The soldier in this battle (lets call her Major Charlie) works in the field of child nutrition. So it’s her duty to protect parents from the job of teaching children about nutrition.
So in your view, we should do away with all laws related to child pornography and other sexual exploitation of minors, child labor, age limits for the purchase of alcohol and tobacco, car seats, and nutritional standards for food served in public schools?
'Cause, I mean, it is the personal responsibility of the PARENTS to protect their kids from such things (or not, as they see fit) and government has no place getting involved. Right?
If that is NOT your view, please explain how you justify the contradictions in your logic.
You apparently define “government” as some external, authoritarian force imposing its rules on people. It can also be (and imo is more accurately) defined as the system we have set up by which we, the adults of society, govern OURSELVES and establish protections which aim to protect the weaker from the stronger and promote the general welfare.
Ah, was wondering when the slippery slope would come around. yes, of course expecting parents to not feed their kids crap is just like exploiting children.
Of course.
It’s not a slippery slope. The argument being made is that if parents can protect their children from something, then it’s not wrong to create the danger from which the child must be protected. Thus, it is OK to try to get kids to irrationally associate junk food with happiness by marketing toys to them when they’re 6, because even though this contributes to childhood obesity, good parents have the ability to counteract.
So why isn’t the same principle true of many other areas where parental responsibility could prevent harm, but we still also try to stop the underlying problem.
I have an answer to this question of how to draw the line, but I’m curious to hear yours.
My wife, my ten year old daughter and I got out to eat once a week on Friday nights. We rotate who picks where we go. So my daughter picks every three weeks.
Or Friday night dinners the last three weeks were: A local seafood restaurant of my choice, 99 Restaurant chosen by my wife, and this week was a local, family run Chinese restaurant as my daughter’s pick. Four weeks ago my daughter picked Burger King.
Although she does often tend to pick fast food places, my daughter’s choices are varied and have been as long as we’ve been doing this. Sometimes she’ll pick McDonald’s because of the toy, and sometimes it’s just because we haven’t been for a couple of months. My wife or I are just as likely to choose KFC or I-Hop or Wendy’s as my daughter is.
The other six dinners a week are home cooked.
Everything in moderation. There is nothing wrong with taking your kid to McDonald’s a couple of times a month to get a Happy Meal. Good time for the kid; one night of not cooking for Mom/Dad.
There is never a good time for an 8 year old to head down to the liquor store for a bottle of Southern Comfort, so I think that slippery slope argument is bad.
My 7 year old asks for EVERY FUCKING THING that is advertised on her cartoons. Should I start suing all of them?
Happy meals are not harmful unless the toys are swallowed so that would be a good place to draw a line.
And as for junk foods, I would specifically teach children that they provide happiness as does sunshine and a zillion other things that require moderation.
Happy Meals can include apple dippers instead of fries for no extra charge. We’re talking real sliced green apples and a low-cal caramel dipping sauce (which can, and should be, be thrown away)* Of course, the vast majority of people still order fries and a coke with them, but that’s hardly McDonald’s fault.
*If we’re talking food zealotry, IMO caramel dipping sauce and fruit dip – that godawful marshmallow concoction that is sometimes served with fruit trays – should be banned. Why, oh why, would you take perfectly sweet and delicious (and nutricious) whole fruit – and then immerse it in sugar? It’s an abomination of nature and teaches really bad habits. I have to admit that I did have it out with my SIL when she tried to convince my children that strawberries were SO much better dipped in sugar. :smack: In retrospect, I should have sued her.