Ban Marketing That Targets Children Under 10?

Originally posted by Teinosuke
[b]"I can look back at about 50 years of adult life, and see where slippery slopes have taken us already in the USA.

50 years of slippery slopes have still left the USA a long way out towards the free-market, libertarian end of political discourse in the developed world. The US has a long way to go before it ends up being even as "collectivist" as, ...[text shortened]... s and when that becomes the case, that's the time to start climbing back up the slope again.[/b]

The banking crisis is a great example of the slippery slope. No one would have projected back in the '60s and '70s that the well intentioned measures to get more people accepted for mortgages would lead to a financial meltdown. They did exactly that. The collapse only took a few months, after years of bad government behavior, and predictable responses of the business sector.

Trouble is that when the slide occurs, those responsible want only to look at the precipitous slide instead of the long term conditions that made it possible or even probable.

Originally posted by normbenign
No that is a definite NO, because I didn't say what you translated. I stand by what I said, doesn't translate into I agree with what you said I said.

YOU said: Some parents will just give kids money to spend as they wish. What happens after that isn't our business.

I said: So you have no problem if 10 year olds go down to the local 7-11 and pick up a pack of smokes and a six of Bud.

That's certainly an adequate translation IF you meant what you said. If you didn't mean what you said you should correct it not stubbornly "stand by it".

Originally posted by no1marauder
YOU said: Some parents will just give kids money to spend as they wish. [b]What happens after that isn't our business.

I said: So you have no problem if 10 year olds go down to the local 7-11 and pick up a pack of smokes and a six of Bud.

That's certainly an adequate translation IF you meant what you said. If you didn't mean what you said you should correct it not stubbornly "stand by it".[/b]

What happens after that isn't our business, is clearly not the same as I have no problem with the kids picking up Smokes and beer.

It just isn't our problem or responsibility. Parents have that responsibility. I can't make everyone's problems my own, nor can society. In the case that we do, we end up with a less responsible, mindless society, and in many cases a lawless, anarchistic one, because of the disrespect generated by nanny state law.

Try this. You claim to be libertarian. Mind your own business. Take care of individual responsibilities, and let others do the same.

Originally posted by normbenign
What happens after that isn't our business, is clearly not the same as I have no problem with the kids picking up Smokes and beer.

It just isn't our problem or responsibility. Parents have that responsibility. I can't make everyone's problems my own, nor can society. In the case that we do, we end up with a less responsible, mindless society, and in ...[text shortened]... nd your own business. Take care of individual responsibilities, and let others do the same.

So you regard laws saying that 10 year olds can't buy a six of Bud and a pack of smokes as an infringement on their "natural rights"?

Try actually answer a question for a change. Stop weaselling.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So you regard laws saying that 10 year olds can't buy a six of Bud and a pack of smokes as an infringement on their "natural rights"?

Try actually answer a question for a change. Stop weaselling.

Don't you get it. If it isn't my business, I don't ask the government to intervene and impose my will or that of any group on society as a whole.

When I was ten in Boston, it was common for parents to send a child to the store to buy smokes or beer, and the kid didn't think about smoking or drinking.

What children do, as well as the rights and responsibilities are natural to parents. If you want to transfer this to the state, you aren't in favor or neither natural law or libertarianism.

This doesn't endorse 10 year olds either smoking or drinking alcohol. It endorses parents training and trusting their kids.

Originally posted by normbenign
Don't you get it. If it isn't my business, I don't ask the government to intervene and impose my will or that of any group on society as a whole.

When I was ten in Boston, it was common for parents to send a child to the store to buy smokes or beer, and the kid didn't think about smoking or drinking.

What children do, as well as the rights and resp either smoking or drinking alcohol. It endorses parents training and trusting their kids.

Children aren't property of their parents. I agree that, in general, parents' decision as to the raising of their children should be given wide latitude. But I cannot agree with the laissez faire attitude you endorse.

Can parents have sex with their kids? Can they sell them? Does banning such practices violate "natural law" by "transferring to the State" the power to protect children from such harms?

Is there ANY limit to your fanatical, Randian views? It doesn't appear so.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Children aren't property of their parents. I agree that, in general, parents' decision as to the raising of their children should be given wide latitude. But I cannot agree with the laissez faire attitude you endorse.

Can parents have sex with their kids? Can they sell them? Does banning such practices violate "natural law" by "transferrin ...[text shortened]...
Is there ANY limit to your fanatical, Randian views? It doesn't appear so.

I didn't suggest any of the BS you try to extrapolate. That's all in your imagination.

How about dealing with what I actually said. What is wrong with parents sending kids to the store to buy things that adults use? It was commonplace in the 50s. The stores were a block away, and the owners knew both the kids and the parents.

We did not have stores and clerks card checking people in their 30s trying to buy tobacco. I'm sure that a few kids back there may have bought smokes and beer for themselves, but not too many 10 year olds if any.

Originally posted by normbenign
I didn't suggest any of the BS you try to extrapolate. That's all in your imagination.

How about dealing with what I actually said. What is wrong with parents sending kids to the store to buy things that adults use? It was commonplace in the 50s. The stores were a block away, and the owners knew both the kids and the parents.

We did not have sto ...[text shortened]... k there may have bought smokes and beer for themselves, but not too many 10 year olds if any.

You staked an intellectual position. If you want to retreat from it, do so.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You staked an intellectual position. If you want to retreat from it, do so.

You either misunderstand or are intentionally misrepresenting my intellectual position.

Let me try to simplify it, although given your chess rating such simplification should not be necessary.

I believe that the minimum of laws and regulations are the best, as laws that are fully understood and agreed with require little enforcement. That laws and regulations determine responsibility, and the natural responsibility lays with the parents. Laws that change that alter natural law.

Laws that presume parents to be delinquent produce delinquent parents, and delinquent kids.

Banning substances, whether beer and cigarettes, or soft or hard drugs, either for everyone or for simply those under a certain age violate natural rights. As a parent, I never wanted my kids to smoke, use drugs or drink, but that was my responsibility not that of the nanny state.

Originally posted by normbenign
You either misunderstand or are intentionally misrepresenting my intellectual position.

Let me try to simplify it, although given your chess rating such simplification should not be necessary.

I believe that the minimum of laws and regulations are the best, as laws that are fully understood and agreed with require little enforcement. That laws ...[text shortened]... y kids to smoke, use drugs or drink, but that was my responsibility not that of the nanny state.

Sorry, I cannot agree that treating children as children violates their "natural rights". Are you a member of NAMBLA?

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

Right.

This proposed law doesn't appear to be of benefit to society at all.

Ban ads that target consumers? 🙄

Does it matter that these consumers are only ten?

Answer: Only if said marketing is found to be advertising something that is illegal for a ten year old to have/consume... ie beer, tobacco and guns and these things are already banned.

Originally posted by FMF
So if - say - cigarette companies decide to target children, it's the parents who have to deal with the effects of that?

I think that a cigarette company targeting 10 y/os is inconcievable; why target somebody whom ,legally, can't comsume your product?
This would only lead to theft of cigarettes by 10 y/os, if anything, and would be of no profit to any cigarrete company.

Edit: Unless you want to argue that a 10 y/o could get addicted and become a buyer. I would then argue that it doesn't replace all the stolen cigarettes and lost profits.

Originally posted by tomtom232
This proposed law doesn't appear to be of benefit to society at all.

Does it matter that these consumers are only ten? Answer: Only if said marketing is found to be advertising something that is illegal for a ten year old to have/consume... ie beer, tobacco and guns and these things are already banned.

On the contrary. It well might be beneficial to society to ban advertising for something which, while technically legal, is likely to have ill effects on the health of its consumers. This is especially the case where minors are involved. So I wouldn't have a problem with a law that banned advertising for fast food aimed specifically at children, as a pragmatic measure designed to reduce child obesity. Parents can, after all, still choose to feed their children junk if they want, so we're not talking about a ban on the sale of the commodity itself.

There are already restrictions or bans on tobacco advertising through most of the developed world, and this is a product aimed at adult consumers!

Originally posted by Teinosuke
On the contrary. It well might be beneficial to society to ban advertising for something which, while technically legal, is likely to have ill effects on the health of its consumers. This is especially the case where minors are involved. So I wouldn't have a problem with a law that banned advertising for fast food aimed specifically at children, as a pragm vertising through most of the developed world, and this is a product aimed at adult consumers!

I don't think fast food has ill effects on the health of its consumers. I think consumers have ill effects on the health of consumers.

Fast food is better than some foods and worse than others.

I don't think it would even help obesity to ban marketing of fast food ads that target 10 y/os because parents are the ones who decide to eat fast food and it usually stems from a need for speed not from their whiny children whinning for fast food.

Trying to regulate health like this will never work.

Edit: Don't take my right to be obese away from me! 😠

Originally posted by tomtom232
I don't think fast food has ill effects on the health of its consumers. I think consumers have ill effects on the health of consumers.

Fast food is better than some foods and worse than others.

I don't think it would even help obesity to ban marketing of fast food ads that target 10 y/os because parents are the ones who decide to eat fast food and i ...[text shortened]... e health like this will never work.

Edit: Don't take my right to be obese away from me! 😠

Well, this may or may not be true, but presumably it could be tested by a few trials (e.g., let's ban advertising for junk food in a couple of cities and see how that correlates with local obesity rates). And we already have the evidence of smoking rates in nations that have banned or tightly regulated tobacco advertising.

Maybe most fast food consumption is based on a need for speed. But if even some fast food consumption is based on whiny children whining for fast food, then it seems logical to assume that a ban on advertising aimed at young children would reduce child obesity.

Your "right to be obese"? But no one's talking about banning fast food. The thread is about banning advertising.