Ban Marketing That Targets Children Under 10?

Originally posted by whodey
No, I'm talking about teenagers FMF.

I support laws forbidding underage sex, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
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?

What assertion are you referring to?

Originally posted by FMF
What assertion are you referring to?

The assertion that sex should be banned for children. What age do you mean?
Here, if you have sex with a girl, she's got to be 16. I dont know what law, if any , there is for homosexuals.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
The assertion that sex should be banned for children. What age do you mean?
Here, if you have sex with a girl, she's got to be 16. I dont know what law, if any , there is for homosexuals.

I agree with there being a ban on sexual intercourse under the age of 16 (i.e. children).

Originally posted by FMF
I agree with there being a ban on sexual intercourse under the age of 16 (i.e. children).

Oh,ok.(the term "children" can be hard to define) With all other laws it seems to be 18. While they have to start paying adult fares/prices as young as 13 for some services and places. Usually everything is adult-priced by 16.

(also I was somewhat confused by the thread title which referred to 10 year olds, as I read through this thread the first time)

Originally posted by FMF
Children need to be protected from the compulsive consumerism and commercialism of the adult world.

Agree or disagree?

Why?

Unconstitutional.

'nuff said.

Originally posted by rwingett
Why not just ban all advertising? It's a huge expenditure of resources that brings no net benefit to society.

Why not just ban liberty? People doing things the society doesn't want them to do is a huge expenditure of resources that brings no net benefit to society.

Originally posted by rwingett
Generally, I would ban all obtrusive forms of advertising. Unobtrusive forms of advertising, such as specific sites, or locations, that require some action by the consumer to go to it, would be permitted.

We bow before your superior wisdom, oh mighty ruler! Tell us what we can and cannot do so that we are lead down the path of True Righteousness! Baaaa! Baaaa!

Originally posted by FMF
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?

It matters not in the slightest whether I agree or disagree with these laws, just as it doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with homosexual acts between adults and children- the fact is that these laws do indeed exist, and there's no reason why they should be ignored when debating the proposal put forward by the OP. Unless it was your original intention to theorize about marketing that targets children in a vacuum, completely oblivious to context or the circumstances of the real world.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Unconstitutional.

'nuff said.

If a proposed law, which appears to be of benefit to society, is unconstitutional, that may show there is something wrong with the law. Alternatively, it may expose flaws in the constitution.

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.

Advertising doesn't give you choices, it only alerts you to their availability.

And the dichotomy in your next sentence is a false one. What about the middle ground of a society with plenty of market choice, but no (or limited) advertising?

Originally posted by FMF
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 ang ...[text shortened]... oose. Your preference for parental responsibility compared to government regulation is noted.

The OP is based on assumptions which are not entirely justified; it hasn't been explained to any sufficient degree how it is that children can realistically fall prey to compulsive consumerism, nor has it been explained how it is that their plight is such that they require government intervention or "protection".

This the reason why I can't bring myself to endorse any ban to certain marketing practices, as you have phrased it at least.

Originally posted by generalissimo
The OP is based on assumptions which are not entirely justified; it hasn't been explained to any sufficient degree how it is that children can realistically fall prey to compulsive consumerism, nor has it been explained how it is that their plight is such that they require government intervention or "protection".

This the reason why I can't bring myself to endorse any ban to certain marketing practices, as you have phrased it at least.

Thanks for your input.

Originally posted by generalissimo
It matters not in the slightest whether I agree or disagree with these laws, just as it doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with homosexual acts between adults and children- the fact is that these laws do indeed exist, and there's no reason why they should be ignored when debating the proposal put forward by the OP.

The existence of laws protecting children from the tobacco industry is not being "ignored" - indeed it has been mentioned repeatedly, and has been cited of an example of government intervention, although it's still not clear if you agree with it or not. And as for you thinking that your agreement or disagreement "matters not in the slightest" then it is not clear why you are getting involved in this debate: that's what people do here - state what they agree and disagree with and why.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Here in SA, there is expensive satellite tv, free satellite tv, and tv licence and advert supported terrestrial tv.
Most of the free satellite channels are pushing something (religion, propaganda).
Interestingly, paid for satellite TV spends a lot of time advertising themselves.

I think TV could be supported by being paid for directly either via a tax system or a flat licence fee. It does not require adverts.

You mean like the Soviet system? I'd rather get propaganda from commercial sources than from the government.