The Big Picture: Arch-Villains

[dante brevity]

I'm of the same opinion; tobacco is different than fast food, because fast food isn't chemically addictive like tobacco is.

I'll find them for you if you want, but a Google search will help you find a dozen studies that say fast food is chemically addictive. Not just in an emotional/comfort capacity either; people who've eaten diets with high sugar get the shakes when the sugar is taken out of their food. I'm not saying that this should make fast food illegal; I'll be ticked if someone tries to take away my very addictive caffeine. Marketing these things to kids, though? No.

 

[mikev7.0]

(Music)"send in the clown~..." I too also hate politicians for pointing fingers, and you did made a good point when you said "what next? Blame Mario for our kids lacking excise?". Yes Joe Camel should die and forever burn in hell, yes, let the clown go, yes don't trample on our hobbies... But as I was agreeing to these points, I started thinking...

They could have made this "kids getting fat" issue just an "awareness movement", but they did, years ago, (I could even say, when they did that whole "Golden Pyramid" thing) but they weren't successful. They try telling us off from meat, promoting vegetables, promoting healthier food, that didn't stop us from over eating. Individuals stood out and alert people; "super size me", "my ears of meat"..etc making EXTREME MANEUVERS to go as far as to say "meat is the problem, go vegan!"... still didn't work. as our schools changing from "coke vending machines", to "water vending machines" (no joke, I live in California, this is happening in my home town!). They (government?) are resorting to "forcefully remove excessive sugar, calories, fat...etc. from our kids' diet. and you know, they did studies where kids who eats right, and have no excessive sugar/ bad eating habits preform better in class.

I still think kicking the clown in the ass is not right, and up front violation of the second amendment... but I can't say this wasn't because everything else failed, and they were left with not much other options...

Wow. Um, how exactly is that an "and up front violation of the second amendment..." which states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Sorry, but I don't get what you're saying there. At all.

Otherwise great show again Bob, but I think I'm going to skip most of the comments from now on since about 80% of them are always people just saying the exact same thing you just pointed out in the video! Keep it up!

 

[Knytemare]

Alright Bob, I am very on board with you. The issue with me is that they call it 'food'. They list health stats on the little poster by the checkout, and display wonderous concoctions of set designers in the ads. Soda is not Food, we know that so we dont try to life off it. Chocolate bars, twinkies and all the rest of the crap we eat that isn't strictly speaking 'food' doesn't claim to be. They are called things like 'snacks' and 'candy'. If something is 'food' you SHOULD be able to survive eating it and therein lies the deception.

 

[hexFrank202]

About 3:49

Welcome, boys and girls, to another exciting adventure oooof... MovieBob Hates Fox News Way Too Much!
Join us as we explore the statements (and implied statements) of Bob Chipman, a very insightful, very deep-thinking and very likable internet personality who unfortunately is one of the millions of snarky young adults who don't give Fox News (and/or the people on it) a fair look before considering it to be ultra right-wing reactionary shock stock.

Issue #291

Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilley and Sarah Palin are on YOUR SIDE, Bob. Conservatives generally support businesses like McDonald's. Even more than liberals, actually; the very health freaks we're talking about are typically on the left.
I know they'd be more likely to not support something regulating what parents can do to their kids, in a general sense, but for this particular case, you're on their side. Completely and totally.

The end

Edit:

About his weight

Screw anybody and everybody who plays this card on him. Why don't they continue being like that and go up to somebody and say he only supports the president because he's black? Then go tell a waitress that she only supports abortion because she's a waitress and therefore "must have needed one at some point"? Then go to a doorknob and tell it that it only supports a lower tax on hand sanitizer because it's a doorknob?

 

[UberNoodle]

If you want to see fat kids here in a Japan (a nation with a populace for the most part does NOT suffer from endemic obesity), go a McDonalds. The company has cornered the 'afterschool studying/socialising' market, especially in the freaking heat. Essentially, this generation of Japanese kids will be the ruin of the nations incredible health statistics and perhaps even longevity statistics.

However, outside a McDonalds, surveying the older generations, it is more likely that the person directly infront of your in the street is slim rather than obese or overweight. Fingers crossed. Diet IS, however, very important to health and longevity, and during the Korean war, researchers found that American GIs in their 20s had internal organs of equivalent 'age' to Koreans in the 40s and 50s! Why? The conclusion was that Korea, free of fastfood and Western dietry excess at that time, was not wearing out bodies at an exponential rate.

Alcohol companies invest in 'awareness' about safe drinking. Fast food companies can do the same, if they want Brownie points with the public.

 

[daxterx2005]

If heroine had a camel clown mascot the world would be screwed, right guys?

 

[Deh Zebra]

There has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere, and I think you drew it in just the right place. Great show!

 

[Brockyman]

I think its freakin hypocritical to say that "Animation can be for adults" then get pissed about Joe Camel. I was a kid, and never found smoking appealing b/c of some freaky camel.

 

[NaramSuen]

I am all for personal responsibility, but McDonald's should put forth a little extra effort and use better ingredients. I make an annual pilgrimage to McDonald's to remind myself why I only go there once a year. In terms of price, McDonald's is relatively expensive where I live; a single Big Mac meal costs as much as two boxed lunches, which are considerably more nutritious.

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

Come on now, Bob.

If you're going to have a burger as your potential last meal, at least make it a good one Sure McD's is the popular name brand that everyone knows, but a Big Mac? Really? They've gotta have a decent burger joint in your area. A Red Robin or Whataburger near you? No Chili's or Fridays? They don't at least have a Carl's Jr. or Jack in the Box near you?

Ok, burger choice aside. Bob is spot on here. There comes a time when personal accountability must play into it. Yes, fast food is generally unhealthy, but taken in moderation (and combined with a "normal" amount of physical activity) will have little to no ill effects. Cigarettes, on the other hand, will likely kill you even in moderation, and no matter how many miles you run or situps you do.

Thumbs up, Bob. Spot on. (even if it didn't generate a staggering comment count)

 

[The Random One]

OK, I really disagree.

One, bringing up the evolution argument in this matter is incredibly stupid. You know in what ways humans have evolved since the dawn of civilization? Some people are being born without canines. That's it. Evolution takes millions of years to take hold on complex organisms like ourselves, and if allowing people to die made humans stronger against that we would all have an inherent fear of electrical sockets already. I can see how making laws that force idiots to protect themselves can be silly from a completely utilitarian point of view, but trying to wipe out the 'driving motorcycles without helmets' gene from the species is not something that actually happens.

Two, Ronald McDonald is a relic of the past already. Things have changed. McDonald's came into being when selling kids a cheap toy and forcing their parents to buy a burger and fries with it was normal and the American Way of Doing Business?. That's not the case anymore. Just like 50's folks saw no harm in using Fred Flintstone to promote cigarrettes, we don't see any harm in this kind of marketing, but our children will.

Three, I agree with what Americans think of as a 'conservative' notion that the government should interfere as little as possible with people's lives, only doing so in extreme cases (I do think, on the other hand, it should be much more forceful with business). But the issue with the idea of policing the interactins between parents and their children is - how does that work? That's something that requires incredibly robust social services, and if your social services can't even find all cases of domestic violence, how do you expect it to find all cases of something so much more subtle? The way you want it to work just doesn't work.

Four, they already blame games for the lack of exercising. And frankly, I do too, partly.

Five, when the economy is at a downturn, the best way to get it rolling again is to make a lot of money changing hands to warm it up. Johnny Depp didn't harm the economy - he actively helped save it. So where do you want me to put this statue of him? I hear there's an open spot in Detroit they're not using for a Robocop statue after all.

 

[LobsterFeng]

How is it McDonalds fault? I watch plenty of child programming from time to time and haven't seen a single kiddie commercial with Ronald and his gang in at least half a decade.

I see Ronald a lot. But McDonald's change ad campaigns real fast so it's like they cant decide if they want to still use him or not.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

Wait, what the fuck did I just see? *Pauses* *Rewinds*

Is that...is that a picture of Batman fighting a shark with a lightsaber? That just might be the most awesome thing I have ever seen in my life. Does anyone have a link to that so I can set it as my wallpaper on every electronic device I own?

As for the subject itself, I agree with what that first guy in the Facebook comments said. I think a good chunk of the reason America is so fat is because we're more car dependent then most other countries. Did anyone else see that bicyclist topic from a few weeks back? Obviously I can't claim this as pure fact, but a lot of the Europeans in the topic were very pro-bicyclist while Americans were mainly the ones against them. (It was about bicyclists on main traffic roads, just to clear up any confusion) It seems a lot more Europeans use their bikes as their main method of transportation then Americans do. You generally aren't going to see Americans bicycling to and from work unless it's a small town. Again, this is all just based on personal observation, so take it for what it is.

...Come to think of it, that's not really what Bob was talking about at all. Oh well.

 

[Faux Furry]

Ron English [http://www.popaganda.com/Paintings/2008_blab.html] took on both the subject of cigarettes being marketed to children (his Joe Camel anti-vertisement campaign may have played an important role in Joe Camel's retirement) and the use of Ronald MacDonald and his ilk to sell unhealthy fast foods to all of the impressionable tykes around the globe.
I'm left to wonder what he would make of the link between video games and a lack of exercise/sunlight if he'd make anything of it at all.

 

[Nurb]

I'm of the same opinion; tobacco is different than fast food, because fast food isn't chemically addictive like tobacco is.

I'll find them for you if you want, but a Google search will help you find a dozen studies that say fast food is chemically addictive. Not just in an emotional/comfort capacity either; people who've eaten diets with high sugar get the shakes when the sugar is taken out of their food. I'm not saying that this should make fast food illegal; I'll be ticked if someone tries to take away my very addictive caffeine. Marketing these things to kids, though? No.

You missed the posts above explaining how fast food is NOT CHEMICALLY ADDICTIVE. Same way weed is in no way addictive, but people CAN form a dependancy on it, gambling, video games... etc

The morbidly obese are addicted to food period, but there's nothing chemical about it that makes the brain addicted like crack, tobacco, or alcohol.

There's a difference between chemical and emotional/mental created addiction.

 

[LadyRhian]

I had two cousins who used to love McDonalds, to the point where they wanted to eat every meal there. If they didn't get Mickey D's, they whined. And Whined. And WHINED. As a result, and to shut them up, their parents took them to eat there once a day. At their next checkup, they weren't obese, but their cholesterol counts were 297 and over 300.

Fast food has more bad effects than just making you fat. Me, I try to eat it once in a while, but it's not fast food that makes me fat. Eating too much and a sedentary lifestyle makes me fat.

 

[TheSchaef]

I pretty much agree with the central theme of the video, but then he goes and rambles about how scientists should replace bad parents, which is pretty much the opposite of personal responsibility, and then uses a picture of three of the people that would most agree with the central theme of the video to demonize those who would rather have their parenting rights respected, which I assume would include him if the situation presented itself. (...and it's always the same people...)

...

When using the Darwin argument of natural selection to point out the importance of personal responsibility, you must remember that you're also basically saying that someone that has the "insight" to remove himself from the gene pool can't be blamed for doing the same to his offspring.

This.

But I once brought up this issue to her, and this is what she told me, after 35 years of dealing with this, which is something that resonated with me and changed my opinion on the issue:

"It would be extremely arrogant of me to pretend that just because I am a professional in this field, that I am a better parent for this particular child than its own parents."

Basically, her argument is that she deals with these children in a specific environment, school, with much defined rules and expectations from those involved. She doesn't provide for these kids, feeding them, playing with them, dealing with their issues, other than within the context of this clearly defined relationship of teacher-student. Children themselves behave differently in school than they do at home.

This.

Everyone should at least know and understand the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, these actions usually affect others as well. Protecting people from their own stupidity actually protects other people as well and that is why I think it's important. Take smoking for example: it's unhealthy to everyone inhaling the smoke, not just the smoker. A drunk driver is dangerous to everyone else as well. And so on, and so on.

This.

Yeah, I run into that all the time as a teacher. Make a suggestion, and a parent slaps you with the, "Do you have kids?" argument. Please. Let's look at what I had to do just to prove I was fit to be in this classroom:
:list of self-congratulatory achievements:

Not this. A lot of parents went through a lot of those same processes (their brand of certification - if any - will of course differ) just so they could put a roof over their kid's head and put food on the table for him. And those who don't are probably putting in 60+-hour workweeks just to survive. And their investment in their child extends far beyond 172 half-days.

I can't think of a time when I left my boys in the care of anybody for more than ten minutes that was not themselves a parent. One thing I have consistently seen the parents understand - and the non-parents fail to understand - is that the child informs the parent as much as the inverse when it comes to raising children. "Do you have kids" may seem an insulting question to people with clinical or academic training in their field but parenting is neither clinical nor academic; it's experiential, and that's no one's fault.

Moreover, I trust my pediatrician to address my questions regarding my child's health when I first commission her expertise in that field. She doesn't exceed her mandate and she doesn't presume to inform on, for example, how I should discipline my child or how to help him get along with others at school. Maybe that perspective on how and why I trust the expertise of a stranger in a limited scope can help inform the potential difference in a reaction to someone serving the parent's need versus pitting yourself against them as an advocate for the child.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I despise the "natural selection" argument, not just because it's somewhat offensive, but because it's extremely stupid. There have been many brilliant people in history with self-destructive tendencies. You did sort of acknowledge this, but the rest of your tirade overshadowed it. You seem to suggest that just because someone keeps themselves healthy/safe, it automatically means they are smarter than your average self-destructive individual. Here, I'll give you five seconds to think of a successful idiot... yeah, exactly. "Evolution" (there aren't any inverted commas sarcastic enough) doesn't seem to be doing such a good job after all.

An obsession with your health does not demonstrate intelligence or lack thereof. You should know, you're fat. There is a significant difference between choosing to do something despite it being detrimental to your health, and choosing to ignore the fact that what you are doing is harmful, despite overwhelming evidence. Most people who smoke these days are aware of the consequences, and although it may be true to an extent, I can't help but feel that "they're idiots and they deserve to die as a result of their own stupidity and humanity will be better off without these idiots carrying the idiot gene" is needlessly inflammatory, and more than a little ridiculous. Having said that, it is definitely not the government's place to be putting these relatively non-issues ahead of real political concerns.

 

[Redd the Sock]

You almost had my total agreement, until you mentioned the term "personal responsibility". It's not that I don't appriciate the term, or disagree with the concept, but I don't like how the term has been used by corporate interests to be absolved of any responsibility in anything because "they didn't force anyone to do anything." Not just fast food, tobacco companies and predatory credit lenders have made a mint encouraging (or at least not discouraging) their consumers to make decisions they know full well are bad for them. I've even seen the odd online neo-libertarian twerp say we shouldn't prosecute fraud because people dumb enough to be ripped off deserve it. I'm in support of personal responsibility, until it allows people to start laying traps for me. I'd be more inclined to blame the toy in the happy mean box (the only reason I ever ate McDonalds) than the clown, but I do think a sensable step might be to at least market fast food as the treat is should be, rather than a fewuant meal replacement.

Ah, but that cuts into profits, and we can't have that.

 

[punipunipyo]

(Music)"send in the clown~..." I too also hate politicians for pointing fingers, and you did made a good point when you said "what next? Blame Mario for our kids lacking excise?". Yes Joe Camel should die and forever burn in hell, yes, let the clown go, yes don't trample on our hobbies... But as I was agreeing to these points, I started thinking...

They could have made this "kids getting fat" issue just an "awareness movement", but they did, years ago, (I could even say, when they did that whole "Golden Pyramid" thing) but they weren't successful. They try telling us off from meat, promoting vegetables, promoting healthier food, that didn't stop us from over eating. Individuals stood out and alert people; "super size me", "my ears of meat"..etc making EXTREME MANEUVERS to go as far as to say "meat is the problem, go vegan!"... still didn't work. as our schools changing from "coke vending machines", to "water vending machines" (no joke, I live in California, this is happening in my home town!). They (government?) are resorting to "forcefully remove excessive sugar, calories, fat...etc. from our kids' diet. and you know, they did studies where kids who eats right, and have no excessive sugar/ bad eating habits preform better in class.

I still think kicking the clown in the ass is not right, and up front violation of the second amendment... but I can't say this wasn't because everything else failed, and they were left with not much other options...

Wow. Um, how exactly is that an "and up front violation of the second amendment..." which states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Sorry, but I don't get what you're saying there. At all.

Otherwise great show again Bob, but I think I'm going to skip most of the comments from now on since about 80% of them are always people just saying the exact same thing you just pointed out in the video! Keep it up!

oops... first, i mean... the right of speech... my bad... going to correct it now... shame on me....