I'm aware and I find that idea more beneficial than this law.

 

 

Why? Adults are perfectely competent and if they want to eat fatty foods then that's they're perogative.

 

Children are not capable of determining what they should be seeing and what they should not.

 

 

That being true then why ban fatty foods and leave porn in the hands of children? That approach makes no sense at all.

That being true then why ban fatty foods and leave porn in the hands of children? That approach makes no sense at all.

So therefore you have no problem with state entities trying to ban certain types of food?

So therefore you have no problem with state entities trying to ban certain types of food?

 

 

I didn't say that. Im just pointing out how backwards that line of reasoning is.

Why? Adults are perfectely competent and if they want to eat fatty foods then that's they're perogative.

 

Children are not capable of determining what they should be seeing and what they should not.

That being true then why ban fatty foods and leave porn in the hands of children? That approach makes no sense at all.

 

This doesn't ban any fatty food whatsoever, merely regulates the ingredients that can be used to create the fatty food. If we nanny state on this, why not nanny state on that? Or maybe instead, parents can just sign a permission slip every time Junior goes to McDonalds too.

I didn't say that. Im just pointing out how backwards that line of reasoning is.

Then why doesn't the reverse of that argument apply equally well to you? If it's hypocritical to support a government banning specific and unhealthy varieties of food while at the same time opposing a government's banning of specific types of pornagrphy, why is it not hypocritical to support the porn ban and oppose the food ban?

 

This doesn't ban any fatty food whatsoever, merely regulates the ingredients that can be used to create the fatty food. If we nanny state on this, why not nanny state on that? Or maybe instead, parents can just sign a permission slip every time Junior goes to McDonalds too.

That might increase the life expectancy in our nation by 5 years.

Then why doesn't the reverse of that argument apply equally well to you? If it's hypocritical to support a government banning specific and unhealthy varieties of food while at the same time opposing a government's banning of specific types of pornagrphy, why is it not hypocritical to support the porn ban and oppose the food ban?

That might increase the life expectancy in our nation by 5 years.

 

 

You make it sound like I want to ban porn altogether. That is not so. I want a law in place that makes it harder for children to get a hold of it.

Well you also make it sound like an effort to regulate the ingredients that fatty food is prepared in to make it less damaging to its consumers is the same thing as banning french fries.

 

They are both nanny state laws. And if one is acceptable, the other one should be too.

Well you also make it sound like an effort to regulate the ingredients that fatty food is prepared in to make it less damaging to its consumers is the same thing as banning french fries.

 

They are both nanny state laws. And if one is acceptable, the other one should be too.

 

 

I think it's nanny state if you try to tell people who are capable of making rational choices ( read: adults ) what they can and cant have. Children are another thing altogether.

So, then you'd support requiring minors to have permission slips before being able to purchase trans-fatty foods or being able to only purchase them with a parent present? Because, clearly they aren't able to determine what's in their best interest....

 

And it is all about the children, right?

I think it's nanny state if you try to tell people who are capable of making rational choices ( read: adults ) what they can and cant have. Children are another thing altogether.

So you're telling me that if I passed a law saying that Children were not allowed to go to any restaurant which included those bad varieties of fat in it, you'd have no problem with it?

 

Edit: Damn Rexy and his rapid-moving fingers!

Edited October 25, 200619 yr by Balta1701

So, then you'd support requiring minors to have permission slips before being able to purchase trans-fatty foods or being able to only purchase them with a parent present? Because, clearly they aren't able to determine what's in their best interest....

 

And it is all about the children, right?

 

 

Why not just stop McDonalds, etc.. from selling foods with tans-fats in them?

So, then you'd support requiring minors to have permission slips before being able to purchase trans-fatty foods or being able to only purchase them with a parent present? Because, clearly they aren't able to determine what's in their best interest....

 

And it is all about the children, right?

 

 

The schools are doing that for us. Fatty foods and sodas are being wiped from menu's all over the country.

The schools are doing that for us. Fatty foods and sodas are being wiped from menu's all over the country.

That's not answering the question.

But what about after school? Kids days' don't stop at 3 PM, you know. And parents can't be everywhere, can they?

 

Please, won't someone think about the children?

Yikes...

 

 

Forget I said anything..

 

 

 

Bubye..

That's not answering the question.

 

 

Porn and foods are apples and oranges. I would not favor something like Rex was suggesting about permission slips ( I have to admit I got a chuckle out of it ).

You're right, Porn and Trans-fats are different things. One is a known cause of heart disease. The other one tends to end up with sticky pages. Which one is worse again?

You're right, Porn and Trans-fats are different things. One is a known cause of heart disease. The other one tends to end up with sticky pages. Which one is worse again?

 

 

A known cause of heart disease when it's consumed in too great quantities and not balanced with exercise. The other one tends to encourage kids to experiment with sex at too young an age leading to teen pregnancy and STDs. Which one is worse again?

A known cause of heart disease when it's consumed in too great quantities and not balanced with exercise. The other one tends to encourage kids to experiment with sex at too young an age leading to teen pregnancy and STDs. Which one is worse again?

I'm calling bs on that. I need to see some stats (from a reputable journal) linking porn and teen pregnancy, STDs, and age of first sexual encounter.

 

I don't buy that argument AT ALL and I would like to see some scientific support for your claim.

I'm calling bs on that. I need to see some stats (from a reputable journal) linking porn and teen pregnancy, STDs, and age of first sexual encounter.

 

I don't buy that argument AT ALL and I would like to see some scientific support for your claim.

 

 

I don't know if it does or doesn't either but I would love to see the stats as well.

 

When Oprah has 8 year olds on who are giving BJ's on the bus ride home... I'd like to know where they are learning this stuff.

A known cause of heart disease when it's consumed in too great quantities and not balanced with exercise. The other one tends to encourage kids to experiment with sex at too young an age leading to teen pregnancy and STDs. Which one is worse again?

Well then, maybe the government should fund research into treatments that would retard puberty until they reach the age of majority.... after all I hear that puberty is a major factor in encouraging kids to experiment with sex.

 

And we have to think of the children!

Well then, maybe the government should fund research into treatments that would retard puberty until they reach the age of majority.... after all I hear that puberty is a major factor in encouraging kids to experiment with sex.

 

And we have to think of the children!

 

Once again. Sarcasm is a poor substitute for a reasoned argument. But that's to be expected from some.

I'm calling bs on that. I need to see some stats (from a reputable journal) linking porn and teen pregnancy, STDs, and age of first sexual encounter.

 

I don't buy that argument AT ALL and I would like to see some scientific support for your claim.

 

 

Hey Soxy, not sure if you would call this reputable cause it's not a major health mag or hospital linked study. But some of the figures are down right frightening. And it actually makes arguments for both sides being duiscussed here.

 

http://www.focusas.com/SexualBehavior.html

 

 

 

 

 

Well then, maybe the government should fund research into treatments that would retard puberty until they reach the age of majority.... after all I hear that puberty is a major factor in encouraging kids to experiment with sex.

 

And we have to think of the children!

 

 

Thanks to a lax social climate, busy parents, and pushing the envelope tv shows, IMO. Back when I was dealing with puberty sex was the last thing on my mind and I can remember like it was yesterday the first time sex was actually introduced to me - not the actual act, but the talk of it - and it was loooong past the age it's at these days.

Once again. Sarcasm is a poor substitute for a reasoned argument. But that's to be expected from some.

 

So is dodging a question. But that's been expected of you for quite some time. If parental responsibility is acceptable for determining a child's diet, why isn't it acceptable for determining the content that a child views on the internet? There are plenty of for-profit, market-based solutions that will think of the children better than the government ever could.

 

What someone views on the internet is an issue of personal responsibility and parental responsibility. The government has no place in limiting what can and can't be viewed online.

Hey Soxy, not sure if you would call this reputable cause it's not a major health mag or hospital linked study. But some of the figures are down right frightening. And it actually makes arguments for both sides being duiscussed here.

 

http://www.focusas.com/SexualBehavior.html

That's an interesting link, but how do we know that the music/tv/culture/etc is what's making kids violent or sexually active? Could it be that kids who are interested in that stuff are just DRAWN to those types of media?

 

It's an interesting article, but it doesn't have any real scientific or research credibility--which is what people need to make claims like, oh, it's the fault of porn or music that's ruining society.