23 Apr 07
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIf parents simply didn't allow their fat kids to stuff their fat faces with a bag of fattening chips, it wouldn't be profitable to advertise.
People have been moaning on about bad parenting for as long as I've been around. They've always been right-wingers defending the free market. This makes me conclude that parents aren't, in general, the problem, but in fact the unregulated free market.
As for bad parenting. Yes, the right has been complaining about it for decades. Have you noticed any patterns over the last few decades? Child Obesity? Teenage pregnancy? Child criminals?
Do you honestly think that has nothing to do with parenting?
Maybe kids are fat because we deregulated the airlines????
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
23 Apr 07
Originally posted by MerkWhich is more important: the child or the advertisers?
If parents simply didn't allow their fat kids to stuff their fat faces with a bag of fattening chips, it wouldn't be profitable to advertise.
As for bad parenting. Yes, the right has been complaining about it for decades. Have you noticed any patterns over the last few decades? Child Obesity? Teenage pregnancy? Child criminals?
Do you honestly think th ...[text shortened]... s nothing to do with parenting?
Maybe kids are fat because we deregulated the airlines????
Bad parents aside, it is children that matter, yes?
Advertising to the child is often just putting another burden on the parent, who are often already stretched a lot.
Especially the lower classes that already have a limited education and so can't as fully easily understand all the food ingredients and what they do, parents that have to work really long hours to earn enough, or single mothers that need their job to live, but struggle to take care of their children.
Yes, bad parenting indeed, let's blame the parents, not the society that makes it so difficult for them.
23 Apr 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfIs that post a joke?
Which is more important: the child or the advertisers?
Bad parents aside, it is children that matter, yes?
Advertising to the child is often just putting another burden on the parent, who are often already stretched a lot.
Especially the lower classes that already have a limited education and so can't as fully easily understand all the food ingredients ...[text shortened]... arenting indeed, let's blame the parents, not the society that makes it so difficult for them.
First and foremost, with good parenting the advertisers wouldn't be able to sell nearly as much garbage food. The reason the junk food market for kids has gotten so big is because its filling in the void left by bad parenting. Parents don't have to buy skittles for their kids. The only reason they do is because they give in. Giving in is easier than doing what's right for their childred. They took the easy way out, and their kids got fat because of it.
And, are you saying that parents without a college education aren't smart enough to feed their children properly? Not letting your kids snack on junk all day isn't rocket science.
At this point, I want to point out how well my ava symbolizes the transie point of view in this thread.
23 Apr 07
Originally posted by MerkThat won't happen because the fast food culture is now so ingrained in the Western lifestyle - via advertising - that firms like McDonald's literally have a captive market.
No. It could not be argued that advertising limits choice.
If carrot growers flooded the Saturday morning cartoons with ads would they be limiting choice?
Your argument is based on a premise that just doesn't exist.
My argument is based on logic.
- fast food companies target kids (I wonder why!?)
- kids pester parents
- parents take em to Maccy D's
- kids get fat - grow up with health/psychological/self-esteem issues
- hence many remain overweight as adults
- hey presto! Obesity epidemic
Why not remove part of the equation? Since it would be impracticle to get rid of parents, why not stop advertising crap foods to kids?
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
23 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkNo....
Is that post a joke?
First and foremost, with good parenting the advertisers wouldn't be able to sell nearly as much garbage food. The reason the junk food market for kids has gotten so big is because its filling in the void left by bad parenting. Parents don't have to buy skittles for their kids. The only reason they do is because they give in. Giving in is t, I want to point out how well my ava symbolizes the transie point of view in this thread.
Yeah, it is easier, do you ever wonder why they give in so easily?
Is it the kid's fault that the parent's have given in, considering how the kid nagging was so heavily influenced by advertising? I don't think so.
Why should the kids have to suffer because of it?
Yeah, maybe that was a bit much. 😳
23 Apr 07
Originally posted by SquelchbelchOther than the loss of thousands of jobs when fast food chains and candy manufacturers have to downsize, I don't see a problem not advertizing to children. I personally don't care if every fast food company in America closed their doors tomorrow. We are fooling ourselves though, kids are still going to be fat.
That won't happen because the fast food culture is now so ingrained in the Western lifestyle - via advertising - that firms like McDonald's literally have a captive market.
Your argument is based on a premise that just doesn't exist.
My argument is based on logic.
- fast food companies target kids (I wonder why!?)
- kids pester parents
- pa ...[text shortened]... it would be impracticle to get rid of parents, why not stop advertising crap foods to kids?
This is treating a symptom, not addressing the real problem. This is much like mandating that drunks not drive. The real problem is the drinking. One of my favorite pasttimes by the way. But, for example, making it illegal to drive drunk doesn't keep people from driving drunk or beating their wives and children when they get home.
My suggestion would be to go the same way we have been going for the last 5 years or so. Increasing public awareness of the benefits of a healthy lifestyle and the physical and mental plagues caused by obesity. Manufacturers are jumping on the bandwagon too. South Beach etc. etc. I see ads on the TV for exercising, for drinking milk etc. etc.
Beat Doritos at its own game. It won't be all
that hard either. Know why? Because we would be promoting a superior product!
For instance, I'm making pasta tonight. I'll be using whole wheat penne instead of white.
1 chicken breast.
1 fistful of whole wheat penne.
Add sauce of choice and eat.
There is nothing difficult or tricky about eating healthy and the small things make a difference.
All it takes is a little willpower when the kids want cotton candy.
Between the far right that wants every show off the air and the far left that wants advertizing abolished, our kids are screwed. Don't let TV babysit your kids and you've won half the battle. Going out in the yard and playing soccer with him instead wins the other half.
23 Apr 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfKids are not suffering because they watched an add. They are suffering because their parents didn't feed them properly.
No....
Yeah, it is easier, do you ever wonder why they give in so easily?
Is it the kid's fault that the parent's have given in, considering how the kid nagging was so heavily influenced by advertising? I don't think so.
Why should the kids have to suffer because of it?
Yeah, maybe that was a bit much. 😳
24 Apr 07
Originally posted by MerkThis is your concept of healthy eating? Or wholesome homecooked food? Do you know what they do with chickens - that was a meal full of anti-biotics. Take a read of the pasta sauce label, and read the list of additives (assuming they're required to list them in the US). Wholewheat pasta on the other hand is probably good healthy eating, but I always found it a bit too much, I prefer whole grain rice to the bleached stuff though.
For instance, I'm making pasta tonight. I'll be using whole wheat penne instead of white.
1 chicken breast.
1 fistful of whole wheat penne.
Add sauce of choice and eat.
There is nothing difficult or tricky about eating healthy and the small things make a difference.
Tonight I had cottage pie I made by a recipe that depended on what I had in the fridge with sugar snaps and for afters the remains of the plum pie I made yesterday. I don't give a damn whether it was healthy or not, but it was all made by me, and the main advantage with that is that I got control over what went into it (assuming it was in the fridge...). The big thing with home cooking is getting your head around managing left-overs to minimize the amount of work. These skills aren't passed on any more so everyone has to learn them afresh and there's nothing automatic about being able to cook, or being able to keep the workload minimal, like any other science it has to be learnt.
Time is a major economic problem for most people. You have to spend 8 hours a day at work, upto 4 hours travelling back and forth from work, and 6 to 8 hours sleeping. So that gives our putative "bad parents" 4-6 hours to spend with their kids. Bearing in mind one meal a day is provided at an educational establishment, and that ain't the parents fault unless they went private, they've got precious little time for good home cooking. So for breakfast it's going to be commercial cereal, packed full of sugar, sodium, sugar, and more sugar. Assuming that the parents in question are still borderline concious in the evening it's going to be pretty hard to resist buying television dinners. This isn't bad parents - it's a bad society. If you want to improve kids diets sort out the stuff they get at school, don't go round blaming people who work hard to provide their kids with anything.
24 Apr 07
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWho has a 2 hour commute each way. If we're going with a hypothetical, why not 8 hours commuting. As for saving time, do you think parents have time to make everything from scratch? Like they're own noodles? They're own sauce? Raise their own chickens? Quick, healthy meals is what they need. Not an a hour a night cooking.
This is your concept of healthy eating? Or wholesome homecooked food? Do you know what they do with chickens - that was a meal full of anti-biotics. Take a read of the pasta sauce label, and read the list of additives (assuming they're required to list them in the US). Wholewheat pasta on the other hand is probably good healthy eating, but I always f ...[text shortened]... l, don't go round blaming people who work hard to provide their kids with anything.
Also, I never said "clean eating" I said healthy eating. The chicken I buy happens to be antibiotic free. Even chicken that is raised with antibiotics is still relatively healthy. It's certainly not junk food. If cost is a concern for parents, antibiotic chicken is the hands down winner when out up against fast food. And yes, the sauce is no vegetable, but its fairly necessary for pasta and as long as you don't drown your plate in it, it's not that bad. Another quick meal is chicken or fish with steamed vegetables. They even make vegetables that come in bags that will steam in the microwave.
I don't know how it is there, but here parents can send their kids to school with lunch. They don't have to eat the school junk.
Quick story. My public school system used to serve this pizza that I despised as a kid. Now as an adult, a friend of mine works for the food distributor that sells food to schools. She sometimes buys that crap pizza for an after bender meal and let me tell ya, if you're drunk, that stuff is way better.
Also, your point about school food is valid. The menu at the schools here are horrible. Its something that should have been changed long ago. Its so bad here that our schools have pop machines in the hallways. And not just for the teenagers, they have them in elementary schools also. (1st thru 5th grade. That's about 7-11 years old)
24 Apr 07
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou're damn right I'm blaming the parents. If the kid eats 21 meals a week, 16 of them are at home at a minimum. The schools don't feed them when they're home and the school feeds them 5 meals a week ONLY if the parent chooses.
This is your concept of healthy eating? Or wholesome homecooked food? Do you know what they do with chickens - that was a meal full of anti-biotics. Take a read of the pasta sauce label, and read the list of additives (assuming they're required to list them in the US). Wholewheat pasta on the other hand is probably good healthy eating, but I always f ...[text shortened]... l, don't go round blaming people who work hard to provide their kids with anything.
One way to eliminate the school lunch program problem is to eliminate the school lunch program. Its a sad commentary on our schools, but if they don't make real, meaningful changes, eliminating the program might be a better choice. Slapping together a PB&J only takes a minute. Throw in a banana and a few pretzels for the kid to crunch on and its a thousand times better than the greasy cheesebread and fries he's getting at school and cost no more money than the school lunch.
Why our schools can't figure this out is beyond me. I realize some kids have allergies that have to be taken into account, but the basic premise is still sensible.
24 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Bad wolfI saw a few chunky monkeys while in England. If you'd like to fix legislation regarding peoples' diets, do it in your own country first. Don't throw stones at my house if yours is made of glass.
Indeed, good example.
Ads during children's programming are not designed for children to buy them. The children they are marketing to are too young to have any money. All children at that age are totally dependent on their parents for their diet, and it's their parents' decision what they feed them. The "silly rabbit" from the Trix commercials does not decide what parents feed their children. And good adults do not surrender because their children pester them, because they're adults. If a child is morbidly obese, and relies on the parent for their food, I fully support the prosecution of the parents. At the end of the day it's the parents' responsibility to be just that, parents. The child should not make the decisions, and it slays me that people would rather have the government babysit their child than taking responsibilty for your actions and taking care of your child's health.
You're just jealous foreigners can actually eat our food. 😛 😉
24 Apr 07
Originally posted by SquelchbelchAdvertising does not reduce my freedom. It influences my choices, sure, but there's nothing wrong with that.
It could be argued that massive advertising campaigns by fast food giants actually seek to reduce your freedoms - as any advertising based on kids pestering their parents.
I hardly think that a ban on these ads infringes civil liberties!
24 Apr 07
Originally posted by Darth Spongeand you would extend the rights of freedom to Ad agencies!!
and you would extend the rights of freedom to Ad agencies!! are you serious!? Restricting advertising- especially psychologically sophisticated ads especially designed to manipulate children- has nothing to do with individual rights- civil rights or freedoms.
how about the right for Coke, Pepsi and Frito Lay to put vending machines in junior highs and highschools? God Bless America: Land of the Free, Home of the Whopper.
No, I would defend the right of the people who own the ad agencies to advertise when you would suppress this right.
how about the right for Coke, Pepsi and Frito Lay to put vending machines in junior highs and highschools?
They don't have that right, no, unless the school gives them that right. Ad agencies aren't breaking into your house and painting their ads on the wall. They are legally renting the space they advertise on. The owner of that space has the right to permit advertising on it, yes. And once again, ads do not limit freedom.