PDA

View Full Version : US state wants to tax TVs, video games to fight fat, fund education



XyZspineZyX
01-01-1970, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
the amount spent is irrelvent imo.

I fervently wish your opinion were fact. But I think not, and neither do the people who make the marketing decisions. Most companies are frugal in spending their money. Ever asked for a raise? Or been on the other side, and been responsible for a payroll? I think that we can all see just how tight fisted companies are with their money. When was the last time that you spent money on something without getting anything for it? Advertising works. Or they wouldn't spend the money in the first place.

Consider the following comments from 3 years ago.

All Things Considered, September 4, 2004 "¢ Social economist Juliet Schor's new book is Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture. Schor says children as young as 18 months can recognize logos. Marketers capitalize on the influence of young minds on parents' wallets. Hear Schor and NPR's Jennifer Ludden.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3890203

It is a realmedia link that you can still listen to. I think that responsible parents should first become concerned by these trends.


Originally posted by Von_Rat:
if parents are doing their job all the marketing in the world isnt going to make a dent.

But that is just my point. There is that big little word again - if. If parents are doing their job the world would be in far better shape. Parents are not doing their job, through no fault of their own.

These days parents spend less and less time with their kids compared to even ten years ago. Consequently, children spend more and more time watching TV and being 'raised' by other surrogate parents. The pressures of the modern world make it more and more difficult for parents to do their job. These trends are continuing as well. So that every year more and more parents spend less and less time with their kids.


Originally posted by Von_Rat:
your comment about the Jesuits supports my view. a parent is in the position to indoctrinate the child by age 7, not the marketers.

See my above comments.


Originally posted by Von_Rat:
you realize of course that its fairly simple to insulate a child under 7 from marketing influence by simply restricting TV viewing.

Regardless of how simple it may be on a theoretical level the evidence points to just the opposite in the real world behaviour of parents these days. Especially if a parent is unable to spend enough quality time with their children. Long talks at a sit down dinner with the entire family attending are NOT the common experience in a majority of homes.

It is simple in theory to pull the plug on the idiot box but not in reality. And pithy comments do not make it so. An example to illustrate. Parental advisory stickers on music - enhances the appeal to the under aged listener. (etc etc etc - I am sure you get my meaning here.) If you make the item a taboo item, the consumer becomes more attracted to it. When the item is attractive the consumer will obtain it. Prohibition failed.


Originally posted by Von_Rat:
corporate reponsibility is all well and good. but personal responsbility has its place as well.

Which is exactly what I said when I wrote these words

"Advocating personal responsibility is a fine, well and good idea. As long as the table is level, the game is not rigged - and the advocation of personal responsibility applies to all."

To all – both a company and the individual. Agreement! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Originally posted by Von_Rat:
imo corporate reponsibility ends when some fat slop trys to sue mcdonalds for making him fat.

I do not support that sort of litigious behaviour either. When an issue get before a court the only people who prosper are lawyers. I would far prefer it is the societal ill was dealt with at the beginning. It is far more effective to avoid a problem - rather than fixing it after it balloons into a near crisis. In Il-2 terms – don't let them get up sun and you will not get shot in the first place. (It was nice to talk aeroplane again. If only for an instant! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

This is very nearly a crisis by the way. If present trends in obesity continue unabated the public health budget for the State of Mississippi will be exhausted soon. The BBC is soon to broadcast a report on this. I think it is well worth watching if you can take it in.
Here is the website for it. In case any wish to look into it.

http://www.bbcworld.com/Pages/ProgrammeFeature.aspx?id=106&FeatureId=574


Originally posted by Von_Rat:
in a nutshell education, not taxation is the key.

I completely agree. And discussions like this are central to the process of society becoming educated. Wishing a problem away or countering it with hackneyed clichés we all learned in our childhood in our civics classes are not going to solve the problems we face today.


Originally posted by Von_Rat:
you'll say this tax money is for education. bah, go check how the cigarette money is being spent.

I said no such thing. In fact I expect that we are both wise enough to realize where it will go. I expect that it will go into 'general revenue' and I don't mind that. Especially if it does 'some good.'

In my first post I said that I supported the initiative. I do. Especially in comparison to the alternative of doing nothing. Or encouraging parents to do more. Which I view as doing nothing because of the above pressures that I have gone into at some length. They are all but incapable of doing more. Parents these days are being torn into pieces by the stresses of modern society. (However, I also said that I would have preferred it if the burden were applied to the manufacturer of the toxic product than the consumer.)

Years ago a single income would be enough for a family. How many families do you think these days are able to survive on a single income? Parents today are working longer hours. Commuting further distances paying a higher proportion of their income today for housing than ever before. And this trend shows no sign of being reversed. As I already stated, a 2 income family is now the norm. In the future I wonder if two incomes will be enough. If these trends continue the answer will be no.

None of us want to pay taxes. All of us try to avoid them. These two sentences also apply to Companies/Corporations etc. However, I think most of us are not able to shirk our tax responsibility through the hiring of tax attorneys, like large multinational corporations do.
If companies were compelled to pay their fair share of the tax burden. We may never have had this conversation at all.

This however is an exceedingly complicated issue. If a Government tries to tax a business of any size. There is a tipping point, where the business may decide to close up shop. Or take the business off shore. It is a delicate balancing act. If for example the company is a large multinational corporation. The government may not have the leverage to enforce its own tax code on the multinational. As taxpayers, more and more of the tax burden then falls to US. And is left to us to make up the shortfall.

Companies are falling woefully short in this aspect of their own PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. The successful tax avoidance regimes that large companies and especially multinational companies have successfully established at all of our expense is not much of a level playing field if you ask me. Their behaviour, in this regard, is anti-social in the truest sense of the word. To reiterate, their avoidance of their PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and its impact on OUR society (the good of which they should serve) should no longer be the subject, nor bolstered by, words of excuse coming from our mouths.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_63RUrzLOn4

luftluuver
01-26-2008, 11:48 AM
Your gaming could get more expensive, if you live in New Mexico. Won't be long before this spreads.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080125230108.k05u9plm&show_article=1

AKA_TAGERT
01-26-2008, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Your gaming could get more expensive, if you live in New Mexico. Won't be long before this spreads.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080125230108.k05u9plm&show_article=1
Jezzz..

I just moved to NM to get away from that crazy liberal CA mindset..

These crazy socialist libs keep following me!

I got a crazy idea..

How about parents take responsibility for their fat little brats and make them run around the block before they stuff that chicken strips down their neck!

Problem solved!

Or how about some of these mothers that have kids actully raise their kids instead of running off to some bogus carriers and thus not having enough time or energy left in the day to cook a GD healthy meal for their family, thus they resort to stuffing fast food or frozen fish sticks down their necks!

Problem solved!

Tater-SW-
01-26-2008, 12:28 PM
Tagert, where are you?

I'm in Albuquerque.

BTW, it's not the State that wants to do this it's A lawmaker. Read ONE lawmaker.

AKA_TAGERT
01-26-2008, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Tagert, where are you?

I'm in Albuquerque.
Las Cruces!


Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
BTW, it's not a State that want to do this it's A lawmaker. Read ONE lawmaker.
Ah that is good news!

Now how do we go about voting this dumb arse out of office?

Tater-SW-
01-26-2008, 12:42 PM
INteresting to think that someone in the round house thinks taxing discourages behavior, though. You know, like earning income http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Usually they think taxing helps the economy in some mystical way, lol.

If you ever find yourself driving north, gimme a yell. Beer's on me.

tater

Luke5skywalker4
01-26-2008, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

I just moved to NM to get away from that crazy liberal CA mindset..

These crazy socialist libs keep following me!

I think it is more than just "crazy liberals." These lawmakers and politicians, no matter their affiliation, simply can not comprehend the issue.

MEGILE
01-26-2008, 12:50 PM
Liberals turned me into a newt.

Ironically enough, I am right at this moment doing a report on obesity in the UK for college. coincidence? The lizard men say otherwise.

I just wrote the intro, so I don't want to predetermine my conclusion, but I suspect it will be along the pinko commie libral lines of Kids need guidance on food from other sources than those trying to steal their lunch money.

Very trotskyist I know.

Tater-SW-
01-26-2008, 01:00 PM
Like their parents, perhaps?

NM has had single party control of the legislature since we were a state. The governor sometimes changes parties, but not the round house.

MEGILE
01-26-2008, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Like their parents, perhaps?


Undoubtedly.
Considering the prevalence of obesity in adults, I was perhaps considering including other sources, which actually understand the concepts of nutrition.

Dam, sign me up for the party now!

Chris0382
01-26-2008, 01:17 PM
Tax fastfood bigmacs and whoppers

MEGILE
01-26-2008, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Chris0382:
Tax fastfood bigmacs and whoppers

Uhoh, he used the T word.

I may disagree with that point.

Pirschjaeger
01-26-2008, 01:25 PM
@ Megile,

God hates taxes,....and the "T" word,....and people,.....and.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Viper2005_
01-26-2008, 01:30 PM
Taxing stuff in order to control the behaviour of the populace doesn't sound very liberal to me...

Pirschjaeger
01-26-2008, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Taxing stuff in order to control the behaviour of the populace doesn't sound very liberal to me...

Ah, but isn't that the way it goes today? Bad guys are liberals. Liberals are conservatives that want to create a police state in order to control everyone, like sheep.

Conservatives are open thinkers and open to new ideas. They are the good people, the god fearing people who haven't evolved because evolution doesn't exist for them.

As Stephen Corbert would say; "That was a gut feeling".

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

han freak solo
01-26-2008, 01:38 PM
"The goals of the bill are to improve the academic performances of our kids, to promote a more healthy lifestyle and to provide our children with outdoor learning experiences, using our state parks and public lands as classrooms," - from the linked article

So, they need funding to turn off the computers in the classroom? WTF? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Waldo.Pepper
01-26-2008, 01:49 PM
I feel the urge to rant! Must have been something I ate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I support the initiative, but would hope for something that places the burden on the manufacturer of the product, rather than the consumer. Yes the burden will trickle down to the consumer in the end as the manufacturer will pass on the cost to the consumer. But, placing the burden on the manufacturer MAY (another big little word) compel the producer into making a product that is not as harmful to the health of the consumer. At any rate to do nothing is folly. This is worth trying.

Now about this point


How about parents take responsibility for their fat little brats and make them run around the block before they stuff that chicken strips down their neck!

I would like it too if the world were as simple as this. To be able to reduce a complex issue to a mere talking point. This is attractive indeed but it is no solution.

The average overworked stressed out parent who is working over time to keep their families heads above water, is no match for the marketers of the world who want nothing more than to maximize their profits without the slightest shadow of care for you and your families health.

Parents the world over want the best for their families. I know a Woman with three children who lives a couple of blocks from where I live. She works four jobs for her kids.

Now before someone suggest something trite and patronizing and condescending about her, which I suspect some are itching to do, - like "What did she go and have three kids for?" or "I bet she is some kind of welfare mother having babies to make money!" She is a widow who's husband died of Cancer.

You cannot blame a person in her shoes and claim that she is not doing enough for her kids. Clearly the parents of the world need some help.

I feel better.

Von_Rat
01-26-2008, 02:07 PM
The average overworked stressed out parent who is working over time to keep their families heads above water, is no match for the marketers of the world


you obviously never met my mother, or any women like her.

she was more than a match for a mere marketeer.


i think she is more representative of the average than your example.

R_Target
01-26-2008, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Las Cruces!

Ha! I lived at WSMR for three years when I was a kid. Used to go to L.C. all the time.

knightflyte
01-26-2008, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

I just moved to NM to get away from that crazy liberal CA mindset..

These crazy socialist libs keep following me!

I got a crazy idea..

How about parents take responsibility for their fat little brats and make them run around the block before they stuff that chicken strips down their neck!

Problem solved!

Or how about some of these mothers that have kids actully raise their kids instead of running off to some bogus carriers and thus not having enough time or energy left in the day to cook a GD healthy meal for their family, thus they resort to stuffing fast food or frozen fish sticks down their necks!

Problem solved!



What are you smoking? Don't you know there's death and mayhem around every corner? There are pedophiles, drug pushers, gang bangers, bullies, lions, and tigers, and bears..... OH MY! Heck you can get sued for a kid falling down while playing TAG.

It's safer not learning how to interact and take personal responsability. (Unless you consider online WoW gaming socializing) It's easier for kids to play indoors. They'll never be hurt in their ivory tower PS3.

No pain. No loss. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MEGILE
01-26-2008, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
@ Megile,
and.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Cheerleaders? Say it aint so Pirsch http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Viper2005_
01-26-2008, 02:38 PM
People have free will.

Children are people too.

If you really want to be thin, you can choose to eat less and/or exercise more. It's not rocket science. Glib though it is, I would observe that not eating is not beyond the financial means of anybody.

Most people when asked will say that they would like to be thin.
Most people when asked will say that they would like to be rich.
Etc.

Most people don't really want their dreams enough to actually make them happen.

There is a big gap between window-shopping and buying, and I don't think that any tax can hope to narrow that gap.

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-26-2008, 02:56 PM
Why not just tax junk food or better yet start fining parents who allow their children to become obese. Well I guess that would make too much sense. Obese children are a direct reflection of piss poor parenting no two ways about it. Congress love to blame every problem in the country on tv and video games. These parents who allow their children to become fat and take years off their life disgust me to no end. There is no way they can really love their kids.

These comments come from a father of 4 btw.

S!

leitmotiv
01-26-2008, 03:09 PM
New Mexico is totally out to lunch, as usual, but not quite up to California standards.

Tater-SW-
01-26-2008, 03:15 PM
It's one state rep. One. No law. My dog could be elected to the state house. They only work 30 days a year, and for no pay.

If it ever became law it might be a story. I'm sure that every state has any number of idiotic proposals by members of their state house at any given moment. This one made drudge is all.

tater

Waldo.Pepper
01-26-2008, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
you obviously never met my mother, or any women like her.
she was more than a match for a mere marketeer.
i think she is more representative of the average than your example.

Your Mother sounds like a fine Woman to me. I do not know your age. But I am guessing that you are not some pimply faced teenager and have some years under your belt. That means that you were reared/influenced by her ˜some time ago.' ˜Some time ago' the world was different.

If all the above guessing is correct, consider the following stats. in relation to what I said earlier about the influence of Marketing on Children.

"In 1983, companies spent $100 million marketing to kids. Today, they're spending nearly $17 billion annually. That's more than double what it was in 1992.

"Marketing firms and advertisers are looking to a younger demographic, increasingly targeting tweens and even younger children. And these kids have huge control over the flow of parents' spending, statistics show "” 8- to 12-year-olds spend $30 billion of their own money each year and influence another $150 billion of their parents' spending."

Now remember the Jesuit motto - "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man,"

As a society if we continue on our present path - which is to do nothing (or little) about the problem then disaster is to follow. There is a chance – now to avoid a costly and painful future.

Advocating this -


How about parents take responsibility for their fat little brats and make them run around the block before they stuff that chicken strips down their neck!

- is to do nothing/little about the problem. Such admonitions will have no effect, because WE are outgunned by marketers. I understand the appeal of the suggestion. There is superficial merit to this I think. I mean I like the sound of it on the surface. It advocates personal responsibility. I like that I really do.

But I think that advocating personal responsibility really means and includes paying your own way in society. For all of us including any commercial/industrial activities that we rely on.

I like companies, and corporations, and other commercial enterprises. I like what they provide for me. I like having products made for me in abundance, and to be able to choose from the multitude that we enjoy. But I don't like how WE let them off the hook when it comes to holding them accountable, and making them PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE, for the side effects that their activity also produce.

Few companies care if they make products that are unhealthy for you. All they care about is influencing your opinion so that you buy their product. And if the parents who make the purchasing decision are playing with the odds stacked against them then all the better for them.

Imagine a company that was irresponsible enough, negligent enough, to pollute the environment with toxin's or a radioactive cloud or something. Now imagine that the environment is really small. Imagine the environment is reduced to your body, at that this company did not take personal responsibility for its actions.

At one time we cared little about what companies were allowed to pump into our air and our water. Times changed and we now do care. I think that what we are witnessing is society changing – as always – yet again. We now are beginning to care about what we allow companies to pump into our minds, and subsequently our stomachs.

Advocating personal responsibility is a fine, well and good idea. As long as the table is level, the game is not rigged - and the advocation of personal responsibility applies to all. Including commercial enterprises. If the companies want us to be personally responsible (and they are trying to dump the whole problem on us). I think we should hold them to the same standard and insist that they too are personally responsible.

Edit - typo

Sergio_101
01-26-2008, 04:34 PM
Wow, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Massachusettes
did not come up with a idea for excessice unwarranted taxation first?

Wow!

Sergio

leitmotiv
01-26-2008, 04:41 PM
Dig this magnum craziness in the land of political correctness!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/7206570.stm

Sergio_101
01-26-2008, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Dig this magnum craziness in the land of political correctness!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/7206570.stm

Someone needs to be fired.....
That was way out of line, an insult
to the British.

Sergio

carts
01-26-2008, 04:57 PM
Pfft,easy solution,buy the lttle lardy Arses a Nintendo Wii,computer games and exercise,problem solved,Peace Mannnnnnnnnnnn.

SeaFireLIV
01-26-2008, 05:27 PM
Just before Christmas I became acutely aware of someone pressing my doorbell and running off. It had been going on for a few months but it never bothered me, I was always too deep into my work to notice.

My daughter mentioned it and I began to listen. Yep at about 16:30 everyday someone would ring the bell a few times and I could hear little running feet.

The next day I heard it and stepped out, I walked around the corner and found 3 kids giggling. 2 boys and a girl, about 6, 8 and 9, I reckon. They stared at me with a stupid semi-shocked look on their faces and admitted it was them ringing my bell for no reason. I told them (with a pseudo-angry face) not to do it again. Job done.

A week later, on Sunday. The bell rang again. running feet. I couldn`t be bothered. 2 hours later it rang again, but three times, running feet again.

Third time I was at the door. It was only 2 of them, the boys. I grabbed them both (after a brief chase) and they looked petrified, yet when I demanded where they lived they tried stalling me, even to the point of pretending not to understand English, hoping I`d just let `em go.

After I upped the angry-mad attitude, they bleated and took me to their single mother, who came out with a lot of excuses but finally accepted the kids were at fault.

Since then, no problems, but I think it`s more because the kids know I know where they live rather than they were really obeying their mother.

If kids are misbehaving, I have no qualms in getting hard within reason, to bring them in line, even if not my own.

A nothing situation really, but it occurred to me with today`s stupid laws about kids that I could`ve been done for just grabbing the children. Well, I`d do it again if need be.

Bearcat99
01-26-2008, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Your gaming could get more expensive, if you live in New Mexico. Won't be long before this spreads.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080125230108.k05u9plm&show_article=1

That is such pure BS. Those lying bastiges could give a rat's butt about education or obesity... aren't the lottery proceeds supposed to be going to education. Lies.. all lies. They want to tax video games because they know that there is money in it.. big money. The gaming industry did better than Hollywood last year.

AKA_TAGERT
01-26-2008, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Las Cruces!

Ha! I lived at WSMR for three years when I was a kid. Used to go to L.C. all the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>WSMR is where I work! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-26-2008, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Why not just tax junk food or better yet start fining parents who allow their children to become obese. Well I guess that would make too much sense. Obese children are a direct reflection of piss poor parenting no two ways about it. Congress love to blame every problem in the country on tv and video games. These parents who allow their children to become fat and take years off their life disgust me to no end. There is no way they can really love their kids.

These comments come from a father of 4 btw.

S! Agreed 100%

mortoma
01-26-2008, 06:49 PM
I hate socialist, liberal, left-wing control freaks. Sometimes I think the only answer to these control freaks are a lot of belt fed machine guns. Why do people think govt. control or govt. in general is the answer? We don't need nanny govt.!! Individuals are the anwswer, not government. People should control governments, not the other way around!!

mortoma
01-26-2008, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Why not just tax junk food or better yet start fining parents who allow their children to become obese. Well I guess that would make too much sense. Obese children are a direct reflection of piss poor parenting no two ways about it. Congress love to blame every problem in the country on tv and video games. These parents who allow their children to become fat and take years off their life disgust me to no end. There is no way they can really love their kids.

These comments come from a father of 4 btw.

S! Agreed 100% </div></BLOCKQUOTE>BullS***!! Don't need to tax junk food because there are plenty of people like me that can on occasion enjoy it without getting fat. So you'd make people like me pay for others who can't handle how much of something they eat? Sounds like a democrat liberal answer to me.

BoCfuss
01-26-2008, 07:01 PM
Bearcat is right on, if there is money to be made by taxing it, the dems will go after it, to fund some program to raise, teach, empower, feed, etc, to aid some poor unfortunate, when all that really happens is the government grows by 100000 more lazy workers.

Von_Rat
01-26-2008, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
you obviously never met my mother, or any women like her.
she was more than a match for a mere marketeer.
i think she is more representative of the average than your example.

Your Mother sounds like a fine Woman to me. I do not know your age. But I am guessing that you are not some pimply faced teenager and have some years under your belt. That means that you were reared/influenced by her ˜some time ago.' ˜Some time ago' the world was different.

If all the above guessing is correct, consider the following stats. in relation to what I said earlier about the influence of Marketing on Children.

"In 1983, companies spent $100 million marketing to kids. Today, they're spending nearly $17 billion annually. That's more than double what it was in 1992.

"Marketing firms and advertisers are looking to a younger demographic, increasingly targeting tweens and even younger children. And these kids have huge control over the flow of parents' spending, statistics show "” 8- to 12-year-olds spend $30 billion of their own money each year and influence another $150 billion of their parents' spending."

Now remember the Jesuit motto - "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man,"

As a society if we continue on our present path - which is to do nothing (or little) about the problem then disaster is to follow. There is a chance – now to avoid a costly and painful future.

Advocating this -


How about parents take responsibility for their fat little brats and make them run around the block before they stuff that chicken strips down their neck!

- is to do nothing/little about the problem. Such admonitions will have no effect, because WE are outgunned by marketers. I understand the appeal of the suggestion. There is superficial merit to this I think. I mean I like the sound of it on the surface. It advocates personal responsibility. I like that I really do.

But I think that advocating personal responsibility really means and includes paying your own way in society. For all of us including any commercial/industrial activities that we rely on.

I like companies, and corporations, and other commercial enterprises. I like what they provide for me. I like having products made for me in abundance, and to be able to choose from the multitude that we enjoy. But I don't like how WE let them off the hook when it comes to holding them accountable, and making them PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE, for the side effects that their activity also produce.

Few companies care if they make products that are unhealthy for you. All they care about is influencing your opinion so that you buy their product. And if the parents who make the purchasing decision are playing with the odds stacked against them then all the better for them.

Imagine a company that was irresponsible enough, negligent enough, to pollute the environment with toxin's or a radioactive cloud or something. Now imagine that the environment is really small. Imagine the environment is reduced to your body, at that this company did not take personal responsibility for its actions.

At one time we cared little about what companies were allowed to pump into our air and our water. Times changed and we now do care. I think that what we are witnessing is society changing – as always – yet again. We now are beginning to care about what we allow companies to pump into our minds, and subsequently our stomachs.

Advocating personal responsibility is a fine, well and good idea. As long as the table is level, the game is not rigged - and the advocation of personal responsibility applies to all. Including commercial enterprises. If the companies want us to be personally responsible (and they are trying to dump the whole problem on us). I think we should hold them to the same standard and insist that they too are personally responsible.

Edit - typo </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


im 51

the amount spent is irrelvent imo.

if parents are doing their job all the marketing in the world isnt going to make a dent.

your comment about the jesuits supports my view. a parent is in the position to indoctrinate the child by age 7, not the marketers. you realize of course that its fairly simple to insulate a child under 7 from marketing influence by simply restricting tv viewing.

corporate reponsibility is all well and good. but personal responsbility has its place as well.

imo corporate reponsibility ends when some fat slop trys to sue mcdonalds for making him fat.

im pretty dam tubby myself btw. maybe i should sue burger king. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


in a nutshell education, not taxation is the key.

you'll say this tax money is for education. bah, go check how the cigerette money is being spent.

huggy87
01-26-2008, 09:12 PM
What if I get a nintendo Wii? That should count as exercise.

Loco-S
01-26-2008, 09:30 PM
simple, put a tax of $100.00 per burger, or fried fries, tax $100 bucks per pound of bacon, and a $150 "fat tax" on each twinkies and each candy, that way they can tax more from fat people than from people who eats "healthy".

Cajun76
01-26-2008, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
simple, put a tax of $100.00 per burger, or fried fries, tax $100 bucks per pound of bacon, and a $150 "fat tax" on each twinkies and each candy, that way they can tax more from fat people than from people who eats "healthy".

You can tax and have my bacon, sir, when you pry it from my pudgy, dead hand!

Ratsack
01-29-2008, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loco-S:
simple, put a tax of $100.00 per burger, or fried fries, tax $100 bucks per pound of bacon, and a $150 "fat tax" on each twinkies and each candy, that way they can tax more from fat people than from people who eats "healthy".

You can tax and have my bacon, sir, when you pry it from my pudgy, dead hand! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just thought I'd reply to this to see if we could get a post on the 3rd page.

Ratsack

WOLFMondo
01-29-2008, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loco-S:
simple, put a tax of $100.00 per burger, or fried fries, tax $100 bucks per pound of bacon, and a $150 "fat tax" on each twinkies and each candy, that way they can tax more from fat people than from people who eats "healthy".

You can tax and have my bacon, sir, when you pry it from my pudgy, dead hand! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just thought I'd reply to this to see if we could get a post on the 3rd page.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It got to 4 until all those posts got deleted.

joeap
01-29-2008, 04:09 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Ratsack
01-29-2008, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
...

It got to 4 until all those posts got deleted.

Yeah, I know. But all it's being showing on p. 3 is a header, so I thought I'd see if the thread was still 'working'.

cheers,
Ratsack

polak5
01-29-2008, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Megile:


I just wrote the intro, so I don't want to predetermine my conclusion, but I suspect it will be along the pinko commie libral lines of Kids need guidance on food from other sources than those trying to steal their lunch money.

Very trotskyist I know.

Use as closing statement 4 da win