By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Should teenagers and children determine what they eat for lunch?

Yeah the brainwashing argument can be applied to any situation.

For example what if i said "the fitness gurues have brainwashed you into thinking that only salad's and intense daily exercise will leave you fit and healthy and that life is not worth living if you're overweight"

See that argument i just made was the same but contributes nothing to the discussion.



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

Around the Network

Look what one incredibly successful industry has done to the population.
Fat kids with sugar control problems and a rising diabetes rate.

Anyway, I agree with Rondo that there are better options. The problem is that they're trying to cut costs, but what they really need to do is fix funding.



Soda and junk food are full of sugar, preservatives, salt and/or fat that leads to health and behavioral problems. Banning junk food in schools would be a responsible thing to do. The government authorities need to step in and make hard decisions in the best interests of the children and prevent future blow outs in health costs. Clearly parents are to blame for allowing their children to become over weight and obese by allowing their kids to have 24/7 access to junk food. 

Either ban junk food in schools or restrict advertising of junk food aimed at brainwashing people into buying junk food or implement a junk food tax or control what is allowed in school canteens.  Children can not make responsible food choices and their parents are to blame for pandering to the whims of their children. The percentage of overweight people in America and Europe stands at around 50% of the population.



the2real4mafol said:

Advertising like this don't help either


What? You guys don't have a fourth meal in your country? Don't you guys wake everyday at 3 AM to refill your stomach, like normal people? 

I personally think the four-meal system is perfect. I think that's because humans think in fours. It's the perfect plan though. Eat a meal every six hours. A nice, fixed, stable lifestyle. I sometimes have a few snacks in-between meals though, just in case my stomach isn't full.



silicon said:
This is the trouble with humanity. It doesn't really matter what the issue is, the human body is susceptible to addiction and brainwashing. It's also the human condition to justify your actions. You can be brainwashed by a fast food company and think you're actually practising free will when you choose to eat at one.

What happens in a society that says "freedom" and exalts this mindset, when they collective jump the shark together into collective stupid behavior?  America has an obesity epidemic, and you see people here speaking about how government busybodies shouldn't jump in and should leave everyone alone.  Not saying the government can't compound problems, but there is this belief that if you have no government (outside of maybe punishing direct violence only) that everything would be just peachy.



Around the Network
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Here is an article on The American Conservative website that discusses the politics of food that I believe is of value to this thread:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/porky-populism/


It sorta seems to TOTALLY miss the point that it itself misses.

Which is unhealth eating doesn't have ANYTHING to do with regualtions, food deserts(mostly fictional) or whatever else big reasons people give.

In fact, regulations to make people eat healthy are going to do the opposite and make them eat worse.

The problem is government always tried to play the heavy, even with social issues.

 

Social issues pretty much can never be solved by a heavy handed approach and are often accidentally made worse by such an approach.


Besides a lot of the barriers to eating healthy are CAUSED by government.  Like big corn subsidies and the mountains of regulations that choke out local growers.

Did you even bother to read the article I posted?  I said it connects to the discussion here.   These barriers may be an issue, but it doesn't exclude cultural stupidity.  A basic conservative view is that values do matter, and ideas do have consequences, and collectively turning a blind eye to these, means a society will collectively suffer.  Social conservatives and traditionalists hold this to be valid, and the article does speak to it.

Yes.  I did.  It blamed such stupiditiy on people being against such laws.

Which is stupid.  Sociologically such laws are actually what end up entrenching such kind of beliefs harder.

If you study society anyway.

The question is.... how does one change culture.

In general such laws and mandates are a huge barrier to changing such culture.

As such you end up with things like kids not eating, and creating a culture where people look down on eating healthy.

You've got to ask why this mindset formed in people... and it's something maybe i'll get into when i have more time.



Ok then... why is there a culture of unhealthy eating? 

It's got nothing to do with conservative commentators, they're just responding to a sentiment that's already there.  That's all they ever do.   

It's not even REALLY a liberal vs conservative issue if you look at the numbers.

It's due to how eating healthy is preceived, due to well, how people who want people to eat health preceive it.

 

1) First off, starting with school lunches.  That's a big mistake that reinforces bad eating behaviors.   Why?   Your essentially challenging peoples parenting.  Hence the huge backlash everywhere.   Not to mention, you aren't actually doing the kids any good.  Best case scenario is they eat one good meal and 10 unhealthy ones.   The goal should be to convince people to eat healthier NOT.  The heavy handed approach tends to slow progress.  Instead of promoting a healthy culture of eating what you get is laws that are basically federally mandating a level for people to be unhealthy at, and essentially making that the default level people want to be at because the laws don't actually change peoples opinions, but instead cost them money or force them to do stuff.

 

2) Eating healthy is perceived as "white".  Seriously.  One of the reasons for obesity increasing is that there are less white people as a percentage and healthy eating is seen as white... there is larger obesity rates among minorities.  

I know your first thought... "Minorties are poorer, therefore they are fatter!"

However, the huge mindfuck here is that if your black or hispanic, obesity positivly correlates with wealth.  In other words... the richer you are....   The more likely you are to be obese.

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

Why is healthy eating so "White." 

Just look at your average healthy eating spokesman.  Also, look at the foods they suggest.  What people are used to eating is cultural.  It's fairly easy to convince people to swap out unhealthy food for healthy alternatives of the same food.

It's not so easy to convicne people to swap out unhealthy foods for completely foreign foods.

Outside that, you've got the whole body myth and bueaty myth thing working agaisnt you.

Government intervention surely doesn't help either as making it seem like a white initative, even when the President is black.

 

3)   "The better is the enemy of the good."

Most peple who expouse healthy eating more or less create a false dichotomy that essentially presents the argument that if you aren't eating organic botique foods it doesn't count.   This article actually does that, by implicitly suggesting that if you aren't shopping at whole foods, your eating crap.  If you take your kids to McDonalds once, you may as well be committing child abuse.

When it's perfectly possible to eat healthy for cheap, out of a regular supermarket.   Cheaper then eating crap actually.  Due to this generally being the sentiment of healthy eating it's no wonder that poor people only look at eating healthy as a  "rich" thing only rich people can afford.  Nobody focuses on healthy eating, or for that matter, an unhealathy/healthy eating combination plan that focuses on moderation of the unhealthy.

 

4)  "More flies with honey."

A lot of people are well... dicks about healthy eating.  Jamie Oliver was partially run out because, being TV, he made all kinds of grandiose statements that true or not really isn't going to get public sentiment behind you.

Someone coming out of nowhere saying "Your kids will die thanks to your inept parenting!"  isn't the best lead in.... even if that is the case.  Let alone he picked the fatest city in the country.  You think people might be defensive there?

in culture wars, you start on the outside and move in... you don't go to the heart of the culutre issue you want to change and try and change it there.  You take out the corners and slowly shift opinion away weaking "strongholds."

 

5) Cultural diets.  Much like it being "white" above.  Southern people are fat, because they eat southern foods.  Which culturally have always been bad for you.

 

6) Unhealthy food tastes better.  It just does.  It doesn't have anything to do with "learned helplessness."   At the end of the day, for most people, junk food beats pretty much anything you can do with healthy food.

Until people value health over enjoyment, this kind of problem will persisit.

 



richardhutnik said:
SamuelRSmith said:
The real question is: should the wife of a man who was elected by 30% of the population, be able to tell 100% of the population what their kids eat?

And you also support direct Democracy to, right?  

If you want to argue for populism, and the majority dictating things, it is not best to do it off the basis of a population facing an obesity epidemic.  Well, unless you feel obesity is a good choice.

I don't support populism... you know that.

I couldn't give a flying fuck if 99% of the population voted for Obama, he (or better yet, his wife) still doesn't have the moral right to dictate people's diet.

Point it, 1 person shouldn't be making decisions for, what, 310 million people? Leave it to the schools, or the parents.



richardhutnik said:
Kantor said:

You prefer the idea of a lawyer with no scientific background dictating things to said majority?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/snacks-usdas-solution-healthy-school-lunch-protests/story?id=17324285#.UGULLpjO3h8

If you want to get cute, then it would be the first lady vs high schoolers.  So, no, you want high schoolers to be able to FULLY to be able to dictate completely where tax dollars go for their food.  You want them to vote on this.  Either you believe they will make wiser choices or that the guidelines are stupid.

Reality is that the USDA's plan includes more vegetables, complext carbs and less junk food.  That is the meal proposal and 750-850 calories for lunch, and the ability for kids to go back for seconds on fruits and vegetables.  And it is based on the advice of nutritionists who are experts in the area.  But you don't believe in nutritionist guidelines apparently.  So, so much for your arguing about scientific background.  You seriously should look into what is behind here, rather than bite into the first line you find convenient.

I was being facetious, of course. I am not claiming that fruit and vegetables are somehow bad for you.

Of course children should be eating healthy food, and should undoubtedly have the option to eat healthy food. Elementary and middle schoolers, honestly, should even be forced to eat healthy food because they're really not mature enough to live with the consequences of their actions.

By the age of 14, somebody should really be able to make that decision for themselves.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Jay520 said:
the2real4mafol said:

Advertising like this don't help either


What? You guys don't have a fourth meal in your country? Don't you guys wake everyday at 3 AM to refill your stomach, like normal people? 

I personally think the four-meal system is perfect. I think that's because humans think in fours. It's the perfect plan though. Eat a meal every six hours. A nice, fixed, stable lifestyle. I sometimes have a few snacks in-between meals though, just in case my stomach isn't full.

We have takeaways like pizzas, kebabs, chinese, indians etc. (that are open in the night on Friday and Saturday). Taco Bell's simply don't exist in the UK. And who the hell, goes to a fast food place in the middle of the night? You are supposed to sleep then! Plus the idea of the fourth meal in what is already a obese country is just stupid, it's only good for the few up at that time (not many), it would not be so bad, if exercise was common in the states.



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018