The problem is that you keep making ridiculous analogies to try and sell us your viewpoint, which just hurt the credibility of your argument. I advise that you try again and cut out all the BS.

I also presume that if you did receive a flier regarding this activity, it would clearly say somewhere on it that this is not a school-sponsored activity. All of the fliers handed out by our school district regarding PTA-sponsored activities do.

So, the issues seem to be:

1. Are corporate sources of funding for non-profit organizations wrong?
2. Is McDonalds evil?
3. Should a PTA promote unhealthy eating in order to raise money?
4. Is it reasonable to oppose the PTA promoting unhealthy behaviors if I myself engage in unhealthy behaviors?

My answer to #1: If the interests of a corporation and a non-profit organization are aligned, why not take advantage of the alignment and help each other?

My answer to #2: I don't know and don't care whether or not McDonalds is evil, but they do promote unhealthy eating in children and adults for profit.

My answer to #3: Lifelong eating habits are developed in childhood. An organization designed to represent the interests of children should avoid encouraging unhealthy habits if at all possible. I feel that holding a fundraiser at McDonalds tacitly encourages unhealthy eating. I don't think that the interests of the PTA and McDonalds are aligned. It is, of course, up to the PTA to decide for themselves how they want to run their organization. Herk (presumably a member of the PTA) opposes feeding McDonald's to children in order to raise money. I oppose it as well. As robot parade suggested Post #2, if you are going to avoid McDonalds as a source of funds, alternative fund raising sources will need to explored.

My answer to #4: Yes, it is reasonable to oppose the PTA promoting McDonalds even if a person eats there on their own. Again, lifelong eating habits are developed in childhood. The impact of eating at McDonalds is greater for a child than for an adult both in terms of immediate health and in terms of future eating habits. Plus, every parent does things that they don't want their children to do. (Crossing the street without looking, drinking alcohol, smoking, picking your nose, etc.).

It seems you don't understand the purpose of the analogies. You can ridicule them all you want, but continuing to avoid answering the obvious questions is not helping the discussion. I drew a picture to make the point even clearer.

Big deal. If you are moraly opposed to this type of fund-raising activity, then just take the $20, that you'd have dropped on a #3 value meal and a 4 piece McNugget Happy Meal, and write a check to the school. That way the school gets some cash, you can still feel moraly superior, and everybody wins.

Seriously though, what's the problem? Fazolli's does this in partnership with my son's private school. Once a month (I think it's the third Wednesday) they have a *insert school's name here* night. 10% of thier total sales from 4:00 to 8:00 go to the school. It ends up being as much a social thing as anything else, as we always see people from the school that we know.

If we take our store reciepts, from a particular grocery store, into the school, they can redeem them for a percentage of the total of the value of the receipts collected. Is that a cleverly couched ploy to get more people to shop at that grocery store? Hell yeah it is! But, so what? Odds are, I was going to shop there anyway.

His school also sells...well, for want of a better word...gift cards. You can buy a $10 certificate, from the school, to a participating business and use it for it's face value. The school gets...I think 5% kickback. If I'm at the school, and I know that I'm going to be going to store X in a couple of days, then I'll pick one up.

Schools, both private and public, have to be ever more creative in their fund raising. Private schools have been doing this for years. You're just now starting to see it more with public schools, I think.

sapiens, I appreciate very much the way you broke that down. It is the most helpful way I have seen yet of looking at this. I hate that I've spent this entire thread defending the idea that there is a difference between appropriate and inappropriate rather than getting to discuss the other ways of looking at this. I wish that I had been able to frame so logically in the beginning.

that there is a line between the appropriate and the inappropriate somewhere is beyond obvious and doesn't need analogies to be defended. I think what people have an issue with is trying to equate mcdonald's with any of those extremes. To keep pushing extreme analogies is not helping the discussion either. So why don't you say, precisely, why you think that the mcdonald's fundraiser is wrong, and then people can go from that?

Are you kidding me? I'm not here to feel morally superior. I here to discuss maintaining the highest standards for the children of public schools. I have an interest in having high morals, but not in any comparison to other people's morals.

That would be a pretty silly, money wasting marketing scheme now wouldn't it. Waste revenue to get people to do something they were already doing. That contradicts the idea of getting "more" people to shop there.

I agree. However, in my opinion, this is a perfect example of being less creative. If they can just take the easy road of getting in bed with large corporations they don't need much creativity; they just need McDonald's to want children to shop there.

---------- Post added at 11:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ----------

If the line is obvious, please tell me where it is. I believe that McDonald's is a bad source of fundraising because it promotes bad eating habits, is unhealthy, has poor fundraising margins, sets an example of selling out to corporate interests without regard for the non-monetary cost, makes a company that should be pointed out for its flaws to a child seem like it is their friend and positive for their overall life, and I think that there are better ways to get the community together to set positive examples for children while still getting some cash for the school.

I didn't say the line was obvious. I said that there is a line somewhere is obvious, which makes the religion or prostitution "analogies" either irrelevant or false.

Dippin, I seriously do not follow your logic. If those analogies are false, where does the line exist? Between the obviously acceptable and ???

Every spectrum has extremes at either end, and it seems that you agree that it is obvious there is a line between these extremes, which was the entire point of the analogy. I feel like you guys are walking me in circles for fun.

No, we are criticizing you for engaging in fallacious arguments.

If your point is that there are some things that are inappropriate because we wouldn't want to fund schools through child prostitution either, then the analogy is irrelevant. Because no one at any point in this discussion said that there is no line, or that anything goes, and I guarantee that no one at the PTA will believe that anything goes either. We all know and accept that there are certain things that are inappropriate, even in the context of funding education.

If your point is that mcdonald's shouldnt be involved in fundraising because we wouldnt want to fund schools through child prostitution either, then the analogy is false. The reasons why we wouldn't want mcdonalds to be involved are completely distinct from the reasons we wouldn't want child prostitution to be involved.


And the reason others and I have pointed this out is that you will be significantly more successful in talking to the PTA about this if you focus on the particular reason why you are opposed to this, instead of nonsensical or irrelevant analogies.

Well, that’s a whole ‘nother argument. If public schools maintained the highest standards for the children, then my tight ass wouldn’t be shelling out the money to send mine to a private school.


True. And, it may well encourage some to shop there. I’m sure that it does. For me, though, it’s just a minor inconvenience to save the receipts until I send them off to the school in my son’s backpack. That’s three more dollars that I won’t have to shell out next year.



Why not? Civic government has been doing it for years. Look at the names of sports stadiums and public auditoriums. Omaha built a huge convention center several years ago. To help pay for it, they sold the naming rights to the highest bidder. The local telephone consortium won it. Now, when I want to catch Hannah Montana in concert, I go to the “Qwest” Center. Not the *Insert dead local politician’s name here* Memorial Auditorium. Would it be better if your school got into bed with…say… Gold’s Gym. Buy a membership and 15% of the cost goes to your child’s school? No, my kid likes his McNuggets, and his plate of soggy spaghetti with crappy sauce, as much as the next kid. But, we don’t over do it. And, I toss his butt outside to play, as opposed to sitting in front of the Wii all day long. So, if McDonald’s or Fazolli’s wants to pony up a couple of bucks to get people in the doors on a Wednesday night, so what? That just means that we won’t go on Saturday.

And...are you really comparing this to child prostitution? Tell me that I missed something along the way. Please?


.

I'm sorry you guys feel like the points I am making are fallacious or disingenuous. They certainly aren't intended to be. I feel like I have answered each question, but for a large part of the question's I ask, rather that getting answers, I get told how horribly unimportant the question is.

Okay, well all I can think of at this point is the conversation between Summer(Britney Spears) and Goby(Horatio Sanz) in the following transcript Jarret’s Room.

My point is that some funding can be inappropriate. The question is where is that line drawn. You say nobody is saying anything goes, but I have seen a lot of lines like, "Well if it makes a few buck, why not?" That is why I framed the question as: what things in addition to dollars should you make a judgement of appropriateness on. Where is the line drawn. I have described in detail why I used the analogies I used.

It doesn't matter that the reasons are different based on the fundraiser. The point is that there are reasons in addition to amount of dollars taken in. Once that is settled, which is I what seem to get the most push back on, we can discuss which criteria we should use in this particular case, like what sapiens did above.

Thank you for the time you are spending on this, everybody.

To the degree that anyone has said that in this thread, they said it specifically in relation to mcdonald's. To suggest that they are talking about anything at all and that therefore they would be ok with child prostitution is really shitty.


Yes, sapiens had a nice post. Why don't you emulate him, especially when you take this issue to the PTA? People tend to react in not so nice ways when someone implies that they somehow are ok with child prostitution.

If you don't want mcdonalds to be a part of the fundraising efforts of the pta, then say why you don't want mcdonalds to be a part of the fundraising efforts of the pta.

Are there other things to take into account other than dollars in any case? Of course, total risk vs benefit. It doesn't matter if they said it just referring to McDonald's. It can be extended to somethings measure of appropriateness. Is there more to take into account than dollars. If so, that would apply to the McDonald's situation, as well. I most certainly did not imply that anybody would be okay with child prostitution. In fact, if you look at the picture or read the thread you'll surely realize that it was pointed out as the most 'extremely inappropriate' side of the spectrum as something we can all agree on in order to set up dichotomy. Implying I have said that people are okay with child prostitution is a failure of reading comprehension and logic. It is foolish, and as far as I'm concerned, it has no place on TFP. I'm kindly asking you to leave this thread if your only intent is to throw around punches.

I keep getting asked the same questions over and over again, even though I'm fielding them. Just 2 posts ago:
I don't know what more you want from me, aside from some argument, sadness, or anger. Good luck with that.

Herk, would you feel better if the promotion was a local only (not chain) ice cream shop? or donut shop/bakery? What about a local burger place? Any of these 'local' guys would be giving part of their profits to get more people through the door. None of the food types here would be considered healthy.

On the other hand, LOTS of people eat occasionally at these types of places (and mcdonalds). Adding one visit to a food outlet specifically because of the monetary benefit seems like a small issue to me.

Do we (as a family) eat at McDonalds? yes, but not very often. The kids see it as a treat, just like cake or ice cream or lollies. Anything in moderation...

Would my family's diet be hugely changed by adding one visit to the local Maccas on a specific day? No.

If we did a (for example) weekly visit on Fridays, could we change routine to go on Wednesday instead so the school gets some cash? Sure.
Would our diet be worse if we went weekly? Yep.

Are my (pre-school aged) kids already able to recognise the golden arches? Yes
Do they already pester their mother to go? Yes

Do they need school events to brain wash them? No, they have TV for that.

I'd bet 99.9% of students have eaten Maccas, and are already brainwashed, so as much as you are trying to take the high road, Maccas advertising budget has already done you in. The school getting their cut seems only fair when they are already spending money there.

Further - this might change someone from eating that night at Taco Bell, Carls Jr, Burger King or any other of a myriad crappy food joints scattered around the US.

I think a lot of posters don't see any major issue because companies like this are so saturated in the market. Everybody *knows* the food is bad/unhealthy, whether it is PTA sponsored or not, and you aren't likely to make Maccas go broke anytime soon.

3-D is hard to do in MS Paint, otherwise I'd have a Z axis for "how seriously I take things" with "Genocide" at the most serious end and "false analogies" and "myself" at the other.

Here's exactly what you said:

Herk, you seem to take issue that nobody wants to discuss what you want to discuss, which is (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) where the line should be drawn between appropriate and inappropriate things for schools/PTA to endorse in a fundraiser; in this case, directly in correlation to McDonald's.

It also seems that the problem here is that whenever somebody tells you that they feel McDonald's is on the appropriate side of that line and why, they aren't discussing what you want to discuss...

Excellent graphic, MSD. :lol: