Parents suing Kellogg's and Nickelodeon (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0601190085jan19,1,4608163.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed)

WASHINGTON -- Advocacy groups and parents said they will sue the Nickelodeon TV network and cereal-maker Kellogg Co. in an effort to stop junk food marketing to children.

The plaintiffs cite a recent report documenting the influence of marketing on what children eat. Advertisements aimed at kids are mostly for high-calorie, low-nutrition food and drinks, according to the government-chartered Institute of Medicine.

Sherri Carlson of Wakefield, Mass., said she tries to get her three kids to eat healthy foods.

"But then they turn on Nickelodeon and see all those enticing junk food ads," Carlson said. "We enter the grocery store and see our beloved Nick characters plastered on all those junky snacks and cereals."

Carlson and another plaintiff, Andrew Leong of Brookline, Mass., spoke at a news conference organized by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. They said they intend to sue Kellogg and Nickelodeon parent Viacom Inc. in state court in Massachusetts and served the required 30 days' notice on Wednesday.

"For over 30 years, public health advocates have urged companies to stop marketing junk food to children," said Susan Linn of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. "Even as rates of childhood obesity have soared, neither Viacom nor Kellogg has listened."


Seems to me that the big problem here is that the parents are unwilling or unable to say "no" to their children.

Capitalism is run by the consumer. If you don't like the way a company does something, stop buying from them. If enough people do that, then the company will change. Don't let the government do it for you.

When will people begin taking personal responsibility and stop expecting the government to run their lives? First seatbelts, then motorcycle helmets, then smoking restrictions, and now they want them to help them keep their children from eating junk foodl

I hope this frivolous suit is immediately dismissed. But I wouldn't go so far as to say these are 'bad parents'. While they are clearly deficient in one aspect (the ability to say no), they might excel in others. No such thing as a perfect parent.Originally posted by Frogger
When will people begin taking personal responsibility and stop expecting the government to run their lives? First seatbelts, then motorcycle helmets, then smoking restrictions, and now they want them to help them keep their children from eating junk foodl I'm curious, Frogger. Would you extend this argument to laws against marijuana?

I understand you criticize these people for not being able to say "no". But I don't understand how you can't see the responsibility of junk food companies towards public health, and how you cannot acknowledge the govt's duty to regulate what food is proposed to consumers.

*Yawn* How did I guess that after reading the article, a bunch of 'personal responsibility' nuts would step up and complain about these poor poor corporations being harassed by these 'frivolous' and 'unjustified' lawsuits. Sure, just boycott them. That'll do a lot of good! Yeah, watch over your kids, that'll keep the neighbor's kids from getting fat!

Look, corporations spend an awesome amount of money on psychological research that goes into their marketing. Untold gobs of cash go into forcing Lucky Charms into parent's cupboards. Believe it or not, people's behavior in the macro can be predicted and influenced by determinalistic science. No amount of harping on about personal responsibility is going to stop Kellogg's Frosted Flakes from being consumed by the ton by our rapidly expanding seven year-olds, except cutting off that science at the root. Honestly, do you folks think you can wave a magic wand and force all of the nation's beleagered parents to suddenly gain a new interest in what these sellsworths are selling to their kids? Do you think that will magically force pounds by the dozen to just fall off of our unhealthy children? Will that get them outside playing more? Will that get them to shut off their T.V.s and get active?

Foolishness.

The other day, at Wal-Mart, I heard the whiny kid as soon as I walked in the door.
And he was clear on the other side of the (very big ) building.
"I want a toy...sob....I want candy.... a toy...sob.....candy..... a toy...." in a terrible singsong whine that turned my hair white.

I QUICKLY got my items and went to pay, and as I left, I saw the poor beleagured Dad standing in line, buying toys and candy.

That is the problem right there.

They are neither heros nor bad parents. While parents really should be responsible and not buy foods they don't want their children to eat, the marketing can also reach a point such that it alters childrens minds to think of you as bad parents. When my parents refused to buy me junk food, limit my TV time, or refuse to buy me certain toys, I did not think of them as bad parents at all, even if I whined anyway. I KNEW the stuffs were not good for me. But what if children are brain-washed to the point where they judge their parents on how well their parents obeys marketing? Then they actually KNOW junk food is good for them. They KNOW toys are good for them. Because that's what they are actually taught.

In any case, since this is in America, part of the motivation to raise law suit is because people have legitimate chance to get big bucks from winning the law suit. Sueing somebody for something is a potenetially lucrative business in America. Some people make careers of it.

I agree on the point about the corporations using psychology to market their products to kids. However, it's the parents who are buying this stuff.

I completely agree with Dio. My parents did the same thing, and I turned out better for it. For most of my life, we barely had any sugar in the house at all.

When it comes right down to it, it's about choice. People choose to watch tv, not exercise, and eat junk food. Just because you listen to the lil devil on your shoulder doesn't mean it's his fault. He's just doing his job. Part of your job is also to listen to the lil guy on your right shoulder. He doesn't get enough attention nowadays.

Also, on Frogger's comment. I believe that seatbelts and motorcycle helmets would have developed anyway. It might have taken a bit longer, but eventually people would start to demand it. Hell, my grandfather installed his own seatbelts on the family car because he was concerned for his children's safety.

Also, smoking is a different issue; when you smoke, it affects other people's health too. The same cannot be said for Mars Bars.

Again, it's all about personal responsibility. If you wanna be stupid and kill yourself, go ahead, it's your life and it strengthens the gene pool.

Originally posted by astrapol2
But I don't understand how you can't see the responsibility of junk food companies towards public health,

Well, I guess we're both equally confused by each other's positions then, because I can't see how it's anyone's responsibility other than the parent's. How would responsibility be put upon the junk food maker anyway? Would they be required to keep track of how much each person buys? Would they not sell to people who are overweight?

Originally posted by astrapol2
and how you cannot acknowledge the govt's duty to regulate what food is proposed to consumers.

Generally speaking, Americans and Europeans (and Canadians too) have very different opinions on the role they want their government to play in their lives. I want my government to leave me alone and mind their own business. I think many people in other Western countries are more comfortable with some government intrusion. The moment I cede any power to the government regarding what I eat is the moment the government feels free to replace my favorite cereal with some tasteless bran product. I much prefer the government serving the role of ensuring that I'm fully informed about what's in my food (by requiring ingredient lists and nutritional information) and ensuring that it's safe and clean.



Originally posted by Napsterbater
Look, corporations spend an awesome amount of money on psychological research that goes into their marketing. Untold gobs of cash go into forcing Lucky Charms into parent's cupboards.

There isn't a company in this world that can force me to buy anything. Well, except the mob perhaps.


Originally posted by Napsterbater
Honestly, do you folks think you can wave a magic wand and force all of the nation's beleagered parents to suddenly gain a new interest in what these sellsworths are selling to their kids? Do you think that will magically force pounds by the dozen to just fall off of our unhealthy children? Will that get them outside playing more? Will that get them to shut off their T.V.s and get active?

Beleagered? I'm a parent and I'm not beleagered. When did parenting suddenly become this impossible task? But to answer your question, no, I don't think I can make parents suddenly become interested in what their kids are consuming. But then again, I don't know that I'm able to take responsibility for the world's children. After all, I'm apparently quite beleagered.

There isn't a company in this world that can force me to buy anything. Well, except the mob perhaps.

You are apparently unaware of what the term 'macro' means.

Beleagered? I'm a parent and I'm not beleagered. When did parenting suddenly become this impossible task?

*sighs* It appears there was a short between your fingers and your brain on this one. Please tell me where I said you were a beleagered parent. My statement was not semantically a blanket one. The world's beleagered parents may or may not include you. It is a fact though that it is hard to raise children and work at the same time, leading to a large number of parents without the time to both provide for and raise properly their children. Some people can juggle it. Some cannot. Please don't assume that everybody can simply because you are able to.

Originally posted by sedan
I hope this frivolous suit is immediately dismissed. But I wouldn't go so far as to say these are 'bad parents'. While they are clearly deficient in one aspect (the ability to say no), they might excel in others. No such thing as a perfect parent.I'm curious, Frogger. Would you extend this argument to laws against marijuana?

Yes, I would. I don't feel the government has either the responsibility or the right to protect adults from themselves. If grownups want to take marijuana, I say, let them just so long as they don't drive under the influence. I think adults should have the same right to injest marijuana that they have to ingest alcohol. I don't want the government protecting me from myself.

There are certain things the govearnment should protect citizens from. We should be protected from being harmed by others when we do not have the ability to prevent it. In all other cases the government should be forbidden from telling us what to do or not do.

If children were forced to eat unhealthy foods the government would be right in forbidding the advertising but since this is not the case it is not the business of the government to act in loco parentis . It is the same in all areas. If I want to wear a seat belt fine. If I do not want to wear a seat belt that is also fine. It is my right to take chances with my life. If adults wish to engage in S and M sex, that is their right. If a man or woman wants to prostitute him/herself, again that is a personal right.

Any actions by single adults or by groups of willing adults that hurt no one but themselves are not the business of the government.

"Bah, I LIKE kids, but they must learn what to eat and what NOT to eat! DISCIPLINE!!!


Spare the rod 'n boil the child!"



--Jeffrey Dahmer

It all comes down to the responsibility of having children. I'm sure there are those of us here that can name people that have children that shouldn't own a gold fish.

Children look to there parents for lifes little schooling we should show our children what is right and wrong good or bad. It has nothing to do with the money making industry. If parents buy a torch for junior because he likes fire then they turn around and sue beause he got burnt who is the dip wad? If a parent feeds there kid rat poison is it the corps. fault NO it's the parents, the same goes for this.

The real problem here is sue sue sue and a stupid society.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Well, I guess we're both equally confused by each other's positions then, because I can't see how it's anyone's responsibility other than the parent's. How would responsibility be put upon the junk food maker anyway?

In the same way drug dealers are responsible for people doing drugs.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
The moment I cede any power to the government regarding what I eat is the moment the government feels free to replace my favorite cereal with some tasteless bran product. I much prefer the government serving the role of ensuring that I'm fully informed about what's in my food (by requiring ingredient lists and nutritional information) and ensuring that it's safe and clean.

Then we agree. I don't ask for more. That's what I meant : there must be some laws to protect consumers and make information available for them in order to be able to make their choices.

To speak more generally about how some european people see govt as opposed to the average american, I would say that they consider their govt to be a protection rather than an intrusion ; and they feel private interests, if let without some laws to restrict them, will be motivated by greed rather than by public interest, and eventually act in their interest but not for the common good.
Now, this is in fact a very abusive generaliation : in fact many people in Europe would disagree with this, and I know some american members of this forum that would probably agree.
The funny thing is that in France we call people who tend to be more anti-govt control "liberals" !

astrapol 2

You are using the term liberal in its classical sense. That used to be the working definition of liberals in this country too. Somehow it got changed. What we now call liberals are actually neo-liberals who believe in more government intervention than most others. The term conservative has also changed with the advent of neo-consevatives. Maybe we should go back to using Federalist and anti-Federalist.

In France, "liberal" (in a political context) has been used for 10 or 15 years meaning "against govt intervention". I think it's the result of a clever rightwing word manipulation : at the end of the 80's, after one decade of "socialist" govt, the right was looking for a new, more modern, word than capitalism to describe its program. People who admired Thatcher or Reagan started presenting themselves as "economically liberal". The word liberal was not used in politics yet : we prefer the old left ws right distinction.
Then "liberal" and 'liberalisme" became in french synonym of "capitalist" or "free-trade". Most french people would label Bush as an "ultra-liberal" and leftwing movements usually target " le liberalisme" !

Originally posted by Napsterbater
You are apparently unaware of what the term 'macro' means.

No more than you're unable to extrapolate broader truths based on individual examples. Allow me to rephrase, however: there is no company anywhere that can force any product into any person's home.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
*sighs* It appears there was a short between your fingers and your brain on this one. Please tell me where I said you were a beleagered parent. My statement was not semantically a blanket one. The world's beleagered parents may or may not include you. It is a fact though that it is hard to raise children and work at the same time, leading to a large number of parents without the time to both provide for and raise properly their children. Some people can juggle it. Some cannot. Please don't assume that everybody can simply because you are able to.

Of course you didn't call me beleagered, but I still maintain that parents aren't any more beleagered now than they were before. It's just different. The temptations that influenced kids in the 50s were different, but not necessarily any less tempting. What has seemingly changed is the parents' willingness to resist.


Originally posted by astrapol2
In the same way drug dealers are responsible for people doing drugs.

But I don't agree that drug dealers are responsible either. Certainly they are not a positive influence, but ultimately whether someone chooses to do drugs or not do drugs is up to them.

Originally posted by astrapol2
The funny thing is that in France we call people who tend to be more anti-govt control "liberals" !

That's certainly in keeping with the definition of the word liberal. Unfortunately in the U.S. liberals and conservatives both seem to like governmental intrusion, they just want to use it for different purposes.

Originally posted by Frogger
When will people begin taking personal responsibility and stop expecting the government to run their lives? First seatbelts, then motorcycle helmets, then smoking restrictions, and now they want them to help them keep their children from eating junk foodl

I am thinking along the same lines as you-----the government is far too intrusive in our lives...........


..............HOWEVER........

....IF we all agree that it is not within the government's power to somehow restrict junk food companies from marketing to children, then it is ALSO not within the government's power to restrict alcohol or tobaco companies from marketing or advertising to children or any other consumer group they please......and it is ALSO not within the governmet's jurisdiction to tell people they are forbidden to smoke whatever plants they like.

Bad parents.

But that doesn't mean we are not also dealing with Bad companies. Many companies rely upon kids bugging the shit out of their parents to buy them stuff. They market to it. If the parents were smart they would try to turn their kids against such companies.

Allow me to rephrase, however: there is no company anywhere that can force any product into any person's home.

This is where we disagree. There is quite a lot a company can do to force its products into your house. In fact, there is an entire science devoted to it. That science works. It's called marketing. The evidence lies in the huge bank balances of these corporations that value money over the greater good, and in the willingness of these companies to spend huge piles of money to hire designers to draw on cereal boxes. You can cry as loud as you want that nobody is forcing you to buy anything, but you cannot deny the power of advertising to make people buy otherwise substandard products. The coffee you drink has likely been advertised, as has the computer (unless you're one of those hardcore techies like me that builds your own computers) you typed this on, as has your automobile, as has your refrigerator. Your bed has been advertised, your grocery store, your shoes. The power of mass advertising is undeniable, it probably pays your salary in one way or another. We need to make sure that power is used in good ways that benefit the community. It is what laws and justice is all about.

What has seemingly changed is the parents' willingness to resist.

What has changed is the amount of attention the world requires to keep on top of things as well as pursue the things you want out of life. Cold War life was rather simple. You go to work, come home, watch the news, complain about communists, then go to bed and do it all over again. Humans were never evolutionarily built to keep track of the sheer numbers of variables that modern life requires. These days not following all the rules can get you sued. Before, people were more understanding, and there was a set social way to deal with the world. Not everyone has the presence of mind to track their children's breakfast meals. We trust that the world's food conglomerates won't put unhealthy food on the shelves. They are failing to do so, and failing miserably.

What these parents are trying to do is not take this food off the shelves, they are trying to bring about a change in the advertising involved, so parents can make better choices with the information handed to them. Is it so hard to ask that companies be honest and truthful about the products they are trying to sell to people?

Originally posted by Napsterbater
This is where we disagree. There is quite a lot a company can do to force its products into your house. In fact, there is an entire science devoted to it. That science works. It's called marketing.

And we're going to keep disagreeing as long as you keep using words like "force." "Convince", "urge", or "strongly suggest" perhaps?

Originally posted by Napsterbater
What these parents are trying to do is not take this food off the shelves, they are trying to bring about a change in the advertising involved, so parents can make better choices with the information handed to them. Is it so hard to ask that companies be honest and truthful about the products they are trying to sell to people?

Not at all. In fact, in one of those rare instances in which the government did something right, we have nice nutritional information on everything we buy, not to mention lists of ingredients.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I am thinking along the same lines as you-----the government is far too intrusive in our lives...........


..............HOWEVER........

....IF we all agree that it is not within the government's power to somehow restrict junk food companies from marketing to children, then it is ALSO not within the government's power to restrict alcohol or tobaco companies from marketing or advertising to children or any other consumer group they please......and it is ALSO not within the governmet's jurisdiction to tell people they are forbidden to smoke whatever plants they like.


It's not.

And we're going to keep disagreeing as long as you keep using words like "force." "Convince", "urge", or "strongly suggest" perhaps?

Such words fail to appreciate how effective these tactics are. People buy General Mills/Kelloggs cereal in much the same way they buy Microsoft software, or vote for their politicians. Alternatives do exist, naturally, and they aren't holding a gun to your head and making you buy, but the sort of position both companies have on the market are such that only tactics of subtle coercion keep them in their positions as market leaders. General Mills and Kelloggs do not make good products. They make terrible ones, that stay on top of the market due to an unholy amount of advertising. What they are doing is much more effective than holding a gun to your head.

Not at all. In fact, in one of those rare instances in which the government did something right, we have nice nutritional information on everything we buy, not to mention lists of ingredients.

So why not accept this campaign to force marketers of unhealthy products to not take advantage of the power dynamic between parents and their children to push these overly-sweet, fattening foods onto them?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Bad parents.

But that doesn't mean we are not also dealing with Bad companies.

Are the companies really bad? or are they just trying to claim their fortune? Is the food really that bad? anything that is over done can be bad for your health, heck even drinking to much water can kill a peron. A person could smoke one cig a year and more then likely nothing bad would happen. Billybob could stop at the local bar and have a beer or 2 and nothing bad would happen. It still comes down to responsibilty, parents are responsible for their children and adults should be responsible for themselfs.

Many companies rely upon kids bugging the shit out of their parents to buy them stuff. They market to it. If the parents were smart they would try to turn their kids against such companies.

Maybe not turn them against a company as much as teach them good eating habits. I get a kick out of those kids that throw their little fits in the stores, it's even funnier when mom/dad give in. I think to myself you get what you teach, lead by example. My kids learned when they were very little that their parents won't put up with the wine BS of children. I quess I love my kids enough not to give in on every little "I want I want". From what I have seen parenting in this country has gone way down hill.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
So why not accept this campaign to force marketers of unhealthy products to not take advantage of the power dynamic between parents and their children to push these overly-sweet, fattening foods onto them?

1) The last thing this world needs is even more governmental regulation.
2) The power dynamic between parents and their children only exists if the parents allow it to exist.

Well said, and well said, Lionel. Right on both counts.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I am thinking along the same lines as you-----the government is far too intrusive in our lives...........


..............HOWEVER........

....IF we all agree that it is not within the government's power to somehow restrict junk food companies from marketing to children, then it is ALSO not within the government's power to restrict alcohol or tobaco companies from marketing or advertising to children or any other consumer group they please......and it is ALSO not within the governmet's jurisdiction to tell people they are forbidden to smoke whatever plants they like.

I don't see companies marketing alcohol to children because most children do not like the taste of it. It would be a waste of advertising money. As for people smoking whatever herb they wish, I think the government should butt out on that one. I personally do not smoke anything, including marijuana but I see nothing wrong with an adult smoking it if he so wishes.

Originally posted by Frogger
I don't see companies marketing alcohol to children because most children do not like the taste of it. It would be a waste of advertising money.
Well there's that, and there's also the small hurtle of it being illegal. I imagine that fact somewhat dissuades them from even thinking about it....

Originally posted by Napsterbater
*Yawn* How did I guess that after reading the article, a bunch of 'personal responsibility' nuts would step up and complain about these poor poor corporations being harassed by these 'frivolous' and 'unjustified' lawsuits. Sure, just boycott them. That'll do a lot of good! Yeah, watch over your kids, that'll keep the neighbor's kids from getting fat!

You really want the government to regulate further or close companies because you want your neighbor's children not fat? Personal accountability for your youth is a must, these problems would not exist if negligent, irresponsible providers did not either.

Honestly, do you folks think you can wave a magic wand and force all of the nation's beleagered parents to suddenly gain a new interest in what these sellsworths are selling to their kids?

No wand needed. You act as though it is an impossible task to educate parents and children about healthy exercise and diet habits.

Do you think that will magically force pounds by the dozen to just fall off of our unhealthy children? Will that get them outside playing more? Will that get them to shut off their T.V.s and get active?

Will the suing of the corporations to change their ways bring them to stop eating healthy foods, playing outside, and getting less TV time?

There is quite a lot a company can do to force its products into your house.

They can do nothing to force any product into your home. Through aggressive advertising they can convince you to buy the product, but it is a personal choice. Complain all you want about how these companies pour money into research to get you to buy their product, that doesn't detract from the fact that it is a personal decision.

Not everyone has the presence of mind to track their children's breakfast meals.

The companies must be chastised for the parent's shortcomings?

Is it so hard to ask that companies be honest and truthful about the products they are trying to sell to people?

They are made to give honest information regarding the ingredients and nutritional information on the food products we buy. Children take classes in school on health and exercise, food pyramids and a myriad of other ways are present to monitor eating habits, gyms are sprouting up around the country, and fast food chains are putting out more healthful menus. It is a personal fault if you are made fat by the television and fatty snacks. If you have no self-control, that may in part be due to intense marketing campaigns, but no advertising in the world controls your final decision.

Such words fail to appreciate how effective these tactics are.

Such words explain how their tactics work. You can advertise Pepsi every commercial break, have it in the newspapers, radio, and magazines, put it at the front of stores with signposts, your children can bother you to buy it, but you and you alone decide to purchase it.

So why not accept this campaign to force marketers of unhealthy products to not take advantage of the power dynamic between parents and their children to push these overly-sweet, fattening foods onto them?

So you want to take away more responsibilty from the already irresponsible parents, and give it to the companies as punishment for having their customers buy their products?

Originally posted by Evakian
They can do nothing to force any product into your home. Through aggressive advertising they can convince you to buy the product, but it is a personal choice. Complain all you want about how these companies pour money into research to get you to buy their product, that doesn't detract from the fact that it is a personal decision.Choice is an illusion. You only think you have a choice because you have been subliminally brainwashed to believe that you do. The marketers control you without your knowledge. All your base are belong to them.

Must..........buy...............Lucky Charms......

I am a mother of two, a son that is 1yr old and a daughter that is 5 yrs old (they are my pride and joy). Yes, advertising is a convincing way to get you to buy something, even more so when your 5 yr old sees it. My daughter is Nick viewer and the commercials do have a strong power over her, but mine is stronger. She is constantly coming up to me asking me to buy her this food and that toy that she saw advertised, but I tell her when she gets a job she can buy all that stuff. : ) Parents have to start when they are babies to teach them healthy foods from the junk. I allow her to eat the junk from time to time, but she knows it is not good for her to eat them all the time. My biggest problem in her eating the junk food is not advertisement or me, it is the GRANDPARENTS that are to blame. We should be suing the grandparents!!! My parents are the worlds worst. If I tell my daughter no to something she goes and asks her Granny and Grandpa. After the years I was told no to stuff I wanted growing up, they sure don't have a hard time saying yes to her! Everytime she sees them they have candy and junk for her (which is 3-5 times a week). I tell them no, but they won't listen to me. Anybody agree here???


SUE THE GRANDPARENTS!!!!!

Good point, Appickle.
This is not as simple as "bad parents" or good parents". The fact is that we live in a society where parents, even with the best intents, cannot have 100% control over whet their kids do, eat, watch or listen.
I really don't see any problem with laws (and not "the government" - this is not exactly the same) being used to protect kids from what may harm them.

Apart from the slogan "we don't want more govt interference" which is nothing but an ideological position.

Obesity is a real, huge health issue in our countries. It costs thousand of lives every year and a lot of money to our budget. The solution is partly a better information and health habits, which is the responsibility of people but also of food providers. That does not mean the law has to prohibit junk food, but trying to make it a little bit harder for companies to advertise their products towards kids seem reasonable.

IMO any advertising directed to kids should be prohibited. That would give more freedom to people, not less.

As an aside, I personally see nothing wrong with kids or adults eating junk food or "unhealthy" stuff now and then. We ate it as kids and I still do, in moderation, as do my kids. None of us is in prison, fat, or dysfunctional.
Seems to me there are lots bigger things for parents or people to worry about--like if your kid really really likes to play with fire.

I think the governement should step in and tell people what time to get up, which job they have to take, what food to eat when to go to bed etc.....This way we can just walk around with no more responsibilty and have a constant baby sitter to protect us from our stupid selfs. The government does such a great job I'm sure they could stop obesity and all the other troubles that face us each day. Bwahhaahaahaaheehee :D.

I say all those that want so much government control go live under someones thumb. I personally joined the service to protect my FREEDOMS and the biggest freedom of all is to not have big brother shoving his probe up my arse.

Originally posted by appickle
I am a mother of two, a son that is 1yr old and a daughter that is 5 yrs old (they are my pride and joy). Yes, advertising is a convincing way to get you to buy something, even more so when your 5 yr old sees it. My daughter is Nick viewer and the commercials do have a strong power over her, but mine is stronger. She is constantly coming up to me asking me to buy her this food and that toy that she saw advertised, but I tell her when she gets a job she can buy all that stuff. : ) Parents have to start when they are babies to teach them healthy foods from the junk. I allow her to eat the junk from time to time, but she knows it is not good for her to eat them all the time. My biggest problem in her eating the junk food is not advertisement or me, it is the GRANDPARENTS that are to blame. We should be suing the grandparents!!! My parents are the worlds worst. If I tell my daughter no to something she goes and asks her Granny and Grandpa. After the years I was told no to stuff I wanted growing up, they sure don't have a hard time saying yes to her! Everytime she sees them they have candy and junk for her (which is 3-5 times a week). I tell them no, but they won't listen to me. Anybody agree here???


SUE THE GRANDPARENTS!!!!!

Ooopps, that do sound like a problem
Tell the granparents it's ok to give yr kids all the candy and ice cream they want--as long as they pay the dentist's bill.:)

How ironic those who do not want any law regulating public health issues are often the same who have no problem with "patriot act", guantanamo, etc...

It seems when a govt really wants to play big brother they agree as long as it's for "ant-terrorist" purpose.

Originally posted by astrapol2
How ironic those who do not want any law regulating public health issues are often the same who have no problem with "patriot act", guantanamo, etc...

It seems when a govt really wants to play big brother they agree as long as it's for "ant-terrorist" purpose.

It's really more 50/50 on that. There are certainly a large number of people on this board that feel that way, but on the other hand there are a fair number of civil libertarians on this board that are against both.

1) The last thing this world needs is even more governmental regulation.
2) The power dynamic between parents and their children only exists if the parents allow it to exist.

The last thing individuals need is more governmental regulation. Organisations larger than the individual person need to be very carefully regulated so as to not restrict the freedom of the individual.

And you are flatly wrong if you think power dynamics between parents and their children are solely in the parents control. The parent has a great degree of control over their children, but children are much more versatile and resourceful than we give them credit for in getting what they want. They have nothing less than reproductive biology on their sides. Allowing large corporations to take advantage of that fact for profits is grossly irresponsible to the human race.

You really want the government to regulate further or close companies because you want your neighbor's children not fat?

I want the government to regulate companies so the do not take unfair advantage of psychology for profit.

You act as though it is an impossible task to educate parents and children about healthy exercise and diet habits.

It is. Exercise and diet is not healthy for children. Proper play is. Children have naturally high metabolisms and ample energy. Forcing children to live sedentarily through school and homework and eating overly sweet foods on top of that is destroying our nation's youth.

Will the suing of the corporations to change their ways bring them to stop eating healthy foods, playing outside, and getting less TV time?

It will eliminate one important factor towards unhealthy eating habits, namely, the exploitation of base biology by corporations for an unhealthy end.

They can do nothing to force any product into your home. Through aggressive advertising they can convince you to buy the product, but it is a personal choice. Complain all you want about how these companies pour money into research to get you to buy their product, that doesn't detract from the fact that it is a personal decision.

Advertising and marketing is determinalistic science. You do this, you take advantage of this, people open their wallets and buy your product, and place it in the pantry. It really is that simple. People don't like psychology because it undermines the principle of free will. But psychology works, and that is all the proof we need.

The companies must be chastised for the parent's shortcomings?

They must be chastised for taking unfair advantage of parent's shortcomings, to a significant public detriment.

They are made to give honest information regarding the ingredients and nutritional information on the food products we buy. Children take classes in school on health and exercise, food pyramids and a myriad of other ways are present to monitor eating habits, gyms are sprouting up around the country, and fast food chains are putting out more healthful menus.

None of this is working, as evidenced by expanding waistlines. The carrot only works to a certain extent, sometimes you need the stick to get things done. Why is it that people are quick to denounce individual freedom in the name of personal responsibility, but are quick to expound upon the virtues of the collective in the name of a free market?

It is a personal fault if you are made fat by the television and fatty snacks. If you have no self-control, that may in part be due to intense marketing campaigns, but no advertising in the world controls your final decision.

At some point we must quit blaming people for their own shortcomings and start looking in the direction of those who unfairly prey upon them.

Such words explain how their tactics work. You can advertise Pepsi every commercial break, have it in the newspapers, radio, and magazines, put it at the front of stores with signposts, your children can bother you to buy it, but you and you alone decide to purchase it.

Advertising and marketing are determinalistic science. You say this, you do this, you are rewarded with money and moved product.

So you want to take away more responsibilty from the already irresponsible parents, and give it to the companies as punishment for having their customers buy their products?

A certain amount of parental shortcoming can be traced back to the nature of the world we live in today. Parents have entirely too many responsibilities these days. Taking predatory marketeers off their backs is doing a great service to the nation.

Originally posted by astrapol2
How ironic those who do not want any law regulating public health issues are often the same who have no problem with "patriot act", guantanamo, etc...

It seems when a govt really wants to play big brother they agree as long as it's for "ant-terrorist" purpose.

I'm not sure if this is directed at me or not seeing how I don't share much of my personal view on terrorist that often. I believe in a government that works for the people and I don't have a problem with regulating health issues, example no mouse meat in a mcburger no rat poison in oats etc.... I do have a huge problem with a government telling me what I can or can not do because of my own stupid act. Lets start with the seat belt by me not wearing 1 it does not effect the way I drive. Whether I eat 1 bag of chips or 20 that should be my business. If I own apersonal business then I should be allowed to have legal activity happen{dumba** smoking laws}. A government is there to serve the people and their nation, not get caught up in personal business of when someone should take a crap.

I was just reading over some of the comments, some here seem really worried about the childs health, but I don't see anyone b***hing about video games 3000000 TV channels etc etc etc. If we are going to let the government ban certain foods because it is causing lazyness{and fat kids} then why stop there? From now on only games that involve cardio should be sold no more TV etc... What is good for the goose is good for the gander................

If we are going to let the government ban certain foods because it is causing lazyness{and fat kids} then why stop there?

Nobody is arguing that we take these items off the shelves. We are discussing the marketing tactics used.

Nap;
So your saying have the product but only certain companies can advertise. Hmmmmmm I wonder how good of an idea that would be, let the government decide who should or shouldn't advertise. I wonder who would get the true benifits from that logical stand point???

So your saying have the product but only certain companies can advertise.

Negative. I am saying that companies should be free to advertise and market their product in non-predatory ways.

But aren't we all the pray for all of the companies? Just because you and I might not like junk food doesn't mean we should take it away from those that do{the ad}? Just like you may like ford I like chevy who decides who has the better advertisement. Maybe I feel ford is unsafe and you feel the same about chevy. I can't see how you would want a free society but then want to ban something because you don't like it, don't forget junk food is not poison{and not everyone that eats it gets fat}. I see ads all the time that do nothing usefull for society but they are not selling poison so who am I too step on anothers freedom?

Allow me to take Evakian's style and show you sentence by sentence where your thinking differs from mine.

But aren't we all the pray for all of the companies?

Not your intent, perhaps, but we do indeed pray for all the companies, and in the process, disabuse the average citizen of his rights. I think that people that hold such ideals of corporations are easy prey for predatory tactics.

Just because you and I might not like junk food doesn't mean we should take it away from those that do{the ad}?

We have laws regulating explicit sexually oriented advertisements. Are we taking adult entertainment away from adults?

Just like you may like ford I like chevy who decides who has the better advertisement.

Auto ads do not take unfair advantage of psychology to a significant public detriment.

Maybe I feel ford is unsafe and you feel the same about chevy.

We regulate safety in automobiles. We do not regulate nutrition contents in cereal marketed to children. The average citizen can rest assured that the automobile he purchases will be at least as safe as the federal regulations.

I can't see how you would want a free society but then want to ban something because you don't like it, don't forget junk food is not poison{and not everyone that eats it gets fat}.

We are not banning anything.

I see ads all the time that do nothing usefull for society but they are not selling poison so who am I too step on anothers freedom?

Freedom to watch an advertisement?

The companies must be chastised for the parent's shortcomings?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



They must be chastised for taking unfair advantage of parent's shortcomings, to a significant public detriment.


Now it is being argued that the companies should somehow be punished because of the shortcomings ofthe parents. Where does parental responsibility fit into the picture? Are we next going to forbid icecream stores from selling ice cream to children because some parents allow their children to eat too much and get fat?

The same advertising existed when my children were growing up and my kids didn't eat garbage. They ate healthy food. They didn't shop. My wife and I did so we decided the menus. My kids knew candy, cookies and soda were treats, not meals. Meals consisted of meat and vegetables.

My grandchildren are raised in the same way. Their parents decide what foods come into their homes.

Now it is being argued that the companies should somehow be punished because of the shortcomings ofthe parents. Where does parental responsibility fit into the picture?

It does not. I fail to see why everybody wants to bring it up.

Are we next going to forbid icecream stores from selling ice cream to children because some parents allow their children to eat too much and get fat?

Ice cream is not a staple food. Cereal is.

Meals consisted of meat and vegetables.

And overly-sweet cereal, if you were to ask the advertisers.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Negative. I am saying that companies should be free to advertise and market their product in non-predatory ways.

Advertisement:

"Please purchase Frosted Flakes. Your children may find the taste pleasing. Thank you."

There you go. Perfect. That is a very effective form of marketing, believe it or not. You don't have to lie to potential customers in order to gain their business...

Originally posted by mad dog
I was just reading over some of the comments, some here seem really worried about the childs health, but I don't see anyone b***hing about video games 3000000 TV channels etc etc etc. If we are going to let the government ban certain foods because it is causing lazyness{and fat kids} then why stop there? From now on only games that involve cardio should be sold no more TV etc... What is good for the goose is good for the gander................

I do worry about TV and video games. It is just not the issue of this thread.

Like Napster said, I do not think the law should prohibit junk food. I actualla enjoy a good hamburger, chips, etc., and sometimes feed my kids wih this kind of food - I juts try to balance it with fruits, vegetables, fish, as often as possible.

But I think that advertising this products towards kids is a general health issue that goes beyond the only individual responsibilty of parents. Which does not mean parents should not play their part, of course.

Originally posted by Napsterbater

We have laws regulating explicit sexually oriented advertisements. Are we taking adult entertainment away from adults?

My kids see "adult entertainment ads" all the time, they have been taught it is for adults and not to look. My responsibility towards my children.


Auto ads do not take unfair advantage of psychology to a significant public detriment.

all ads do, they don't care about the person they care about the sale. If they did care about the person and not the sale there wouldn't be any ads left.



We regulate safety in automobiles. We do not regulate nutrition contents in cereal marketed to children. The average citizen can rest assured that the automobile he purchases will be at least as safe as the federal regulations.

I don't want to dwell on this but you are wrong ever hear of recall ;)



We are not banning anything.

I thought you wanted to ban certain ads from the group of people that would like them the most. Example, tampon ads can be done but they can only be shown to males because if the females see them they may buy something they don't need just because of the way it is advertised. I know females would be adults, just making a simple example. The company is still selling something that IS NOT harmfull to children. The problem is how the parents let the product become harmfull TO CHILDREN.



Freedom to watch an advertisement?

If a company as an ad that is not harmfull then why take away its freedom to advertise? Back to square 1, example matches use to light fire or use to burn down house. I can advertise my product how you choose to use it is your responsibility. A parent is the one that buys the food for junior, the buck doesn't stop there. If junior drinks bleach is it bleaches fault that the parent decided they don't want the responsibilty of raising a child?

No matter how any of us look at this is still somes back to the true/real argument, parents responsibility.

Originally posted by astrapol2
I do worry about TV and video games. It is just not the issue of this thread.

It is the issue of this thread, responsibility is my point we as modern human need to quit passing the buck and start taking responsibility for our actions

Like Napster said, I do not think the law should prohibit junk food. I actualla enjoy a good hamburger, chips, etc., and sometimes feed my kids wih this kind of food - I juts try to balance it with fruits, vegetables, fish, as often as possible.

My point made, your a caring parent that does eat junk but you also take the time to eat healthy. Like I said before anything can be harmfull if it is over done. You and I have kids we also know that kids need alot of looking after. I can not see how I am suppose to let the government {or anyone else} be responsible for "MY" children?

But I think that advertising this products towards kids is a general health issue that goes beyond the only individual responsibilty of parents. Which does not mean parents should not play their part, of course.

Astra I'm with you for the most part, I just can not and will not go along with placing blame on others for my failure of actions taken.

My kids see "adult entertainment ads" all the time, they have been taught it is for adults and not to look. My responsibility towards my children.

The argument was not that you or your children could not handle adult advertisements, it was that those are legitimately regulated for time and place speech restrictions.

all ads do, they don't care about the person they care about the sale. If they did care about the person and not the sale there wouldn't be any ads left.

All ads take advantage of people's emotional weaknesses, but not all of them take unfair advantage of an audience that is incapable of saying no to sell unhealthy goods, nor do they take advantage of inherent biological weaknesses.

I don't want to dwell on this but you are wrong ever hear of recall

Government-mandated recalls. Many companies voluntarily recall faulty products, but too many wait for the government to tell them to. Especially car companies, because of the economies involved.

I thought you wanted to ban certain ads from the group of people that would like them the most.

Children are incapable of making buying decisions.

The company is still selling something that IS NOT harmfull to children. The problem is how the parents let the product become harmfull TO CHILDREN.

Unhealthy. They are unhealthy no matter how they are eaten.

Napsterbater

Children do not purchase cereal. Their parents buy it.

It is not the responsibility of the government to act in loco parentis for irresponsible parents. Parents who give in to whining children when they know it is bad for the children are irresponsible. They wouldn't (hopefully) allow their children to play in traffic so why should they allow them to stuff themselves with goodies that are bad for them?

It was bad enough when the government banned liquor and cigarette ads from t.v. and controlling cereal ads would just be adding another layer to improper governmental control.

The government would not be acting in loco parentis. They would be halting predatory marketing practices. Parents allow their children to eat overly sweet cereals as main meals because they have been led to believe by advertising and the idea that companies would not put unhealthy food on the shelves, that such foods are healthy for children. They are not. They are devoid of all nutritional content due to processing, (fortifying helps little) and contain an unhealthy amount of sugar.

Parents are not the idiots you seem to think they are. People are much more aware of health issues today than at any time in history. They know the benefits of exercise and healthy eating. If they choose to ignore them and buy sweetened cereals and sweetened carbonated beverages that s their business.

When companies falsely advertise the government rightly steps in as it did with Carter's Little Liver Pills which contained no liver and did nothing for your liver. If advertising is not false, no matter how enticing it is the government has no business regulating it.

Originally posted by astrapol2
How ironic those who do not want any law regulating public health issues are often the same who have no problem with "patriot act", guantanamo, etc...
And the opposite of this holds true as well. What's your point?

If they choose to ignore them and buy sweetened cereals and sweetened carbonated beverages that s their business.

It is not just their business. This is a nation of fatasses. How fucked up is it that we abuse fat people on one hand, then exacerbate the condition on the other? I wonder if you agree with drug laws?

Originally posted by Napsterbater
The government would not be acting in loco parentis. They would be halting predatory marketing practices.
You don't really believe this, do you???
Originally posted by Napsterbater
Parents allow their children to eat overly sweet cereals as main meals because they have been led to believe by advertising and the idea that companies would not put unhealthy food on the shelves, that such foods are healthy for children.
Complete horseshit. Of course they know junk food is devoid of nutritional content. The point is they're either too lazy, or too used to being bossed around by their kids to act differently.

Instead of instituting controls to regulate marketing practices, we should train a crack team of heavily armed nutritionists to break into homes (under the patriot act, of course) just to clean out the pantry and cupboards of any food deemed "unworthy" by the Nap Foundation for a Healthy America.

Looks like there are those that liked to be baby sat by the government, and those of us that believe in freedom. Those of us that want to be responsible for OUR lives and those of us who want to have a big brother watch over us. However one writes their thoughts down it still comes back to who can or can't take on responsibility.

The point is they're either too lazy, or too used to being bossed around by their kids to act differently.

Exactly. That, essentially, is my argument. Americans suffer from information overload brought about by excessive advertising, increased social obligations towards their children, and a school system that encourages kids to sit around and be lazy all day, even when they get home. Americans should be able to trust that companies will not market unhealthy foods to their children. In Hawaii, they don't allow billboard advertisements. Oh noes! Jimmie's XXX shop is being unfairly discriminated against!

However one writes their thoughts down it still comes back to who can or can't take on responsibility.

No, it's just what you fuckers keep coming back to even after I've addressed the point time and time again. I even sigged it.

Someone once said; Those that call others names.............sign that they aren't quite ready for the real world because they lack the basic control{knowledge} to KEEP THEIR KOOL!!!

Originally posted by The Praetorian
And the opposite of this holds true as well. What's your point?

No. There is no "opposite".

This is not an issue of "people defending their freedom against the govt" vs "people accepting govt interference in their daily life", as you seem to believe.

Like most people here, liberal or conservative, I think freedom is a capital value and that govt and laws should let as much individual freedom as possible. If this is not the xas, democracy may be in danger. I guess we all agree on that.

Now, there are some laws that clearly endanger individual freedoms (the patriot act IMO, I could also find such laws in France) ; and there are govt actions that (illegally or at least using law loopholes) make a joke of individual rights (Guantanamo).

There are also some laws that protect individuals and in fact give them more freedom. In fact all laws should do so. A law restricting the right for companies to direct ads at kids would do so.
I don't see how such a law would affect my freedom. It would just let my kid a little bit safer from mind manipulation.

So I don't see any contradiction in my position ; but i do see it in the position of people who are against any law regulating advertising and public health issues but who support the Patriot act and Guantanamo.
I don't know if this is your case, but if it is, please explain me your position.

Someone once said; Those that call others names.............sign that they aren't quite ready for the real world because they lack the basic control{knowledge} to KEEP THEIR KOOL!!!

Nahh, we're like three little Fonzies here. Bonus points if you get the reference.

When you want to come up with new arguments, you know where I'll be.

Instead of instituting controls to regulate marketing practices, we should train a crack team of heavily armed nutritionists to break into homes (under the patriot act, of course) just to clean out the pantry and cupboards of any food deemed "unworthy" by the Nap Foundation for a Healthy America.
:lolhit:

Advertizing should be banned from schools. As should junk food in general.

Junk food is basically banned from schools anymore--at least in these parts. The kids all get those horrid healthy meals consisiting of beans, sprouts, and alfalfa. The poor kids don't even get a dessert anymore, which is the only thing that made school lunch worthwhile, at least when I was a student.

I wish that people would talk about the REAL reason kids/people are fat nowadays--computers, video games. Junk food's been around for many years but we haven't seen the skyrocketing obesity rates until very recently.

Computers and video games are also a leading source of employment for our youth.

Originally posted by rendova


I wish that people would talk about the REAL reason kids/people are fat nowadays--computers, video games. Junk food's been around for many years but we haven't seen the skyrocketing obesity rates until very recently.

I agree it's part of the problem. But obesity has been much more spread in the USA (compared to Europe) before videogames were so developed, so I think eating habits are still the main issue.

I met a nutritionist who works in an hospital dealing with kids with real obesity problems, las y ear (obesity starts to be a big issue in Europe too).
According to him, what people eat is not the only problem, it's most of all how they eat and in what proportion. And it seems kids who have weight problems are not those who eat too much but those who do not have a balanced and regular diet.

Originally posted by rendova
I wish that people would talk about the REAL reason kids/people are fat nowadays--computers, video games. Junk food's been around for many years but we haven't seen the skyrocketing obesity rates until very recently.

Very well said Rendova, I believe its not so much the food but more the lack of activity. In fact I can remember when I was younger working on farms construction etc... and a candy bar or bag of chips would be very welcome, burn the cals off before they had time to do damage. When we were even younger instead of video this or TV that we played kick the can baseball running races tag etc etc etc.... Are imaginations seemed bigger back then also, todays kids seem lost unless someone points them in a direction.

Right, junk food is a contributor, but the real reason, IMO, is just people sitting on their butts all day!

Back when I was a kid ( the Dark Ages) , we played baseball, rode bikes, played hopscotch, went for walks, went fishing. We weren't in front of the boob tube all day--our parents just wouldn't stand for it. (They also punished us when we were sassy or misbehaved--something you don't see a lot of anymore either).

We ate like pigs but no one was fat...overweight kids were really kinda rare back then....There's nothing wrong with playing with computers and games, within reason, but if that's ALL you do, besides eat, well, then there's a problem.

PS good points, Astra, about a lack of a balanced diet as well.

Originally posted by astrapol2
This is not an issue of "people defending their freedom against the govt" vs "people accepting govt interference in their daily life", as you seem to believe.
Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but it seems to me that you were the one who made the connection, not me. I simply pointed out the dichotomy, that's all.
Originally posted by astrapol2
There are also some laws that protect individuals and in fact give them more freedom. In fact all laws should do so. A law restricting the right for companies to direct ads at kids would do so.

I don't see how such a law would affect my freedom. It would just let my kid a little bit safer from mind manipulation.
I don't know about you, but I don't see any more "mind manipulation" taking place in junk food commercials than I do in toy commercials. Should we limit their ability to advertise too?

I made a joke of it earlier, but I hardly think the Trix Rabbit holds a solid mind lock on a 6 year old. JMO.

OTOH, if you can prove they're subliminally advertising, then do so. My personal feeling is they're not. I'm sure it's pretty easy to sell a lollipop to a 6 year old, and why shouldn't companies be able to do just that? You're forgetting, it's the parent's job to say no.
Originally posted by astrapol2
So I don't see any contradiction in my position ; but i do see it in the position of people who are against any law regulating advertising and public health issues but who support the Patriot act and Guantanamo.
I don't know if this is your case, but if it is, please explain me your position.
You're taking this in a direction I didn't want to go, but if you insist...

First off, I fail to see how the Patriot Act endangers anyone's "personal health". Secondly, I don't think anyone was arguing that junk food (when consumed in quantity) is bad for people. The argument here is based on two different philosophies; the first contingent argues that government has a responsibility to regulate ads based on some arbitrary "health risk" to our public despite having the nutritional content posted on the side of the box. If we're going to go that direction, then we should outlaw cigarettes and alcohol right off the bat, for allowing parents the option to buy their children food they know is bad for them is NO DIFFERENT than allowing them to buy things that could harm them directly. I mean, after all, the precedent has been set...uncle Sam is acting in loco parentis, and far as I can tell - what's good for the goose is good for the gander. On the other hand, you have the personal responsibility contingent, and in that camp, I don't think anyone was arguing that when companies DIRECTLY mislead the buying public that they shouldn't be penalized. Their argument is based SOLELY on faith in people to make the right decisions for themselves and loved ones, period. You may desire to have your mind made up for you (or perhaps you don't care), but I, personally, want my social freedoms left in tact. I don't think it's the government's job to intervene unless (and only if) the corporations are lying about their product, period.

For goodness Sakes, Put your freaking foot down and be a parent and say NO!! geez......some people

The government would not be acting in loco parentis. They would be halting predatory marketing practices. Parents allow their children to eat overly sweet cereals as main meals because they have been led to believe by advertising and the idea that companies would not put unhealthy food on the shelves, that such foods are healthy for children. They are not. They are devoid of all nutritional content due to processing, (fortifying helps little) and contain an unhealthy amount of sugar.


Come on, anyone who is totally convinced by advertising that somethings are healthy which are really not, then that person is a idiot, if your a parent and if you can read a label than I'm sure you would know it wasn't as healthy as they said, come on, it gets old, but "dont believe everying you hear"

Come on, anyone who is totally convinced by advertising that somethings are healthy which are really not, then that person is a idiot,

You are exactly right, and there are a whole lot of idiots in this country.

another old thread WTF

New member, mad dog. Be nice.

Come on, anyone who is totally convinced by advertising that somethings are healthy which are really not, then that person is a idiot, if your a parent and if you can read a label than I'm sure you would know it wasn't as healthy as they said, come on, it gets old, but "dont believe everying you hear"

The mind of a child is not fully developed and takes in advertising propaganda as fact.

This thread just reinforces my view that whatever the topic Napsterbater will take an opposing view to the majority. Had the majority said the government should force companies to stop advertising junk food to children Napsterbater would have been the champion of parental responsibility.

Napsterbater has admitted he likes to argue. It is obvious that all too often he has no firm convictions on a topic and argues simply for the sake of arguing.

I wouldn't be here otherwise, Frogger.

Arguing both sides is the most intelligent way to do things. Your arguments are more logical and persuasive, and it is also a good mental exercise.

On a slightly more sadistic note, it's always fun to agitate the people on the wings.

...and argues simply for the sake of arguing.

Is there anything wrong with that? If so, I guess I better march myself down to the police station in shackles.

another old thread WTFNew member, mad dog. Be nice.

This little exchange makes for a great allForums quote, good job.

New member, mad dog. Be nice.

I was not trying to be mean I've just noticed there seems to be alot of old thread opening, Just wondered why? Wouldn't it be better to start a new thread?

Napster likes to take both sides of the fence because it can make for a more interesting thread. If we all agreed then what use would it be to even post? I disagree with Nap all the time but I have to give him credit for keeping the ball rolling.

The mind of a child is not fully developed and takes in advertising propaganda as fact.

So when that child goes to the store with the parents is it the Child who buys it? No its the parent who says yes or no. And it is the parents responsibility to make sure the child understands was is real and what is fake.

Arguing both sides is the most intelligent way to do things. Your arguments are more logical and persuasive, and it is also a good mental exercise.

On a slightly more sadistic note, it's always fun to agitate the people on the wings.

Arguing both sides, or either side, well is the most intelligent way to do things. Arguing a side poorly simply for the sake of arguing shows little if any intelligence.

Arguing both sides, or either side, well is the most intelligent way to do things. Arguing a side poorly simply for the sake of arguing shows little if any intelligence.

Oh yeh, we...we......well my lawn is greener then yours so :p

Arguing both sides, or either side, well is the most intelligent way to do things. Arguing a side poorly simply for the sake of arguing shows little if any intelligence.
I see your point, but to a degree, I disagree. (And no, this isn't a joke!)

I think arguing different sides is a highly effective way to bolster your own opinion. It clearly defines not only how you feel, but why you feel that way. I don't view it as argument for the sake of argument; I view it as learning what makes people tick (including yourself).

Come on, anyone who is totally convinced by advertising that somethings are healthy which are really not, then that person is a idiot, if your a parent and if you can read a label than I'm sure you would know it wasn't as healthy as they said, come on, it gets old, but "dont believe everying you hear"

Idiot is a harsh word coming from someone who does not know the difference between:

your= possessive
you're = contraction

a = before consonant

an= before vowel

Idiot is a harsh word coming from someone who does not know the difference between:

your= possessive
you're = contraction

a = before consonant

an= before vowel
Ouch! (and that's coming from ME!)

Oh well, I guess your sig says it all, doesn't it??? :D

I don't view it as argument for the sake of argument

But what if it is?

The ironic thing about this entire issue is the fact that America is a nation filled with millions upon millions of tight-assed, rightwing moralists who are adamant that the government should restrict the populace from smoking marijuana, from possessing certain photographic representations of naked humans, from controlling their own reproductive choices, from imbibing all manner of mind-altering substances, from burning the US flag, and from doing a thousand other things...........yet this junk food issue comes along, and the SAME tight-assed group suddenly reverses position 180 degrees and begins to complain that --"Oh well!!....for the government to intervene in the marketing of unhealthy food to people is just WRONG!!...it is an unwarranted and unwelcome intrusion by the government!!....why, that would constitute the government RUNNING OUR LIVES!!, and we CAN'T have that!!"