I don't opt for that. I opt for, in this case, protection of a fundamental liberty. I have not argued for "total freedom," but rather jealous protection of an important aspect of human liberty and human dignity - the freedom of speech.Rum wrote:Coito - this is a classic libertarian vs liberal socialist debate. You opt for the 'total freedom' option where each individual looks out for themselves
I also opt for, in addition to that, protection of the idea of "evidentiary support" in conjunction with scientific or fact claims. Here we have an assertion that many of us seem to just take as a given, when it plainly is not, that Ronald McDonald being shown to children is causing them to get fat. Even the study presented regarding advertisements did not claim a causal connection but ONLY a "possible association" between the frequency of ads and childhood obesity. I had provided multiple links to data that clearly showed that the TIME spent by children in front of televisions and computers had jumped 40% since 1960 and the number of calories eaten on average had jumped 8% on average since 1979. That correlates exactly with the the marked increase in overweight people and obesity in this country.
Therefore, to take action based on the suspicion of a "possible association" between Ronald McD adverts and childhood obesity is IRRATIONAL. If anything, we should be setting limits on the number of hours per day kids can be in front of the television or computer, and requiring them to play more so they burn calories, and requiring them to reduce their calorie intake by 10%. That, of course, might actually work, and would be something that places the responsibility on someone other than the big,bad corporations.
Then why do you ignore the evidence I provided that it was the number of hours that a child watches t.v., and not what he is watching, that causes the obesity? Why did you ignore the 8% increase in calorie intake over the last 30 years? These are things that nobody disputes causes obesity - sedentary lifestyle and higher calorie intake - so, if you really do want to do something to actually protect the most vulnerable in society, then why don't you advocate doing something about that? Why argue so vehemently in favor of what has so far at best been called a "possible association?"Rum wrote:
and I, personally. would prefer to collectively do something to protect the most vulnerable and potentially vulnerable in society.
No, of course not. But, I don't think it's too much to ask to have someone provide EVIDENCE that the commercials are causing the obesity. The best that we've seen so far is that there is a "possible" association. That's in the title of the article presented - POSSIBLE.Rum wrote:
Children, being sent sophisticated messages about what to consume, strike me, I think not unreasonably, as vulnerable. I would want to do something to make sure that they were not taken advantage of.
Unless of course you think children should be available to be exploited in the name of liberty and freedom?
Two studies that I posted connected television watching TIME (now up to 4 hours a day PLUS 2 hours of computer time, not including schoolwork) to the rise in obesity. Plus, there is the 8% increase in calories. None of that has anything to do with Ron McD commercials.
While people want an outside scapegoat to blame for this, and many other, problems - the solutions seems to be staring us all in the face: cut television watching time in 1/2, cut videogame playing time in half, send the kids out to play actively, and reduce calorie intake 10%. That should reduce the obesity level to that of the 1960s and 70s. What's wrong with that?
