Home of the Muppet Imperial Moderator Corps

I don't know what to think about this:

Parents purposely giving their kids fast food?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/16/nmeals16.xml

"The reason we have done this is because our kids are being served up disgusting, overpriced rubbish by the school and are not allowed out at lunchtimes to buy something they can enjoy."

The problem is the fast good generation grew up and had kids!
Permalink Send private email Wayne (AHA) 
September 18th, 2006 11:46am
> lunchtimes to buy something they can enjoy

Fucking moron parents. Enjoyment from lunch during school is definitely the fight to take up.
Permalink son of parnas 
September 18th, 2006 11:48am
I was reading the five live forums last night and a bunch of northers had hijacked the thread saying healtyhy eating was a middle class fad and their kids should eat fast food as and when they please. Arg pure fucking ignorance.
Permalink what are you reading for? 
September 18th, 2006 11:56am
I think that to some extent the parents are probably within their rights to do this.  I also think the parents are fools.

But I have gone to some schools where the provided lunches were really terrible.  I spent about a month at the school my mom went to when she was a kid and those lunches were pretty attrocious.  And mind you this is coming from somebody who defines food as "slower than me."
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
September 18th, 2006 12:01pm
Parents have the right to give their own kids whatever they want, I'm not sure they have the right to take orders from other people's kids and buy them fast food.
Permalink the great purple 
September 18th, 2006 12:14pm
> Parents have the right to give their own kids whatever they want,

Would we say they have the right to fire 45s into their brain? That's what raising kids on junkfood is doing. They face a bleak future of diabetes and heart disease.
Permalink son of parnas 
September 18th, 2006 1:15pm
Depends on the band.
Permalink Scott 
September 18th, 2006 1:27pm
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the band is Led Zepplin.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
September 18th, 2006 1:29pm
Any parent that hasn't exposed their children to the classics of 60s and 70s rock should have their children taken away by the state.
Permalink cyc 
September 18th, 2006 1:34pm
LZ?  Hell yeah.  They'll probably think it's shit, but at least they'll get to hear what music is meant to sound like.
Permalink Scott 
September 18th, 2006 1:40pm
it's fucking stupid, but don't get it out of proportion. we live in amazing times that so mant people get the choice. And a fair percentage of those kids will probably become flaming east coast macrobiotic long haired liberals, just to piss off their dumb ass parents.
Permalink $-- 
September 18th, 2006 1:50pm
> . And a fair percentage of those kids will probably become flaming east coast macrobiotic long haired liberals

Unfortunately the damage will be done. You can't undo this damage.
Permalink son of parnas 
September 18th, 2006 1:52pm
I disagree.  Most of them will grow up to be proud semi-retarded members of society, just like their parents.  And good on 'em.
Permalink Scott 
September 18th, 2006 1:57pm
There's damage, but arguably there are plenty of parenting techniques that cause damage in some form or another that we allow.  The larger point, that parents do not get to do whatever they want to their kids, is taken.  But the specific point about fast food?  I just don't think that feeding your kids junk food is the same thing as shooting them in the head.
Permalink the great purple 
September 18th, 2006 1:58pm
You might want to worry about this less SoP and just groove to the Led Zepplin.  Maybe the school lunches are terrible there--I mean, we are talking about English cooking, not known for its greatness.  It's also possible that we're talking about parents of children who are chronic non-eaters, like my on step-daughter.

It's also possible the kids will grow up to have heart disease and be morbidly obese.  But a) you can't predict that right now and b) it's not immediately endangering the welfare of the children.  Yes, there are long term consequences, but there are serious long term consequences to lots of things, like dozing off in math class every day or driving/riding the bus everywhere instead of walking or biking.

Rest assured, even if the kids do wind up eating a healthy diet, they're kids and they'll find some way to screw up their lives.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
September 18th, 2006 2:00pm
> but arguably there are plenty of parenting

This health consquences aren't arguable. So argue about all the other stuff all you want.


> I just don't think that feeding your kids junk food is the same thing as shooting them in the head.

Think of it a very slow bullet that drills in slowly and explodes between the ages of 35-50.
Permalink son of parnas 
September 18th, 2006 2:02pm
> you can't predict that right now

We certainly can. That's the nature of science.

> it's not immediately endangering the welfare of the children

How does that matter? Or does it just make it easier for you rationalize doing nothing?

> there are serious long term consequences to lots of things,

The form of argument that goes "there's no reason to do anything about X because we don't do anything about Y" is really moving.

> like dozing off in math class every

I see statistics all the time how this increases your chance of dying by the time you are 50. Apparently you were raised on a lot of junk food too.

> they're kids and they'll find some way to screw up their lives.

But it will be their choice.
Permalink son of parnas 
September 18th, 2006 2:06pm
"But it will be their choice"

And they made it.  They eat the junk food.
Permalink Scott 
September 18th, 2006 2:10pm
Sop : really? that happens for *everyone* that eats too much fast food? (the "slow bullet" thing)

it's new on me, but if you say so ...
Permalink  
September 18th, 2006 2:11pm
> And they made it.  They eat the junk food.

And they would also choose to never go to school, to have sex at 12, and a lot of other choices that they are not mature enough yet to make. That's why they aren't adults.
Permalink son of parnas 
September 18th, 2006 2:12pm
> really? that happens for *everyone* that eats too much fast food? (the "slow bullet" thing)

It's a population inference. Just like if you shoot someone not everyone will die, but that doesn't make it ok.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20388516-24331,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3429999.stm
Permalink son of parnas 
September 18th, 2006 2:15pm
um, yeah. I mean, sometimes the bullet will miss, or only maim but not cause a fatal injury, right?

So I guess it's a really apt comparison.
Permalink $-- 
September 18th, 2006 2:22pm
Hmmm, I'm not sure what the two links proved?

"And they would also choose to never go to school,"

I disagree, some do repeated, but usually because of other problems - bullying etc, but most realise (even if they dont admit it until they're older) that it isn't as much fun, wandering around on your own.

"to have sex at 12,"

Again I disagree, ALL 12 year old children (in the UK at least) know how to have sex, and in a hell of a lot more detail than we did when we were kids.  And again, some do, but most make the decision not to.

"and a lot of other choices that they are not mature enough yet to make. That's why they aren't adults."

So kids are mature enough to be taught about healthy eating, sex (since you pointed it out), but they're not mature enough to make a decision on it?  If the argument against something is just drugs are bad mkay then it isn't an argument.
Permalink Scott 
September 18th, 2006 2:34pm
"So kids are mature enough to be taught about healthy eating, sex (since you pointed it out), but they're not mature enough to make a decision on it?"

exactly.  thats why we dont call them 'adults', have laws about statutory rape and dont let them chose their own diets.

the point is that they are children and therefore just plain aren't smart enough to understand the full consequences of their actions.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
September 18th, 2006 2:39pm
Bah, kids should be able to eat whatever they want.

I don't so much know that the women should be giving food to other kids without the parents knowledge.

But I know I would be damned if I would let any institution try to tell me what my kids were having for lunch.

To hell with your ignorant ranting and raving about health issues. You've seen that super sized bologna of a documentary one too many times.

I have eaten more than my share of "fast food" and I am only 185pds at 5'11". Slightly out of shape, sure, but that's far more to do with a lack of anything but the most trivial physical exertion aside from sex than it is about what I eat.

Screw the school, and screw anyone who thinks institutions should have any right whatsoever to dictate how anyone raises their kids. Half of you lazy assed morons just want the institutions to raise your kids in such a way that only the institutional mindset weighs on your children. Piss on ya, I think.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
September 18th, 2006 2:49pm
"exactly.  thats why we dont call them 'adults', have laws about statutory rape and dont let them chose their own diets."

In school they do get to choose their diet, since there is a menu.  And they can choose their own diet at home by saying I'm not eating that, then going hungry and perhaps ill.  Are you going to force-feed them?  Let them starve?

On the rape side, it depends on the law.  I personally don't think two (sex educated) 12 year olds having sex is rape.  Misguided yes.

"the point is that they are children and therefore just plain aren't smart enough to understand the full consequences of their actions."

Ok, I'm talking about 12 year olds here, which was the age previously mentioned (plus it was the minimum age I assumed from the original article).  These are children but they are -not stupid-.  They DO understand the consequences, and if they don't it's because they're badly educated.
Permalink Scott 
September 18th, 2006 2:57pm
"These are children but they are -not stupid-.  They DO understand the consequences, and if they don't it's because they're badly educated."

That's such bullshit.  Children don't just spring to life being full educated and fully able to understand the consequences of their actions.  They need to learn.  You can't claim that all 12 year olds that don't have your adult sensabilities are badly educated... they aren't done being educated.

All 12 year old's are stupid...  that's why we call them children.
Permalink Send private email Wayne (AHA) 
September 18th, 2006 3:03pm
Forced feeding is bad for the soul. It's not a surprise people -- kids, too -- vote with the soles of their feet.
Permalink Send private email just me 
September 18th, 2006 3:06pm
dunno. Mine seem to mostly get things by understanding consequences, if you take time to explain properly. Over the age of about 5 anyhow - before that sometimes it just doesn't work.
Permalink $-- 
September 18th, 2006 3:08pm
"You can't claim that all 12 year olds that don't have your adult sensabilities are badly educated"

So... It would be a stretch to say if they don't know that too much crap food is bad for you, or that sex is where babies and STDs come from, that they are either horribly slow or have been extricated and sheltered from the real world to a rather unbelievable degree?
Permalink Send private email JoC 
September 18th, 2006 3:10pm
My elementary school was near a fast food restaurant. I had a note that allowed me to go there to get lunch every day. I know what the school was serving and I know what the fast food restaurant was serving. The fact is that what I was eating was healthier. Now, of course you can also eat badly at a fast food restaurant as well. But I think it's a big mistake to assume the school is serving healthy food unless you are keeping a close eye on them.
Permalink John Smith 
September 18th, 2006 3:10pm
"So... It would be a stretch to say if they don't know that too much crap food is bad for you, or that sex is where babies and STDs come from, that they are either horribly slow or have been extricated and sheltered from the real world to a rather unbelievable degree?"

Not quite sure of your point, but why *shouldn't* they know those things at 12?
Permalink $-- 
September 18th, 2006 3:12pm
"It would be a stretch to say if they don't know that too much crap food is bad for you"

What 12 year is going to CARE that crap food is bad for them?  You can tell them that, but what does that mean to them?  Nothing.  Sex, same deal.  Oh yeah, you'll have a baby.  Does that mean they have any idea?  Surely not.

If children truely understood the consequences of eating poorly, having sex, drugs, and so on then they wouldn't do it.  Hell, most adults don't understand the consequences.
Permalink Send private email Wayne (AHA) 
September 18th, 2006 3:17pm
Well, Wayne seems to be saying that they aren't badly educated, they still have those things to learn, as if they can't possibly be expected to make any reasonable distinction between right and wrong in those matters.

I am saying such an idea does not reflect reality.

The instinctual ever-protectionist kills life a little bit more every day.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
September 18th, 2006 3:20pm
"That's such bullshit.  Children don't just spring to life being full educated and fully able to understand the consequences of their actions.  They need to learn."

Right.  So all the learning they do up to 12 (or your arbitary 'adult' age) is worthless?  Don't you remember being a child?  EVERY day something new was learned, from 1+1=2 to how not to fall out of a tree.  Are you suggesting a 12 year-old can't understand fatty food+no exercise=fatty person?

"You can't claim that all 12 year olds that don't have your adult sensabilities are badly educated... they aren't done being educated."

Nope you're right, but you're talking about two things here.  If they have no education on a subject they're uneducated, but if they have been taught enough about a subject to act on it without understanding consequences, then yep, they're badly educated.

"All 12 year old's are stupid...  that's why we call them children."

No, you call them children because you're socially trained to do so.

And fuck, THEY ARE NOT STUPID!  They may lack knowledge, but they are not stupid.
Permalink Scott 
September 18th, 2006 3:21pm
"Hell, most adults don't understand the consequences."

Ahh, that explains it. This is where you are vastly mistaken. Human beings are naturally self-sabotaging. It is only to what degree. The consequences are a very insignificant factor in the choices everybody makes whether they are children or adults.

How else can you explain Bush? CCTV big brother monitoring? Drug addictions with ancestry where the addictions didn't start until well after reproduction? And... Disco?
Permalink Send private email JoC 
September 18th, 2006 3:25pm
"And fuck, THEY ARE NOT STUPID!  They may lack knowledge, but they are not stupid."

Wrong.  You're right about one thing: at 12, kids have a lot of knowledge.  But they are still hopelessly stupid.  They disregard lots of what they've been taught all the time.  Don't tell me you never did anything stupid as a kid?  I did a ton of monumentally stupid things as a kid and it wasn't from lack of knowledge. 

Their brains aren't even fully formed.  They don't think about the future only the present.  No amount of education will change that.  It's what 12 year olds do.

"Are you suggesting a 12 year-old can't understand fatty food+no exercise=fatty person?"

No, that's not what I'm suggesting.  I'm suggesting they don't give a shit.
Permalink Send private email Wayne (AHA) 
September 18th, 2006 3:27pm
"How else can you explain Bush"

You're right there, it's so unappealing, getting stuck between the teeth.
Permalink Scott 
September 18th, 2006 3:30pm
oops, ...getting *hairs* stuck...
Permalink Scott 
September 18th, 2006 3:34pm
If kids only did what their parents told them to do, it'd be a dull, or rather bland, world.

I know that I educated my parents to their first sushi experience, not the other way around.
Permalink Send private email just me 
September 18th, 2006 3:59pm
Sure I did stupid things when I was a kid, but -doing- stupid things and actually being -mentally- stupid are two different things.  Doing stupid stuff lets you know what you can and can't, should and shouldn't do in the future.

"Their brains aren't even fully formed.  They don't think about the future only the present."

But I know I did, even if the timeframe was a bit different - minutes, hours and days rather than weeks, months and years.  I could still -understand- the longer timeframe, it was just something that was never going to happen to me.

"No amount of education will change that.  It's what 12 year olds do."

And that's what their education is doing, helping to form the way they think.

"No, that's not what I'm suggesting.  I'm suggesting they don't give a shit."

Hmmm, I'd disagree with this.  I would suggest they -know- what is right, however their social conditioning to be cool would make them not give a shit.  Yet they all know about sex...
Permalink Scott 
September 18th, 2006 4:01pm
"but -doing- stupid things and actually being -mentally- stupid are two different things."

Ok ok ok...  so if you do stupid things, what does that make you?

"But I know I did, even if the timeframe was a bit different - minutes, hours and days rather than weeks, months and years."

Exactly.  But, lets face, that cheeseburger isn't going to do anything to you under the span of minutes, hours, or days.

"I could still -understand- the longer timeframe, it was just something that was never going to happen to me."

Precicely.  So you claim, you weren't smart enough to understand the long term consequences of your actions but today's children are?

"And that's what their education is doing, helping to form the way they think."

So couldn't restricting their diet be a form of education?  I think it's a case of not being hypocritical: "Listen to us: junk food is bad.  Junk food will kill you one day.  Now, would you like some gravy on your fries?"  What exactly, are children learning from that?

"I would suggest they -know- what is right, however their social conditioning to be cool"

The social conditioning of coolness is a symptom of being a child, not a cause unto itself.
Permalink Send private email Wayne (AHA) 
September 18th, 2006 4:14pm
I agree with Scott. It's pretty dumbass to envisage all kids as stupid creatures who are only concerned with the present.
Permalink $-- 
September 18th, 2006 4:15pm
That's a pretty extreme view of my position.  It's just that they are nowhere near as capable as adults with understanding the future consequences of their actions.  Obviously some children are better than others and the situation improves with age.

Scott's position could just be as extremely paraphased into claiming that all children spring the womb capable of doing whatever is best for them.
Permalink Send private email Wayne (AHA) 
September 18th, 2006 4:18pm
I don't know if this is an adult versus child stupidity thing.

A 12-year old who eats poorly isn't going to reap the punishment for 25 years. A 32-year old adult is but 5 years away. It makes sense that they use differently discounted present net values for the choices they are making.

I see quite a few naturally thin adults who eat like crap too -- hey, if it takes them longer to get fat/unhealthy than normal, that's exactly the behavior one would expect.(I'd do it too, if I could get away with it.)
Permalink Send private email just me 
September 18th, 2006 4:42pm
"Ok ok ok...  so if you do stupid things, what does that make you?"

It depends on when you have knowledge of stupidity(!)  Knowing that jumping off something tall is stupid and you're going to get hurt, then doing it and getting hurt, yes, is stupid.
Doing the same thing with the point of view that you might get hurt but will attempt to break your fall by bending your legs and rolling, isn't stupid since you're attempting to improve and educate yourself.  If you hurt yourself anyway, then looking back you'll say it was stupid, but it's not the same kind of stupid.  Reckless perhaps?

"So couldn't restricting their diet be a form of education?"

Nope, that wouldn't be enforced at home, so wouldn't work.
Especially as the companies feeding the children have one main concern - the shareholders, rather than taste.

"I think it's a case of not being hypocritical: "Listen to us: junk food is bad.  Junk food will kill you one day.  Now, would you like some gravy on your fries?"  What exactly, are children learning from that?"

That's exactly what I said earlier, mkay?  Teach them.  Prove what kinds of food are bad because of blocked arteries, fatty build-ups, chemical imbalances, etc, etc.
Permalink Scott 
September 18th, 2006 4:47pm
"Nope, that wouldn't be enforced at home, so wouldn't work."

Some education happens at home and some at school, I don't see how this is any different.  Most parents do choose a good diet for their children.

"That's exactly what I said earlier, mkay?  Teach them."

From an earlier post:
"So kids are mature enough to be taught about healthy eating, sex (since you pointed it out), but they're not mature enough to make a decision on it?"

You can teach children the mechanics of anything but you cannot teach them wisdom.  We could teach children to drive at age 6; it's not that difficult.  However, we don't let them out on the road.  That's because they don't have the wisdom to handle that responsibility (I don't think most 16 year olds do either but that's another argument entirely).

So yes, we teach lots of children stuff that they don't have the maturity to make a decision about.  For good reason.
Permalink Send private email Wayne (AHA) 
September 18th, 2006 4:54pm
Wayne's right here about kids and consequences.  They don't think about them.

The idea that "being cool" is their motivation to eat junk food or have sex is not entirely correct.  Try thinking more along the lines of "it's programmed into you."  House cats don't spend a lot of time watching TV commercials or listening to pop music, and yet they're mad for fatty meats and loud sex under the bedroom window. 

The important part of education here is that humans can learn to control their responses to those urges.  Forget about telling them about the consequences, because you're talking about something that's gonna happen in twenty or thirty years.  Planning for 15 years out is a tricky thing, because a lot of stuff will come up between now and then to make all of your planning irrelevant.  Life happens.

If the parents want to give their kids money to buy lunch off campus, and the school is okay with that, I say more power to them.  It's not the choice that I'd make for my own kids, but we're not talking about my kids.  It might be worth considering that telling somebody else how to raise their kids won't win you any friends, and is probably about as effective as teaching a pig to sing.  All you're gonna do is waste your time and annoy the pig.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
September 18th, 2006 5:06pm
The bit I was mkay'ing about was

"If the argument against something is just drugs are bad mkay then it isn't an argument."

I don't know.  Personally I think that teaching kids about something then telling them not to do it in the hope that will affect their decision is hopelessly naive.

Take the sex education example.  They don't just get taught the mechanics, they get taught the safely aspects as well.  They get taught about getting pregnant, etc, etc.  This is done since any of the kids could potentially have sex, and they should be as educated as they can about the subject, so should the situation arise* they can make a decision.


*boom boom, insert your own jokes here.
Permalink Scott 
September 18th, 2006 5:10pm
http://www.crazyontap.com/topic.php?TopicId=10717&Posts=2
meh, I knew it was a good chattering point but it's all in the presentation  ...
Permalink trollop 
September 18th, 2006 7:19pm
Oy.  I'm glad I don't have kids.

What thread.

What idiot would let their kids eat shit just because they like eating shit?

What a stupid stupid idea.  Kids do what they are told, and the parents set the limits.  Without limits, you grow up to be a complete idiot.

My kids would bring their lunch from home.  If they want something good to eat, I'd teach them how to make it. If I find out they are blowing their allowance on junk food, then they get no more allowance, plus they get to run around a track, 4 miles or until they drop from exhaustion.
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
September 18th, 2006 9:55pm
Wow, I've no idea sharkfish could be the strict mommy :)
Permalink Rick Zeng/Tseng 
September 18th, 2006 10:00pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: September, 2006 Other topics: September, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics