuff.
You need to look at the bigger picture.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-04-30 11:12:26)
i love seeing the ghetto rats around here feeding their 4 month olds chicken nuggets and coke.
Tu Stultus Es
It's marketing things to kids which will have a negative impact on their health and quality of life.11 Bravo wrote:
just trying to figure it out here....do we care about the health of kids or marketing to kids? cuz if its health this argument fails.
You wouldn't agree with marketing cigarettes to kids would you?
bubble gum cigarettes
Tu Stultus Es
Cigarettes are addicting. Fast food is not.Bertster7 wrote:
It's marketing things to kids which will have a negative impact on their health and quality of life.11 Bravo wrote:
just trying to figure it out here....do we care about the health of kids or marketing to kids? cuz if its health this argument fails.
You wouldn't agree with marketing cigarettes to kids would you?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yes it is.JohnG@lt wrote:
Cigarettes are addicting. Fast food is not.Bertster7 wrote:
It's marketing things to kids which will have a negative impact on their health and quality of life.11 Bravo wrote:
just trying to figure it out here....do we care about the health of kids or marketing to kids? cuz if its health this argument fails.
You wouldn't agree with marketing cigarettes to kids would you?
To a lesser extent, clearly, but it most certainly is addictive. There have been numerous studies conducted into this.
100% beef hamburgers arent comparable to cigs. please dude.Bertster7 wrote:
It's marketing things to kids which will have a negative impact on their health and quality of life.11 Bravo wrote:
just trying to figure it out here....do we care about the health of kids or marketing to kids? cuz if its health this argument fails.
You wouldn't agree with marketing cigarettes to kids would you?
It clearly is comparable. It's less extreme, but it's the same point. It also clearly and concisely answers the question you just posed.11 Bravo wrote:
100% beef hamburgers arent comparable to cigs. please dude.Bertster7 wrote:
It's marketing things to kids which will have a negative impact on their health and quality of life.11 Bravo wrote:
just trying to figure it out here....do we care about the health of kids or marketing to kids? cuz if its health this argument fails.
You wouldn't agree with marketing cigarettes to kids would you?
no, there is not a damn thing unhealthy about red meat. thats what humans eat. always have.Bertster7 wrote:
It clearly is comparable. It's less extreme, but it's the same point. It also clearly and concisely answers the question you just posed.11 Bravo wrote:
100% beef hamburgers arent comparable to cigs. please dude.Bertster7 wrote:
It's marketing things to kids which will have a negative impact on their health and quality of life.
You wouldn't agree with marketing cigarettes to kids would you?
Oh yeah? Could it be due to the fact that humans require food to survive? Could that be the major contributing factor? Do some people equate a trip to McDonald's with sustaining their life force? Hmm...Bertster7 wrote:
Yes it is.JohnG@lt wrote:
Cigarettes are addicting. Fast food is not.Bertster7 wrote:
It's marketing things to kids which will have a negative impact on their health and quality of life.
You wouldn't agree with marketing cigarettes to kids would you?
To a lesser extent, clearly, but it most certainly is addictive. There have been numerous studies conducted into this.
Here's the deal Berster. You're free to live your life as you wish. Your rewards for eating healthy are lower medical bills (or in your case, less time in the hospital since you don't pay a dime) and a longer life. Congratulations. Now, you can try to educate people all you want on the subject but you have to accept the fact that they aren't always going to listen or agree with you. You can't live their life for them and you certainly shouldn't have the ability to make their decisions for them. Live your own life and be happy in your smugness.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
That's not true at all.11 Bravo wrote:
no, there is not a damn thing unhealthy about red meat. thats what humans eat. always have.Bertster7 wrote:
It clearly is comparable. It's less extreme, but it's the same point. It also clearly and concisely answers the question you just posed.11 Bravo wrote:
100% beef hamburgers arent comparable to cigs. please dude.
The amount of meat in peoples diets, particularly in the west is completely disproportionate to what people have historically eaten and to what our bodies are evolved to cope with. Modern levels of red meat intake are responsible for high levels of bowel cancer.
Or could it be to do with addictive additives, like MSG?JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh yeah? Could it be due to the fact that humans require food to survive? Could that be the major contributing factor? Do some people equate a trip to McDonald's with sustaining their life force? Hmm...Bertster7 wrote:
Yes it is.JohnG@lt wrote:
Cigarettes are addicting. Fast food is not.
To a lesser extent, clearly, but it most certainly is addictive. There have been numerous studies conducted into this.
Here's the deal Berster. You're free to live your life as you wish. Your rewards for eating healthy are lower medical bills (or in your case, less time in the hospital since you don't pay a dime) and a longer life. Congratulations. Now, you can try to educate people all you want on the subject but you have to accept the fact that they aren't always going to listen or agree with you. You can't live their life for them and you certainly shouldn't have the ability to make their decisions for them. Live your own life and be happy in your smugness.
There are numerous chemicals added to fast food. Many of these are addictive, MSG being the best known.