Ban Marketing That Targets Children Under 10?

Originally posted by rwingett
How should I know? Human beings are a creative species. I'm sure they could devise a society that did not require advertising revenues to function properly. And if they were given the opportunity to reorganize society in such a fashion, I'm sure it would have a great deal of popular support.

Again - you're thinking solely within the constraints of socie ...[text shortened]... ed. There is no reason that society couldn't be organized in a completely different fashion.

Advertising gives you choices to make. Are choices a bad thing? Choices indicate liberty.

Me, I'll take the advertising and choices, over no competition, no advertising and tyranny. No advertiser can make me or my kids buy their product or service.

Originally posted by quackquack
Banning a whole industry is a radical suggestion. It is really radical when the industry is lucrative and we the economy is so desperate for money that huge segments are pushing for stimulus projects that aren't ever as good as a working industry. We don't ban cigarettes or alcohol yet you are against advertising.

Why are you convinced advertising is ...[text shortened]... ple like watching ball games or their favorite weekly show. Advertising makes this possible.

That's just another thing they could tax the rich to pay for.

Originally posted by FMF
So we have established at least one significant example of the protection of children from commercial activity - in this instance the marketing and sale of tobacco - not being left to the parents, but being the subject of government intervention instead.

Just how effective has this policy been. Joe Camel was banned about 20 years ago, and still the influx of new smokers is primarily among teens and young adults.

Do you think that maybe imposing an age limit, creates the image of smoking and drinking being grown up.

Originally posted by generalissimo
So no, we haven't "established" anything, we're only considering this proposal of yours with a little more regard for context.

Well we have established that parents are not always solely responsible and that the government does intervene to help protect children - and that it happens in the case of a very profitable business.

Originally posted by FMF
So you think tobacco companies should be able to market their products to children under 10?

Ok, so if we restrict the smoking industry from trying to appeal to children because smoking is bad for you based on medical evidence, should we then ban the public schools from putting homosexual behavoir in a favorable light since more than half of AIDS cases are a result of homosexual behavior as well?

Originally posted by FMF
Well we have established that parents are not always solely responsible and that the government does intervene to help protect children - and that it happens in the case of a very profitable business.

So government does step in to protect children, that's quite a revelation you stumbled upon.

But moving on, parents still have duties of their own with regards to their children, and there are certain functions only they can realistically perform. Whether this happens in the case of a profitable business or a not so profitable business is irrelevant, it still makes little sense to debate the OP's proposal while making no reference to the existing body of laws regulating what can be sold and who can buy it. Furthermore, as it has been noted before, it seems you haven't elaborated sufficiently on how it is that parents are incapable of having any say on the habits of children under 10 to the point where government intervention is deemed necessary.

Originally posted by whodey
Ok, so if we restrict the smoking industry from trying to appeal to children because smoking is bad for you based on medical evidence, should we then ban the public schools from putting homosexual behavoir in a favorable light since more than half of AIDS cases are a result of homosexual behavior as well?

No I don't think so. I think homosexual sex between children or between adults and children should be illegal.

Originally posted by generalissimo
So government does step in to protect children, that's quite a revelation you stumbled upon.

On page one you said "...it should be the parents duty to protect their children from falling prey to unscrupulous businesses, a duty which can't be performed by government". Does this mean you oppose laws that forbid marketing/selling cigarettes to children?

Originally posted by normbenign
This is loonacy. Children under ten have no buying power without their parents.

So would you support a ban on unaccompanied children of 10 or less buying unhealthy food or drinks, to ensure that the decision to consume or not consume is taken by parents as opposed to by children who may be influenced by the marketing and unable to make an informed choice?

Originally posted by normbenign
Advertising gives you choices to make. Are choices a bad thing? Choices indicate liberty.

Me, I'll take the advertising and choices, over no competition, no advertising and tyranny. No advertiser can make me or my kids buy their product or service.

So McDonalds targeting the young through TV advertising when they get home is okay with you? Why should McDonalds be the one who gets to exercise their liberty to sell you patently unhealthy food? Name one rspected nutritionist who would suggest that a typical McDonalds meal, (with fries and a Coke) is good for you.

Yet with the power of advertising ( top sports stars enjoy it, your McD's is the home to happy smiling successful people coming and going etc) eating at McDonalds is as an accepted norm as say smoking was in the 40's to 70's.

With all the evidence of increasing obesity rates and the inevitable health costs those obesity rates will have in the future, who's freedom are we protecting when we say regulating an industry will lead to tyranny?

Protecting free speech at the expense of America's health to the point where obesity related illness will swamp the Federal Health budget way into the future, is not freedom. Seeing an oncoming storm and standing eyes wide shut in its path is just plain stupid.

Originally posted by generalissimo
...it seems you haven't elaborated sufficiently on how it is that parents are incapable of having any say on the habits of children under 10 to the point where government intervention is deemed necessary.

If you can find the post of mine in which you thought I said something along the lines of '...parents are incapable of having any say on the habits of children" then please point it out. You may have misunderstood me. Or it may be one of your straw men. Please clarify.

It doesn't have to be me who elaborates. People are discussing this topic from whatever angle they choose. Your preference for parental responsibility compared to government regulation is noted.

Originally posted by kmax87
So McDonalds targeting the young through TV advertising when they get home is okay with you? Why should McDonalds be the one who gets to exercise their liberty to sell you patently unhealthy food?

McDonalds is just one in a long list of predators, who get to shoot fish in a barrel with your children's eating habits in the afternoon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donald-cohen/marketing-junk-food-to-kids_b_999376.html

'According to an analysis by the FTC, 44 food and beverage companies spent $2 billion in 2006 alone marketing to children. There's a huge amount at stake for the junk food and media industries. James McNeal, a former marketing professor at Texas A&M University, estimates that children influence more than $100 billion food and beverage purchases each year.'

you can find the FTC report here.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/07/P064504foodmktingreport.pdf

Originally posted by normbenign
Advertising gives you choices to make. Are choices a bad thing? Choices indicate liberty.

Me, I'll take the advertising and choices, over no competition, no advertising and tyranny. No advertiser can make me or my kids buy their product or service.

There is the illusion of choice. Usually we are made to swllow whatever tripe is dished up by the media and advertising. Puppet on the left or the puppet on the right? Hmmm....

Originally posted by FMF
No I don't think so. I think homosexual sex between children or between adults and children should be illegal.

The sex laws here refer to children as being under 16 (not 18 or 21). What age of children are you talking about with your homosexual assertion?

Originally posted by FMF
No I don't think so. I think homosexual sex between children or between adults and children should be illegal.

No, I'm talking about teenagers FMF.