Now I think I have seen it all

[Hellion]

And yes they do have healthy alternatives instead of the typical burger and fry foods.It should be up the the parents not bs government.

Your opinions on this

http://news.yahoo.com/video/business-15749628/where-happy-meals-are-illegal-19362009

[DJ Nocker]

That is some funny stuff. No one is allowed to be happy, so bring that to MI, they already took smoking out, lol.

[taysteewonderbunny]

I think it's going too far.

[candyman]

I think they like the idea of banning things so that we can only do certain things where and when they want us to do them...or we can't do them at all. First they restrict one thing, then another, then another, and on and on just like that...it will just snowball...I believe I have said something to this effect many time before.

[creatureofthenyte]

1984..Brave New World...here we come....

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

well if parents would just say "No" then this wouldn't even be an issue.

Weak parenting IMO

[Glory13666]

well if parents would just say "No" then this wouldn't even be an issue.

Weak parenting IMO

I have to agree. Saying that it should be up to the parent to make this decision is like saying it should be up to the parent whether or not their children should have to ride in car seats. There are a lot of bad parents out there who would rather save money than protect their kids. The fact is that childhood obesity is becoming an increasing epidemic in this country and the health related problems related to it are endless. The human body naturally craves fat and sugar, it's a survival mechanism. Children do not know the risks of consuming unhealthy food, they just know they want the toy. There is a reason McDonald's puts the toy in the Happy Meal and it's not because they love the children. I do agree that there is a thin line between protecting our kids and over stepping the boundaries of parents. Unfortunately, the irresponsible parents force government to do this kind of thing. Something has to be done....probably many somethings. Anybody have any suggestions?

[freydis]

"...and in other news, advertising influences what we buy!"

[candyman]

well if parents would just say "No" then this wouldn't even be an issue.

Weak parenting IMO

See you are just assuming that it is an absolute evil when really it is not. It has been said time and time again that the food we eat is not the only thing holding us back. Its a lack of many other things including an education system that has formed our kids into people that know about recycling and what is "green" and they also know how to scold people on their food choices and make political speeches based purely on party lines with no clear vision of individual issues...however they know very little when it comes to history, math, english, music, and physical education.

The food is bad when it is abused and that goes for EVERYTHING...even good things can be abused to the point of being bad.

Weak parenting is only a part...

[torn asunder]

from what i could tell, they didn't outlaw happy meals, they outlawed the toys that come with it, right? you can still get the meal itself, i think.

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

See you are just assuming that it is an absolute evil when really it is not. It has been said time and time again that the food we eat is not the only thing holding us back. Its a lack of many other things including an education system that has formed our kids into people that know about recycling and what is "green" and they also know how to scold people on their food choices and make political speeches based purely on party lines with no clear vision of individual issues...however they know very little when it comes to history, math, english, music, and physical education.

The food is bad when it is abused and that goes for EVERYTHING...even good things can be abused to the point of being bad.

Weak parenting is only a part...

you have a good point, and yes, this happy meal fiasco is only a small example of some of the stuff we do, like focusing on the green stuff (heh heh, i said green stuff) instead of math and history ect. Where does it all stem from? Lazy/weak parenting. I'm pretty sure that If the majority of parents would pull their heads out of their asses, they would realize some very very simple, yet critical facts.

They govern their child, not the other way around. They are NOT their kid's friend, older sibling, or their favorite TV program. They are the rulers, the one's responsible to set up the law to build an ordered environment of function that their kids can grow up healthy in. And that means saying "no" not be like, I see, you only wanted the toy.. instead just say no. "You can wait until we get home, this food is bad for you" (kid starts whining/talking back), scold them. Kids that young cannot understand order and logic like adults can, therefore it is a waste of time to explain it to them usually, sometimes you gotta say the thing you hated hearing most as a kid, "BECAUSE I SAID SO, THAT'S WHY!!!!" Any further protest should be met with a form of punishment, whether grounding or a spanking is your thing, whatever gets the kid to get right is the bottom line.

and 2, as their authority figure.. you have control of other things.. like their education. I won't even go into this if you don't already know, but if enough parents get together and say hey wtf, you're loosing focus on actual educational stuff like math, science, and history, and worrying too much about the things the PARENTS should be instructing. You're the parent, you teach your kid about life, the schools job isn't to be that, it's their job to teach them textbook facts. It's the PARENT'S responsability to teach healthy eating, the birds and the bees, right and wrong, and it's the parents job to make sure the child behaves. I really am sick of the child abuse laws.. because i'm someone that likes to fix a problem on the spot, if i got a 6 year old boy at the grocery store throwing a fit because I won't buy him a toy, I feel i got every right to take my belt off and turn his ass red right there on the spot. Will i beat his face? fuck no, that's abuse, there's a clear and obvious line between disciplining and abuse. Will i reward good behavior? you bet! He gets an A on a report card, he gets the damn toy he'll loose interest in after about 10 minutes of having it.

I don't mean to threadjack but I just wanted to cover a reply of what you said candyman, because what i meant wasn't limited to just unhealthy food for a toy incentive, it was a basic principal of weak parenting, and how fat kids are only one symptom that shows weak parenting.

[Nightgaunt]

Unfortunately, the irresponsible parents force government to do this kind of thing. Something has to be done....probably many somethings. Anybody have any suggestions?

My suggestion is that parents get their heads out of their asses and start parenting. If you are friends with or related to irresponsible parents, speak up. This is how communities are supposed to police themselves. We're all so scared of offending anyone or becoming involved that we keep to ourselves. A related story is the one about the homeless guy that saved a woman from a mugging, got stabbed, and was left to die on the street while people walked past him all day. Everyone's talking about the shameful apathy of New Yorkers, but the truth is that most of them were just scared of becoming involved, that they might somehow have been held responsible. If you see a kid getting punched around by his parent, say something. Maybe what they need is for someone to point out their bad behavior. If your nephew is four years old and weighs 100 pounds, maybe it's time to have a heart to heat with your sister. Irresponsible parents don't force the government to do this sort of thing; they give the government an excuse to do this sort of thing. Why, as a responsible parent who allows happy meals on an occasional basis, should I be prevented from purchasing a product to reward my child for exemplary behavior? Because some people are irresponsible, my choices are limited, my rights abridged? If "many somethings" need to be done, then it's your job to address it, and when I say "you", I mean, the community, the people, but most definitely not the government. A lot of adults eat unhealthily. Should the government regulate what I get to eat because of their bad choices? If we're truly so incompetent as a society at childrearing, then why not remove the children at birth and raise them in state-run facilities?

Oh, we shouldn't go that far, right? The government should only control us to the point where we feel safe and fuzzy and not have to be responsible on our own. I just do not get why people can't seem to understand that when you give government control over the little things, it sets a precedent for much bigger things down the road.

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

My suggestion is that parents get their heads out of their asses and start parenting. If you are friends with or related to irresponsible parents, speak up. This is how communities are supposed to police themselves. We're all so scared of offending anyone or becoming involved that we keep to ourselves. A related story is the one about the homeless guy that saved a woman from a mugging, got stabbed, and was left to die on the street while people walked past him all day. Everyone's talking about the shameful apathy of New Yorkers, but the truth is that most of them were just scared of becoming involved, that they might somehow have been held responsible. If you see a kid getting punched around by his parent, say something. Maybe what they need is for someone to point out their bad behavior. If your nephew is four years old and weighs 100 pounds, maybe it's time to have a heart to heat with your sister. Irresponsible parents don't force the government to do this sort of thing; they give the government an excuse to do this sort of thing. Why, as a responsible parent who allows happy meals on an occasional basis, should I be prevented from purchasing a product to reward my child for exemplary behavior? Because some people are irresponsible, my choices are limited, my rights abridged? If "many somethings" need to be done, then it's your job to address it, and when I say "you", I mean, the community, the people, but most definitely not the government. A lot of adults eat unhealthily. Should the government regulate what I get to eat because of their bad choices? If we're truly so incompetent as a society at childrearing, then why not remove the children at birth and raise them in state-run facilities?

Oh, we shouldn't go that far, right? The government should only control us to the point where we feel safe and fuzzy and not have to be responsible on our own. I just do not get why people can't seem to understand that when you give government control over the little things, it sets a precedent for much bigger things down the road.

+1 for this guy right here! Our generation/nation, however wich angle you want to look at it, has castrated it's self almost. Everyone is waaaay overly sensative about offending anyone. Trust me, if anyone I know in life is fucked up, I'll flat out tell em, "hey guy, you're fucked up, fix your shit" and yes, i expect the same respect back. School bullies had/have a purpose, they teach the rest of the kids to toughen up, get a thick skin, take the beatings of life with a grain of salt. Last I checked we're still on planet earth, and like every other species, survival of the fittest still applies. If someone is weak and can't take some constructive criticism, they don't deserve to have any responsability that involves being responsible for others.

[Destroit]

"You can wait until we get home, this food is bad for you" (kid starts whining/talking back), scold them. Kids that young cannot understand order and logic like adults can, therefore it is a waste of time to explain it to them usually, sometimes you gotta say the thing you hated hearing most as a kid, "BECAUSE I SAID SO, THAT'S WHY!!!!"

I agree with almost all of your post except this part. What makes you think kids can't understand logic? Don't you remember being a kid? Any kid over five deserves a better explanation than "Because I said so!" I've always considered "Because I said so!" the pinnacle of bad parenting because you're not giving the kid a good solid reason as to why they are doing wrong and don't understand what it is they did. There is no logic to the kid behind "Because I said so!" and will learn to take you and your rules (and in the future, rules in public such as at school, work, college, etc) non-seriously as you have not given them solid reason to.

That would be like getting yelled at on your job. When you ask why you're being yelled at your boss says "Because I said so!" Are you going to learn from your mistakes from that statement? I think not. But if your boss says "Well you've been late a lot" THAT is a reason and something that can corrected by the employee.

I agree with almost all of your post except this part. What makes you think kids can't understand logic? Don't you remember being a kid? Any kid over five deserves a better explanation than "Because I said so!" I've always considered "Because I said so!" the pinnacle of bad parenting because you're not giving the kid a good solid reason as to why they are doing wrong and don't understand what it is they did. There is no logic to the kid behind "Because I said so!" and will learn to take you and your rules (and in the future, rules in public such as at school, work, college, etc) non-seriously as you have not given them solid reason to.

That would be like getting yelled at on your job. When you ask why you're being yelled at your boss says "Because I said so!" Are you going to learn from your mistakes from that statement? I think not. But if your boss says "Well you've been late a lot" THAT is a reason and something that can corrected by the employee.

[Destroit]

It was a basic principal of weak parenting, and how fat kids are only one symptom that shows weak parenting.

Yeap. That's how I gauge whether or not a parent has control over their kid or if they LET their kid control them. That's why I was pushing for the fact that they were thinking of considering it child abuse if your kid is obese and there is no legitimate underlying medical cause for it. Still very much for it. If fat adults generally (note: generalization, there's always exceptions) indicate weak self control then fat kids signify weak parental control.

Yeap. That's how I gauge whether or not a parent has control over their kid or if they LET their kid control them. That's why I was pushing for the fact that they were thinking of considering it child abuse if your kid is obese and there is no legitimate underlying medical cause for it. Still very much for it. If fat adults generally (note: generalization, there's always exceptions) indicate weak self control then fat kids signify weak parental control.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Chernobyl

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

I agree with almost all of your post except this part. What makes you think kids can't understand logic? Don't you remember being a kid? Any kid over five deserves a better explanation than "Because I said so!" I've always considered "Because I said so!" the pinnacle of bad parenting because you're not giving the kid a good solid reason as to why they are doing wrong and don't understand what it is they did. There is no logic to the kid behind "Because I said so!" and will learn to take you and your rules (and in the future, rules in public such as at school, work, college, etc) non-seriously as you have not given them solid reason to.

That would be like getting yelled at on your job. When you ask why you're being yelled at your boss says "Because I said so!" Are you going to learn from your mistakes from that statement? I think not. But if your boss says "Well you've been late a lot" THAT is a reason and something that can corrected by the employee.

hm i see what you're saying. I'll clarify. It's not like I'm telling the child as the first reason for it. That's just if he keeps arguing and protesting. yes, you do want to let them know where they went wrong, and what they should do, but when they don't listen, then it's time to just say those words because that ENFORCES YOU ARE THE AUTHORITY FIGURE, and that challenging your authority is futile. Don't loose your temper while doing it, just when they get mouthy, be like, i told you why you can't do/have this, deal with it. It should be obvious when they are really asking why as in wanting to understand why, or just challenging your authority

[Destroit]

My suggestion is that parents get their heads out of their asses and start parenting. If you are friends with or related to irresponsible parents, speak up. This is how communities are supposed to police themselves. We're all so scared of offending anyone or becoming involved that we keep to ourselves. A related story is the one about the homeless guy that saved a woman from a mugging, got stabbed, and was left to die on the street while people walked past him all day. Everyone's talking about the shameful apathy of New Yorkers, but the truth is that most of them were just scared of becoming involved, that they might somehow have been held responsible. If you see a kid getting punched around by his parent, say something. Maybe what they need is for someone to point out their bad behavior. If your nephew is four years old and weighs 100 pounds, maybe it's time to have a heart to heat with your sister. Irresponsible parents don't force the government to do this sort of thing; they give the government an excuse to do this sort of thing. Why, as a responsible parent who allows happy meals on an occasional basis, should I be prevented from purchasing a product to reward my child for exemplary behavior? Because some people are irresponsible, my choices are limited, my rights abridged? If "many somethings" need to be done, then it's your job to address it, and when I say "you", I mean, the community, the people, but most definitely not the government. A lot of adults eat unhealthily. Should the government regulate what I get to eat because of their bad choices? If we're truly so incompetent as a society at childrearing, then why not remove the children at birth and raise them in state-run facilities?

Oh, we shouldn't go that far, right? The government should only control us to the point where we feel safe and fuzzy and not have to be responsible on our own. I just do not get why people can't seem to understand that when you give government control over the little things, it sets a precedent for much bigger things down the road.

:

[freydis]

From Monitor on Psychology

Article:

Some psychologists cry foul as peers help advertisers target young consumers.

BY REBECCA A. CLAY

Ever since he first started practicing, Berkeley, Calif., psychologist Allen D. Kanner, PhD, has been asking his younger clients what they wanted to do when they grew up. The answer used to be "nurse," "astronaut" or some other occupation with intrinsic appeal.

Today the answer is more likely to be "make money." For Kanner, one explanation for that shift can be found in advertising.

"Advertising is a massive, multi-million dollar project that's having an enormous impact on child development," says Kanner, who is also an associate faculty member at a clinical psychology training program called the Wright Institute. "The sheer volume of advertising is growing rapidly and invading new areas of childhood, like our schools."

According to Kanner, the result is not only an epidemic of materialistic values among children, but also something he calls "narcissistic wounding" of children. Thanks to advertising, he says, children have become convinced that they're inferior if they don't have an endless array of new products.

Now Kanner and several colleagues are up-in-arms about psychologists and others who are using psychological knowledge to help marketers target children more effectively. They're outraged that psychologists and others are revealing such tidbits as why 3- to 7-year-olds gravitate toward toys that transform themselves into something else and why 8- to 12-year-olds love to collect things. Last fall, Kanner and a group of 59 other psychologists and psychiatrists sent a controversial letter protesting

psychologists' involvement to APA.

In response, at its June meeting, APA's Board of Directors acted on a recommendation from the Board for the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest and approved the creation of a task force to study the issue. The task force will examine the research on advertising's impact on children and their families and develop a research agenda. The group will look at the role psychologists play in what some consider the exploitation of children and consider how psychology can help minimize advertising's harmful effects and maximize its positive effects.

The group will also explore implications for public policy. Task force members will be chosen in consultation with Div. 37 (Child, Youth and Family Services) and other relevant divisions.

Unethical practices?

The letter protesting psychologists' involvement in children's advertising was written by Commercial Alert, a Washington, D.C., advocacy organization. The letter calls marketing to children a violation of APA's mission of mitigating human suffering, improving the condition of both individuals and society, and helping the public develop informed judgments.

Urging APA to challenge what it calls an "abuse of psychological knowledge," the letter asks APA to:

*

Issue a formal, public statement denouncing the use of psychological principles in marketing to children.

*

Amend APA's Ethics Code to limit psychologists' use of their knowledge and skills to observe, study, mislead or exploit children for commercial purposes.

*

Launch an ongoing campaign to investigate the use of psychological research in marketing to children, publish an evaluation of the ethics of such use, and promote strategies to protect children against commercial exploitation by psychologists and others using psychological principles.

"The information psychologists are giving to advertisers is being used to increase profits rather than help children," says Kanner, who helped collect signatures for the letter. "The whole enterprise of advertising is about creating insecure people who believe they need to buy things to be happy. I don't think most psychologists would believe that's a good thing. There's an inherent conflict of interest."

Advertisers' efforts seem to work. According to marketing expert James U. McNeal, PhD, author of "The Kids Market: Myths and Realities" (Paramount Market Publishing, 1999), children under 12 already spend a whopping $28 billion a year. Teen-agers spend $100 billion. Children also influence another $249 billion spent by their parents.

The effect this rampant consumerism has on children is still unknown, says Kanner. In an informal literature review, he found many studies about how to make effective ads but not a single study addressing ads' impact on children. Instead, he points to research done by Tim Kasser, PhD, an assistant professor of psychology at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill. In a series of studies, Kasser has found that people who strongly value wealth and related traits tend to have higher levels of distress and lower levels of well-being, worse relationships and less connection to their communities.

"Psychologists who help advertisers are essentially helping them manipulate children to believe in the capitalistic message, when all the evidence shows that believing in that message is bad for people," says Kasser. "That's unethical."

Driving out psychologists

Psychologists who help companies reach children don't agree. Take Whiton S. Paine, PhD, an assistant professor of business studies at Richard Stockton College in Pomona, N.J. As principal of a Philadelphia consulting firm called Kid2Kid, Paine helps Fortune 500 companies market to children.

Paine has no problem with launching a dialogue about psychologists' ethical responsibilities or creating standards similar to ones used in Canada and Europe to protect children from commercial exploitation. Such activities will actually help his business, he says, by giving him leverage when clients want to do something that would inadvertently harm children. What Paine does have a problem with is driving psychologists out of the business.

"If you remove ethical psychologists from the decision-making process in an ad's creation, who's left?" he asks. "People who have a lot less sensitivity to the unique vulnerabilities of children."

Others who have read the proposal point out that psychological principles are hardly confidential.

"We can't stop alcohol or tobacco companies from using the basic research findings and theories found in textbooks and academic journals," says Curtis P. Haugtvedt, PhD, immediate past president of Div. 23 (Consumer Psychology) and an associate professor of marketing at Ohio State University in Columbus. "The same issue exists for all sciences: the information is available in public libraries."

The problem with trying to regulate the use of psychological principles is that "people acting in ways psychologists find objectionable probably aren't members of APA anyway," says Haugtvedt, who received a copy of the Commercial Alert letter. He believes that having general guidelines as to appropriate uses and areas of concern would be beneficial to all parties.

Daniel S. Acuff, PhD, for example, draws on the child development courses he took during his graduate schooling in education to advise such clients as Disney, Hasbro and Kraft. His book "What Kids Buy and Why: The Psychology of Marketing to Kids" (Free Press, 1997) draws on child development research to show product developers and marketers how to reach children more effectively.

To Acuff, the letter to APA is not only an "unconstitutional" attempt to limit how professionals make their living but also a misguided overgeneralization.

Since Acuff and his partner started their business in 1979, they have had a policy guiding their choice of projects. As a result, they turn down assignments dealing with violent video games, action figures armed with weapons and other products they believe are bad for children. Their work focuses instead on products that they consider either good for children or neutral, such as snacks and sugary foods parents can use as special treats. The letter to APA fails to acknowledge that psychological principles can be used for good as well as bad, he says.

"I don't agree with black-and-white thinking," says Acuff, president of Youth Market Systems Consulting in Sherman Oaks, Calif. "Psychology in itself is neither good nor bad. It's just a tool like anything else."

Rebecca A. Clay is a writer in Washington, D.C.

Additional links:

Marketing to Children

APA Task force report on marketing to children

Press release breif version of APA report

Edited April 29, 2010 by freydis

[Glory13666]

Wouldn't it be so awesome if everyone was just responsible and controlled their own behavior all on their own?? We wouldn't need any laws at all! That is what I vote for.

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

I vote for an idiot removal law. It would be chaos at first, since we grew weak and felt that survival of the fittest no longer applies to us.. yeah things will get bloody but.. a law that dictates if you see someone doing some seriously stupid shit (there will be a public list of worthy stupid offences), you get to shoot em dead. (obviously i'm trolling here, so don't take it seriously people!)

[Msterbeau]

Wouldn't it be so awesome if everyone was just responsible and controlled their own behavior all on their own?? We wouldn't need any laws at all! That is what I vote for.

Sadly, not all humans are created equal. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses and different ways of processing. Some people can barely function. Some can't. We will always have to deal with that on some level.

[Msterbeau]

From Monitor on Psychology

Article:

Additional links:

Marketing to Children

APA Task force report on marketing to children

Press release breif version of APA report

This reminds me of an old Minutemen song:

"Shit from an Old Notebook"

Let the products sell themselves.

Fuck advertising, commercial psychology,

Psychological methods to sell should be destroyed.

Because of their own blind involvement in their own conditioned minds...

The unit bonded together... morals, ideals, awareness, progress...

Let yourself be heard!

[Glory13666]

Sadly, not all humans are created equal. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses and different ways of processing. Some people can barely function. Some can't. We will always have to deal with that on some level.

Yeah, I know and for the most part people are good. There's just a few bad ones and the good ones that just plain make mistakes. God knows I'm guilty of doing stupid shit.

[taysteewonderbunny]

from what i could tell, they didn't outlaw happy meals, they outlawed the toys that come with it, right? you can still get the meal itself, i think.

Which is lame. You can always get the toy without the meal, if that's the issue. I've been doing that for years. How else am I going to pimp my ride?

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Its a subtle, complicated point, easily turned into a straw-man. But, its a serious point to ponder only easily dismissed if one refuses to research the actual details and instead rely on gut-reaction ideology and declare we know best without doing any homework. Not that I know what the right answer is, but it is not simple as we would like.

Ideology that we all share (it should be our choice) does not seem to be borne out by the research, in that it is not just a simple matter of "a choice." in many cases. I'm also not advocating more of this kind of stuff (or even agreeing with it) but it is a more complicated question than just what our gut-instinct ideology tells us.

If we assume that the government has the right to restrict deadly things as "illegal", I don't mean the happy meal , i just mean that principle. Is it within the rights of good government to cut our access (or remove it) from deadly substances? If so how much? We live in what is termed a "toxic food environment" and after so many hours of unabashed onslaught all but the most dogged people will succumb to death-by-food without "wanting" it in the traditional sense. The mass media pressure to eat like a pig from cradle to grave cannot hope to be overturned by the paltry number of adults that survive and educate themselves about proper nutrition (and are serious enough to pass it on to their children) its a MASSIVE undertaking to re-train people to eat properly after being constantly trained by the food industry to eat poorly. Personal choice is not as absolute as we might like to belive. We are products in many ways of our culture, like it or not its just reality.

Everyone reading this I'm sure is smart enough and "strong" enough to make their own choices, but masses of humanity just going about their daily lives are not, and will not become good eaters by sheer-willpower and will die early and their children will die early due to being educated by the food industry. The parents were once kids as well, and they too are generally uneducated or unable to overcome the same pressures.

I'm all for near anarchic levels of personal freedom, but given that most of us are not, and despite rhetoric most vote with their votes not with their rhetoric, society as a whole has long shown a preference for safety over freedom, real or perceived, unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately depending on perspective).

Again try not to turn this into a straw man and read up on how this actually plays out , its not a simple "rights of man" type thing in the way it might seem on the surface.