First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Liberalism
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/11/10 , edited 11/11/10

Allhailodin wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Why should we ban McDonalds from selling unhealthy food to children just because its unhealthy, its called freedom of choice, you have the freedom to eat whatever you can shove down your throat even if its a pencil, kids have the right to eat deep fried mayonnaise wrapped in bacon if they so desire, everyone does. Besides its not the governments place to tell us what we can and can't eat.


You are confusing what I can do, with what McDonalds is allowed to attempt to brainwash me into doing. or worse, brainwash my non-existant minor child.. Who NO.. does not have complete freedom, that's what being a Minor is.

Defend YOUR freedom all you like. Make sure you know what you're defending.



Advertising is not equal to brainwashing.


Advertising to children who do not know better is brainwashing-

Are they old enough to make a good choice? Do they know better than to believe everything the chap on the television says? Do they really know what is best for themselves, being still inexperianced in the world?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/11/10

Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


makix wrote:

Something I read like 5 minutes ago:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103

Long story short, San Francisco (notorious for its super liberal stance) banned Happy Meal toys because it would "entice" kids to consuming fat content.

Honestly... there is a very fine line between saving the world and just fucking pissing people off. This is on the extreme side of pissing people off.


Food fascists.


Just to play the devil's advocate-

Now, you would all agree that marketing something like, say, cigarettes or alcohol, both with great detrimental effect toward health to children, is wrong.

The food of MacDonald, in addition to its poor quality but somehow highly addictive, is also unhealthy.

Would not, then, it make sense to ban MacDonald from marketing its foodstuff, if it can be called thus, to innocent, wide-eyed children?

While I cannot say I agree with it, calling them 'Food Fascist' (Oh Godwin's Law) is a little too far.


Why should we ban McDonalds from selling unhealthy food to children just because its unhealthy, its called freedom of choice, you have the freedom to eat whatever you can shove down your throat even if its a pencil, kids have the right to eat deep fried mayonnaise wrapped in bacon if they so desire, everyone does. Besides its not the governments place to tell us what we can and can't eat.


They are not banning them from selling their crap, just as alcohol and cigarettes are still sold- they are banning advertisment and enticment geared toward children, who, if you have the fortune of dealing with one, are easily swayed and covetous.


Their banning McDonalds from putting toys in with their food, which is wrong. The government has no businesses in telling us what we can and can't eat or feed our children. Just like they had no business banning trans fats or taxing soda which is something new york wants to do.


Why, we would all agree selling action figures with alcohol is wrong, and we would agree that selling alcohol to kids is wrong- is the government violating individual rights in saying no one under the age of 21 should be able to purchase alcohol? Why then should McDonald be an exception? Its food is a danger to the health of anyone who eats it- it harms local restraunts and therefore, local business, it preys on children to get them hooked early on, &c., &c.?

But, the government does not go that far- you still have the choice, it just doesn't come with the toys anymore.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/11/10

longfenglim wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


makix wrote:

Something I read like 5 minutes ago:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103

Long story short, San Francisco (notorious for its super liberal stance) banned Happy Meal toys because it would "entice" kids to consuming fat content.

Honestly... there is a very fine line between saving the world and just fucking pissing people off. This is on the extreme side of pissing people off.


Food fascists.


Just to play the devil's advocate-

Now, you would all agree that marketing something like, say, cigarettes or alcohol, both with great detrimental effect toward health to children, is wrong.

The food of MacDonald, in addition to its poor quality but somehow highly addictive, is also unhealthy.

Would not, then, it make sense to ban MacDonald from marketing its foodstuff, if it can be called thus, to innocent, wide-eyed children?

While I cannot say I agree with it, calling them 'Food Fascist' (Oh Godwin's Law) is a little too far.


Why should we ban McDonalds from selling unhealthy food to children just because its unhealthy, its called freedom of choice, you have the freedom to eat whatever you can shove down your throat even if its a pencil, kids have the right to eat deep fried mayonnaise wrapped in bacon if they so desire, everyone does. Besides its not the governments place to tell us what we can and can't eat.


They are not banning them from selling their crap, just as alcohol and cigarettes are still sold- they are banning advertisment and enticment geared toward children, who, if you have the fortune of dealing with one, are easily swayed and covetous.


Their banning McDonalds from putting toys in with their food, which is wrong. The government has no businesses in telling us what we can and can't eat or feed our children. Just like they had no business banning trans fats or taxing soda which is something new york wants to do.


Why, we would all agree selling action figures with alcohol is wrong, and we would agree that selling alcohol to kids is wrong- is the government violating individual rights in saying no one under the age of 21 should be able to purchase alcohol? Why then should McDonald be an exception? Its food is a danger to the health of anyone who eats it- it harms local restraunts and therefore, local business, it preys on children to get them hooked early on, &c., &c.?

But, the government does not go that far- you still have the choice, it just doesn't come with the toys anymore.


Its a problem because liquor and smokes are harmful to your health, McDonalds is not, the government has no businesse telling a business like mcdonalds that they cannot sell toys with their food. Just like the government has no business telling regular diners and shit that they can't cook their food with trans fats, or use salt.

Does the government have any business telling a normal restaraunts that they cannot deep fry foods or use mayo because they make people with no self control fat ? No it doesn't.
Posted 11/11/10 , edited 11/11/10

Allhailodin wrote:


Its a problem because liquor and smokes are harmful to your health, McDonalds is not, the government has no businesse telling a business like mcdonalds that they cannot sell toys with their food. Just like the government has no business telling regular diners and shit that they can't cook their food with trans fats, or use salt.

Does the government have any business telling a normal restaraunts that they cannot deep fry foods or use mayo because they make people with no self control fat ? No it doesn't.
You don't watch what you eat, do you?

Fast Food and Obesity

Fast food is simply tasty, ready-cooked meals packed to go. Fast food has been around since the early 1900’s, but its popularity sparked and grew in the 1940’s with the birth of good ole’ Mickey D’s; quick food priced cheaply. Within a few years similar fast-food operations popped up everywhere in the blink of an eye.

With the compelling rise in fast-food restaurants since the 1940’s, oddly, too, started the rise in obesity and cancer during that same time period. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to do the math and link fast food to the obesity and cancer crisis.

Fast Food and its Nutritional Value

To say fast food has a “nutritional value” is an oxymoron. There is absolutely nothing nutritional about fast food. Fast food simply feeds hunger and/or your immediate craving. Fast food does not feed your body in the form of usable lasting energy or building materials, the essence your body thrives on for life itself.

Fast food is highly processed with a wide array of additives. The concept of fast food is obviously, food ready-to-eat and served quickly. To ensure fast food’s low cost to the consumer, the fast food products are made with highly-processed ingredients to give it shelf-life, to hold consistency, and to enhance flavor. Fast food is altered from its original healthy form it was meant to nourish the body with, to a denatured form that lacks any nutritional value whatsoever.

How Unhealthy Is Fast Food According to Diana Schwarzbein, M.D., “The FDA Total Diet Study found that fast-food hamburgers, across the board, contained 113 different pesticide residues.” So my question is why does the FDA want to regulate the sale of vitamins, minerals, and herbs that are actually beneficial for the body when there’s a linking fast-food / cancer / obesity crisis on our hands?

Why Fast Food is Fattening and Dangerous

Wake up people. It’s not the calories in fast food that’s damaging to your health and waistline it’s the chemical additives such as aspartame and MSG (monosodium glutamate). These chemical additives are approved by the FDA and studies show that they lead to weight and disease issues.

Synthetic chemicals added to processed food, including fast food, damage your body’s cells. Your body is made up of nutrients found in plants and animals you eat. Man-made food items loaded with pesticides, as well as aspartame, margarine, and other man-made chemicals do not nourish your body. If your body can’t use what you put into it you will gain fat and decrease health.

Since we can’t visually see what actually happens at the molecular level when we eat processed food, we discount it and rely on the FDA to do our thinking for us. After all, if its FDA approved, it MUST be okay to eat, right? Not at all.

Nutrients from the food we eat allow us to burn fat and be healthy. Your body cannot process synthetic chemicals. If a food item can’t be processed, it will end up lodged in areas of your body, primarily fatty areas and tissues, creating an acidic pH.

A simple fast-food chicken breast can contain everything from modified corn starch to hydrolyzed corn gluten. Hello? Chicken comprised of corn? A fast-food chicken nugget is nearly 60% corn, and corn is what farmers use to fatten up cattle.

Michael Pollan, author of, The Omnivore’s Dilemma says it perfectly – “How did we ever get to a point where we need investigative journalist to tell us where our food comes from?”

A good visual that Dr. Mark A. Gustafson found is that it takes fifty-one days to digest fast food chicken nuggets or French fries. FIFTY-ONE DAYS! Does that sound healthy? I could care less about the caloric, fat, or carbohydrate content. That’s not the problem, people. The problem with fast food is that it’s void of nutrients and loaded with chemicals not recognized by the body.

What’s even more devastating is the book The Fast Food Diet written by Stephan Sinatra, M.D. This is a sad state when a doctor promotes eating chemically-altered food with addictive chemicals and damaged fats that scars the artery walls and contribute to total metabolic damage.(citation)

And for someone who claimed that the federal government has veto rights when it comes to public safety, yet here you are contradicting your own rule, you hypocrite.

You wanna talk about freedom? How about freedom from manipulation and obesity? Or is that what you libertarian want to oppress humanity with sickness and disease?

The law, which takes effect in December 2011, says children's meals including toys must have fewer than 600 calories and 640mg of sodium, and derive less than 35% of their calories from fat.(citation)
You keep this up, and I'll proof just how wrong you libertarians really are using fast food giants as examples:

Of the 3,000-plus kids meals, just 12 met the nutritional criteria for preschoolers, and just 15 met the nutrition criteria set for older children, the study showed. In fact, one single meal from most fast food restaurants contains at least half of young people's daily recommended sodium.

Fast food marketing to kids also leaves much to be desired, the researchers report. Preschoolers see 21% more fast food ads today than in 2003 and older children see 34% more fast food ads, the new report found.

"There is a staggering amount of exposure to fast food advertising that begins when children are as young as 2," says Jennifer Harris, director of marketing initiative at the Rudd Center.

McDonald's and Burger King have upheld their 2008 commitment to show healthier meals in TV ads directed to children under 12.

This is "a start, but it's not enough," says Harris.

Fast food ads don't always run during children's TV programs, and many ad campaigns, including social media advertising, are about building brand recognition instead of food choices.

"About 60% of ads are not on kids programming, but a lot of children are seeing them and having a large impact," says Harris. For example, "American Idol, Glee, or sports programs are places where we will see a lot of unhealthy fast food ads."
Bait and Switch?

"There is still a lot of fast food advertising aimed at kids," says Margo G. Wootan, PhD, the nutrition policy director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group based in Washington, D.C.

Other options aimed at curbing marketing unhealthy food choices to kids include the recent San Francisco ban on giving away toys with unhealthy children's meals.

"The goal is not take the happy out of happy meal, but to put the happy and healthy together," she says. "It's nice that some companies have changed their advertising, but we need to address all ways that they market to kids," Wootan says.

"It is great that they show apples and low-fat milk in advertising, but a child sees an ad for McDonald's and no matter what food is in the ad, it's an ad to go to McDonalds, and once they get to the restaurant almost all of possible kids' meal combinations are unhealthy and they automatically come with french fries and sugary drinks," she tells WebMD.(citation)
Still not enough? How about the usual lip service?

Fast Food Industry Responds

"There can be no dispute that that the restaurant industry has been committed to providing a growing array of nutritious offerings for children," says Joy Dubost, PhD, RD, the National Restaurant Association's Director of Nutrition and Healthy Living, in a statement. "Numerous surveys show the increasing number of healthful options in kids’ meals, and nutritious offerings in children's meals is the number one food trend in quick-service restaurants. The industry has also led the way in advocating that nutrition information be made available to consumers in chain restaurants," she says.

"A menu labeling provision that the industry strongly supported became law last year and will soon require calories on the menu in 200,000 restaurant locations nationwide," Dubost says. “Measures like this will help empower consumers, providing them with the detailed nutrition information they are looking for to make the best decisions for themselves and their families."

Both McDonald's and Burger King restated their commitments to responsible marketing.

"McDonald's remains committed to responsible marketing practices, including advertising and promotional campaigns for our youngest customers. Consistent with our 2006 commitment to the Council of Better Business Bureaus' Food Pledge, 100 percent of our children’s advertising in the U.S. features dietary choices that fit within the 2005 USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans," Neil Golden, the senior vice president and Chief Marketing Officer of McDonald's USA, says in a statement. "We primarily advertise our popular 375 calorie four-piece Chicken McNugget Happy Meal which includes Apple Dippers, low-fat caramel dip, and a jug of 1-percent low fat milk."

Burger King had this to say: "As part of Burger King Corp.’s HAVE IT YOUR WAY® brand promise, we offer a variety of menu options that empower guests to choose items that are best for their lifestyle. In addition, as part of our BK Positive Steps® corporate responsibility program, in 2007, BKC pledged to restrict 100 percent of national advertising aimed at children under 12 to BK® Kids Meals that meet stringent nutrition criteria. BKC’s nutrition criteria for BK® Kids Meals (consisting of an entrée, side dish, and beverage) are based on the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and other federal and scientifically established dietary recommendations and defined as [having] no more than 560 calories per meal [and] less than 30 percent of calories from fat."(citation)
Don't forget that your constitutional freedom of speech also grads the inhumane corporations their rights to lie:

While Nike was conducting a huge and expensive PR blitz to tell people that it had cleaned up its subcontractors' sweatshop labor practices, an alert consumer advocate and activist in California named Marc Kasky caught them in what he alleges are a number of specific deceptions. Citing a California law that forbids corporations from intentionally deceiving people in their commercial statements, Kasky sued the multi-billion-dollar corporation.

Instead of refuting Kasky's charge by proving in court that they didn't lie, however, Nike instead chose to argue that corporations should enjoy the same "free speech" right to deceive that individual human citizens have in their personal lives. If people have the constitutionally protected right to say, "The check is in the mail," or, "That looks great on you," then, Nike's reasoning goes, a corporation should have the same right to say whatever they want in their corporate PR campaigns.

They took this argument all the way to the California Supreme Court, where they lost. The next stop may be the U.S. Supreme Court in early January, and the battle lines are already forming.

For example, in a column in the New York Times supporting Nike's position, Bob Herbert wrote, "In a real democracy, even the people you disagree with get to have their say."

True enough.

But Nike isn't a person - it's a corporation. And it's not their "say" they're asking for: it's the right to deceive people.

Corporations are created by humans to further the goal of making money. As Buckminster Fuller said in his brilliant essay The Grunch of Giants, "Corporations are neither physical nor metaphysical phenomena. They are socioeconomic ploys - legally enacted game-playing..."

Corporations are non-living, non-breathing, legal fictions. They feel no pain. They don't need clean water to drink, fresh air to breathe, or healthy food to consume. They can live forever. They can't be put in prison. They can change their identity or appearance in a day, change their citizenship in an hour, rip off parts of themselves and create entirely new entities. Some have compared corporations with robots, in that they are human creations that can outlive individual humans, performing their assigned tasks forever.(citation)
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/11/10

DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Its a problem because liquor and smokes are harmful to your health, McDonalds is not, the government has no businesse telling a business like mcdonalds that they cannot sell toys with their food. Just like the government has no business telling regular diners and shit that they can't cook their food with trans fats, or use salt.

Does the government have any business telling a normal restaraunts that they cannot deep fry foods or use mayo because they make people with no self control fat ? No it doesn't.
You don't watch what you eat, do you?

Fast Food and Obesity

Fast food is simply tasty, ready-cooked meals packed to go. Fast food has been around since the early 1900’s, but its popularity sparked and grew in the 1940’s with the birth of good ole’ Mickey D’s; quick food priced cheaply. Within a few years similar fast-food operations popped up everywhere in the blink of an eye.

With the compelling rise in fast-food restaurants since the 1940’s, oddly, too, started the rise in obesity and cancer during that same time period. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to do the math and link fast food to the obesity and cancer crisis.

Fast Food and its Nutritional Value

To say fast food has a “nutritional value” is an oxymoron. There is absolutely nothing nutritional about fast food. Fast food simply feeds hunger and/or your immediate craving. Fast food does not feed your body in the form of usable lasting energy or building materials, the essence your body thrives on for life itself.

Fast food is highly processed with a wide array of additives. The concept of fast food is obviously, food ready-to-eat and served quickly. To ensure fast food’s low cost to the consumer, the fast food products are made with highly-processed ingredients to give it shelf-life, to hold consistency, and to enhance flavor. Fast food is altered from its original healthy form it was meant to nourish the body with, to a denatured form that lacks any nutritional value whatsoever.

How Unhealthy Is Fast Food According to Diana Schwarzbein, M.D., “The FDA Total Diet Study found that fast-food hamburgers, across the board, contained 113 different pesticide residues.” So my question is why does the FDA want to regulate the sale of vitamins, minerals, and herbs that are actually beneficial for the body when there’s a linking fast-food / cancer / obesity crisis on our hands?

Why Fast Food is Fattening and Dangerous

Wake up people. It’s not the calories in fast food that’s damaging to your health and waistline it’s the chemical additives such as aspartame and MSG (monosodium glutamate). These chemical additives are approved by the FDA and studies show that they lead to weight and disease issues.

Synthetic chemicals added to processed food, including fast food, damage your body’s cells. Your body is made up of nutrients found in plants and animals you eat. Man-made food items loaded with pesticides, as well as aspartame, margarine, and other man-made chemicals do not nourish your body. If your body can’t use what you put into it you will gain fat and decrease health.

Since we can’t visually see what actually happens at the molecular level when we eat processed food, we discount it and rely on the FDA to do our thinking for us. After all, if its FDA approved, it MUST be okay to eat, right? Not at all.

Nutrients from the food we eat allow us to burn fat and be healthy. Your body cannot process synthetic chemicals. If a food item can’t be processed, it will end up lodged in areas of your body, primarily fatty areas and tissues, creating an acidic pH.

A simple fast-food chicken breast can contain everything from modified corn starch to hydrolyzed corn gluten. Hello? Chicken comprised of corn? A fast-food chicken nugget is nearly 60% corn, and corn is what farmers use to fatten up cattle.

Michael Pollan, author of, The Omnivore’s Dilemma says it perfectly – “How did we ever get to a point where we need investigative journalist to tell us where our food comes from?”

A good visual that Dr. Mark A. Gustafson found is that it takes fifty-one days to digest fast food chicken nuggets or French fries. FIFTY-ONE DAYS! Does that sound healthy? I could care less about the caloric, fat, or carbohydrate content. That’s not the problem, people. The problem with fast food is that it’s void of nutrients and loaded with chemicals not recognized by the body.

What’s even more devastating is the book The Fast Food Diet written by Stephan Sinatra, M.D. This is a sad state when a doctor promotes eating chemically-altered food with addictive chemicals and damaged fats that scars the artery walls and contribute to total metabolic damage.(citation)

And for someone who claimed that the federal government has veto rights when it comes to public safety, yet here you are contradicting your own rule, you hypocrite.

You wanna talk about freedom? How about freedom from manipulation and obesity? Or is that what you libertarian want to oppress humanity with sickness and disease?

The law, which takes effect in December 2011, says children's meals including toys must have fewer than 600 calories and 640mg of sodium, and derive less than 35% of their calories from fat.(citation)
You keep this up, and I'll proof just how wrong you libertarians really are using fast food giants as examples:

Of the 3,000-plus kids meals, just 12 met the nutritional criteria for preschoolers, and just 15 met the nutrition criteria set for older children, the study showed. In fact, one single meal from most fast food restaurants contains at least half of young people's daily recommended sodium.

Fast food marketing to kids also leaves much to be desired, the researchers report. Preschoolers see 21% more fast food ads today than in 2003 and older children see 34% more fast food ads, the new report found.

"There is a staggering amount of exposure to fast food advertising that begins when children are as young as 2," says Jennifer Harris, director of marketing initiative at the Rudd Center.

McDonald's and Burger King have upheld their 2008 commitment to show healthier meals in TV ads directed to children under 12.

This is "a start, but it's not enough," says Harris.

Fast food ads don't always run during children's TV programs, and many ad campaigns, including social media advertising, are about building brand recognition instead of food choices.

"About 60% of ads are not on kids programming, but a lot of children are seeing them and having a large impact," says Harris. For example, "American Idol, Glee, or sports programs are places where we will see a lot of unhealthy fast food ads."
Bait and Switch?

"There is still a lot of fast food advertising aimed at kids," says Margo G. Wootan, PhD, the nutrition policy director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group based in Washington, D.C.

Other options aimed at curbing marketing unhealthy food choices to kids include the recent San Francisco ban on giving away toys with unhealthy children's meals.

"The goal is not take the happy out of happy meal, but to put the happy and healthy together," she says. "It's nice that some companies have changed their advertising, but we need to address all ways that they market to kids," Wootan says.

"It is great that they show apples and low-fat milk in advertising, but a child sees an ad for McDonald's and no matter what food is in the ad, it's an ad to go to McDonalds, and once they get to the restaurant almost all of possible kids' meal combinations are unhealthy and they automatically come with french fries and sugary drinks," she tells WebMD.(citation)
Still not enough? How about the usual lip service?

Fast Food Industry Responds

"There can be no dispute that that the restaurant industry has been committed to providing a growing array of nutritious offerings for children," says Joy Dubost, PhD, RD, the National Restaurant Association's Director of Nutrition and Healthy Living, in a statement. "Numerous surveys show the increasing number of healthful options in kids’ meals, and nutritious offerings in children's meals is the number one food trend in quick-service restaurants. The industry has also led the way in advocating that nutrition information be made available to consumers in chain restaurants," she says.

"A menu labeling provision that the industry strongly supported became law last year and will soon require calories on the menu in 200,000 restaurant locations nationwide," Dubost says. “Measures like this will help empower consumers, providing them with the detailed nutrition information they are looking for to make the best decisions for themselves and their families."

Both McDonald's and Burger King restated their commitments to responsible marketing.

"McDonald's remains committed to responsible marketing practices, including advertising and promotional campaigns for our youngest customers. Consistent with our 2006 commitment to the Council of Better Business Bureaus' Food Pledge, 100 percent of our children’s advertising in the U.S. features dietary choices that fit within the 2005 USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans," Neil Golden, the senior vice president and Chief Marketing Officer of McDonald's USA, says in a statement. "We primarily advertise our popular 375 calorie four-piece Chicken McNugget Happy Meal which includes Apple Dippers, low-fat caramel dip, and a jug of 1-percent low fat milk."

Burger King had this to say: "As part of Burger King Corp.’s HAVE IT YOUR WAY® brand promise, we offer a variety of menu options that empower guests to choose items that are best for their lifestyle. In addition, as part of our BK Positive Steps® corporate responsibility program, in 2007, BKC pledged to restrict 100 percent of national advertising aimed at children under 12 to BK® Kids Meals that meet stringent nutrition criteria. BKC’s nutrition criteria for BK® Kids Meals (consisting of an entrée, side dish, and beverage) are based on the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and other federal and scientifically established dietary recommendations and defined as [having] no more than 560 calories per meal [and] less than 30 percent of calories from fat."(citation)
Don't forget that your constitutional freedom of speech also grads the inhumane corporations their rights to lie:

While Nike was conducting a huge and expensive PR blitz to tell people that it had cleaned up its subcontractors' sweatshop labor practices, an alert consumer advocate and activist in California named Marc Kasky caught them in what he alleges are a number of specific deceptions. Citing a California law that forbids corporations from intentionally deceiving people in their commercial statements, Kasky sued the multi-billion-dollar corporation.

Instead of refuting Kasky's charge by proving in court that they didn't lie, however, Nike instead chose to argue that corporations should enjoy the same "free speech" right to deceive that individual human citizens have in their personal lives. If people have the constitutionally protected right to say, "The check is in the mail," or, "That looks great on you," then, Nike's reasoning goes, a corporation should have the same right to say whatever they want in their corporate PR campaigns.

They took this argument all the way to the California Supreme Court, where they lost. The next stop may be the U.S. Supreme Court in early January, and the battle lines are already forming.

For example, in a column in the New York Times supporting Nike's position, Bob Herbert wrote, "In a real democracy, even the people you disagree with get to have their say."

True enough.

But Nike isn't a person - it's a corporation. And it's not their "say" they're asking for: it's the right to deceive people.

Corporations are created by humans to further the goal of making money. As Buckminster Fuller said in his brilliant essay The Grunch of Giants, "Corporations are neither physical nor metaphysical phenomena. They are socioeconomic ploys - legally enacted game-playing..."

Corporations are non-living, non-breathing, legal fictions. They feel no pain. They don't need clean water to drink, fresh air to breathe, or healthy food to consume. They can live forever. They can't be put in prison. They can change their identity or appearance in a day, change their citizenship in an hour, rip off parts of themselves and create entirely new entities. Some have compared corporations with robots, in that they are human creations that can outlive individual humans, performing their assigned tasks forever.(citation)


Its called freedom of choice, the freedom to eat whatever you want whenever. The government has no business telling people how many calories that they are allowed or how many grams of sodium they are allowed a day.

And since when has making money been a crime ? Why is it a crime for a business to make money ?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/11/10 , edited 11/11/10


One damages the liver, the other the lungs, and the last the arteries. Each are harmful to health.

Now, the government has every right to insure the wellbeing of its citizen, every one of them- the relationship is a contract between the people and the government- the government is inbued with the right to rule so long as it protects the welfare of its citizen and insure the liberties. It is the government's job to protect us against any harm- as such restaurants, while they can sell overly fatty food, cannot, say, throw in rotted meat or wash with unclean water, as such would cause illness amongst us, or is that the right of the individual business?

Additionally, restaurants, as a rule, don't make aim advertisement toward impressionable children- fastfood chains do, and their food are very unhealthy.

But the government is only stopping there, their food can still be shitty, they can still fry with as much oil as possible, children can still buy their food, even without toys.

If the customer can still buy food from them, why, then, should you care?

Now, if the children want the toys, why do they need to go to MacDonald?
There are toy in stores aplenty along with used toys from the great many charities of our nation.

But, both of us being True-Blue, Patriotic, Red Blooded Americans, let's unite in something we can all agree on, every American Liberal and Conservative-

America is a great country, even if it isn't greatest, it still is great.
It is great living in a western democracy, where all ideas can be shared and not suppressed by government censors.
It is absolutely terrific.
I love America.
Posted 11/11/10

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Its a problem because liquor and smokes are harmful to your health, McDonalds is not, the government has no businesse telling a business like mcdonalds that they cannot sell toys with their food. Just like the government has no business telling regular diners and shit that they can't cook their food with trans fats, or use salt.

Does the government have any business telling a normal restaraunts that they cannot deep fry foods or use mayo because they make people with no self control fat ? No it doesn't.
You don't watch what you eat, do you?

Fast Food and Obesity

Fast food is simply tasty, ready-cooked meals packed to go. Fast food has been around since the early 1900’s, but its popularity sparked and grew in the 1940’s with the birth of good ole’ Mickey D’s; quick food priced cheaply. Within a few years similar fast-food operations popped up everywhere in the blink of an eye.

With the compelling rise in fast-food restaurants since the 1940’s, oddly, too, started the rise in obesity and cancer during that same time period. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to do the math and link fast food to the obesity and cancer crisis.

Fast Food and its Nutritional Value

To say fast food has a “nutritional value” is an oxymoron. There is absolutely nothing nutritional about fast food. Fast food simply feeds hunger and/or your immediate craving. Fast food does not feed your body in the form of usable lasting energy or building materials, the essence your body thrives on for life itself.

Fast food is highly processed with a wide array of additives. The concept of fast food is obviously, food ready-to-eat and served quickly. To ensure fast food’s low cost to the consumer, the fast food products are made with highly-processed ingredients to give it shelf-life, to hold consistency, and to enhance flavor. Fast food is altered from its original healthy form it was meant to nourish the body with, to a denatured form that lacks any nutritional value whatsoever.

How Unhealthy Is Fast Food According to Diana Schwarzbein, M.D., “The FDA Total Diet Study found that fast-food hamburgers, across the board, contained 113 different pesticide residues.” So my question is why does the FDA want to regulate the sale of vitamins, minerals, and herbs that are actually beneficial for the body when there’s a linking fast-food / cancer / obesity crisis on our hands?

Why Fast Food is Fattening and Dangerous

Wake up people. It’s not the calories in fast food that’s damaging to your health and waistline it’s the chemical additives such as aspartame and MSG (monosodium glutamate). These chemical additives are approved by the FDA and studies show that they lead to weight and disease issues.

Synthetic chemicals added to processed food, including fast food, damage your body’s cells. Your body is made up of nutrients found in plants and animals you eat. Man-made food items loaded with pesticides, as well as aspartame, margarine, and other man-made chemicals do not nourish your body. If your body can’t use what you put into it you will gain fat and decrease health.

Since we can’t visually see what actually happens at the molecular level when we eat processed food, we discount it and rely on the FDA to do our thinking for us. After all, if its FDA approved, it MUST be okay to eat, right? Not at all.

Nutrients from the food we eat allow us to burn fat and be healthy. Your body cannot process synthetic chemicals. If a food item can’t be processed, it will end up lodged in areas of your body, primarily fatty areas and tissues, creating an acidic pH.

A simple fast-food chicken breast can contain everything from modified corn starch to hydrolyzed corn gluten. Hello? Chicken comprised of corn? A fast-food chicken nugget is nearly 60% corn, and corn is what farmers use to fatten up cattle.

Michael Pollan, author of, The Omnivore’s Dilemma says it perfectly – “How did we ever get to a point where we need investigative journalist to tell us where our food comes from?”

A good visual that Dr. Mark A. Gustafson found is that it takes fifty-one days to digest fast food chicken nuggets or French fries. FIFTY-ONE DAYS! Does that sound healthy? I could care less about the caloric, fat, or carbohydrate content. That’s not the problem, people. The problem with fast food is that it’s void of nutrients and loaded with chemicals not recognized by the body.

What’s even more devastating is the book The Fast Food Diet written by Stephan Sinatra, M.D. This is a sad state when a doctor promotes eating chemically-altered food with addictive chemicals and damaged fats that scars the artery walls and contribute to total metabolic damage.(citation)

And for someone who claimed that the federal government has veto rights when it comes to public safety, yet here you are contradicting your own rule, you hypocrite.

You wanna talk about freedom? How about freedom from manipulation and obesity? Or is that what you libertarian want to oppress humanity with sickness and disease?

The law, which takes effect in December 2011, says children's meals including toys must have fewer than 600 calories and 640mg of sodium, and derive less than 35% of their calories from fat.(citation)
You keep this up, and I'll proof just how wrong you libertarians really are using fast food giants as examples:

Of the 3,000-plus kids meals, just 12 met the nutritional criteria for preschoolers, and just 15 met the nutrition criteria set for older children, the study showed. In fact, one single meal from most fast food restaurants contains at least half of young people's daily recommended sodium.

Fast food marketing to kids also leaves much to be desired, the researchers report. Preschoolers see 21% more fast food ads today than in 2003 and older children see 34% more fast food ads, the new report found.

"There is a staggering amount of exposure to fast food advertising that begins when children are as young as 2," says Jennifer Harris, director of marketing initiative at the Rudd Center.

McDonald's and Burger King have upheld their 2008 commitment to show healthier meals in TV ads directed to children under 12.

This is "a start, but it's not enough," says Harris.

Fast food ads don't always run during children's TV programs, and many ad campaigns, including social media advertising, are about building brand recognition instead of food choices.

"About 60% of ads are not on kids programming, but a lot of children are seeing them and having a large impact," says Harris. For example, "American Idol, Glee, or sports programs are places where we will see a lot of unhealthy fast food ads."
Bait and Switch?

"There is still a lot of fast food advertising aimed at kids," says Margo G. Wootan, PhD, the nutrition policy director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group based in Washington, D.C.

Other options aimed at curbing marketing unhealthy food choices to kids include the recent San Francisco ban on giving away toys with unhealthy children's meals.

"The goal is not take the happy out of happy meal, but to put the happy and healthy together," she says. "It's nice that some companies have changed their advertising, but we need to address all ways that they market to kids," Wootan says.

"It is great that they show apples and low-fat milk in advertising, but a child sees an ad for McDonald's and no matter what food is in the ad, it's an ad to go to McDonalds, and once they get to the restaurant almost all of possible kids' meal combinations are unhealthy and they automatically come with french fries and sugary drinks," she tells WebMD.(citation)
Still not enough? How about the usual lip service?

Fast Food Industry Responds

"There can be no dispute that that the restaurant industry has been committed to providing a growing array of nutritious offerings for children," says Joy Dubost, PhD, RD, the National Restaurant Association's Director of Nutrition and Healthy Living, in a statement. "Numerous surveys show the increasing number of healthful options in kids’ meals, and nutritious offerings in children's meals is the number one food trend in quick-service restaurants. The industry has also led the way in advocating that nutrition information be made available to consumers in chain restaurants," she says.

"A menu labeling provision that the industry strongly supported became law last year and will soon require calories on the menu in 200,000 restaurant locations nationwide," Dubost says. “Measures like this will help empower consumers, providing them with the detailed nutrition information they are looking for to make the best decisions for themselves and their families."

Both McDonald's and Burger King restated their commitments to responsible marketing.

"McDonald's remains committed to responsible marketing practices, including advertising and promotional campaigns for our youngest customers. Consistent with our 2006 commitment to the Council of Better Business Bureaus' Food Pledge, 100 percent of our children’s advertising in the U.S. features dietary choices that fit within the 2005 USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans," Neil Golden, the senior vice president and Chief Marketing Officer of McDonald's USA, says in a statement. "We primarily advertise our popular 375 calorie four-piece Chicken McNugget Happy Meal which includes Apple Dippers, low-fat caramel dip, and a jug of 1-percent low fat milk."

Burger King had this to say: "As part of Burger King Corp.’s HAVE IT YOUR WAY® brand promise, we offer a variety of menu options that empower guests to choose items that are best for their lifestyle. In addition, as part of our BK Positive Steps® corporate responsibility program, in 2007, BKC pledged to restrict 100 percent of national advertising aimed at children under 12 to BK® Kids Meals that meet stringent nutrition criteria. BKC’s nutrition criteria for BK® Kids Meals (consisting of an entrée, side dish, and beverage) are based on the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and other federal and scientifically established dietary recommendations and defined as [having] no more than 560 calories per meal [and] less than 30 percent of calories from fat."(citation)
Don't forget that your constitutional freedom of speech also grads the inhumane corporations their rights to lie:

While Nike was conducting a huge and expensive PR blitz to tell people that it had cleaned up its subcontractors' sweatshop labor practices, an alert consumer advocate and activist in California named Marc Kasky caught them in what he alleges are a number of specific deceptions. Citing a California law that forbids corporations from intentionally deceiving people in their commercial statements, Kasky sued the multi-billion-dollar corporation.

Instead of refuting Kasky's charge by proving in court that they didn't lie, however, Nike instead chose to argue that corporations should enjoy the same "free speech" right to deceive that individual human citizens have in their personal lives. If people have the constitutionally protected right to say, "The check is in the mail," or, "That looks great on you," then, Nike's reasoning goes, a corporation should have the same right to say whatever they want in their corporate PR campaigns.

They took this argument all the way to the California Supreme Court, where they lost. The next stop may be the U.S. Supreme Court in early January, and the battle lines are already forming.

For example, in a column in the New York Times supporting Nike's position, Bob Herbert wrote, "In a real democracy, even the people you disagree with get to have their say."

True enough.

But Nike isn't a person - it's a corporation. And it's not their "say" they're asking for: it's the right to deceive people.

Corporations are created by humans to further the goal of making money. As Buckminster Fuller said in his brilliant essay The Grunch of Giants, "Corporations are neither physical nor metaphysical phenomena. They are socioeconomic ploys - legally enacted game-playing..."

Corporations are non-living, non-breathing, legal fictions. They feel no pain. They don't need clean water to drink, fresh air to breathe, or healthy food to consume. They can live forever. They can't be put in prison. They can change their identity or appearance in a day, change their citizenship in an hour, rip off parts of themselves and create entirely new entities. Some have compared corporations with robots, in that they are human creations that can outlive individual humans, performing their assigned tasks forever.(citation)


Its called freedom of choice, the freedom to eat whatever you want whenever. The government has no business telling people how many calories that they are allowed or how many grams of sodium they are allowed a day.

And since when has making money been a crime ? Why is it a crime for a business to make money
?
I'm talking about the corporation manipulating and exploiting the vulnerable and the defenseless, not making money by doing fair and honest businesses, stupid.

However, in 2005, your Republican Party betrayed the US public by themselves lying in the open:

Lawmakers voted 306-120 in favour of the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act - or the "cheeseburger bill", as it has been nicknamed.

The bill, which has still to go before the Senate, follows a series of legal actions against fast-food companies.

A spokesman for the firms welcomed the move to outlaw such cases.

Scott Vinson of the National Council of Chain Restaurants praised the House for "denouncing frivolous obesity lawsuits brought by plaintiffs seeking to blame restaurants for making them overweight".

The council represents brands including McDonald's, Burger King, KFC and Pizza Hut.

Indulgence

The Republican chairman of the House judiciary committee, James Sensenbrenner, said fast-food retailers were not to blame for Americans' over-indulgence.

"It is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excess," he said, adding that anyone suffering from obesity should go to a doctor, not a lawyer.

The bill's opponents included California Democrat Bob Filner, who said the fast-food industry marketed fatty food to children and should take responsibility.

Other critics said the bill was unnecessary, since such cases were generally thrown out by the courts.

The legislation will not ban cases involving negligence, such as those stemming from tainted food.(citation)
Just how much more irrational you're gonna be? Before you ignore altogether the fact that the fast food corporations had everything to do about the unhealthy lifestyle choice through their marketing.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/11/10

longfenglim wrote:

One damages the liver, the other the lungs, and the last the arteries. Each are harmful to health.

Now, the government has every right to insure the wellbeing of its citizen, every one of them- the relationship is a contract between the people and the government- the government is inbued with the right to rule so long as it protects the welfare of its citizen and insure the liberties. It is the government's job to protect us against any harm- as such restaurants, while they can sell overly fatty food, cannot, say, throw in rotted meat or wash with unclean water, as such would cause illness amongst us, or is that the right of the individual business?

Additionally, restaurants, as a rule, don't make aim advertisement toward impressionable children- fastfood chains do, and their food are very unhealthy.

But the government is only stopping there, their food can still be shitty, they can still fry with as much oil as possible, children can still buy their food, even without toys.

If the customer can still buy food from them, why, then, should you care?

Now, if the children want the toys, why do they need to go to MacDonald?
There are toy in stores aplenty along with used toys from the great many charities of our nation.

But, both of us being True-Blue, Patriotic, Red Blooded Americans, let's unite in something we can all agree on, every American Liberal and Conservative-

America is a great country, even if it isn't greatest, it still is great.
It is great living in a western democracy, where all ideas can be shared and not suppressed by government censors.
It is absolutely terrific.
I love America.


First America is the greatest country on earth even if it is in an utterly decrepit state at the moment.

Second McDonalds doesn't damage your health if you have a shred of common sense or self control. All foods even pure water are unhealthy if used too much. Yes drinking too much water of eating too many karots can kill you.

Third its only 1/10th the governments job ensure our well being, its 9/10th the individuals responsibility to ensure their own well being. Its the governments job to say "Only x amount of bug pieces and rat droppings per pound of n food item is acceptable". It is not the responsibility of the government to tell us how many calories or grams of sodium we are allowed to eat, which is what the law does. If someone wants to eat themselves into oblivion that is their right as a free citizen.
Posted 11/12/10 , edited 11/12/10

Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

One damages the liver, the other the lungs, and the last the arteries. Each are harmful to health.

Now, the government has every right to insure the wellbeing of its citizen, every one of them- the relationship is a contract between the people and the government- the government is inbued with the right to rule so long as it protects the welfare of its citizen and insure the liberties. It is the government's job to protect us against any harm- as such restaurants, while they can sell overly fatty food, cannot, say, throw in rotted meat or wash with unclean water, as such would cause illness amongst us, or is that the right of the individual business?

Additionally, restaurants, as a rule, don't make aim advertisement toward impressionable children- fastfood chains do, and their food are very unhealthy.

But the government is only stopping there, their food can still be shitty, they can still fry with as much oil as possible, children can still buy their food, even without toys.

If the customer can still buy food from them, why, then, should you care?

Now, if the children want the toys, why do they need to go to MacDonald?
There are toy in stores aplenty along with used toys from the great many charities of our nation.

But, both of us being True-Blue, Patriotic, Red Blooded Americans, let's unite in something we can all agree on, every American Liberal and Conservative-

America is a great country, even if it isn't greatest, it still is great.
It is great living in a western democracy, where all ideas can be shared and not suppressed by government censors.
It is absolutely terrific.
I love America.


First America is the greatest country on earth even if it is in an utterly decrepit state at the moment.

Second McDonalds doesn't damage your health if you have a shred of common sense or self control. All foods even pure water are unhealthy if used too much. Yes drinking too much water of eating too many karots can kill you.

Third its only 1/10th the governments job ensure our well being, its 9/10th the individuals responsibility to ensure their own well being. Its the governments job to say "Only x amount of bug pieces and rat droppings per pound of n food item is acceptable". It is not the responsibility of the government to tell us how many calories or grams of sodium we are allowed to eat, which is what the law does. If someone wants to eat themselves into oblivion that is their right as a free citizen.
And it not only came under its own economic depression in history, but it brought down a global recession with its economic globalization and free market, aka disaster capitalism stemmed from wars. So what's your point?

You had to drink a lot more than 1 liter per hour of water in one continuous setting, before you could suffer from water poisoning. But just one serving of McDonald cheeseburger has 300 calories, over 1/3rd of that came from fat alone. That's already 1/7th of my daily basal metabolic need using a BEE calculator, which is already way too much calorie intake in one serving to consider a healthy portion choice.

Finally, when people's desire for unhealthy lifestyle choice was intentionally manipulated by the fast food corporations, they don't have free wills.
67723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/12/10

Allhailodin wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Why should we ban McDonalds from selling unhealthy food to children just because its unhealthy, its called freedom of choice, you have the freedom to eat whatever you can shove down your throat even if its a pencil, kids have the right to eat deep fried mayonnaise wrapped in bacon if they so desire, everyone does. Besides its not the governments place to tell us what we can and can't eat.


You are confusing what I can do, with what McDonalds is allowed to attempt to brainwash me into doing. or worse, brainwash my non-existant minor child.. Who NO.. does not have complete freedom, that's what being a Minor is.

Defend YOUR freedom all you like. Make sure you know what you're defending.



Advertising is not equal to brainwashing.


I'll concede that when you concede that Liberal does not equal unfair.


6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 11/12/10
Ehmmm, I don't want to butt in or something,
But prohibiting toys with a meal isn't something a ''true liberal'' would do, as I stated before, a liberal wants less gouverment control on the economy.



I guess I'm kinda trying to say that this subject is sort of off topic
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/12/10 , edited 11/12/10

amersfoort wrote:

Ehmmm, I don't want to butt in or something,
But prohibiting toys with a meal isn't something a ''true liberal'' would do, as I stated before, a liberal wants less gouverment control on the economy.



I guess I'm kinda trying to say that this subject is sort of off topic


Most American Liberals would be for more Government intervention in Business-

One- businesses are only concern with making money, they don't care for how shitty their products are or how dangerous the work condition, they want to make money. Correct- now most Liberals would believe that the government should interfer by setting standards and regulating business from unsafe practices, such as painting toys with lead paint or locking up a flammable factory. While many conservative would concede some regulation, they believe that too much regulation would hinder businesses.

Two- Most liberals, as distinguished from conservatives, wants not equalitity, for everyone has different needs, but rather social justice. You have them to thank for installing those ramps for the disabled and for welfare. Most conservatives, on the otherhand, do believe in equality and individuality- wanting to remove government intervention from all the above mentioned (except, probably, the ramps), because they believe that it grants government too much power, leading to, amongst many other things, the loss of individuality, statism, and authoritarianism.

Three- Some liberals would ban toys because they believe that it poses a risk to children- Children are guileless and easily swayed, and marketing something that unhealthy toward them is, like marketing cigarettes and alcohol, completely immoral, trying to get them hooked on MacDonald at so tender an age.

So when some random conservative rants about 'Big Government Liberal', most Liberals do want a big government, because they see Government as a implimentor of Social Justice (such as during the Civil Rights era). And when they say they are for small government, they sometimes do mean just that, they want less government intervention- though sometime to the point of Laissez Faire- that government infringes on the right of the individual. But most people are centralists- that is that they are not part of either party, rather they believe in some Liberal values- say government should help the poor- while endorsing some conservative values- say government should keep out of business.


Keep in mind that this is very basic beliefs of Modern Liberalism and Conservativism is in America (not being a citizen of any other nation, I cannot say the same for their countries with any certainty), and contain innumerable inaccuracies. In addition, I hope that I am not bias, for that is the greatest sin any man can commit when speaking of politics.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/12/10 , edited 11/12/10

Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

One damages the liver, the other the lungs, and the last the arteries. Each are harmful to health.

Now, the government has every right to insure the wellbeing of its citizen, every one of them- the relationship is a contract between the people and the government- the government is inbued with the right to rule so long as it protects the welfare of its citizen and insure the liberties. It is the government's job to protect us against any harm- as such restaurants, while they can sell overly fatty food, cannot, say, throw in rotted meat or wash with unclean water, as such would cause illness amongst us, or is that the right of the individual business?

Additionally, restaurants, as a rule, don't make aim advertisement toward impressionable children- fastfood chains do, and their food are very unhealthy.

But the government is only stopping there, their food can still be shitty, they can still fry with as much oil as possible, children can still buy their food, even without toys.

If the customer can still buy food from them, why, then, should you care?

Now, if the children want the toys, why do they need to go to MacDonald?
There are toy in stores aplenty along with used toys from the great many charities of our nation.

But, both of us being True-Blue, Patriotic, Red Blooded Americans, let's unite in something we can all agree on, every American Liberal and Conservative-

America is a great country, even if it isn't greatest, it still is great.
It is great living in a western democracy, where all ideas can be shared and not suppressed by government censors.
It is absolutely terrific.
I love America.


First America is the greatest country on earth even if it is in an utterly decrepit state at the moment.

Second McDonalds doesn't damage your health if you have a shred of common sense or self control. All foods even pure water are unhealthy if used too much. Yes drinking too much water of eating too many karots can kill you.

Third its only 1/10th the governments job ensure our well being, its 9/10th the individuals responsibility to ensure their own well being. Its the governments job to say "Only x amount of bug pieces and rat droppings per pound of n food item is acceptable". It is not the responsibility of the government to tell us how many calories or grams of sodium we are allowed to eat, which is what the law does. If someone wants to eat themselves into oblivion that is their right as a free citizen.


First- America is pretty great, warts and all. We can type 'Free Tebitia' and not have police cars outside our doors.

Second- I don't know if you have been around Children, they don't have the sense that we developed with age. They also don't know when to stop- and parents aren't like to let them stop because they don't want the child to start a ruction, a few extra dollars is worth not having the head-ache. This begins their addiction to fastfood- and all commonsense is trump by this when they reach adulthood.

Third- Government's responsibility is to look out for the commonwealth of society- you can make the same argument toward drugs- its not the government's position to interfer, individuals should have the choice of wheter they want to f--k up their lives. That's their right. But we don't, what then should be banned and not banned by the Federal Government? But, like I said, government insures our welfare so long as it doesn't infringe on the Liberties as given by the Bill of Rights, though, the Bill of Rights, not being absolutely perfect, should get bent, from time to time. Such instances when it does cause harm to the general welfare of the community and groups, like 'Hate Speech' or 'Angst-ridden homocidal teen coming on school with a gun'. Additionally, addiction trumps commonsense, as said above. Beside, people still have the right to clog their arteries, just they don't get little toys with it anymore.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/12/10

longfenglim wrote:

First- America is pretty great, warts and all. We can type 'Free Tebitia' and not have police cars outside our doors.

Second- I don't know if you have been around Children, they don't have the sense that we developed with age. They also don't know when to stop- and parents aren't like to let them stop because they don't want the child to start a ruction, a few extra dollars is worth not having the head-ache. This begins their addiction to fastfood- and all commonsense is trump by this when they reach adulthood.

Third- Government's responsibility is to look out for the commonwealth of society- you can make the same argument toward drugs- its not the government's position to interfer, individuals should have the choice of wheter they want to f--k up their lives. That's their right. But we don't, what then should be banned and not banned by the Federal Government? But, like I said, government insures our welfare so long as it doesn't infringe on the Liberties as given by the Bill of Rights, though, the Bill of Rights, not being absolutely perfect, should get bent, from time to time. Such instances when it does cause harm to the general welfare of the community and groups, like 'Hate Speech' or 'Angst-ridden homocidal teen coming on school with a gun'. Additionally, addiction trumps commonsense, as said above. Beside, people still have the right to clog their arteries, just they don't get little toys with it anymore.


Fast food isn't an addiction. Meth is an addiction but a double cheezeburger is not.

The bill of rights should never be bent, and hate speech is protected under the first amendment as it should be, free speech should be absolute and cover everything no exceptions.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/12/10

longfenglim wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

Ehmmm, I don't want to butt in or something,
But prohibiting toys with a meal isn't something a ''true liberal'' would do, as I stated before, a liberal wants less gouverment control on the economy.



I guess I'm kinda trying to say that this subject is sort of off topic


Most American Liberals would be for more Government intervention in Business-

One- businesses are only concern with making money, they don't care for how shitty their products are or how dangerous the work condition, they want to make money. Correct- now most Liberals would believe that the government should interfer by setting standards and regulating business from unsafe practices, such as painting toys with lead paint or locking up a flammable factory. While many conservative would concede some regulation, they believe that too much regulation would hinder businesses.

Two- Most liberals, as distinguished from conservatives, wants not equalitity, for everyone has different needs, but rather social justice. You have them to thank for installing those ramps for the disabled and for welfare. Most conservatives, on the otherhand, do believe in equality and individuality- wanting to remove government intervention from all the above mentioned (except, probably, the ramps), because they believe that it grants government too much power, leading to, amongst many other things, the loss of individuality, statism, and authoritarianism.

Three- Some liberals would ban toys because they believe that it poses a risk to children- Children are guileless and easily swayed, and marketing something that unhealthy toward them is, like marketing cigarettes and alcohol, completely immoral, trying to get them hooked on MacDonald at so tender an age.

So when some random conservative rants about 'Big Government Liberal', most Liberals do want a big government, because they see Government as a implimentor of Social Justice (such as during the Civil Rights era). And when they say they are for small government, they sometimes do mean just that, they want less government intervention- though sometime to the point of Laissez Faire- that government infringes on the right of the individual. But most people are centralists- that is that they are not part of either party, rather they believe in some Liberal values- say government should help the poor- while endorsing some conservative values- say government should keep out of business.

Keep in mind that this is very basic beliefs of Modern Liberalism and Conservativism is in America (not being a citizen of any other nation, I cannot say the same for their countries with any certainty), and contain innumerable inaccuracies. In addition, I hope that I am not bias, for that is the greatest sin any man can commit when speaking of politics.


Social Justice = Authoritarianism which is something Conservatives don't want but Liberals do.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.