Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So why not just put warnings on it and do as we do with cigarettes and not allow media braodcasting of candy.

Because children are stupid.

Alcohol and Tobacco aren't sold in schools, and they aren't banning the sale of candy. The comparison is pretty irrelevant.

Are you trying to start issues with people? Nothing you said in here was relevant to what the topic was about, yet you gladly rambled on. I shall do the same.

I agree and disagree with you here. The big difference being adults vs. children. If an adult of (legally) sound mind wants to do something that doesn't harm anyone but themselves... sure, go ahead, why not? Now we can argue about alcohol and drunk driving but when it comes down to it, drunk driving is illegal but drinking is not. Children on the other hand... well I think it was said earlier in this thread that they have little to no self control. When a child eats junk food there is no thought or consideration given to health. Some kids probably don't even know it's bad for them. We have warnings on cigarettes to inform adults that they are bad for their health. We don't have warnings on candy to inform children it's bad for their health.

Well hell, if we use that logic, than why should parents be able to teach their children religion? Please don't start a religious argument. But in the same sense, its the same thing. Children don't know better.

Are you trying to start issues with people? Nothing you said in here was relevant to what the topic was about, yet you gladly rambled on. I shall do the same.

How is anything I've said, excluding my defense of the war comparison Irrelevant?

Well hell, if we use that logic, than why should parents be able to teach their children religion? Please don't start a religious argument. But in the same sense, its the same thing. Children don't know better.

Wait, nevermind, you're trying to start arguments then attempting to abdicate yourself of responsibility.

How is anything I've said, excluding my defense of the war comparison Irrelevant?

"Nothing you said" was an exaggeration. But you have said irrelevant things, yet your quick to jump on someone who says something relevant. Yes, what I said is relevant regardless of your opinion.

Wait, nevermind, you're trying to start arguments then attempting to abdicate yourself of responsibility.

What arguments am I trying to start arguments? Please point them out. It seems you want to start an argument, by commenting plain rude responses to others comments. How am I trying to abdicate myself from responsibility?

Im not going to go back and forth with you. Back on topic.

I think, if kids want to eat candy and get fat, that is their problem. They don't need schools to baby sit. If parents don't want their kids to get fat then thats their job. Besides, spending money helps the economy. Also, Our vending machines don't work till after 2 (when we get out of school) and then no one buys anything from them and I really don't see many morbidly obese people. I don't see how it is become a super bad problem. Honestly, AIDS is a hell of a lot more of a problem and a hell of a lot more deadly. Even if schools sold a lot from vending machines, that helps the school with funding Lets say schools make 200 bucks a year from vending machines, well, no more becuase you can;t see an good gak from them anymore and look, thats 200 extra dollars ALL schools could use that they don't get anymore.

InfernalMajesty wrote:

I agree and disagree with you here. The big difference being adults vs. children. If an adult of (legally) sound mind wants to do something that doesn't harm anyone but themselves... sure, go ahead, why not? Now we can argue about alcohol and drunk driving but when it comes down to it, drunk driving is illegal but drinking is not. Children on the other hand... well I think it was said earlier in this thread that they have little to no self control. When a child eats junk food there is no thought or consideration given to health. Some kids probably don't even know it's bad for them. We have warnings on cigarettes to inform adults that they are bad for their health. We don't have warnings on candy to inform children it's bad for their health.

Well hell, if we use that logic, than why should parents be able to teach their children religion? Please don't start a religious argument. But in the same sense, its the same thing. Children don't know better.

LOLWUT? Religion =/= candy. One is debatable and the other is known to be bad for you. While I would love to keep that statement ambiguous, as I am not a religious person, I should conclude that you'd be hard-pressed to find someone defend the nutritional value of candy. So no, it is not in any way the same thing.

LOLWUT? Religion =/= candy. One is debatable and the other is known to be bad for you. While I would love to keep that statement ambiguous, as I am not a religious person, I should conclude that you'd be hard-pressed to find someone defend the nutritional value of candy. So no, it is not in any way the same thing.

I really don't want to start a religious argument, and I know that is what is going to come out of this. So im not going to bother explaining. It will only turn into a heated argument I don't want to deal with atm. I need to get my mind set for a 1k match in about an hour

InfernalMajesty wrote:

LOLWUT? Religion =/= candy. One is debatable and the other is known to be bad for you. While I would love to keep that statement ambiguous, as I am not a religious person, I should conclude that you'd be hard-pressed to find someone defend the nutritional value of candy. So no, it is not in any way the same thing.

I really don't want to start a religious argument, and I know that is what is going to come out of this. So im not going to bother explaining. It will only turn into a heated argument I don't want to deal with atm. I need to get my mind set for a 1k match in about an hour

Ooook. I understand what you were implying with your statement and, personally, I even agree with the insinuation. But it is ultimately a ludicrous analogy. Especially when you take the deeply valued religious freedom inherent in American ideals. Your statement is in no way analogous to the topic at hand.

Well of course religion & candy are two different extremes. But if you people assume children cannot make decisions for themselves, then that is, in my opinion another issue. Hell, religion will shape a child just as much as candy will, if not more. I just don't think our government should worry about candy, in todays world. Never mind that it will be removing millions of dollars from the economy.

What arguments am I trying to start arguments? Please point them out. It seems you want to start an argument, by commenting plain rude responses to others comments. How am I trying to abdicate myself from responsibility?

I really don't want to start a religious argument, and I know that is what is going to come out of this. So im not going to bother explaining. It will only turn into a heated argument I don't want to deal with atm. I need to get my mind set for a 1k match in about an hour

Im not going to go back and forth with you. Back on topic.

Luckily it doesn't even need to be a back and fourth.

InfernalMajesty wrote:Well of course religion & candy are two different extremes. But if you people assume children cannot make decisions for themselves, then that is, in my opinion another issue. Hell, religion will shape a child just as much as candy will, if not more. I just don't think our government should worry about candy, in todays world. Never mind that it will be removing millions of dollars from the economy.

My only point is that religious freedom is staunchly protected by our government whereas "dietary freedom" is not. This is evident when you consider the regulation on things like alcohol and cigarettes. Both of which are analogous to junk food in that they have little to no health benefits, can be addictive/habitual, and are only consumed for pleasure. Candy is just more publicly acceptable because it's effects are less psychological.

To be fair reds, GG got it right a few times, especially that second Bush one that not many people expected! I think the next republican primary is gonna suck though, as i said, i liked McCain and i dislike Obama, but who can they pick to run against him?

It seems to be Mormon weirdo (Romney), Not too psychotic Creationist weirdo (Huckabee), Absolutely slowed fethed in the head Creationist Weirdo (Palin) Bushes slightly less slowed brother and Ron Paul.

Cant they just get some techmarines to work on McCain so he is in shape for 2012? I really liked that guy..

Doesn't surprise me really that Obamanation wants to ban vending machines in schools.

I really think the Feds just need to leave this issue alone. Discourage obesity by maybe offering extra funding or something for schools that promote healthier eating or that offer healthier choices in foods.

I remember back in HS the lunches themselves being worst than the junk that came out of vending machines. Pizza and chicken that ran with so much grease you could wring it out like a mop and have a puddle of it on your tray; artificial potatoes with gravy so loaded with fat it wasn't gravy but more the consistency of paste. The ala carte` line (the one you paid for your lunch and it had the fancier foods) was a lot healthier than the "poor kids lunch lines".

I say, let the parents control their kids eating habits and let the schools decide for themselves (or at least the States) decide what should or should not be in schools. Kids being obese is not directly linked to school vending machines. As someone pointed out earlier vending machines have existed in schools since probably the 60's. When I graduated HS I was 5'11 and 160 pounds. I was obviously by no means "super fat" or "obese" nor was I a skinny lad but that is because I and my friends biked 60+ miles a week (rode the bike trails a lot as a kid) and of course had gym class and I was NOT allowed to sit and watch tv or play Nintendo 8+ hours a day. I did homework when I got home, played outside till dinner, ate a healthy (reasonably healthy) dinner and then if it was still light out when and played outside until it started getting dark.

Now it's kids get home from school, watch tv while doing homework, parents either eat out or bring fast food home, kids than go to their rooms and watch tv or sit on Facebook or Twitter or play WoW until bedtime while munching on chips or candy and drinking large amounts of soda.

Banning vending machines at school will NOT help solve the obesity problem. The only way that will work is to pass laws saying you MUST be 18+ to order from McD's or BK or order pizza from Dominoes and Pizza Hut and to outlaw stores and gas stations from selling candy. Basically to put a prohibition on candy and other greasy foods.

If kids can't get candy from vending machines they'll go to Walmart and buy it a lot cheaper and depending on the candy can get it in like 2 pound bags or packages of like 8-10 bars in one package.

Let parents deal with what their kids do in school on their own. We don't need Obamanation telling our schools what they can and cannot do as far as our kids health. I don't have kids but if I did I'd still be against this idea.

Luckily it doesn't even need to be a back and fourth.

Dude, are you kidding? What I said was to NOT start an argument, yet you think im trying to start an argument? You went off about the War in Iraq, and you want to claim I want to start an argument? Right.

People like you are the reason why I don't stay on any forum to long. Thanks.

Infernal your better off doing what we all do and putting shuma on ignore. Works great as little what he says pertains to the situation at hand. Now back on topic I agree with fate as really the vending machines did little to curb against the sugary sweets and fatning foods. Really the lunch line did more to fuel that then anything.

Infernal your better off doing what we all do and putting shuma on ignore.

You've responded to me in virtually every thread we've both posted in, and in this thread our conversation was pretty civil. I don't see why you are both lying about putting me on ignore and telling other people to do so.

I will give you credit shuma you have improved on this one... cyber cookie to you dear chap I still have you on ignore I think you can look it up in my user profile. I just choose to click and read what you say sometimes

The Federal Gov't has no business with regulating schools and I see no reason to start now. I'll repeat that, NO business. They set no standards, no texts, and no funds. All US schools are regulated by local and state policies. Even COLLEGES are not Federally regulated. Try using a basic trig or physics book from one college to another and you'll be told to buy a different one.

Now a state can get a loan to help a state's budget BUT it is usually earmarked for such-a-such dept. And even then I know in Georgia they still take the money for other projects.

States have residents pay property taxes and other tax programs and THAT funds most if not all shool programs. Things like music and theater are the first school budgets to get cut if there's a State budget crisis. Guess what my old high school uses that vending machine money for? Music and theater supplement.

If the local or state changes what is or is not in vending machines THAT is what I will vote on. The Federal won't give me that choice because they have such a great track record on what's best for me and the rest of the world.

I'll get down now