4 ms·
Because if you don't start throwing advertising at them when they're children, they'll be less susceptible to it when their brains mature? (I wish I could say
by rosser 13y ago
Because if you don't start throwing advertising at them when they're children, they'll be less susceptible to it when their brains mature?
(I wish I could say I was wholly joking...)
- nsxwolf 13y agoShould we use the law to stop everything we consider a bad influence on our children? I guess this talk of regulating food advertising proves it isn't just the right that makes "won't somebody think of the children" arguments.
- rosser 13y agoTo my mind, there are "think of the children" arguments, and there are "think of the children" arguments. One uses "think of the children" as an excuse to enact broader control over society. Witness kiddie porn being the argument against P2P and PGP, or trying to censor "satanic" or sexually explicit lyrics, or any of a litany of other such nonsense claims. The other uses it to remind people that this shit actually, you know, affects the children.
- visural 13y agoIt's also worth bearing in mind the needs of the many, vs. the needs of the few. With the kiddie porn issues, generally the number of children being talked about is a very small minority of the total, and usually the issue under discussion has only indirect possibility of helping those children. However advertisement of poor food choices to children is something almost all children are subjected to on a daily basis, therefore when discussing regulation we can see that the majority of children will be beneficiaries.