You don't really have to back up the government regulating personal choice that doesn't effect anyone else...it's a pretty easy argument unless you are a righteous asshole like those in San Fran.
Ooh, insults?! The ideal way to win any argument, right? :roll:
If it were as straightforward and simple as "government regulating personal choice", I might agree with you. But that's an misstatement of the facts, and you know it.
It is by no means people's choice that is being regulated. Nothing in this has any direct impact on whether parents choose to eat in McDonald's. They are still exactly as free to do so.
What they are regulating is irresponsible advertising of low-nutrition food that contributes to poor health in growing children that can have long-term health and developmental impacts. I consider that to be reponsible.
You have a problem with the (non-existant) regulation of people's choice, but no problem with the very real manipulation of people's choice through advertising? I find that slightly illogical.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
You don't really have to back up the government regulating personal choice that doesn't effect anyone else...it's a pretty easy argument unless you are a righteous asshole like those in San Fran.
Ooh, insults?! The ideal way to win any argument, right? :roll:
If it were as straightforward and simple as "government regulating personal choice", I might agree with you. But that's an misstatement of the facts, and you know it.
It is by no means people's choice that is being regulated. Nothing in this has any direct impact on whether parents choose to eat in McDonald's. They are still exactly as free to do so.
What they are regulating is irresponsible advertising of low-nutrition food that contributes to poor health in growing children that can have long-term health and developmental impacts. I consider that to be reponsible.
You have a problem with the (non-existant) regulation of people's choice, but no problem with the very real manipulation of people's choice through advertising? I find that slightly illogical.
Wasn't an insult meant for you...just the idiots that put this in place. It's an insult certainly meant for them, because they are self-righteous assholes.
Regulation removes choice.
Advertisement tries to drive a certain choice, but certainly doesn't remove choice.
Bottom line, it's none of the government's business.
Wasn't an insult meant for you...just the idiots that put this in place. It's an insult certainly meant for them, because they are self-righteous assholes.
All right. I disagree, but glad it wasn't levelled at me.
Bottom line, it's none of the government's business.
Don't see how that follows, but that's what you think. I don't agree.
Outcome: stalemate. Agree to disagree.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
That article even answered my first assumption - "Haub does not have any ties to the snack cake companies."
Oh well, that's me proved wrong. I'm off to MickeyD's to start making up for 15 years of stupidity...
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
That article even answered my first assumption - "Haub does not have any ties to the snack cake companies."
Oh well, that's me proved wrong. I'm off to MickeyD's to start making up for 15 years of stupidity...
Hahaha.
I wonder how many calories are in those toys anyhow.
I would have far less of a problem, maybe none depending on the specific circumstances, if the government was regulating food standards. But instead of doing that, they are regulating the marketing. I know they've done the same with Cigarettes, but in the end it has also failed because lot of people are still smoking, no?
Anyhow, agree to disagree is fine. But, what if they government regulated how much time you could spend in front of your computer because it promotes laziness?
Anyhow, agree to disagree is fine. But, what if they government regulated how much time you could spend in front of your computer because it promotes laziness?
It'd do me the world of good! Cos I'm already far too lazy to do it by myself!
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Comments
we are raising mamby pamby kids
Ooh, insults?! The ideal way to win any argument, right? :roll:
If it were as straightforward and simple as "government regulating personal choice", I might agree with you. But that's an misstatement of the facts, and you know it.
It is by no means people's choice that is being regulated. Nothing in this has any direct impact on whether parents choose to eat in McDonald's. They are still exactly as free to do so.
What they are regulating is irresponsible advertising of low-nutrition food that contributes to poor health in growing children that can have long-term health and developmental impacts. I consider that to be reponsible.
You have a problem with the (non-existant) regulation of people's choice, but no problem with the very real manipulation of people's choice through advertising? I find that slightly illogical.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Wasn't an insult meant for you...just the idiots that put this in place. It's an insult certainly meant for them, because they are self-righteous assholes.
Regulation removes choice.
Advertisement tries to drive a certain choice, but certainly doesn't remove choice.
Bottom line, it's none of the government's business.
I disagree - for the reason I gave above, I agree - that's pretty much just what I said above
Don't see how that follows, but that's what you think. I don't agree.
Outcome: stalemate. Agree to disagree.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
This guy might argue that point...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
Well, shut my mouth.
That article even answered my first assumption - "Haub does not have any ties to the snack cake companies."
Oh well, that's me proved wrong. I'm off to MickeyD's to start making up for 15 years of stupidity...
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Hahaha.
I wonder how many calories are in those toys anyhow.
I would have far less of a problem, maybe none depending on the specific circumstances, if the government was regulating food standards. But instead of doing that, they are regulating the marketing. I know they've done the same with Cigarettes, but in the end it has also failed because lot of people are still smoking, no?
Anyhow, agree to disagree is fine. But, what if they government regulated how much time you could spend in front of your computer because it promotes laziness?
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2