Support NeoGAF

[Mortrialus]

I'm sure some bible-toting Ezekial the Chimp character will have my kids pulling my arm to church every day. And I won't be able to resist. I love chimps. Who doesn't.

Actually one of the public schools in my city has an official "school prayer" to Jesus. They also only allow the Christian based student religious groups to gather after school despite the demand for an Islamic one. Christian proselytizing in schools is more active than you think. I should contact the ACLU.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

Except of course that the the last few generations of adults are increasingly overworked and overstressed, to the point that the home life suffers. Some people still manage to be strong. My parents were. I've seen a lot more who weren't, almost all of my friends growing up got whatever they asked for that their parents could afford.



From that perspective your opinion makes more sense, but those of us arguing are saying that we do worry about other people, because we have to share a world with them, and they're going to be a huge part of our future.

that and it didn't really work for any other generation any more than this one.

edit: i mean the parenting skills

 

[Mortrialus]

that and it didn't really work for any other generation any more than this one.

Except that advertising to children was restricted until Regan removed all regulations on it. It didn't work because it wasn't allowed.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

Well, which is it fellas? Are we discussing what is, or isn't actually happening? Because the reality of the situation is there is no proof that removing advertising would do anything, and common sense tells us that even if regulations would be passed they'd be wildly ineffective due to the very nature of advertising.

Once again, the marketing juggernaut is all powerful, until it has to be stupid to fit the other side of the point. The reality of the situation is that it's easy to pass a law and feel like you've done something. The reality of the situation is that it would not affect anything whatsoever, because as has been stated, the big companies have more or less figured out the whole "advertising" thing.

Passing useless regulation (and sorry, OP, but your noble intentions notwithstanding a petition from a house meeting is the very definition of that) serves only to curry political favor with the reactionary crowd or to make a person feel that they've done something without having to actually do anything.

Maybe your common sense. But not in the common sense of many other countries, where obesity rates are lower than ours. Maybe not scientific evidence, but that is common sense to them, and since your argument relies on common sense and not scientific evidence, it is evidence enough. Also the house meeting wasn't a petition for regulation, it was a petition to request McDs voluntarily stop advertising to children.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

Except that advertising to children was restricted until Regan removed all regulations on it. It didn't work because it wasn't allowed.

see edit. I meant that parenting fighting nagging wasn't really any more effective before, or at least there isn't any evidence for that.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

A childs nutritional intake is entirely the responsibility of the parent.

Advertising, unless the parent is gloriously weak is irrelevant.

This.

And people who want to remove toys in Happy Meals and Cereal Boxes are souless, hand-wringing mini-fascist busybodies, who have lost their sense of childish joy completely, and don't trust parents to make decisions for their own children, or they are incapable, or too lazy to discipline their own children, so they expect others to do the job for them. IMO.

 

[WanderingWind]

Okay, I can actually agree that anything passed would be most likely useless, the current system is just that fucked. I'll admit to being an idealist as well in terms of "we can change the world from its currently state to a somewhat less crappy state"

I think the fact that more and more people are willing - and in some cases eager - to hand over their personal responsibility to a bureaucracy is a prime reason why the system is fucked. Adding to that doesn't solve anything. Idealism is fine, as long as you're willing to actually work toward those ideals in a way that may actually affect change.

Diet education, reintroduction of physical training and education in public schools and - here's where we get crazy - state-funded parenting classes available in ALL areas of America are much better ways of tackling the issue. Not having Oscar Meyer preface their Lunchable commericals with "Hey parents, listen up!"

Maybe your common sense. But not in the common sense of many other countries, where obesity rates are lower than ours. Maybe not scientific evidence, but that is common sense to them, and since your argument relies on common sense and not scientific evidence, it is evidence enough. Also the house meeting wasn't a petition for regulation, it was a petition to request McDs voluntarily stop advertising to children.

You're implying causality where there is no proof of such. And your second sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe I'm missing the obvious, or perhaps I've had one whiskey too many. In any event, besides that one obnoxious junior, good job at keeping it fairly civil people. One of the better GAF threads I've visited today.

 

[Forearm Star]

Honest question..

How does gaf feel about hitting children? Not like child abuse, but for disciplinary measures.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

I think the fact that more and more people are willing - and in some cases eager - to hand over their personal responsibility to a bureaucracy is a prime reason why the system is fucked. Adding to that doesn't solve anything. Idealism is fine, as long as you're willing to actually work toward those ideals in a way that may actually affect change.

Diet education, reintroduction of physical training and education in public schools and - here's where we get crazy - state-funded parenting classes available in ALL areas of America are much better ways of tackling the issue. Not having Oscar Meyer preface their Lunchable commericals with "Hey parents, listen up!"



You're implying causality where there is no proof of such. And your second sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe I'm missing the obvious, or perhaps I've had one whiskey too many. In any event, besides that one obnoxious junior, good job at keeping it fairly civil people. One of the better GAF threads I've visited today.

But you and others are also implying causality that changes in parenting are resulting in these issues, where there isn't proof of that either. And there isn't even proof that there have even been changes in parenting. That was the point of that post.

Hey if we could educate parents to take care of all their kids properly, I'd be all for that. I just don't think it's feasible. It's easier to regulate corporations than individuals. I don't think we should be letting parents off of any kind of hook, I just think in a practical sense, we need some kind of stopgap solution until they can get their shit together (which might never happen).

 

[Mortrialus]

In any event, besides that one obnoxious junior, good job at keeping it fairly civil people. One of the better GAF threads I've visited today.

I don't think calling someone out for repeatedly straw manning me and completely misunderstanding what the discussion is even about is obnoxious.

 

[Surfana]

Check out all these college pinkos straining to imagine what they would theoretically do if they theoretically had children with a theoretical woman who theoretically was interested in them if they would theoretically stop posting on GAF twelve hours a day.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

Check out all these college pinkos straining to imagine what they would theoretically do if they theoretically had children with a theoretical woman who theoretically was interested in them if they would theoretically stop posting on GAF twelve hours a day.

i would guess that the theoretical children would be of the anti-regulation people, but the pinkos would be the pro-regulation people...which is it

 

[siddx]

Check out all these college pinkos straining to imagine what they would theoretically do if they theoretically had children with a theoretical woman who theoretically was interested in them if they would theoretically stop posting on GAF twelve hours a day.

Stop projecting your own life onto others.

 

[slidewinder]

I'm sure some bible-toting Ezekial the Chimp character will have my kids pulling my arm to church every day. And I won't be able to resist. I love chimps. Who doesn't.

Yeah, I mean, I used to love me some Davey and Goliath, and boy did I never see it for anything but what it was.

But even if it's a Muslim group trying to convert little children of Christian parents, or atheists, for that matter, just trying to undermine faith generally, that wouldn't ever be an issue because the parents should be handle those kinds of challenges, however and wherever and however often delivered?

And I KNOW this is a long ways from the subject of cheeseburgers, but that is the point.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

Oh yeah last thing I wanted to mention, here are some of the reasons the FTC did not consider a regulatory push to be an option:

Criteria for proceeding with a ban of a form of advertising

“The government may ban
forms of communication more likely to deceive the public than to inform it or commercial
speech related to illegal activity.”56

For commercial speech that is “neither misleading nor related to unlawful activity,” however, the Court established a three-part test: (1) “[t]he state must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions on commercial speech”; (2) “the restriction must directly advance the state interest involved”; and (3) “if the governmental interest could be served as well by a more limited restriction on commercial speech, the excessive restrictions cannot survive.” 57

In subsequent cases, the Court has emphasized that a restriction on speech must directly
advance the state interest – in more than a speculative or purely theoretical way. In addition, restrictions must be narrowly drawn, and alternative remedies are always preferable to restrictions on speech.

They felt that a regulation on commercial speech was a last resort, and felt, as others here have said, that education and self-regulation were a viable alternative. (Yet we haven't done that either). While I agree with this, their point was basically 'well I think we should try something else first, maybe these people should do that', which more or less removed any responsibility from the FTC. Which is fine, that's not their jurisdiction. However, nothing is really being done on the other educational end either. Honestly I think the Joe Camel discontinuation doesn't meet #3 of the criteria either, because they were doing educational campaigns as well. If we do the educational campaigns and they fail, can we go ahead and start banning things?

Other issues, also mentioned in this thread:

Difficulty defining what types of food to ban the advertising of:

The problems that surfaced in the 1970s rulemaking proceeding would also manifest themselves in any proposed rule with respect to food advertising. If the Commission were to attempt to restrict the advertising of “junk food” to children, it would first have to define “junk food.” There are no clear standards for doing this. Calorie count alone would not be supportable and would produce some anomalous results, for example, permitting advertisements for diet soft drinks while prohibiting those for fruit juice. A standard referencing some combination of caloric density and low nutritional value is superficially appealing as a place to start, but there would be difficult problems in setting scientifically supportable standards for both of these elements. It is noteworthy that the FDA’s food labeling rule, which requires foods to have a minimum amount of certain nutrients before health claims can be made (the so-called “jelly bean rule”), actually has the effect of preventing health claims for many fruits and vegetables. 98

Good nutrition is about good diets, not simply about “good” versus “bad” foods. That principle should be particularly apparent in the case of obesity, because eating too much of an otherwise healthy diet will still lead to weight gain. Any effort to define “junk food,” for purposes of crafting and implementing advertising restrictions, likely would be fraught with even more difficulties than the effort to identify cariogenic foods in the kidvid proceeding

I can agree with this. It would be difficult to define exactly what to ban. However, just because I don't know how to do something doesn't mean that nobody else would either.

They also argued that advertising just shifts brand allegiances and not growth of an entire type of market. However, their main reference on this is a study from the 70s, which was before children were found to be an emerging market for advertisers, which caused an exponential increase in children's advertising in the 80s with deregulation of the industry. So while the initial ads just fought over market share, the huge increase in total ads increased increased the market size. I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I don't think their evidence was sufficient to come up with that conclusion.

Anyway, a last point: I posted this in the OP. It was evidence against what I was in favor of. Other people in the thread made the SAME arguments, yet when asked for evidence, they produced none, despite the fact that the evidence they could have pointed to was in the first post.

Still not sure the arguments hold up completely though. There are points I agree with on both sides. I went into the house meeting kind of skeptical, and I came out leaning one way, but still kind of skeptical. However, the goals of the group were more realistic, which was basically a campaign to get McDs to voluntarily stop these tactics, rather than go for some big legislation.

 

[Surfana]

How does GAF feel about fast food companies advertising to manchildren?

 

[bggrthnjsus]

How does GAF feel about fast food companies advertising to manchildren?

All my feelings involve salad

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I agree. We should allow the sales, marketing, and consumption of cigarettes to children. I'm fine with it because its the parent's responsibility to decide what is best for their children.

Flying Phoenix is just insane.

Exactly. People here are just fueled with propaganda on the war against smoking yet don't realize that fast food is more harmful than it is and effects our nation far far more.

As a 12 year, pack a day, smoker who has successfully quit for 2 months now I can tell you that McDonalds and Cigarettes are so far removed from each other it is ridiculous. A comparison that makes you sound like a complete retard.

Exactly, Mcdonald's is far worse. And both more or less give you the same amount of benefit from indulging them.

I'll give you that junk food isn't as hard to break away from, but it is still difficult. There is a reason why a vast majority of diets are often quickly broken.

Damaged how? Obesity actually caused by fast food? That's very debatable. You know what I just learned how to cook? Chicken Alfredo. You want to know how many calories are in the home-made alfredo sauce that I make? No, you don't want to know, but you'll want more of it if you eat it. My grandma, who is from the south, never made a healthy meal in her life. Every time I ever ate something she cooked I probably ingested 1500 calories in one sitting and it was fucking delicious. She has now passed on, from lung cancer ironically (smoker), but my grandpa who has been eating like this for 60 years is still kickin at 90. You want to know why? Because he's not a lazy fuck and is always doing something always burning calories.

That is the problem with today's society. We don't burn enough calories because everyone is lazy as hell (compared to the past generations) and wants to consume the same amount of calories as we have for decades.

Holy shit.

I think the fact that more and more people are willing - and in some cases eager - to hand over their personal responsibility to a bureaucracy is a prime reason why the system is fucked. Adding to that doesn't solve anything. Idealism is fine, as long as you're willing to actually work toward those ideals in a way that may actually affect change.

Diet education, reintroduction of physical training and education in public schools and - here's where we get crazy - state-funded parenting classes available in ALL areas of America are much better ways of tackling the issue. Not having Oscar Meyer preface their Lunchable commericals with "Hey parents, listen up!"

Exactly. We haven't really pushed education and awareness to its fullest potential. There is usually nothing bad with government, however it should only be used as a last resort.

 

[Skiptastic]

From the outset, I'd be for companies voluntarily not advertising to children or during kids shows, but let's face it: that's not going to happen any time soon. Regulation gets sticky, but they have tons of regulations regarding advertising anyway and so I'm not keen on it, but if it happens I won't shed a tear.

I saw McDonald's commercials all the time (GOOD TIME GREAT TASTE AT MCDONALDS!) but my parents laid down the law early and we only got to go to McD's on, like, super special occasions. I cracked my head open at a McDonald's because I was so excited to be there (true story). My parents made it clear that we weren't going to be eating there often, and they backed it up. At some point, as a parent, you have to have a spine.

But what really fucking pisses me off are these people who get angry that the federal government is going to start enforcing healthier lunches for children. "Oh, they're trying to tell your kids what they can eat!" Fuck you, you fucking idiots. I don't want my state moneys going to fatten up kids and then make me pay for their health care. That's fucking a double whammy on my wallet.

I'm totally for healthier school lunches, and shit, I'm all about requiring physical education K-12, with three out of five classes dedicated to cardiovascular intensive workouts. Keeps kids healthy by encouraging good eating and exercise at the place where they are awake for most of the day.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Again I'm not for regulating advertising on fast food, but for fair point on it, there is a growing number of adults (now more than ever since Americans have never worked more and work more than most other countries) who aren't home enough to surveillance their kids.

Just throwing that out there.

 

[blame space]

I think the fact that more and more people are willing - and in some cases eager - to hand over their personal responsibility to a bureaucracy is a prime reason why the system is fucked.

how does thinking that advertising to children should be illegal correspond to my willingness or eagerness to "hand over my personal responsibility to a bureaucracy"?

if you take pride in your personal responsibility: bravo, as do i. doesn't mean i create boogeymen out of ideas that could actually help our society.

 

[Dark Octave]

The day children are allowed to get jobs, move out of the house and start buying their own food is the day I will worry about fast food companies advertising directly to children.

 

[Trent Strong]

Exactly. People here are just fueled with propaganda on the war against smoking yet don't realize that fast food is more harmful than it is and effects our nation far far more.



Exactly, Mcdonald's is far worse. And both more or less give you the same amount of benefit from indulging them.

I'll give you that junk food isn't as hard to break away from, but it is still difficult. There is a reason why a vast majority of diets are often quickly broken.



Holy shit.



Exactly. We haven't really pushed education and awareness to its fullest potential. There is usually nothing bad with government, however it should only be used as a last resort.

This is totally wrong. Smoking is much worse than "fast food". Fast food isn't harmfull at all unless you eat too much of it.

 

[blame space]

This is totally wrong. Smoking is much worse than "fast food". Fast food isn't harmfull at all unless you eat too much of it.

is this a serious post

 

[Dark Octave]

is this a serious post

Well in his defense, I never heard of someone getting lung cancer from someone else eating a big mac.

 

[slidewinder]

I have and it made me so angry that I dumped a boiling hot cup of coffee onto some woman's vagina at the drive-through.

 

[Mortrialus]

This is totally wrong. Smoking is much worse than "fast food". Fast food isn't harmfull at all unless you eat too much of it.

I'm sure only smoking four or five cigarettes a year isn't that bad either.

The point is there is more than enough evidence to show that children under the age of reason cannot appropriately analyze or understand the effects of advertising, nor the consequences of consuming either product. We ban advertising alcohol and cigarettes for this reason. Its unethical and manipulative to target children under eight with any advertising because it has repeatedly been shown that they cannot understand the persuasive influence.

 

[Freshmaker]

Granted there is obviously a huge role of parental responsibility, but don't people think that this advertising plays some role undermining parents?

Fear the deadly hamburger? Isn't that more than a bit much?

 

[Dark Octave]

I'm sure only smoking four or five cigarettes a year isn't that bad either.

The point is there is more than enough evidence to show that children under the age of reason cannot appropriately analyze or understand the effects of advertising, nor the consequences of consuming either product. We ban advertising alcohol and cigarettes for this reason. Its unethical and manipulative to target children under eight with any advertising because it has repeatedly been shown that they cannot understand the persuasive influence.

What child under eight is buying his own food though?

 

[DanteFox]

why not just ban fast food altogether? I mean clearly going by some of the posts in this thread, some parents can't be trusted at all to say no to their children, so we might as well go to the source and get rid of the temptation all to together. I'm sure it would make society healthier, right?

 

[Mortrialus]

What child under eight is buying his own food though?

Given the amount of single parents and the increasing work hours as well as both parents working, a growing number.

Don't tell me you've never heard "Working late. Take some money and get some food."

 

[bggrthnjsus]

why not just ban fast food altogether? I mean clearly going by some of the posts in this thread, some parents can't be trusted at all to say no to their children, so we might as well go to the source and get rid of the temptation all to together. I'm sure it would make society healthier, right?

why not ban sitting around and watching tv

 

[Dreams-Visions]

.

they gotta make money and kids eat food. as long as you don't eat fast food every day, it's not a problem for anyone's health. if you're gonna bitch about this, you have to bitch about cereal, candy, soft drinks AND snacks. fuck outta here.

get over yourselves, ya fukin hippies.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

.

they gotta make money and kids eat food. as long as you don't eat fast food every day, it's not a problem for anyone's health. if you're gonna bitch about this, you have to bitch about cereal, candy, soft drinks AND snacks. fuck outta here.

get over yourselves, ya fukin hippies.

lol when i first read this post i thought your av was a grateful dead logo out of the corner of my eye

 

[Dark Octave]

Given the amount of single parents and the increasing work hours as well as both parents working, a growing number.

Don't tell me you've never heard "Working late. Take some money and get some food."

That brings up another question:

Who leaves a child under eight years old unsupervised?

Also, how about picking something up from the grocery store or having healthier option already on hand in the kitchen?

But I guess if you're gonna be a bad parent, may as well not half ass it.

 

[Trent Strong]

I'm sure only smoking four or five cigarettes a year isn't that bad either.

The point is there is more than enough evidence to show that children under the age of reason cannot appropriately analyze or understand the effects of advertising, nor the consequences of consuming either product. We ban advertising alcohol and cigarettes for this reason. Its unethical and manipulative to target children under eight with any advertising because it has repeatedly been shown that they cannot understand the persuasive influence.

You can eat fast food everyday, like I do, and not suffer any negative consequences from eating it. But I agree with you that they shouldn't be advertising it to children.

 

[The Technomancer]

Also, how about picking something up from the grocery store or having healthier option already on hand in the kitchen?

...right...that would be awesome. Did you guys really see kitchens full of healthy foods and such when you were visiting friends as kids?

 

[bggrthnjsus]

That brings up another question:

Who leaves a child under eight years old unsupervised?

Also, how about picking something up from the grocery store or having healthier option already on hand in the kitchen?

But I guess if you're gonna be a bad parent, may as well not half ass it.

I was left unsupervised a fair amount as a kid, and bought my own food a fair amount as a kid...and I grew up in a normal boring suburb. Now in an inner city situation I could see that turning out much worse, and much more often. My high school was also open campus so I ate all kinds of crap for lunch, with no supervision towards my health (though I think high schoolers should be old enough to regulate their own diets). I do think that a fair amount of the fast food I ate was fueled by advertising though. I turned out fine, but I can see how plenty of others might not. Obviously being around to care for your child is the ideal, but that is not economically feasible for many if they want to continue having a roof over their heads and want to continue being able to eat anything.

 

[Mortrialus]

That brings up another question:

Who leaves a child under eight years old unsupervised?

Also, how about picking something up from the grocery store or having healthier option already on hand in the kitchen?

But I guess if you're gonna be a bad parent, may as well not half ass it.

My sister is a nurse, currently studying to be a doctor. Her husband does agricultural work that keeps him away from home pretty much the entire day. If it wasn't for our grandmother being available to babysit everyday, they would be forced to essentially pick him up from school and leave him to himself during the the day. There are many other parents in this exact situation without an available baby sitter.

I'm also reminded of another point. I have no qualms about children's television, but associating characters that children love with food products like cereal and crackers is just as manipulative. Even if the parents don't buy them the food, its still unethical to create demand from children in such a way.

 

[teh_pwn]

You can eat fast food everyday, like I do, and not suffer any negative consequences from eating it. But I agree with you that they shouldn't be advertising it to children.

The fact that fast food doesn't cause problems for many people doesn't change the argument. For example, about 90% of smokers never get lung cancer. Doesn't mean cigarettes didn't contribute to the development of cancer for the vast majority of people that do get lung cancer.

 

[FrenchToastDisciple]

I'll just say this: The problem with advertising to children is much deeper than just a battle between the will of the companies and the will of the parents. Advertising to children is teaching them to link consumption with well-being. Children soak up everything from an early age, and if they see that buying a McDonald's hamburger will make them happier, they'll believe it. They lack the capacity to be critical. Yes, good parents will deny them their consumerist desires, but what happens when the kids become adults? The link in their head from their childhood (consumption=happiness) has been established, and although they can be critical of commercials and know their purpose, that doesn't stop them from consuming because they need to consume to be fulfilled. Good parents can mitigate this, but the end result is still a cycle where successive generations exposed to childhood advertising and they become more dependent on the work and spend lifestyle to find fulfillment. Corrupted adults are more likely to indulge corrupted children. Basically childhood advertising contributes to emotional disillusionment and personal debt crises. Just a little hypothesis of mine. Feel free to pick it apart.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

This is totally wrong. Smoking is much worse than "fast food". Fast food isn't harmfull at all unless you eat too much of it.

I love you.

is this a serious post

TRENT STRONG

I'll just say this: The problem with advertising to children is much deeper than just a battle between the will of the companies and the will of the parents. Advertising to children is teaching them to link consumption with well-being. Children soak up everything from an early age, and if they see that buying a McDonald's hamburger will make them happier, they'll believe it. They lack the capacity to be critical. Yes, good parents will deny them their consumerist desires, but what happens when the kids become adults? The link in their head from their childhood (consumption=happiness) has been established, and although they can be critical of commercials and know their purpose, that doesn't stop them from consuming because they need to consume to be fulfilled. Good parents can mitigate this, but the end result is still a cycle where successive generations exposed to childhood advertising and they become more dependent on the work and spend lifestyle to find fulfillment. Corrupted adults are more likely to indulge corrupted children. Basically childhood advertising contributes to emotional disillusionment and personal debt crises. Just a little hypothesis of mine. Feel free to pick it apart.

Again, Psychology and GAF don't go well together.

Unless its hard science, GAF won't understand what you are posting.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

I'll just say this: The problem with advertising to children is much deeper than just a battle between the will of the companies and the will of the parents. Advertising to children is teaching them to link consumption with well-being. Children soak up everything from an early age, and if they see that buying a McDonald's hamburger will make them happier, they'll believe it. They lack the capacity to be critical. Yes, good parents will deny them their consumerist desires, but what happens when the kids become adults? The link in their head from their childhood (consumption=happiness) has been established, and although they can be critical of commercials and know their purpose, that doesn't stop them from consuming because they need to consume to be fulfilled. Good parents can mitigate this, but the end result is still a cycle where successive generations exposed to childhood advertising and they become more dependent on the work and spend lifestyle to find fulfillment. Corrupted adults are more likely to indulge corrupted children. Basically childhood advertising contributes to emotional disillusionment and personal debt crises. Just a little hypothesis of mine. Feel free to pick it apart.

This is probably the best understanding of advertising i've seen in this thread.

There is also a brand loyalty aspect to children's advertising, there is evidence towards this even in the Joe Camel lawsuits vs. R.J. Reynolds:

From a RJR marketing presentation:

"young adult market . . . represent tomorrow's cigarette business. As this 14-24 age group matures, they will account for a key share of the total cigarette volume - for at least the next 25 years."

and

"virtually all [smokers] start by the age of 25" and "most smokers begin smoking regularly and select a usual brand at or before the age of 18."

Both available in documents (PDF) here: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pqd49d00

These are direct quotes from marketers suggesting that advertising to children will build long-term adult tendencies, which I think is pretty good evidence that marketing to children is unfair and undermines parents, regardless of parenting ability. Most of their talk of marketing doesn't even discuss parents, they are like a non-issue to marketers, because they feel they are powerless. And this is in the tobacco industry. The fast food industry has the same or more money to throw into advertising. There is this other marketing presentation called 'the art of whining' or something, which breaks parents down into 4 groups based on likelihood of caving to children's nagging, and the research cited in that found that only the most affluent and conservative parents were capable of holding. Unfortunately I can't find a good full copy of that anywhere.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

Again, Psychology and GAF don't go well together.

Unless its hard science, GAF won't understand what you are posting.

I don't know why GAF is so pro-hard science anti-soft science when it seems like a good proportion of GAF doesn't understand basic concepts in science to begin with

 

[Trent Strong]

The fact that fast food doesn't cause problems for many people doesn't change the argument. For example, about 90% of smokers never get lung cancer. Doesn't mean cigarettes didn't contribute to the development of cancer for the vast majority of people that do get lung cancer.

I was just arguing that smoking is worse than fast food, since fast food isn't inherently bad for you the way smoking is. Smoking causes countless problems besides lung cancer. It harms just about every organ in the body. Smoking once a month is bad for you. A Big Mac doesn't contain poison, and eating one Big Mac a month can't harm you.

I love you.



TRENT STRONG



Again, Psychology and GAF don't go well together.

Unless its hard science, GAF won't understand what you are posting.

What is "fast food", and why would eating it in moderation cause someone to be unhealthy?

 

[beelzebozo]

there is nothing inherently unhealthy about engendering a connection between food and pleasure, though. saying "consumption = happiness" is directly attributable to advertising completely ignores the fact that we're biologically driven to enjoy eating anything that satisfies a physiological need, and that hamburgers and cheeseburgers and fries sold by mcdonald's fulfill that need and exploit human taste proclivities. to argue that the advertising itself creates the feeling of pleasure from consumption is a big misleading i think. it's fair to say that they connect "fun" to their food, but i see nothing particularly evil about that, since almost any product or service pretty much angles to make exactly that same connection. mcdonald's does nothing new here. they just have a product kids already want and the fun connection is therefore easier to make.

i could go on. of course parents need to be involved. but frankly when i was a tot i loved the advertisements aimed toward me, even though my parents didn't indulge me in every aspect of my desires; in my age, i've learned to appreciate the goofy advertising as its own unique form of entertainment.

i don't know. i just think that idea that mcdonald's is some pioneer in chilren's advertising doing something particularly unique or devious is silly.

 

[blame space]

NeoGAF
Member

 

[blame space]

there is nothing inherently unhealthy about engendering a connection between food and pleasure, though. saying "consumption = happiness" is directly attributable to advertising completely ignores the fact that we're biologically driven to enjoy eating anything that satisfies a physiological need, and that hamburgers and cheeseburgers and fries sold by mcdonald's fulfill that need and exploit human taste proclivities. to argue that the advertising itself creates the feeling of pleasure from consumption is a big misleading i think. it's fair to say that they connect "fun" to their food, but i see nothing particularly evil about that, since almost any product or service pretty much angles to make exactly that same connection. mcdonald's does nothing new here. they just have a product kids already want and the fun connection is therefore easier to make.

i could go on. of course parents need to be involved. but frankly when i was a tot i loved the advertisements aimed toward me, even though my parents didn't indulge me in every aspect of my desires; in my age, i've learned to appreciate the goofy advertising as its own unique form of entertainment.

i don't know. i just think that idea that mcdonald's is some pioneer in chilren's advertising doing something particularly unique or devious is silly.

their main advertising draw is a non-food item included in addition to food.

 

[teh_pwn]

I was just arguing that smoking is worse than fast food, since fast food isn't inherently bad for you the way smoking is. Smoking causes countless problems besides lung cancer. It harms just about every organ in the body. Smoking once a month is bad for you. A Big Mac doesn't contain poison, and eating one Big Mac a month can't harm you

Many people that smoke live long lives. I think the same is true with fast food. However, lots of people are sensitive to a high load of simple sugars and end up with chronic illnesses centralized to type 2 diabetes known as metabolic syndrome. But I'm guessing we're going to disagree here with me saying that people overeating is due to an adverse reaction to novel foods whereas you will say that it's entirely willpower for 100% of the population and that fat people do it to themselves.

As a side note, I'm extremely pessimistic about the future of America's health. Kids today with the most recent guidelines basically get no saturated fat, cholesterol, salt, or real meat. Instead they get "Milk" with no fat and 40 grams of sugar, and frequent vending machines because the school lunches have shit nutrition. They're never going to have fully matured nervous systems or fertility because their bodies won't have the raw supplies, and they'll enter college with type 2 diabetes. Fucking USDA...

 

[bggrthnjsus]

i just hope i never get the amputated leg of one of your kids showing up in the path lab at whatever hospital i happen to be working at 20 years from now