Lieberman out to save the children yet again! - Page 2

So you'll bitch about spending money to help people not be fat, but if it means you'll end up spending less money, you're sill against it?

Or are you just fighting for a side and not for a reason?

I agree with you on most all of your points. I just think, if it helps, why not do it? Why are we protecting fast food companies instead of children from idiot parents?

Why do idiot parents have children? Using your logic the government would later need to step in and regulate this.

I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between making companies be honest to telling people who can have children.

Of topic, but this is bullshit. I don't mind people using a maxim b/c they think it's true, but that doesn't mean it's okay to attribute it to a political and literary figure who may or may not have said it. That's like trying to say it was Einstein who came up with "Always stand on 18 in blackjack." Sure, it's good advice, but attributing it to a recongnized historical smarty pants is an attempt to give it more weight by having it come from an "authority."

If you think the quote is true, great, use it. But just because you think that doesn't mean it's okay to say Orwell said it.

Funny thing is, do a google search & you'll find countless articles, essays and message boards with this quote attributed to Orwell. Some guy wrote it once & every conservative who read it just picked it up for themselves without researching.

You are right. I don't understand the difference. It is responsibility. Personal, corporate, government, etc...

Simple responsibility.

I would not expect you to understand anything about that since the governmnet has not given you the proper talking points on it yet.

People in the government talking about personal & corporate responsibility? Are you insane?

I'm a much better person for learning about responsibility without using the example set forth by government.

They're already in. They regulate food processing (very poorly), they regulate marketing and they regulate restaurant standards. They're not leaving. While they're here, let's help people.

Very easy, when you're talking to an imaginary child. Now try saying that to a real child, rather than an imaginary one. A real child who is bombarded with TV advertising every single day that tells him that eating at McDonalds is the biggest treat in the world. A child whose friends all eat there, so why can't he?

Now imagine having to tell that kid to eat their vegetables EVERY DAY. Imagine the screaming, the tantrums, the daily grind of having to resist the inevitable pull of the Happy Meal. When you've barely got time to fit in a job and household chores, let alone cooking a nutritious meal for a family every night...that's how it happens. How the Friday treat spreads to two or three nights a week. How it becomes quicker and easier to send out for a pizza. How it's cheaper to give them money for a Whopper at lunch instead of making a packed lunch every day.

Those who bang the drum for "personal responsibility" are almost always those whose only responsibility is to themself. I'm guessing you're not a parent. A working parent. A working parent who finds it hard enough to give their child a balanced diet without having their efforts undermined on a daily basis by billion dollar ad campaigns. A working parent who can walk along any block and find a junk food outlet offering cheap garbage 24 hours a day. Nah, you're right. Childhood obesity tripling in the last twenty years is just because parents have suddenly become shit at their job. The good folk at Burger King are simply offering choice and reminding us of that fact in every ad break.

I honestly don't think people are reading the story correctly. This has nothing to do with silly knee-jerk visions of "political correctness gone mad", nothing to do with stopping anyone from enjoying a burger and everything to do with a very real, and very dangerous, health issue which is affecting an entire generation. You can see it as part of a vague wooly conspiracy to turn us all into drones, or you can see it as a sensible reaction to a growing problem. Nobody is saying this is a replacement for parental responsibility, just that this parental responsibility is made much easier if we don't have to fight against an onslaught of slick advertising which turns parents into villains every time they say "no" to burgers and fries for dinner.

I don't want to see junk food banned. I don't want government laws to say what I can and can't eat. But I have no problem at all with laws that make it easier for parents to resist the barrage of advertising which is seducing children into a life of poor nutrition with images of dancing clowns and free plastic crap.

Tobacco advertising was restricted, while information about the dangers was increased. Less people smoke now, but you can still choose to if you want.

Doing the same for junk food is a problem why?

It's really hard to fathom the scope of what is already regulated by the government. The medicine we take doesn't kill us, you can't put tainted meat on the counter, your employer has to take steps to provide a safe premisis. You have recourse in civil wrongdoing. You have enforced speed limits on the roadways. You can't get drunk and drive. You can't shoot the supermarket clerk in the head for overcharging you. Most of these things have been in place so long they are accepted and expected. Some are relatively new. So now something else is brought up for discussion. No one likes laws and regulations geared to the lowest common denominator but again how do we deal with the lowest common denominator? When the US ratched it it's welfare system we had to figure out what to do with people that are so incompentant that they couldn't figure out how to operate a color coded touch screen cash register. Do you just leave them to rot? And what about their kids? Remember the response Pat Buchanan got with his solution. Yeah, that was real popular.

In precisely the manner suggested in your original post.

Investigate the rise in childhood obesity and see if it's connected to the rise in junk food outlets.

Look at the way this food is marketed directly at children - from pre-school age - and if neccesary put restrictions on how and when junk food is marketed to under 16s.

Do what you can to help those parents trying to raise their kids right, and do what you can to help those kids whose parents are unable or unwilling to supply a balanced diet.

Make school meals more nutritious, control the influx of vending machines in schools, do what you can to change their diets while they're away from parents and in a school environment, and do what you can to educate the kids - and the parents if neccesary - to try and make sure the message sticks.

This isn't some "let's meddle for the fun of it" issue. Around a third of US adults are clinically obese. Child obesity is rising at an unprecented rate. We used to laugh at your lardarses, but now it's happening in the UK, as we take on more aspects of junk food culture.

I like a Whopper as much as the next person, and I'm as guilty as the next person of turning to them instead of a proper meal when I'm in a rush or away from home on business. But I've got a son to raise now, and I see adverts during Blues Clues that show nothing of McDonalds food, but instead come across as a thirty second show, with that funny clown playing with a bunch of happy, healthy kids. As he grows up, with that message repeated every day, from TV, from posters, from the High Street, that crappy calorie-filled junk is going to look like the most exciting thing ever. And it'll get harder and harder to make him eat his carrots and peas, when you get a free toy with every burger.

That's why I support ideas like this. Because they're not there to chip away at our freedom to do bad things to our bodies when we want to - they're there to make it easier for us NOT to do that, because we're a weak species conditioned to take the path of least resistance. The only party truly "harmed" by this is the fast food industry, and frankly children's health is more important to me than the profit margin of McDonalds Inc.

I think Lieberman is a dick when it comes to certain issues - particularly those related to entertainment. I'm all for people being able to know the content of a movie or videogame before they buy it for a child, but that's as far as I'll go down that road. But this is different, and regardless of what the guy has said in the past, I agree with him on this issue.. I think you're letting your obvious (and deserved) distaste for the man and his previous actions get in the way of judging this issue on its own merit.

But that's a "What If?" scenario. It sounds like you're saying that this might be a good idea, but it could lead to a bad idea down the road so we shouldn't do it. As I said before, this isn't "pick an area and meddle in it". It's a genuine problem, you can see it in any schoolyard. Kids aren't just getting fat, they're getting OBESE. As in, so fat it's dangerous. Ultimate responsibility for this falls to the parent, yes. But there are many parents who simply don't know how their kid got so fat and despair. There are others who don't care. It's very easy to proclaim "it's your responsibility!", but that doesn't address the problem, let alone begin to solve it. When you say "it's all down to personal responsibility" what you actually mean is "survival of the fittest", and if Chubby Bobby happens to have parents who can't afford, or can't be bothered, to make sure he's fed right, then you're basically saying he's fucked. I can't do that, and if Burger King not being able to put fifteen ads a day on Nick Jr is the price of change, then that bothers me not one bit.

Every day more kids start down this road. Looking at the "junk food culture" that surrounds kids today is just ONE STEP to changing the situation (and it is "kids today" - I think one of the reasons it's hard for us to understand is that we were mostly old enough to know better when junk food took over the High Street, we didn't grow up with three burger bars, a pizza place and taco stand outside the school gate). It's not THE ANSWER, but it's part of the answer, and letting paranoid fears of Government Mandated Mealtimes get in the way of addressing the problem is counter-productive.

We in the West need to make a concerted change in lifestyle or instead of the future looking like Demolition Man, it'll look like the fucking Klumps. Ideas like this are a step towards that change, and as long as they're implemented intelligently, I'll continue to support them.

I have 2 daughters, and I'm a working parent. The older one, sometimes asks me about McDonalds (she loves the playground) and guess what, I tell her no.

If you can't control something as basic as that on your children, specially small children then you need to learn how to become a parent.

Find time, cook for the kids, control what they are eating. What if they want beer, are you just going to give in?

You sound like a caring, loving and responsible parent. Would we need laws against murder if all people were like you?

edited to make a question out of the last sentence and therefore not accuse CapitanAmerica of murder.

Lucky you. This situation obviously doesn't apply to you. Doesn't mean it's not a problem for others though. It's like saying "I'm OK, so what's the problem?".

It's like saying I smoked for years and then stopped, so why all the fuss about how hard it is to quit?

It's like saying I pulled myself out of the gutter and made a million, so why do we need welfare?

Obviously not everyone's family is like yours, or obesity levels wouldn't be rocketing. So you can either allow the government to do something about it, or you can say "If I can do it, everybody can".

You seem hung up on the idea that because you're OK, parents of obese kids must simply be stupid and lazy, and that's the problem.

I think it's more complex than that, and complex problems require solutions beyond telling people to buckle up and fly straight.

Of course not, but then there are laws to stop alcohol companies advertising to underage children...

You said people like me are "almost always" only responsible for ourselves only. We probably don't have kids, etc. Stop making generalized comments about other posters and stick to the issues.

You mean the one "generalized comment about other posters" in amongst the reams of text I've posted addressing the issues? Most of the people I know who play the "it's up to the individual card" are single and childless, and thus have no idea how hard it can be to be responsible for others. THAT was my point. Nice deflection though.

Now, about these "generalized comments"...

That's why I said :

Stop making generalized comments about other posters and stick to the issues.

That is, people here, making the arguments. Stick to the arguments, and don't try to guess who's fat, who's lazy, who's childless, etc.

Well, at least you are paying attention though :-)

So it's OK to make generalised comments (such as suggesting that fat kids must have lazy parents who can't be bothered to cook for them) as long as it's not about other posters.

Gotcha.

Rice = carbs = sugar = calories. Your body breaks white rice down into sugar very quickly. Eating too much white rice (or any other carb) can cause you to become fat. Fat is not the only "villain".

No, I'm not against making generalizations when talking about issues, I'm saying that don't use them to discuss issues against other people.

Geez man. In this topic, don't try to assume if I have kids or nots, argue the points. That doesn't mean that I can't make comments like "most Americans are fat and lazy".

Do you understand the difference, or shall we keep going in circles?

Dan, what you say makes sense. As a parent it can be really difficult to make the right choice when it comes to your child's nutrition. I'm not sure how putting some sort of warning in the commercial is going to change that. Now the parent will know but as we are taught by G. I. Joe, that is only half the battle. Parents now warned must still be willing/able to say no.

Edited to say: I read your response to foywonder and now I see what you are saying. I don't know that that level of advertising will change but then we did get liqour and tobacco ads taken off of TV so who knows.

Yeah, but now they'll know what they're saying yes or no to. Always a good thing.

Do you have mandatory nutritional information labels in the states?

[CaptainAmerica to Capt. Eucalyptus in another thread]
Santa Claus is watching you.

That was not a generalization, that was a factual observation. :-D

Then I say it is YOU who are not paying attention.

Seriously, you won't meet two smarter puppies on the boards than Capt. Eucalyptus and Dan Whitehead. And they are arguing the points...I thought that was obvious.

But I'm not going to make a general statement about another poster here...

Since when did one double cheese burger do any one harm? Shit, 2 double chesseburgers a week will do no one harm. These kids did not become fat on one cheeseburger overnight.

The problem is the lack of exercise.

I wonder why this point isn't being hammered home by Lieberman.

Them's fightin' words punk.

Ahhh to be compared to the Whitehead. I'm giddy with praise!

Well Nelson I think it's really a combination of things.

OK, now I get it. No that comment in that thread was not ment for you, but to "Rigormortis_Rob". I was wondering why this other guy had mention your name with relation to that post.

Actually, that was meant in the "Cap's like a girly british boy" sense.

Dan knows how I really feel about him.

You're right, mea culpa. My apologies to CaptainAmerica for misquoting. Guess it's back to the cellar for me...

Must work differently in your state.

You can't watch a Laker game here or any football game in the morning without, oh I'd say about 50 beer or liquor commercials. Maybe not HARD liquor but liqour all the same.

Obese people are costly.

Many North Americans are obese. Increasingly, the problem of obesity has been associated with younger age groups. This implies the emergence of obesity-related problems with time. (The rise of heart-attacks in people under 40.) Such problems cost money to treat and use the valuable time of health practitioners — time that that should not be wasted, when actions such dietary alteration greatly reduce the need for such visits.

Not only do the latent problems associated with obesity cost physician time, and public money — that is, in order to remain in-step with the values of Western society, people must be treated — but obesity itself is a problem that often requires significant (and imediate) medical attention. Being too fat often means a trip to a health practioner — and quite possibly trips to a dietary specialist; a surgeon; a physiotherapist, or a pharmacist, to list a few. All professionals whose time is of considerble value. And again, something can be avoided through public awareness and action.

Moreover, obesity has indirect affects. For instance, a quick internet search reveals that obese people are more likely to suffer from periodontal disease(Ref.). Insurance cover dental? great — but your premiums will rise if more people require treatment due to poor diet. Some costs are hidden.

From a purely bureaucratic perspective, moving to stem the flood of obesity is a necassary action; less tax dollars are wasted treating an easily-avoided condition, and more importantly, the time and brainpower of professionals is not wasted on a social problem. At the very least, more efforts could be focused on those for whom obesity is a real problem.

Concordantly, from a social perspective, acting against obesity makes sense. Individuals are not islands. The actions of one affect the actions of another. And if everyone decides to get extremely fat, quality of life will suffer. This is not say: Stop eating junkfood. Not is it suggesting a call to arms against fat people, or the fast food industry(hardly the root of this problem). In fact, there is no place to put the "blame" for obesity, save society as a whole. However, there are intstitutions and groups at which campaign against obesity would be most effictively targeted. With this in mind, Lieberman's initiative seems well-founded.

Sitting on your ass turns carbs into sugar. Moving around a little bit burns carbs and for people with a lifestyle even remotely active need carbs as an energy source.

Low carb diets are just weight loss solutions for the lazy, that often result in increased heart problems.

You're exactly right there, Nelson. Schools have been paring back recess for quite a few years, and on top of that the idiot box has replaced tag, soccer, etc as the recreation of choice for the kids. Let's get kids off their butts and that will reduce a lot of the weight problems they have.

Actually, there are many cardiologists who put their patients on Atkins to help with their cardio problems. Atkins was a cardiologist and designed the diet with the heart in mind. Now your kidneys, that's another thing altogether. Staying low-carb for a long amount of time increases the work on your kidneys (it's diuretic) and can cause some problems there if you aren't careful.

Sending the message that eating bacon all you want is healthy is just stupid. A cardiologist who does reccommend a low carb diet is going to do so by adding that the dieter should still avoid eating foods high in saturated fats which of course further limits the restrictions placed within the diet itself.