It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California Legislature Bill SB-1192 Children’s meals. Say hello to more nanny-state.

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: ketsuko

So you as a parent can make all decisions about your child? No in this country. You can't send your kids to work in the fields anymore for 12 hours a day. Any you do have to feed them in a nutritional fashion. If you think different, go check your states social services and see how many kids they removed from homes because they were under nourished.

Go check up on parents that abuse their kids in other ways. Gone from the household. I have fostered many kids in my lifetime who were pulled out of homes because of all kinds of abuse - most of it mental, but much of it just parents who didn't clean their kids or give them a good meal.

This legislation is a good thing - default healthy drinks for kids. Want to give them crap fizzy corporate slime, ok.

How can anyone be against this?

Oh, I know, nanny state. Well, kids need a nanny when their damn parents can't or won't do the job.




I am VERY PRO LIVING CHILDREN.

Children are not and should not be responsible for idiot adults.




BUt they absolutely can choose their own gender just like an adult?




posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



That was freaking beautiful and on point.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ketsuko



We don't have pop in the house and our child very, very rarely gets any with his meal when we eat out. We've always defaulted to milk and/or a lemonade (no, not healthier but a more acceptable treat than pop).


Good for you! In that case, this law wouldn't affect your choices at all, since you don't allow your children the "go to" sodas. Even if the fast food server asks, "Coke with that?", you'll say "No, milk please", and your kids probably won't throw a tantrum knowing what they could have had.




It doesn't matter. I am still losing a choice I could make on my own because thinks I am too stupid to be smart enough to make it.

What part of "I DON'T EFFING NEED OR WANT THAT HELP" do you and others who are applauding not get? I don't care if it changes things for me or not.

PS - I don't care if my kid would throw a tantrum (not that he would, he long ago learned that no means no) if he was denied. If we say no, we mean it, and we don't have any problem saying it, and we also don't have any problem removing him from public if he acts up.


What choice are you losing? Right now the default is corporate fizzy crap with a child menu. Now you get more choices, and if you want to feed this darling angle of yours who never thows a tantum (won't go into the conditioning practices you use) a crap drink that stresses the kids liver and kidneys you still can! Everyone wins.

Show me where you lose a choice? You are gaining choices, and the kid drinks something healthy. But you see this as a loss somehow? What loss? Other then a kid who is diabetic by 15?



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
Responsible parent here...

When we go to McDonald's or any other fast food joint and get a kid's meal, we always get apples/yogurt instead of french fries and milk or juice. If a parent is too lazy to know what is included in the child's meal, then CA ought to call DCFS and take the kids away.

This is nothing but nanny state legislation.


A yogurt from McDonalds has more calories in it than a kids fry. 150 vs 110.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JasonBillung

You're totally right. I should just bundle my kid up tomorrow and drop him off at the nearest fire station. Clearly I, as a parent, am completely unqualified in every way to make sure that he is raised and fed and "nutritioned" properly. You, the government via schools and legislation and the other enlightened folks have made this abundantly clear. He would be much, much better off in the state-run system where he can be scientifically raised by people who don't love him but perfectly well know what is best for him according to their government-approved care charts.

I give up. You people all need to be institutionalized like the good little government slave dogs you seem to clearly long to be.

/rant



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JasonBillung

What choice?

The choice of what my kid will drink, and the satisfaction of knowing I freely made the right choice without any coercion from any outside source.

Like any independent person, I like to do it on my own.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

Curious ... you know my personal menu that I feed my kid or are you assuming he's eating fast food most nights of the week? I agree with you on that. Fast food is bad for you which is why we don't eat it very often.


I don't know what you feed your kids. My point was that virtually all options are bad. Restaurants at meant to serve a public good, but they're unhealthy. Grocery stores are meant to serve a public good but 95% of what they sell is loaded with sugar and/or salt, and is essentially junk food.

When so much of the food market is junk, where is the option for healthy choices?



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Edumakated
Responsible parent here...

When we go to McDonald's or any other fast food joint and get a kid's meal, we always get apples/yogurt instead of french fries and milk or juice. If a parent is too lazy to know what is included in the child's meal, then CA ought to call DCFS and take the kids away.

This is nothing but nanny state legislation.


A yogurt from McDonalds has more calories in it than a kids fry. 150 vs 110.


www.mcdonalds.com...

They're talking about a kids yogurt.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:35 PM
link   
The only fast food restaurants that we tend to frequent with kids are McDonald's, Chick Fil A, and Culvers. All offer milk or juice as a default when ordering a kid's meal.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Deflection - please stay on topic. What is it with you guys and the need to deflect? Can't have an argument without going off topic?

This topic is, once again, about the legislation on offering parents choice beyond corporate fizzy drinks, and giving children a healthy alternative to mass produced sugar-addiction, liver problems and eventual major heath and lifestyle problems.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:37 PM
link   
One is left wondering when the government makes all of the choices for the child, how does the child learn how to make good choices for themselves? What will the future hold except for a society which must always turn to Big Brother for the answers to their choice questions?



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

OK, I see the point you're making. Bricks in the wall.

I said "fat" as short-hand for "unhealthy", and in that regard, I stand by what I said. If you're overburdened, a brick is a brick. Too much corn sugar is a brick for most people's systems.

a reply to: Lumenari

As far as the legislative aspect...I see the point you're making. The gov't is volcanically incompetent...why should anyone expect this to be different? If anything, I think it reflects the sad state of our culture when such conditions exist that a legislative body has to intervene in the first place.

But I should probably stop trying too much to sound like I care.

Like I said at first, Im just not too fired up about it. Not my state, not my kid's health issues (knock on wood), not my diet.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Edumakated
Responsible parent here...

When we go to McDonald's or any other fast food joint and get a kid's meal, we always get apples/yogurt instead of french fries and milk or juice. If a parent is too lazy to know what is included in the child's meal, then CA ought to call DCFS and take the kids away.

This is nothing but nanny state legislation.


A yogurt from McDonalds has more calories in it than a kids fry. 150 vs 110.


www.mcdonalds.com...

They're talking about a kids yogurt.


I see.

On a sidenote, I love that scrolling down that page they suggest pairing the yogurt with a Big Mac and a large Coke.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Edumakated
Responsible parent here...

When we go to McDonald's or any other fast food joint and get a kid's meal, we always get apples/yogurt instead of french fries and milk or juice. If a parent is too lazy to know what is included in the child's meal, then CA ought to call DCFS and take the kids away.

This is nothing but nanny state legislation.


A yogurt from McDonalds has more calories in it than a kids fry. 150 vs 110.


www.mcdonalds.com...

They're talking about a kids yogurt.


I see.

On a sidenote, I love that scrolling down that page they suggest pairing the yogurt with a Big Mac and a large Coke.


Somewhere, someone has "Fast food Sommelier" on their resume thanks to being responsible for that pairing suggestion.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: ketsuko

Deflection - please stay on topic. What is it with you guys and the need to deflect? Can't have an argument without going off topic?

This topic is, once again, about the legislation on offering parents choice beyond corporate fizzy drinks, and giving children a healthy alternative to mass produced sugar-addiction, liver problems and eventual major heath and lifestyle problems.


Back to the OP, this is a pretty normal thing in California overall. They have a strong push in the state away from soda and encourage other beverages a lot more. When I visit California a restaurant might have 4 soda options, and they come in smaller cups. While they also offer ice water, tea, and so on.

From the reports I've seen it has helped the state to slim down a bit. I don't see an issue with applying the same logic to kids drinks.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




What part of "I DON'T EFFING NEED OR WANT THAT HELP" do you and others who are applauding not get? I don't care if it changes things for me or not.


Snowflake! Again, YOU"RE EFFING SCREAMING.....about a fast food server asking you "Coke with that?" or "Bottled water or milk with that?". Either way, you're free to say whatever it is you want, regardless of this legislation, whether it's soda, milk, lemonaide or water.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: yuppa

Now we are on to how the SC folks are still reliving the civil war? The one where they attacked the united states, and the constitution? and you are not off track on this thread?

So what are your reasons again for feeding kids a default drink of corporate fizzy crap versus a heathly drink?


You got that backwards. The north came to SC then demanded they comply with what Lincoln wanted. They intentionally forced the issue. The south might had fired the first volley of actual GUnfire but lincoln left very little choice witrh his extortionary taxes AND his breakin 11 constitutional laws to even have said war.

I already have. go back and re read. ALL my post if you cant get it.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JasonBillung

You're totally right. I should just bundle my kid up tomorrow and drop him off at the nearest fire station. Clearly I, as a parent, am completely unqualified in every way to make sure that he is raised and fed and "nutritioned" properly. You, the government via schools and legislation and the other enlightened folks have made this abundantly clear. He would be much, much better off in the state-run system where he can be scientifically raised by people who don't love him but perfectly well know what is best for him according to their government-approved care charts.

I give up. You people all need to be institutionalized like the good little government slave dogs you seem to clearly long to be.

/rant


Yeah, I don't think you have ever got called at 2:30 am from social services to see if you can foster a child who has not had a bath for a month and weight 40 pound at age 10. A kid who has lice in his hair and is terrified of all adults. Guess not.

Yeah, sometimes the state does a hell of a lot better job then parents who "love" their kids.

Once more, why to you oppose kids having healthy drinks? It sounds more and more like you oppose any effort the state makes to help your kids out, because you think your ideas of right are more important than everyone in the world, and any one who challenges your conception of what is good must be wrong.

Do you want your kids playing with lead painted toys? Why not? What about drinking DDT in the water? Why not? Is it because you researched all this and figured it out for yourself? No. It is because governments do things that we can't do as individuals, like figuring out what are toxins, building roads, providing police, and military. If you don't like it, then tough. It is the social contract- The country decides what laws we have by law makers, who are elected. The law makers decided enough with this pushing crap to kids in fizzy drinks.

Suck it up buttercup.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

All it means it that water is the default in children's fast food meals. It is not a bill infringing on anyone's rights or safety. It looks like a bill that asks very little of fast food chains in the interest of the public health.

Will it significantly affect public health outcomes? Who knows. Probably not. There's too much sugar everywhere.

But It's still a slippery slope from that to what you're portraying.
edit on 20/8/2018 by DictionaryOfExcuses because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/8/2018 by DictionaryOfExcuses because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: slatesteam
a reply to: Metallicus

Have you seen our Redwoods?


No but we in Nevada are dealing with your burning forests. Redwoods next summer. Quote me on that in 2019.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join