11-04-2009, 08:32 AM | #41 (permalink) |
Kick Ass Kunoichi
Location: Oregon
|
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.
__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau |
11-04-2009, 08:49 AM | #42 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Some place windy
|
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.). Last edited by sapiens; 11-04-2009 at 08:53 AM.. |
11-04-2009, 09:06 AM | #43 (permalink) |
Insane
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
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.
__________________
-Blind faith runs into things!- |
11-04-2009, 09:07 AM | #44 (permalink) |
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
Location: In the dust of the archives
|
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.
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt. |
11-04-2009, 09:09 AM | #45 (permalink) |
Insane
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
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.
__________________
-Blind faith runs into things!- |
11-04-2009, 09:17 AM | #46 (permalink) |
Crazy, indeed
Location: the ether
|
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?
|
11-04-2009, 09:26 AM | #47 (permalink) | |||
Insane
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
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.
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 11:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ---------- Quote:
__________________
-Blind faith runs into things!- |
|||
11-04-2009, 09:35 AM | #48 (permalink) | |
Crazy, indeed
Location: the ether
|
Quote:
|
|
11-04-2009, 09:39 AM | #49 (permalink) |
Insane
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
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.
__________________
-Blind faith runs into things!- |
11-04-2009, 09:59 AM | #50 (permalink) | |
Crazy, indeed
Location: the ether
|
Quote:
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. |
|
11-04-2009, 09:59 AM | #51 (permalink) | |||
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
Location: In the dust of the archives
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And...are you really comparing this to child prostitution? Tell me that I missed something along the way. Please? .
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt. Last edited by Bill O'Rights; 11-04-2009 at 10:01 AM.. |
|||
11-04-2009, 10:51 AM | #52 (permalink) |
Insane
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
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.
__________________
-Blind faith runs into things!- |
11-04-2009, 11:36 AM | #53 (permalink) | |
Crazy, indeed
Location: the ether
|
Quote:
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. |
|
11-04-2009, 01:45 PM | #54 (permalink) | |||
Insane
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
-Blind faith runs into things!- |
|||
11-04-2009, 03:16 PM | #55 (permalink) |
Mine is an evil laugh
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
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.
__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button? |
11-04-2009, 05:02 PM | #57 (permalink) | ||
Crazy, indeed
Location: the ether
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-04-2009, 09:06 PM | #58 (permalink) |
Forming
Location: ....a state of pure inebriation.
|
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...
__________________
"The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion..." - Henry Steel Commager "Punk rock music is great music played by really bad, drunk musicians." -Fat Mike |
Tags |
incite, mcteacher, night |
|
|