posted
How would you define 'bad food' in a way that would be applicable to everyone? [edit] For example, do you think the 599 calorie happy meal that is legally sold to a three year old is healthier than the 601 calorie happy meal that cannot be sold to the ten year old?
[edit] I also wonder how you define a world that would be a 'better place,' but I don't think I really want to know the answer to that.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: not using toys to make children become addicted to "crappy meals"
Do you honestly believe that a Batman toy will cause a child to be addicted to crappy meals?
Yes my cousin only gets the food for the toys but since the food comes with the toy he eats it too, and he is far from healthy no matter how skinny he is.(My aunts fault really bad raising, but nonetheless McD's toys do attract many little kids just to have the toy) ----
Bad food would be; anything that has negative effect per certain amount of food...
I for one think sugar and salt should not be added to food by anyone other than the person eating so they don't eat too much (more specifically sugar, we can only eat so much salt before we throw up... XD )
Red 40 is an example of something that shouldn't be present in anyfood as it is associated with bring along the ADHD disorder /:
(Im leaving school now so I can't answer anything 'til tomorrow)
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if you are banning products from being sold, it must be because it is bad.
The proposal under discussion doesn't ban products from being sold, DarkKnight. It's looking like you don't actually have an idea what this ban would do. You can still buy the small hamburgers, the small fries, the small drinks, and even the small toys and give `em to your kids to your heart's content at a McDonald's.
quote:Wrong. I mean this for both sides of the aisle.
Tough talk, but of course follow through so often is lacking. Again, this is small government in action here. City government in fact. It doesn't get much smaller. ETA: That is, it is largely conservatives who are the ones driving things like prohibiting gay marriage, and I think you know it, DarkKnight. It's one of the reasons I so mistrust the 'small government!' complaint whenever I hear it, because it's so frequently as in this case a smokescreen for something else.
quote: not using toys to make children become addicted to "crappy meals"
Do you honestly believe that a Batman toy will cause a child to be addicted to crappy meals?
For my part, I think the toy will certainly lure the child to a food that, on its own, would not really hold the kind of appeal it does for kids. You're thinking from a bit too much of an adult perspective to remember just how plastic your tastes are as a child- you can be raised on any sort of diet. My child students (seven years old) in this country, for instance, were accustomed to and enjoyed eating cucumbers, raw tomatoes, fresh mozzarella, and whole grain breads on a daily basis. They didn't carry or enjoy eating candy because it was not part of their routine, and because their parents did not expose them to it or show them the example of eating it themselves. Not one of those children at the entire school was obese, and the one that was overweight was one who lived between two households and was fed fast food.
A Czech village is one thing- there hasn't been fast food of the like in this country for all that long, so older people simply don't have a taste for it. But that ought to tell you something about it as well, I think. That early childhood training to enjoy this kind of food pays enormous dividends to the companies who sell it. And they will do everything they can do to appeal to children.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I for one think sugar and salt should not be added to food by anyone other than the person eating so they don't eat too much...
In other words, it should up to the individual to decide.
Sure. The issue here has been, for a very long time, that food producers and purveyors will do whatever they can to make sure that customers choose to consume the foods with the highest amounts of sugar and salt in them- by fighting nutritional education, labeling regulation, advertising regulation, and by appealing to consumers with advertising that makes food to appear healthier and more nutritious than it is. They do this by infiltrating school systems and selling sugared sodas and even whole meals, many containing orders of magnitude more fats and salts than are needed in any given day- and they trade on the umbrella of the school as a "safe place" to do this dirty business.
This goes way beyond choice. We don't allow cigarettes and alcohol to be sold to kids because it is their choice whether to smoke or drink, or not to. And we have laws against illicit drugs because we feel ultimately that the choice to take them legally ought not to exist if the risk is too high to society. The risk of these foods to society is very, very high. Higher than most people are prepared to accept.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: We don't allow cigarettes and alcohol to be sold to kids because it is their choice whether to smoke or drink, or not to. And we have laws against illicit drugs because we feel ultimately that the choice to take them legally ought not to exist if the risk is too high to society. The risk of these foods to society is very, very high. Higher than most people are prepared to accept.
So are you in favor of making it illegal for many of these fast food and grocery store items to be sold to children, or are you just mentioning cigarettes and alcohol for dramatic effect?
ETA: To be clear, I'm actually in favor of additional regulations for labeling, definitions and standards, and truthful marketing practices. I do not feel that the happy meal toy, however, falls under these categories. In fact, I don't really think it will accomplish anything other than deceive some parents into thinking that their children are suddenly going to live healthier lifestyles now.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue is not banning the food itself, merely the aggressive marketing behind it. Advertising persuades people more than they'd like to admit, and this is doubly true for children, who literally lack the mental faculties to realize that the ad is exaggerating or outright lying about things.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: malanthrop, what a transparent way to attempt to deflect multiple people pointing out, "Hey, he's making a slippery slope argument-again!" But just to give you less room for your typical gutless weaseling, here ya go, you hack.
quote:The FDA has a purpose....we shoundn't have "?"'s. If I know it's pig fat fried in penut oil, I should have a right to eat it and liking pork rinds is none of the governments business. McD's even makes me wonder, with their perfect apple slices. McRib anyone?
You've got the right to eat it. There is nothing the city of San Francisco is doing that challenges any of these rights you're claiming or, for that matter, that anyone else is challenging either. San Francisco hasn't said, "You can't give your kids fries," however hysterically you rant otherwise. What they have said is you can't, within our jurisdiction, market your nutritionally very harmful food specifically to children. They have to be adults before they make the decision to start going in for risky behavior.
OMG! Sound the alarm! Liburals comin' ta take mah babies!
Your "slippery slope" link that refutes A leading to B. I agree with this..hense my six degrees of Kevin Bacon comment. "A" is food and "B" is not edible. You think attacking soda for its sugar content is a completely separate issue from attacking milk for its fat content? I'll take it back another level of this "slippery slope". It's about what people choose to consume. Some people like to consume cigarettes. Cigarettes have been suffiently demonized, soda is on it's way and milk is next.
It's illegal to sell soda on government property,...in San Fran. It's also illegal for San Fran funds to purchase bottled water. It's the evil oil based container rather than the contents that lead to this law. What's the city's aim? Dehydrate city employeees.
I wish the vegans of the world would realize that plants have feelings too, and starve themselves to death. Lets ban oil, coal and nuclear power.....we'll freeze. Poor liberal with good intentions, committing economic and individual rights suicide.
Only the municipal water supply is good. Only that which the goverment provides is good.
quote:Your "slippery slope" link that refutes A leading to B. I agree with this..hense my six degrees of Kevin Bacon comment. "A" is food and "B" is not edible.
Describe for us, in your own words, what you think a slippery slope is.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your "slippery slope" link that refutes A leading to B. I agree with this..hense my six degrees of Kevin Bacon comment. "A" is food and "B" is not edible.
Describe for us, in your own words, what you think a slippery slope is.
How can I? Slippery slope to me is foot in the door. A federal income tax that barely passed at 1% is now.... That's a slippery slope.
The people vote to pass a law for something minor, once the law is passed, the bureaucacy expands it exponentially. Whith the government, slippery slope is: the people voted in the 1M dollar bridge project..it turns into a 10M project with indefinite tolls.
Slippery slope for me is letting the government have a foot in the door. Once they're in, year after year, a "1 cent" tax increase is reasonable. Before you know it, after a 100 years, that 1% turns into 25%. The voters in my county are figuring this out. Every election we have a "1 cent" tax proposal. One percent is minor. They call it a "1 cent tax", which implies only a spinster would be opposed. Unfortunately, the "penny" taxes have added up. The little people are figuring out the idea of compounding interest. 1% a year is an awful lot. Ask an investor.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Ah. So you're no older than 21. :)
Brutal honesty is, well part of me, white lies or sugar coating isn't my thing, so people who ask questions to me always get exactly what I think as well as I can articulate for them.
Do you ever expect to improve if everyone told you that you are fine the way you are, that your weight and diabetes are terrible things, but to not worry about them.. HOW-NOW get your ass in shape for all of those you know and want you to live, they may or may not have the balls to say it, but if you don't have enough strength to live right then you might as well leave now because all you're doing is waiting.
It's up to you and those around you, to tell you how serious life is YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Ah. So you're no older than 21.
Brutal honesty is, well part of me, white lies or sugar coating isn't my thing, so people who ask questions to me always get exactly what I think as well as I can articulate for them.
I doubt this "attribute" of yours has mattered enough yet to really start screwing you up. This brand of selfishness, and it is selfishness, does often go away as you start to realize that what you say to people and how you say it have manifold and unpredictable effects. You don't have to cope with any of that yet, but you will.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Of course age matters. That's a given. It's not even up for discussion among rational people, Rawrain.
Is it always a decisive factor in all situations, though? Well, of course not. And your no-sugarcoating policy is pretty silly. It's full of drawing false distinctions, too. You present the choice between full-time brutal honesty and never telling someone what they need to hear even about important things. Bad logic, man. There appears to be more vanity than helping-people in your policy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No matter what I am it doesn't change the fact I tell the truth and trying to make me feel anything other than dignity is near impossible.
Though guys and gals lets get this topic back on topic; I don't wanna feel bad for stearing this thing into a flamming ditch, because 'someone' cares about who says what, and not that it is being said at all.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
rereading this article, I actually disagree with the law because it accomplishes very little and I think it needs to include a wider range of fast food places, why just McD's why not Burger King... the law as it stands is a little rediculous ~-~
As for the white lies Im'a start an epic topic about it :D
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rawrain, I think you misunderstood the report. The law applies to all restaurants not just McDonalds.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh come on WW. Your statement makes it seem like just because something is advertised kids are going to be able to go right out and get it. The fact is the parent has the choice whether to buy that happy meal for the child, and what food is included in that happy meal.
While this is true, its also true that advertising to children is extremely effective. That's why businesses do it.
Children are extremely susceptible to advertising and children are very adept at manipulating their parents. It's all fine and good to say parents should just say no, but it isn't going to work that way, at least not all the time. We humans are biologically programmed to respond to what our children want and children are biologically programmed to know how to push those buttons.
I challenge you to find me even one parent who has never given in to their child against their better judgement. Even the very best parents do at least occasionally.
That's why I believe a responsible community should regulate advertising to children. Companies should not be allowed to manipulate our children into demanding stuff that's harmful to themselves or others.
McDonald's unarguably targets children in much of its advertising. Their entire buildings are designed as an advertisement to small children. My friends with little kids say the kids beg to go to McDonald's every time they can see the playroom from the road. McDonald's hosts children's birthday parties, some restaurants even have a special building for those parties. At those parties they give the kids vouchers for a free for the next time they come. McDonald's understands that appealing to kids is the best way to get families to come in. Toys in the happy meals are part of how they attract children.
To me, the only real question left is whether McDonald's high calorie happy meals are really bad enough for kids to warrant intervention. Certainly a happy meal every once in a while after a active day isn't what leads to obesity.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit thanks for the correct and putting everything in understandable terms, I agree with your double post. Though I am not sure how much my opinion weighs compared to others I assure it worth at least some XD
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
As a veteran who fought for our freedom following 9/11, I would just like to say that this is the dumbest discussion I've seen today . . . or at least one of the dumbest. At least in the top ten.
Why do we want to restrict people's freedom to buy a food product just because it includes a free toy? Have we suddenly become a bunch of communists?
For that matter, what happened to the toys in cereal boxes? I want a baking soda submarine, gosh dang it! Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your "slippery slope" link that refutes A leading to B. I agree with this..hense my six degrees of Kevin Bacon comment. "A" is food and "B" is not edible.
Describe for us, in your own words, what you think a slippery slope is.
How can I? Slippery slope to me is foot in the door.
let's try this again. I'm asking you to describe, in your own words, what you think slippery slope is. What is the definition of the fallacy known as slippery slope. What does it mean to you. I ask because you've had two attempts to display this to you in this thread alone, you frequently make slippery slope arguments, and I severely doubt you've bothered to try to figure out what people mean when they point out what you are doing.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I just realized that my dad argues exactly like malanthrop, only for leftist ideals.
The "ask an investor" line really clinched it for me.
You're absolutely correct. I'm glad I lead you to this epiphany. I'm proud of my right wing extremism. Your left extremist father is just like me.
Politicians run primaries for the extreme and general elections to the middle. Your father and I are not in the middle but elections depend on the middle. I have much more respect for your father, than a liberal who pretends to be moderate.
One difference,....extreme right wing still enjoy John Stewart. Is it possible to be a: pro choice, pro gay marriage Christian? Many leftist politicians are. Is it possible to be a pro choice, pro gay marriage Christian Reverend? Liberals care most about labels and ignore content of character.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
That wasn't mirror Riker was it? I think it was just a parallel Riker of many.
Off the top of my head, of the three casts which did proper Mirror Universe episodes, the only one main cast member which had a beard at the same time as an episode would be Worf I think (and Regent Worf basically looked the same).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yeah, the Riker I'm thinking of was Thomas, who went over to help the mirror universe resistance in DS9.
edit: wait, no, he went to the Maquis. Who am I thinking of who went to the mirror universe permanently in DS9?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: How can I? Slippery slope to me is foot in the door.
let's try this again. I'm asking you to describe, in your own words, what you think slippery slope is. What is the definition of the fallacy known as slippery slope. What does it mean to you. I ask because you've had two attempts to display this to you in this thread alone, you frequently make slippery slope arguments, and I severely doubt you've bothered to try to figure out what people mean when they point out what you are doing.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I just realized that my dad argues exactly like malanthrop, only for leftist ideals.
The "ask an investor" line really clinched it for me.
You're absolutely correct. I'm glad I lead you to this epiphany. I'm proud of my right wing extremism. Your left extremist father is just like me.
Politicians run primaries for the extreme and general elections to the middle. Your father and I are not in the middle but elections depend on the middle. I have much more respect for your father, than a liberal who pretends to be moderate.
One difference,....extreme right wing still enjoy John Stewart. Is it possible to be a: pro choice, pro gay marriage Christian? Many leftist politicians are. Is it possible to be a pro choice, pro gay marriage Christian Reverend? Liberals care most about labels and ignore content of character.
I can't tell if you're offended or not, but I actually wasn't trying to offend you. I mean, yes, my dad is kind of annoying to argue with, but that wasn't what I was getting at. It was really just a random thing I realized and wanted to share.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: How can I? Slippery slope to me is foot in the door.
let's try this again. I'm asking you to describe, in your own words, what you think slippery slope is. What is the definition of the fallacy known as slippery slope. What does it mean to you. I ask because you've had two attempts to display this to you in this thread alone, you frequently make slippery slope arguments, and I severely doubt you've bothered to try to figure out what people mean when they point out what you are doing.
Are you coming from the position that slippery slope arguments are automatically discounted? Slippery slope is relative. I'm attempting to define the relativity. If soda can be regulated for it's sugar content, why can't milk for its fat content? What's worse for you, fat or sugar? The "slippery slope" is contained to a certain hill. In this case, it's consumption. The hill of what people choose to consume....the same slope. Cigarettes and soda or milk...same hill, same slope...consumption choices.
Liberals like to segregate people into categories, why not food? The items that people choose to consume are more diverse than the people....we are all human. Can an apple cross pollinate with an orange? Why is "Bizarre Foods" so popular? Can a cow breed with a sugar beet? Fat content vs sugar content is more disparate than "income levels". Conservatives view all people as equal. Conservatives want equal opportunity and liberals want guaranteed equal outcome. Liberals work in the gray area but define every shade of gray.
Regulating sugar isn't a "slippery slope" to regulating fat. Fat was regulated before sugar....milk is still PC. Of course, fat free, sugar free water is great, unless it comes in a plastic bottle.....in San Fransisco.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slippery slope fallacies are particularly dangerous for you, mal, because of the way your brain operates.
In that post above, for example, you basically did this:
1) If A, then B. 2) If B, possibly C. 3) If C, then D.
...for a situation in which A is false.
This means that in order to argue with you, someone first has to point out that the very first step of your argument -- which often happened paragraphs ago, and may have been simply tossed out there casually as if it weren't the foundation of your logic -- is baseless. And they haven't even gotten into the odds of B producing C yet.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you coming from the position that slippery slope arguments are automatically discounted?
I'm coming from a position where I am asking you to tell us how you define the slippery slope fallacy. Right now you're unintentionally just responding with the fallacy itself, not an explanation. Unless this is a clever sort of performance theater based explanation, just either define it or admit you can not.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Slippery slope fallacies are particularly dangerous for you, mal, because of the way your brain operates.
In that post above, for example, you basically did this:
1) If A, then B. 2) If B, possibly C. 3) If C, then D.
...for a situation in which A is false.
This means that in order to argue with you, someone first has to point out that the very first step of your argument -- which often happened paragraphs ago, and may have been simply tossed out there casually as if it weren't the foundation of your logic -- is baseless. And they haven't even gotten into the odds of B producing C yet.
Before you can make this argument,...define A. What is A?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
