27 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakThe level of hysteria in the Debate forum lately is truly remarkable.
Do you think it dictatorial for the State to intervene if somebody targeted children with ads for Heroine? Is this not an attack on your freedom?
Do you agree with Health and Safety laws governing the way food is kept to insure that the cases of illnesses like gastroenteritis are minimised? Is this not government "meddling"?
I'll presume that you're ...[text shortened]... houldn't they police the quality of "food" that is being targeted at our children?
D
I was responding to those people who were talking about direct government intervention directed towards parents who don't "properly" feed their children. What that has to do with your post is a mystery to me.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by NordlysMore shrieking.
Yes, we should do away with all professionals. Let all kids be homeschooled, we don't want the children to be influenced by a state-approved curriculum, or have overanxious teachers who may try to meddle in the parent-child relationship, claiming that the child has problems or looks unhealthy. Getting rid of schools will also solve the problem of meals at sc ...[text shortened]... ay need to call in the child protection service to get the child the help xe needs.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyI was replying to this statement that you made:
Are you replying to my post or did you just have an imaginary conversation in your head? I was talking about advertising and you're talking to me as if I'm talking about micromanaging children.
Parents not feeding their children properly is nothing short of abusive and neglectful
Maybe you forgot you wrote this; you don't seem too bright.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by RagnorakDragnut
Do you agree with Health and Safety laws governing the way food is kept to insure that the cases of illnesses like gastroenteritis are minimised? Is this not government "meddling"?
I'll presume that you're reasonable and that you agree that the State do have to police things like the two mentioned above. Why then shouldn't they police the quality of "food" that is being targeted at our children?
D
Food safety laws should be privatised, those companies wishing to have their premises and food certified may then purchase the services of a reputable certification company. The cost of certification would then be passed onto their customers. The certification would also be a selling point, anyone wishing to risk their health at an un-certified restaurant would be free to do so. Millions do. You're more at risk of food poisoning in your own home, are we to see grey shoe wearing, clip board toting bureauRats entering private homes - but hey, it's for your own good.
When you say "our children" whose children in particular are you staking a claim on.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by scottishinnz...and environmentalism.
But McDonalds' advertising does have a brainwashing effect on those less able to make sound judgements, especially children. You can talk about "parental responsibility" here, and I'd agree, but those children will grow up some day, and we all know how effective childhood brainwashing is - look at religion.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by no1marauderAt what point did I say that parenting needs to be micromanaged, or are you trying to construct a strawman? My main point always was advertising, yet you chose to go back on a single throwaway comment I'd made earlier
I was replying to this statement that you made:
Parents not feeding their children properly is nothing short of abusive and neglectful
Maybe you forgot you wrote this; you don't seem too bright.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by reader1107Of course, every ad isn't targeted at every single person. But if you have an interest in purchasing what is being advertised, then it WILL have an effect on you. I had an amazing revelation a while back. I turned on the TV, realised that there was soccer on, and my first thought was "Hmmmm, beeeer!"
I've seen enough beer ads in football games that I could stock a bar if I actually bought the stuff. There are plenty of ads for cars and other motor vehicles, for products to erect something I don't have, commercials to make yogurt look like it's practically erotic ... It's all just nonsense filler.
Re food advertising. I think it should definitely be limited to only at meal times. I've had a nice big dinner and dessert, sat down to watch a bit of tv, when a little while later a food ad comes on, and instantly, I'd think, "oooh, I'd love one of those". Hunger is very suggestive.
D
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by no1marauderI haven't read the entire thread, but it seemed from your post that I quoted, that the government should do nothing (unless the child was being abused), despite the fact that some of the things being sold to kids are nearly as damaging as heroin.
The level of hysteria in the Debate forum lately is truly remarkable.
I was responding to those people who were talking about direct government intervention directed towards parents who don't "properly" feed their children. What that has to do with your post is a mystery to me.
D
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by WajomaWhat are you rambling on about?
Dragnut
Food safety laws should be privatised, those companies wishing to have their premises and food certified may then purchase the services of a reputable certification company. The cost of certification would then be passed onto their customers. The certification would also be a selling point, anyone wishing to risk their health at an un-certified r ...[text shortened]... ood.
When you say "our children" whose children in particular are you staking a claim on.
I hope you remember your flippant remarks when you have loved ones dying of cancer or heart disease. I'm sure they'll entertain you in your time of need.
D
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by reader1107I don't watch much TV. You think that your anecdotal evidence of thinking you're immune to advertising is enough for an argument? Children are being educated by television more than their parents, and recognise the company spokesman more than popularised images of jesus, recognise the golden arches more often than a crucifix. They are imprinted with an urge to buy a product based on the advertising, not the product itself.
Really? Why not make a list of every commercial you see in one day, and then make a mark next to each one that is for a product you bought that week. I rarely seem commercials for the things I do buy, and even more rarely buy things I see in commercials. I've seen enough beer ads in football games that I could stock a bar if I actually bought the stuff ...[text shortened]... form your opinions and habits? And if you don't -- then why do you assume that others do?
You don't necessarily want the product immediately, the effect is more subtle and subconscious.
The effects of advertising are well known
http://www.apa.org/releases/childrenads.html
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002414.html
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungEver heard the expression "don't you think you've had enough"?
You think McDonald's is supposed to take responsibility for people being "addicted" to food?
If you sell an addictive product and your clients get hooked on it, you are responsible for the addiction.
Just like if you sold someone a faulty product and they got injured as a result - you are responsible.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyAddiction is a choice mcstabby, there isn't one addiction that hasn't been beaten by a person just deciding not to do it.
Ever heard the expression "don't you think you've had enough"?
If you sell an addictive product and your clients get hooked on it, you are responsible for the addiction.
Just like if you sold someone a faulty product and they got injured as a result - you are responsible.
Weak people claim 'addiction' and I doubt there isn't one thing that some nutcase hasn't claimed an addiction to, buyer beware, try to take just a little responsibility for your own choices and leave others to run their own lives while you're at it.
If you sold a product and made some claim about what it was capable of and it then didn't perform then the seller is indeed responsible. If some fast food company did make the claim that after eating one burger you will never eat another again, and then a person did go back for a second burger then that company would be responsible. I am unaware of any companies making such a claim.