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.

nectarprime wrote:

biccat wrote:

nectarprime wrote:People who are so paranoid about "big government" make me laugh.

People who are paranoid about "big corporations" make me laugh.

So you think Walmart is run by a bunch of good guys who care about their employees, right?

Did I say that? No, actually I didn't.

I think WalMart is run by a bunch of people who have the best interests of the corporation at heart.

Fortunately for me, the best interest of the corporation happens to be providing the best products at the best price to increase their earnings.

Why on earth should an employer "care" about their employees beyond the mutually beneficial employmenet relationship?

biccat wrote:

Fortunately for me, the best interest of the corporation happens to be providing the best products at the best price to increase their earnings.

Fortunately for me, the best interest of the food corporations happens to be processing their food with enough preservatives, add-ins, and extra garbage so it can withstand a nuclear attack and stay on a shelf as long as possible to be bought at as best price to increase their earnings; who cares about nutritional value.

Its unfortunate that serving a healthy product does not necessarily tie into maximizing profit.

TrollPie wrote:Everytime I see someone mention "the guv'ment takin' way mah free-dum", one of the kittens in my garden dies. Please think of the kittens.

Tell it to the Queen.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

biccat wrote:Fortunately for me, the best interest of the corporation happens to be providing the best products at the best price to increase their earnings.

Fortunately for me, the best interest of the food corporations happens to be processing their food with enough preservatives, add-ins, and extra garbage so it can withstand a nuclear attack and stay on a shelf as long as possible to be bought at as best price to increase their earnings; who cares about nutritional value.

No it's not. Their interest is in maximizing earnings, which (GW being the major exception here) is done by selling more stuff at a higher margin. They don't have an interest in "processing their foods with ... preservatives, add-ins, and extra garbage," they simply provide a good at a price customers demand.

If customers didn't want that product, the company would either change or go out of business.

I seem to recall General Mills putting a "made with whole grains" label on all of their boxes recently, including Lucky Charms. Do you think they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, or do you think that it was because customers were more likely to buy "whole grain" cereal than uh..."half grain" cereal (whatever).

Frazzled wrote:But it didn't. It occurred under Barack "I know whats good for you" Obama. Whether it could have under a Repbulican administration is irrelevant. Its all about government trying to gain more power.

So, you actually believe that one set of politicians is better than the other. They all have their party-line talk and they all do the same things when they think noone is looking.
*cough* ABSCAM *cough* and here's a nice article:
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/report

Note that they're all dirty, Dems and Reps alike.

Now, with a straight face, tell me that one party cares more for you and what you think than the other.

TrollPie wrote:Everytime I see someone mention "the guv'ment takin' way mah free-dum", one of the kittens in my garden dies. Please think of the kittens.

Billions of wiener dogs are suddenly wagging their tails. I've been told to remind everyone that KATZ R EVL!

TrollPie wrote:Everytime I see someone mention "the guv'ment takin' way mah free-dum", one of the kittens in my garden dies. Please think of the kittens.

You have a kitten garden?

biccat wrote:
No it's not. Their interest is in maximizing earnings, which (GW being the major exception here) is done by selling more stuff at a higher margin. They don't have an interest in "processing their foods with ... preservatives, add-ins, and extra garbage," they simply provide a good at a price customers demand.

If customers didn't want that product, the company would either change or go out of business.

I seem to recall General Mills putting a "made with whole grains" label on all of their boxes recently, including Lucky Charms. Do you think they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, or do you think that it was because customers were more likely to buy "whole grain" cereal than uh..."half grain" cereal (whatever).

Hopefully, as more consumers become aware of what is actually healthy, said corporations WILL actually change what they put into the food to make it more attractive to consumers.

I am certain they added "made with whole grains" to appeal to... people who are uninformed and will pick up a box based solely on the fact it might say "made with whole grains", so you are absolutely correct. Man, what a train of thought some mom would be having, thinking whats a healthy cereal I can buy for my kid, picking up the Lucky Charms box, and saying to herself 'oh, well this has whole grains, it must be good.'

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
You have a kitten garden?

Of course. You've never heard of a man with a kitten garden before?




Please don't attach non wargaming pictures to dakka. ta.

agnosto wrote:

Frazzled wrote:But it didn't. It occurred under Barack "I know whats good for you" Obama. Whether it could have under a Repbulican administration is irrelevant. Its all about government trying to gain more power.

So, you actually believe that one set of politicians is better than the other. They all have their party-line talk and they all do the same things when they think noone is looking.
*cough* ABSCAM *cough* and here's a nice article:
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/report

Note that they're all dirty, Dems and Reps alike.

Now, with a straight face, tell me that one party cares more for you and what you think than the other.

I'll restate the most important part: Its all about government trying to gain more power.

Frazzled wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Here's the thing, you either have an effective government, well funded, or you stop living in a first world nation. Thousands of tiny community based governance models across this continent sized nation will result in it's fracturing and continued decline.

The United States will only remain a power whilst it is United. It can only defend your individualism if it is allowed to be powerful.

Nonsense. We've gotten along with a bloated, incompetent government for 200 years and stride the world like a Colossus. Germany shifted to lower government spending and its economy is doing well. meanwhile Greece is in the crapper. Show me a lot of government and I'll show you crappy government.

China. That is, if one is childish enough to equate 'good government' with world power.

Companies can't force me to eat it. Big Mamma can.
Trying to see where the Founding Fathers had this in mind.

I honestly find it difficult to believe that you are a grown adult sometimes....

How is this anything like the government directly deciding what you can and can't eat? People will still be able to eat their precious junk 'food' - in fact these proposals pretty much bank on it. People will still make crappy decisions, people will still be free to be crappy parents shovelling salt and sugar-laden garbage into their childrens faces as a way to alleviate the boredom brought on by rarely seeing parents who are out working 60-hour weeks for a fraction per-hour of what someone anywhere else in the developed world would earn doing a similar job. Your 'freedom' is intact. It's just that this 'freedom' will have less of a negative impact upon the people targeted by the aggressive marketing of food corporations, and less impact upon the US economy - fat people cost money, and you're ALL about saving that, right? Right.

All this is, is YOUR elected representatives telling large, wealthy, powerful entities that if they want to aggressively market their 'food' to children and young people, if they want their logos on school textbooks, their snack machines in schools, or even to be beamed onto the flatscreen babysitter, they need to get their act together and consider the health of their victims *ahem* consumers. Don't wanna do that? Fine, lose your right to propagandise to American children.

Hell, no-one's telling you that you can't add extra sugar and salt to your food, or even to your children's. That's on you, but 'pester power' is real, and is what motivates parents to by this crap for their children - that food companies should be compelled to lessen the harm that their products do is a good thing, given that they start brainwashing kids at an early age.

TrollPie wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
You have a kitten garden?

Of course. You've never heard of a man with a kitten garden before?

Frazzled wrote:

TrollPie wrote:Everytime I see someone mention "the guv'ment takin' way mah free-dum", one of the kittens in my garden dies. Please think of the kittens.

Billions of wiener dogs are suddenly wagging their tails. I've been told to remind everyone that KATZ R EVL!

What, these little bastards?

Yes, they are evil, and yes they are bastards, and yes your flattery will get you everywhere.

Well said, Albatross.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Well said, Albatross.

As ever, I am here to entertain, inform, and occasionally disgust.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Here's the thing, you either have an effective government, well funded, or you stop living in a first world nation. Thousands of tiny community based governance models across this continent sized nation will result in it's fracturing and continued decline.

The United States will only remain a power whilst it is United. It can only defend your individualism if it is allowed to be powerful.

Nonsense. We've gotten along with a bloated, incompetent government for 200 years and stride the world like a Colossus. Germany shifted to lower government spending and its economy is doing well. meanwhile Greece is in the crapper. Show me a lot of government and I'll show you crappy government.

China. That is, if one is childish enough to equate 'good government' with world power.

You just said China is good government? Good to see you admire mass killers. Now I know where we stand.

Companies can't force me to eat it. Big Mamma can.
Trying to see where the Founding Fathers had this in mind.

I honestly find it difficult to believe that you are a grown adult sometimes....

How is this anything like the government directly deciding what you can and can't eat?

Its not that hard. Its simple math. You should try it.
If the government eliminates your choices its telling you what you can and can't eat.

Telling them to put less gak into the food is not them telling you that you are not allowed to eat it.

Corporations crying about not being able to market to children, unbelievable.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Telling them to put less gak into the food is not them telling you that you are not allowed to eat it.

Corporations crying about not being able to market to children, unbelievable.

Or restaurants, or anything, to anyone. Which means they will change or die. Which means Mamma Obama will now decide what everyone gets to eat.
next up, federally mandated exercise programs.

Frazzled wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Telling them to put less gak into the food is not them telling you that you are not allowed to eat it.

Corporations crying about not being able to market to children, unbelievable.

Or restaurants, or anything, to anyone. Which means they will change or die. Which means Mamma Obama will now decide what everyone gets to eat.
next up, federally mandated exercise programs.

Yep, need to get rid of those fatties.

I can see it now, a bunch of men and women, sweatin' to the oldies, and you smash through the door in a wiener dog suit, brandish a hunk of pancake batter & chocolate chip covered sausage roll above your head triumphantly, and shrilly howl "FREEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!", and eat it in one bite, only to grab another from the 10 you have stowed on your belt.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Here's the thing, you either have an effective government, well funded, or you stop living in a first world nation. Thousands of tiny community based governance models across this continent sized nation will result in it's fracturing and continued decline.

The United States will only remain a power whilst it is United. It can only defend your individualism if it is allowed to be powerful.

Nonsense. We've gotten along with a bloated, incompetent government for 200 years and stride the world like a Colossus. Germany shifted to lower government spending and its economy is doing well. meanwhile Greece is in the crapper. Show me a lot of government and I'll show you crappy government.

China. That is, if one is childish enough to equate 'good government' with world power.

You just said China is good government? Good to see you admire mass killers. Now I know where we stand.

Manchild, the implication of my statement was that if 'striding the world like a colossus' was the measure of good government, then China has good government - in fact, by those standards China will have better government than you guys within a decade or two...

Those are your standards, not mine.

Its not that hard. Its simple math. You should try it.
If the government eliminates your choices its telling you what you can and can't eat.

Telling a company what it can sell, in return for maintaining favourable circumstances in which it can trade is not the same thing. Governments do it all the time. Go and buy an RPG from your local store.

Go on, try it.

So Frazzled, you seem to have your thoughts set. Why haven't you ever sought political office if you have things so figured out?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:next up, federally mandated exercise programs.

I would vote for it. Not even joking.

Frazzled wrote:Or restaurants, or anything, to anyone. Which means they will change or die. Which means Mamma Obama will now decide what everyone gets to eat.
next up, federally mandated exercise programs.

Does that mean they'll do away with IHOP. I swear I gain a pound everytime I drive past that stinking place and haven't eaten there in years. I'll be first in line to nuke it.

True story, they built one 20 feet away from the gym that I go to. Now that's evil.

nectarprime wrote:
I would vote for it. Not even joking.

Oh we're quite aware you're not joking. Thats what we're afraid of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Or restaurants, or anything, to anyone. Which means they will change or die. Which means Mamma Obama will now decide what everyone gets to eat.
next up, federally mandated exercise programs.

Does that mean they'll do away with IHOP. I swear I gain a pound everytime I drive past that stinking place and haven't eaten there in years. I'll be first in line to nuke it.

True story, they built one 20 feet away from the gym that I go to. Now that's evil.

"Ihop," Kickapoo word for diabetic coma.

Frazzled wrote:

nectarprime wrote:
I would vote for it. Not even joking.

Oh we're quite aware you're not joking. Thats what we're afraid of.

And I'm afraid of our country turning into a nation of overweight, ignorant, paranoid slobs. I guess you seem to be in favor of that. You watch Fox news don't you?

nectarprime wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

nectarprime wrote:
I would vote for it. Not even joking.

Oh we're quite aware you're not joking. Thats what we're afraid of.

And I'm afraid of our country turning into a nation of overweight, ignorant, paranoid slobs. I guess you seem to be in favor of that. You watch Fox news don't you?

I just want the right to make my own decisions, and not bow to some slobbering mouth breathing bureaucrat.

Take it this way, what if the government decides that, after consultation with the meat processing industry, lard is, in fact incredibly healthy, and mandates that all meats must be cooked in it? Is government the great savior then?

Frazzled wrote:Take it this way, what if the government decides that, after consultation with the meat processing industry, lard is, in fact incredibly healthy, and mandates that all meats must be cooked in it? Is government the great savior then?

What if the government decides that, after consultation with some nutcase, trepanning is in fact the best way to cure all disease and mandates that everyone has holes drilled into their heads every day (also helps facilitate insertion of all dem govment microchips!)?

I think this transcends strawman arguments.



Congratulations, from now on this shall be known as a wickerman argument

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Take it this way, what if the government decides that, after consultation with the meat processing industry, lard is, in fact incredibly healthy, and mandates that all meats must be cooked in it? Is government the great savior then?

What if the government decides that, after consultation with some nutcase, trepanning is in fact the best way to cure all disease and mandates that everyone has holes drilled into their heads every day (also helps facilitate insertion of all dem govment microchips!)?

I think this transcends strawman arguments.



Congratulations, from now on this shall be known as a wickerman argument

I literally laughed out loud, too funny.

I think it is good to make large multinational companies adhere to standards when targeting minors with products. My brother in law owned a store and has a candy bar box from the 30's or 40's that stated it was a healthy energy food. Checks and balances reduces this predatory behavior that only seeks to maximize profits while preying on impressionable youths or undereducated parents(undereducated on topics of diet and health.) There was a store selling "organic firewood" by my house. I was shocked to see it cost nearly 2x as much as other firewood. I was even more shocked that it actually sold some. By putting a popular catchphrase or name on a product that implies it is superior when it is not the companies are only thinking of lining their wallets, not improving the health of its consumers. But hey if you want to rid yourself of free radicals for a higher price or think that lucky charms is a healthy breakfast go ahead. There is plenty of history that shows companies fail to regulate themselves in the interest of consumers, Dow Chemical and just about any cigarette company jumps to mind.

How about we stop with the you dont agree with me so you must be dumber than i am arguments?

Personally i dont like this idea because it's being shown as a "suggestion" if they came out and said hey we are going to regulate you, I still wouldnt like it but would have less objection to it.

Frazzled wrote:
Good thing the Democrats protect personal freedom. When do the mandatory exercise programs start in front of the family government viewscreen?

Wait, whose personal freedom? The personal freedom of corporations to target the advertising for any particular type of food at children?

Again, it looks like Frazzled didn't read his own article.

biccat wrote:
If people don't want to watch what they eat then they shouldn't be forced to eat healthy food.

What business is it of the government (or more specifically, other citizens) whether I eat healthy or unhealthy food?

Wait who is forcing anyone to eat anything? This regulation only forces companies to hold to certain recipe standards if they want to market to kids. Its no different than trying to force insurance companies to strip abortion coverage out of standard health insurance.

biccat wrote:
Which could be possible, but it's not. If every company stuffs their products full of crap, then you should buy food that isn't full of crap. This will increase demand for non-crap food.

Your first sentence doesn't make sense. You cannot claim that something could be possible, and that it can't be possible.

If every company stuffs their food full of crap, then it would be impossible to buy food that was not full of crap. I agree that not all companies sell food that is full of "crap" (where crap is things like preservatives, sugar additives, artificial sweetener, pesticides etc.), but the widely available foods that are not full of "crap" are luxury items. So, it isn't as simple as saying "non-crap food is not available" but it also isn't as simple as "buy more non-crap food", matters of economics come into play for a variety of reasons.


Anyway, speaking in general, this thread has basically been dueling strawmen from the beginning

The Green Git wrote:
We were warned about this:

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

That's an obnoxiously stupid quote: one of TJ's worst. If it is true, then even the revolution involved progress toward the end of liberty. It also posits that, because the natural progress of affairs includes human action, that there's nothing we can do to stop the phenomenon he suggests.

The Green Git wrote:
I'm also reminded of another nation that rose to greatness:

It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion. -Joseph Goebbels

What does regulating what corporations can advertise to kids have to do with regulating public opinion? And, even if there is a connection, all states "supervise" the formation of public opinion. That's what rhetoric is, hell, its what you're using right now.

Are you under the impression that naming things "The War on Terror" of "The War on Drugs" are meant to be accurate, rather than colorful for the sake of attracting support?

Restricting advertising is a good thing. Just because something provides jobs doesn't mean that it's bad to see it go away or change (otherwise, bring on the prostitution if jobs are a moral ideal). The corporations are the predators here in the first place. I'm not a massive fan of regulation, but I'm less a fan of evil (objectively so) corporations. I don't think this plan is necessary if people would be smart enough to not poison themselves in the first place.

We have a government proposal to regulate food that is advertised to children. If it goes ahead companies can choose to continue making their products as they are, but market them to other demographics, or they can make their food healthier. This is a fairly dull step forward, in all respects. Despite how utterly boring this is, scores of people who love to be outraged have began sounding off about how bad is for government to tell you what you can and can't eat, pretending there's anything in the story that stops any company from selling any food they want to.

I'm beginning to get what really drives American politics. There is a large group of people who really don't have any interest in government or society, they just like being outraged, and pretending they live in a world where they are in some important ideological battle against big brother. Any story, no matter how tedious or run of the mill, that can possibly be used to sound off about big brother will be.

This thread is ridiculous, and all the people who have happily thrown reason out the window in order to be vaguely outraged about stuff should feel bad for having acted in such a silly way.




In other news, according to the industry group that sponsored the article Fraz linked to, food advertising to children represents about 50% of the US GDP. Who knew?

Frazzled wrote:It’s not just the food industry that will be impacted. Hundreds of television shows that depend on the advertising revenue, such as the Nickelodeon Channel, ESPN, and programs including "American Idol" will be affected, critics of the proposal say—at a cost of $5.8 trillion in marketing expenditures that support up to 20 million American jobs.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Really. The free market is a better regulator for providing goods and services that people want than a government agency. It's not subject to graft, political favoritism or corruption.

A real person actually said this. I mean, wow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:And you have the option of not eating it. Under Pappy Obama you don't have the option. You'll get told what options you can have.
Stalin would be proud.

Except that's absolute fething nonsense that you've just made up for the sake of playing the fun game of being outraged and complaining about big brother.

The proposed regulation says a companies will have to improve the nutritional standards of their food or stop advertising them to children. That's all. So stop with the silliness.