1 edit
Originally posted by The Snapper"...but children can't make an informed decision about it until, maybe, it's too late."
Sorry, I was just expressing an opinion based on the increasing obesity epidemic in Western countries (Australia is officially the fattest nation on the planet).
I'm not sure about the actual statistics but I'm pretty certain it's safe to say that this type of food is probably among the most unhealthy.
Eating one Big Mac isn't going to do you any harm. r it, but children can't make an informed decision about it until, maybe, it's too late.
Maybe it is the parents that can't make that decision. The parents should be resposable enough to keep their children form eating unhealthy foods. My husband and I do not let our girls eat sweets and snack foods all the time. We let them have some every once in a while, like once or twice a week if even that. If parents are time and money starved then maybe they need to fix their own kids meals and quit spinding all their money at McDonalds. If it is time then they need to fix something that can be used latter also. I have a sister-in-law that takes her kids to McDonalds too often and for that reason she does not have much food in her home and not much money to buy any. We try to tell her, but she will not listen because she rather harken to her childrens wants rather than their needs.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou are corrected.
Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think many people would claiming that toys (one's with no creative merits what-so-ever) and package holidays are bad for children’s health?
The lack of creativity many people suffer from nowadays is rooted in the toys they played with when they were children.
Package holidays, where people can eat and drink as much as they like, surely shows children a healthy life-style they can grow up and achieve themselves...
Originally posted by leepoundI'm sure you're correct but, at the same time, why is it acceptible for companies to agressively target children with advertising for a product which is so obviously detrimental to their health?
All things that aren't good for you are not equally bad. There is absolutely no reason to think that McDonalds is anywhere close to as bad a ssmoking is.
Say, for example, a tatoo parlour was giving away free toys to every kid who wanted a tatoo. Tatoos are not life threatening but, obviously, no-one would allow it because children are not equiped to make rational decisions. So why is it ok to allow them to decide to put health threatening products into their bodies when they don't know any better?
I understand what you are saying but I am not sure if it really is unhealthier than what people who normally go to McDonalds eat. Being a huge chain it has to be more standardized, have more controls and more alternatives and more inspections than a local greasy restaurant. Is McDonalds really worse for you than someone elses greasy burger and fries? I am not sure if the Mcdonald's target audience eats much healthier when it choses to eat non-mcdonalds meals.
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynka"The cold war?" A failed attempt at humour or, worse, sarcasm?
The Cold War is over, buddy.
My point here is: Example - The bureaurats and busybodies have a brain wave and decide to censor tobacco advertising, that's the start, but some ads are ok and some aren't so they write up 15 pages of rules and regs defining what is acceptable or not. Next the ads will be ok in certain venues and publications, another 20 pages. Of course it's no good having regs unless they're backed by some threat of force, so what will be the punishments for not obeying the busybodies and bureaurats, another 50 pages.
In NZ tobacco products are required to carry a warning, you know the ones, "use of this product will increase the chances of throat cancer" etc. Someone came up with the idea of covers that could be sold seperately and slipped over the packet of fags and the guvamint mandated grafitti propaganda. Can you see what's coming?
More regs.
Then we get the scenario proposed by the instigator of this thread. i.e. If they regulate tobacco advertising then they can regulate fast food advertising - and the whole process starts again.
They write one reg, they need another ten to cover that one. Same as telling lies, eh.
Originally posted by WajomaSlippery slope arguments have been a staple of propaganda in history.
"The cold war?" A failed attempt at humour or, worse, sarcasm?
My point here is: Example - The bureaurats and busybodies have a brain wave and decide to censor tobacco advertising, that's the start, but some ads are ok and some aren't so they write up 15 pages of rules and regs defining what is acceptable or not. Next the ads will be ok in certain venues ...[text shortened]... They write one reg, they need another ten to cover that one. Same as telling lies, eh.
The "like telling a lie" one is directly taken from US propaganda during the Cold War. That's why I mentioned it.