Jump to content

Menu

Two active threads here, as I am writing this...


Recommended Posts

Let me see if I've got this right. You can now buy a book instructing you in how to rape and molest children, but you can't buy your kid a happy meal. I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry. Please tell me I'm going to wake up and realize this was just a weird dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let me see if I've got this right. You can now buy a book instructing you in how to rape and molest children, but you can't buy your kid a happy meal. I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry. Please tell me I'm going to wake up and realize this was just a weird dream.

 

No. You can still buy a Happy Meal (in San Francisco) you just can't give away toys as a promotion for children if the food falls way below minimal nutrition standards.

 

And, you can (evidently) purchase this book from Amazon.

 

We have a lot of freedoms in this country. These can be used for good and for evil. The book is evil. So is the effect of a steady junk food diet on a child.

 

We limit some freedoms. We don't allow pornographic materials to be marketed to children, right? There are times when we have to act to protect the young. Amazon should get an earful for selling this book to anyone.

 

I just wish American public--parents of young children--were also outraged by the marketing foods as dangerous to health as Happy Meals at children and made themselves heard.

 

Both things are bad.

 

Bill

Edited by Spy Car
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RecumbentHeart

:iagree: first of a series of videos I watched just yesterday on the topic of marketing to children (including food but far beyond that): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCT7h-jwCWA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

Interestingly, in light of the thread, one person went so far as to call these marketing professionals that prey on children for their own personal gain pedophiles. Their tactics aren't that different.

 

No. You can still buy a Happy Meal (in San Francisco) you just can't give away toys as a promotion for children if the food falls way below minimal nutrition standards.

 

And, you can (evidently) purchase this book from Amazon.

 

We have a lot of freedoms in this country. These can be used for good and for evil. The book is evil. So is the effect of a steady junk food diet on a child.

 

We limit some freedoms. We don't allow pornographic materials to be marketed to children, right? There are times when we have to act to protect the young. Amazon should get an earful for selling this book to anyone.

 

I just wish American public--parents of young children--were also outraged by the marketing foods as dangerous to heath as Happy Meals at children and made themselves heard.

 

Both things are bad.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. You can still buy a Happy Meal (in San Francisco) you just can't give away toys as a promotion for children if the food falls way below minimal nutrition standards.

 

I know. :001_smile: I was oversimplifying to make a point. I think there's some serious cognitive dissonance going on if we've gotten to a place where we think we need to regulate food and toys to this level, while allowing books advocating pedophilia to be sold.

 

I'm not sure where the contradiction stems from. Is is that we believe the government should step in when it comes to what we put in our bodies, but we can put any vile, evil, harmful, destructive thing that we wish into our minds?

 

Both things are bad.

 

One, in small doses, is fine. The other is just plain evil.

 

For the record, I'm not a huge fan of fast food. I spent last night at one of my regularly scheduled nutrition co-op meetings. We get together and talk about making healthy food practical in day to day family life, and we order grass-fed beef, raw dairy, organic produce and such in quantity to save money. But you know what? I also take my kid to McDonald's every once in awhile. :svengo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I've got this right. You can now buy a book instructing you in how to rape and molest children, but you can't buy your kid a happy meal. I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry. Please tell me I'm going to wake up and realize this was just a weird dream.

 

Um. :huh:. I haven't been on all day. I was just prepping to see what I missed...yikes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know. :001_smile: I was oversimplifying to make a point. I think there's some serious cognitive dissonance going on if we've gotten to a place where we think we need to regulate food and toys to this level, while allowing books advocating pedophilia to be sold.

 

I'm not sure where the contradiction stems from.

 

There is no contradiction. The book is allowed to be sold, and the food is allowed to be sold. It doesn't mean that either ought to be sold, as both are not good.

 

There are restrictions on how sexually explicit materials are marketed (or not marketed to children) and it is not unreasonable to have minimum standards for nutritional value for "meals" marketed at children. And to disallow toy incentives for failing "meals."

 

Amazon and McDonalds have the freedom to sell items that may harm our children, and make a profit in that business. We have a right to make our displeasure know though various means, and to have our elected representatives limit the amount of harm these companies do when they market such materials in ways that reach children.

 

Is is that we believe the government should step in when it comes to what we put in our bodies, but we can put any vile, evil, harmful, destructive thing that we wish into our minds?

 

The "government" has not limited what people can put in their bodies, they limited marketing promotions associated with unhealthful meals aimed at children. Just as I'm sure they would if pedophile materials were being marketed to children.

 

Bill

Edited by Spy Car
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is no contradiction. The book is allowed to be sold, and the food is allowed to be sold. It doesn't mean that either ought to be sold, as both are not good.

 

 

The "government" has not limited what people can put in their bodies, they limited marketing promotions associated with unhealthful meals aimed at children. Just as i'm sure they would if pedophile materials were being marketed to children.

 

Bill

 

 

exactly! Bravo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think its just a sad thing based on the fact the book is legal...and some states are banning (making it "illegal") to eat certain things, ex transfats, etc. I mean come on, I know its not healthy to eat a box of Twinkies, but that's my problem. Books even suggesting the idea of inviting some one into that activity is just wrong on all accounts. Those things promoting sick and malicious to our children are the things that should be banned...and illegal. But you can see just how crooked people in power really are! THEY claim that banning this book would go against their CONSTITUTION RIGHT of Freedom of Speech...what about my CONSTITUTION RIGHT to drown myself in a box of Twinkies or a Happy Meal!! And yes I want the toy too!!!! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. You can still buy a Happy Meal (in San Francisco) you just can't give away toys as a promotion for children if the food falls way below minimal nutrition standards.

 

And, you can (evidently) purchase this book from Amazon.

 

We have a lot of freedoms in this country. These can be used for good and for evil. The book is evil. So is the effect of a steady junk food diet on a child.

 

We limit some freedoms. We don't allow pornographic materials to be marketed to children, right? There are times when we have to act to protect the young. Amazon should get an earful for selling this book to anyone.

 

I just wish American public--parents of young children--were also outraged by the marketing foods as dangerous to health as Happy Meals at children and made themselves heard.

 

Both things are bad.

 

Bill

 

Just to clarify, on a scale of evilness, you would rate these two things equally?

Edited by bookfiend
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "government" has not limited what people can put in their bodies, they limited marketing promotions associated with unhealthful meals aimed at children. Just as I'm sure they would if pedophile materials were being marketed to children.

 

Bill

 

It doesn't have to be marketed directly to children in order to harm them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no contradiction. The book is allowed to be sold, and the food is allowed to be sold. It doesn't mean that either ought to be sold, as both are not good.

 

There are restrictions on how sexually explicit materials are marketed (or not marketed to children) and it is not unreasonable to have minimum standards for nutritional value for "meals" marketed at children. And to disallow toy incentives for failing "meals."

 

Amazon and McDonalds have the freedom to sell items that may harm our children, and make a profit in that business. We have a right to make our displeasure know though various means, and to have our elected representatives limit the amount of harm these companies do when they market such materials in ways that reach children.

 

 

The "government" has not limited what people can put in their bodies, they limited marketing promotions associated with unhealthful meals aimed at children. Just as I'm sure they would if pedophile materials were being marketed to children.

 

Bill

 

The difference is that the pedophile does damage from the very start. An occasional contact between a pedophile and a child is damaging even if it isn't regular. One contact from a pedophile can be damaging.

 

The nutritional impact of a Happy Meal is only negative if there is a steady diet of it--and that is an individual choice/freedom.

 

I think there is a vast difference between food nazis/nannies and large corporations selling stuff to pedophiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. That is why it is irresponsible of Amazon to sell or distribute such works even if they are "legal" under laws conforming with First Amendment protections.

 

Bill

 

Yes, far, far more irresponsible of Amazon to sell how-to manuals to pedophiles than of McDonald's to market junk food to children. So I still don't understand why regulation is proposed and supported in the one case but not the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, far, far more irresponsible of Amazon to sell how-to manuals to pedophiles than of McDonald's to market junk food to children. So I still don't understand why regulation is proposed and supported in the one case but not the other.

 

:iagree:

 

 

The fact is that pedophilia has long, long been understood to be unacceptable and evil, but our understanding of the dangers of unhealthy foods is pretty recent, and we still do not comprehend all the factors. Plenty of people really do just fine on a lot of junk food, and it is quite well known that being sedentary is the real problem (something that is fostered by public education and our modern world in general).

 

I think we need to keep asking this question and keep requiring an answer because I imagine there is a reason for this discrepancy, and it is probably pretty important!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when has a hamburger, fries and a drink become evil? Next thing we know the government will be saying we can't serve them in our homes. It really is time to let parents be parents. The government screws up everything it gets involved in, do we really want them to be parents to our children?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when has a hamburger, fries and a drink become evil?

 

Since rates of obesity, type II diabetes, and beginning stages of heart disease have skyrocketed in children as a direct result of these sorts of unhealthful diets.

 

Happy Meals are not fit for children.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of two evils, choose neither ~Charles Spurgeon

 

Bill

 

I'm sorry, but that seems like an easy way out of the question. There is no way I would ever equate someone giving their child junk food as evil as a pedophile.

 

I realize that many parents are feeding their children too much junk food, but not all parents are. I posted on the other thread that we eat out once a week. It's usually fast food, and I let the kids get what they want. We don't keep soda in our house, so I think they ought to have one once a week for a treat.

 

I don't think the problem is the toys and advertising AT ALL. The kids can't drive themselves there. The problem is working moms are too tired and stressed to go home and cook supper. Also, kids are involved in so many activities after school that the families sometimes don't even go home until late.

 

This country has A LOT of working moms and a lot of afterschool programs such as sports, dance, etc. If families went home, ate meals together, and spent their evenings doing things together instead of running the roads, maybe everyone would be healthier and happier. I think we'd have much stronger families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Plenty of people really do just fine on a lot of junk food, and it is quite well known that being sedentary is the real problem (something that is fostered by public education and our modern world in general)."

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that people can eat a steady diet of fast food, and as long as they get regular exercise, they will be perfectly healthy? That's ridiculous, and wrong.:glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since rates of obesity, type II diabetes, and beginning stages of heart disease have skyrocketed in children as a direct result of these sorts of unhealthful diets.

 

Happy Meals are not fit for children.

 

Bill

 

That is the fault of the parents not McDonalds. If McDonalds didn't even exist those parents would still make poor food choices for their children. Do you propose that we make all soda, candy, chips, pizza, etc. illegal just because some people don't use common sense?

 

TV should probably be illegal too since those same parents most likely let their children watch too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the fault of the parents not McDonalds. If McDonalds didn't even exist those parents would still make poor food choices for their children. Do you propose that we make all soda, candy, chips, pizza, etc. illegal just because some people don't use common sense?

 

 

The food wasn't make illegal, just the marketing gimmick of giving toys as incentives for demonstrably unhealthy meals aimed at children.

 

People are still free to not use common sense.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's all in what you choose to acknowledge.

 

My sister lived in SF for over a decade with nothing she saw or heard ever pinging on her radar. All-purpose, open-minded, progressive individual.

 

Fast forward - she had two kids. Suddenly, she was appalled by, well, practically everything. Shop window displays. PDAs. Parades. Clothing choices. Percentage of homeless and panhandlers (one of the largest in the nation due to climate) - their presence, not that she wanted to DO anything to fix the issue. On and on.

 

I've lived in SF. And other large (eg: cosmopolitan, not necessarily sq mile) cities. It isn't the Happy Meal. Or the toy. It isn't Amazon. Or "the book". You can buy the stupid toy even w/o buying the Happy Meal (did you know that?). You can buy a book like that from numerous other places. It wouldn't have been on Amazon if people weren't buying it, as disgusting as its content is.

 

If a person wants to feed their kid crap, they will. If they want their kid to have a cheap toy, they'll get them one. If they want to molest children, they will. If they want "pointers", they'll find them. It's one big continuum of liberties from the relatively benign ("I'm in a hurry, here - have some chicken nuggets - gee, I hope I'm not a bad parent because my kid seems to be spending a lot of time eating fast food in the car with a toy to make them not whine about running errands") to the truly horrible (some @sshole gets their jollies buying a book on how to prey on children).

 

Society isn't going to solve either by taking away a toy or a book, but in the aggregate, the window dressing makes those who advocate for such "feel better."

 

And that's what it is, IMO - window dressing.

 

 

a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Plenty of people really do just fine on a lot of junk food, and it is quite well known that being sedentary is the real problem (something that is fostered by public education and our modern world in general)."

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that people can eat a steady diet of fast food, and as long as they get regular exercise, they will be perfectly healthy? That's ridiculous, and wrong.:glare:

 

I did not say "steady." I said "a lot." And what is "perfectly healthy" anyway? Everyone dies therefore no one is "perfectly healthy." And people also smoke for many years without getting cancer. Some of them that I know are very healthy and even athletic for many years. The tipping point is not clearly definable. Yes, I think people can do things a lot and live. That FACT is why people risk doing it, because they are able to get a lot of enjoyment out of it for a long time before it affects them. And with the food there are other factors, such as cost, as many have noted. If it really killed them off reliably, no one would do it. And I do think activity level is a major and neglected factor.

 

THAT was not the main point of my post anyway. What about the main point? You did understand the main point, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Plenty of people really do just fine on a lot of junk food, and it is quite well known that being sedentary is the real problem (something that is fostered by public education and our modern world in general)."

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that people can eat a steady diet of fast food, and as long as they get regular exercise, they will be perfectly healthy? That's ridiculous, and wrong.:glare:

 

It looks like research is showing that we don't know it all. This guy lost 27 lbs., lowered his LDL by 30%, raised his HDL by 30%, and lowered his triglycerides by 39%... on his Twinkie diet. There are some excellent questions posed in the article. Does this mean he's now healthier after eating Twinkies and Little Debbies for 10 weeks? Has his risk of cancer gone up from eating junk? While it was clearly a stunt diet, it has raised some important questions.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

 

Just thought I'd throw this in the mix. :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course no one has made such an equation.

 

That does not change the fact that a steady diet of food like Happy Meals causes children serious harm.

 

Bill

I agree, but like others have stated, removing the toy doesn't really change whether or not parents will buy the junk for their kids. How much help will removing the toy actually be when the adults are already brain washed into thinking that "food" is alright? Further, how many children will be first exposed to evil "nanny" state hoopla through this? It seems to me that, while the idea is noble, it wasn't well planned. SF now has a group of children that will always remember when the government took their toys away.

I think it's all in what you choose to acknowledge.

 

My sister lived in SF for over a decade with nothing she saw or heard ever pinging on her radar. All-purpose, open-minded, progressive individual.

 

Fast forward - she had two kids. Suddenly, she was appalled by, well, practically everything. Shop window displays. PDAs. Parades. Clothing choices. Percentage of homeless and panhandlers (one of the largest in the nation due to climate) - their presence, not that she wanted to DO anything to fix the issue. On and on.

 

I've lived in SF. And other large (eg: cosmopolitan, not necessarily sq mile) cities. It isn't the Happy Meal. Or the toy. It isn't Amazon. Or "the book". You can buy the stupid toy even w/o buying the Happy Meal (did you know that?). You can buy a book like that from numerous other places. It wouldn't have been on Amazon if people weren't buying it, as disgusting as its content is.

 

If a person wants to feed their kid crap, they will. If they want their kid to have a cheap toy, they'll get them one. If they want to molest children, they will. If they want "pointers", they'll find them. It's one big continuum of liberties from the relatively benign ("I'm in a hurry, here - have some chicken nuggets - gee, I hope I'm not a bad parent because my kid seems to be spending a lot of time eating fast food in the car with a toy to make them not whine about running errands") to the truly horrible (some @sshole gets their jollies buying a book on how to prey on children).

 

Society isn't going to solve either by taking away a toy or a book, but in the aggregate, the window dressing makes those who advocate for such "feel better."

 

And that's what it is, IMO - window dressing.

 

 

a

:iagree:

:iagree: first of a series of videos I watched just yesterday on the topic of marketing to children (including food but far beyond that): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCT7h-jwCWA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

Interestingly, in light of the thread, one person went so far as to call these marketing professionals that prey on children for their own personal gain pedophiles. Their tactics aren't that different.

I agree. They're manipulating children in order to get what they want. In this case it's money, or "customer loyalty." How sick does that sound when set next to pedophilia?

 

How about, instead of banning the toys they go proactive, like they did with cigarettes and make the fast food joints hand out toys that illustrate just what Happy Meals are doing to the children. Give out healthy little boy and girl toys that you stuff with a french fry or bit of burger and get to watch as they swell and become imobile. Give out books that show where that "food" is coming from. Give out toy factories where the kids can take something healthy and fill it up with preservatives and other crap. Science experiments that encourage Mom and Dad to buy a second Happy Meal, just to see how long it will last sitting out. There are better ways of doing this that will leave children informed, rather than mourning their lost toys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Plenty of people really do just fine on a lot of junk food, and it is quite well known that being sedentary is the real problem (something that is fostered by public education and our modern world in general)."

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that people can eat a steady diet of fast food, and as long as they get regular exercise, they will be perfectly healthy? That's ridiculous, and wrong.:glare:

 

Maybe not healthy, but not fat either. http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

 

There are many factors contributing to obesity. A happy meal a day is not the straw that breaks the back. It's one in a pile of bad choices by obese, unhealthy people.

 

ETA: I see someone beat me to the punch here. Should have read the whole thread.

Edited by TXMomof4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like research is showing that we don't know it all. This guy lost 27 lbs., lowered his LDL by 30%, raised his HDL by 30%, and lowered his triglycerides by 39%... on his Twinkie diet. There are some excellent questions posed in the article. Does this mean he's now healthier after eating Twinkies and Little Debbies for 10 weeks? Has his risk of cancer gone up from eating junk? While it was clearly a stunt diet, it has raised some important questions.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

 

Just thought I'd throw this in the mix. :001_smile:

:iagree:Great post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like research is showing that we don't know it all. This guy lost 27 lbs., lowered his LDL by 30%, raised his HDL by 30%, and lowered his triglycerides by 39%... on his Twinkie diet. There are some excellent questions posed in the article. Does this mean he's now healthier after eating Twinkies and Little Debbies for 10 weeks? Has his risk of cancer gone up from eating junk? While it was clearly a stunt diet, it has raised some important questions.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

 

Just thought I'd throw this in the mix. :001_smile:

Well, that study is definitely interesting, however, he did get 1/3 of his calories from vegetables, protein shakes and vitamins. I am sure his results would have been very different had he not chosen to supplement his unhealthy diet with those things.

I think too many folks reading about this study will think that you can eat nothing but little debbie snacks and do just fine. That's not true, and at any rate, while his cholesterol, weight and blood pressure were improved, it was just a fluke. I can only imagine the damage he did to his organs. You are what you eat- if it was healthy to eat that crap then why are so many Americans so sick? Also, being at a good weight is not always a measure of ones health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would rather feed my children a happy meal 3 times a day for the rest of their lives than have them molested once!

 

:001_huh:

 

Of two evils, choose neither ~Charles Spurgeon

 

Bill

 

 

:iagree:

 

 

The food wasn't make illegal, just the marketing gimmick of giving toys as incentives for demonstrably unhealthy meals aimed at children.

 

 

If you say it enough times, Bill, it may eventually make its way through. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you say it enough times, Bill, it may eventually make its way through. ;)

 

I'm not counting on it. It is far easier to ignore common sense and accuse people of being "collectivists" and supporters of a nanny state than actually look at the facts. Sigh.

 

I wonder if the same people would support ending the advertising ban on marketing cigarettes to children using characters like Joe Camel and the like?

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...