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: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Soda pop lobby? Seriously?

That's original, anyway. No, you see, I can make up my own mind, I don't need a legislature, at any level, deciding what's in my best interests.

The choice is still there. My question is why would the legislature, in its infinite "wisdom" waste time with something so banal?

If I want my kid to have something other than soda with his/her Happy Meal, then I am perfectly capable of handling that my own little ol' self. Done it many times with various nieces and nephews, and cousins, etc...

Do you feel the need to have a legislature make your decisions for you? Or even the Soda Pop Lobby?


Well, I get what you are trying to say anyway...

California government is spending it's precious time passing bills related to WHAT (our) children can have to drink when you go out to eat. Surely there is more important things they could be trying to fix like:

(1) adjusting the cost of a 5.00 head of broccoli vs a one dollar fast food burger
(2) pollution in the skies
(3) wages (so that said parents COULD have more time ( by working less jobs) to cook those healthy foods instead of having to eat out?
(4) the list could go on and on...

So, yes I get what you are trying to say. It is that the government is more focused on micromanaging our entire lives plain and simple. If they weren't...then they would be focusing on issues to SOLVE the problems.




posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm okay as long as freedom of choice is in place. I don't want corporate or govt. making the choices for me.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

This is a do nothing bill. It really affects nothing.

And most of those fast food joints already push things like milk in their advertising for the kids meal.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580

What it does is school you to accept having your choices made for you.

If you have a range of choices A, B, C, D, and E, and it is commonly known that really A and B are the only truly good choices you can regularly make, then it follows that most sane people are going to predominantly choose A and B most of the time if they're responsible. That doesn't mean that C, D, and E aren't still freely available or even desirable choices. It also doesn't mean that a reasonable person can't occasionally choose one of those options for a treat or special occasion without doing undue harm to anything or anyone.

The problem is that some people aren't responsible or lack self-control and choose C, D, and/or E more often than not or all the time and suffer the consequences of their actions. Then other people think they need to step in and regulate behavior for those people for the greater good of all.

Sure, reasonable people are already choosing A and B on their own because it's the responsible thing to do, but that doesn't mean they don't appreciate the choice and the freedom. It also doesn't mean they appreciate the feeling of accomplishment they get from knowing they can handle the temptation to choose C, D, and E more often themselves to their detriment and that they resist.

Removing C, D, and E makes life less colorful and less rewarding. It's like telling the rock climber he can't climb the rock for his own safety. Of course, he knows it's safer never to climb, but that's not the point. He climbs to test himself against the danger.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: seagull

But it doesn't say that. It says that the default beverage for a child's meal should be a healthy form of water or milk. Default. That means that you can order any other thing. It only applies to children's meals.

From the bill, which you neglected to post:


This bill would require a restaurant, as defined, that sells a children’s meal that includes a beverage, to make the default beverage water, sparkling water, or flavored water, as specified, or unflavored milk or a nondairy milk alternative, as specified. The bill would not prohibit a restaurant’s ability to sell, or a customer’s ability to purchase, an alternative beverage if the purchaser requests one.


Only kids. Not adults. It appears to have the intention of defaulting to healthy drinks for kids. Not carbonated, suger-laced drinks that are proven to have serious heath repercussions on all humans.

What is your problem with this?

It looks like you are trying to make it somehow bad that democratically elected body is helping to insure that children are healthy? Nanny state? Like banning Asbestos in schools, or child labor laws, or taking lead of of baby funiture?

This gives the children an alternative to forced sugar drinks at a child meal menu at restaurant, rather then having to pay more for a healthy alternative. So it costs the parents less, is healthier, and does not addict children at a young age to sugar. I really can't see how anyone could be against this.

Oh yes, the nanny state. Give that tired meme a rest. Children need nannys, or at least a sensible adult who can make the choice between a healthy beverage and some packaged crap that industry wants you to drink.


I do think it is better to default to healthy options for children. What I have a problem with is the government intervention. You have to look at the bigger picture. Do you want the government micromanaging your life? Do you want the government making more decisions about how you raise your children? This kind of thing will just keep growing, promoting deference of common sense and personal responsibility to the authority of the state. Do see the slickness of the slope we are standing on.

This is what can happen, I borrowed this from another thread:




My stepfather used to get milk from a farmer he knew about twenty years ago but the USDA shut that farm down because he had raw milk. That was by far the best milk I ever tasted. He had the mix of grasses in the field just right and he did have about half guernesy cows on his farm. He got a big fine, ten grand, and he had to sell his cows or they would fine him a hundred grand. He sold his cows. Much of the milk in the stores is not worth drinking, even half of the organic stuff.

edit on 21-8-2018 by pointessa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

A lot of people arguing over the specifics of the bill.....completely missing the point that is absolutely ridiculous and insulting to propose/need BILLS for such nonsense.

There is absolutely nothing too "dumb" for Californians to regulate with laws. They are the true innovator of modern idiocy and really that is all that needs to be said about this issue.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 12:05 PM
link   
What we don’t understand or accept is the fact that inevitably tyranny will win. It’s just a matter of time. It’s in the cards, it’s in the stars.


We’ve already had rightwing tyranny in Hitler, and we’ve already had leftwing tyranny in failed communism.

What’s left, is the mystery

I know the answer, but Willtell one day, not now.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

That's one of the silliest things that I've seen thus far.

What authority is it of the state's to tell private businesses what they must or must not include as default drink options on kids' meals? I mean, I use the word "silly" a lot, but this is the definition of the word.

I haven't lived there since 2002--and I thought that it was bad then. It's done nothing but continue to try and dig itself out of the hole it put itself in, and it just keeps getting deeper and deeper.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

"He climbs to test himself against the danger?"

We are talking about kid's meal beverages. Climb back down a bit, the altitude is messing with you.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses
a reply to: ketsuko

"He climbs to test himself against the danger?"

We are talking about kid's meal beverages. Climb back down a bit, the altitude is messing with you.


I grew up in order to learn to be responsible. I did not grow up in order to have the government gradually take over as my parent because other people apparently did not grow up.

Nor do I appreciate it when people like yourself tell me I should just chillax and accept the government taking over the role of my parent all over again.

Maybe you still need a mommy and daddy to change your diapers, but I learned how to use the toilet a long, long time ago.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes yes, good for you. You love spouting about responsibility and pointing the finger at whoever else is closest.

We are talking about the fact that water is now the default beverage in children's meals at fast food joints in the state of California. Can concretely explain how this is affecting your rights or safety without going into hysterics?



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I haven't lived there since 2002--and I thought that it was bad then. It's done nothing but continue to try and dig itself out of the hole it put itself in, and it just keeps getting deeper and deeper.



Digging deeper? They're the healthiest state in the country.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

health doesn't just stop at BMI

And I don't care if they are the healthiest anything, the government has no business mandating what restaurants offer in their kids' meals. The authoritarian approach to governing in California has been out of control for quite a while now.

Yes, they're digging themselves deeper into the abyss of authoritarianism, and that's not a good place for a state to be, regardless of the health of its citizens.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

Every small law like this adds up. California has quite the sum total of idiotic, authoritarian laws. They keep adding to the pile.

Small trickles of authoritarianism eventually collect in large, overwhelming pools at some point. For California, that point was long ago.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It is.

Silly is the word I'd use.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Healthy citizens means longer and more pleasant lives. That's precisely what government is supposed to be providing.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

This thread isn't about the rest of the laws on the books in California.

If you're characterizing this bill as authoritarian, I disagree.

It requires retail food operations who serve children's meals to serve water as a default beverage, citing a 250% increase in childhood obesity during the past approximately twenty years - an issue that many people are rightly concerned about.

By casting a wide net, they seemingly hope to affect a positive change in the public health. It doesn't affect the retailers ability to sell, nor the customers ability to purchase, other normally available beverages.

We could debate whether or not it will be effective, and it is sad that we have fallen to such a cultural condition that it takes legislative intervention to attack a problem that only exists in the first place because of our increasingly abominable lifestyle.

Like I have said from my very first post in this thread, I'm not too fired up about this. I'm just trying to get my soul right with God before I die.




posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Hmmm....time to read!

Going to be a busy weekend reading up on many on going events that are being brought up....
But that is what ATS is good for


Where'd you move to if you don't mind me asking



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Healthy citizens means longer and more pleasant lives. That's precisely what government is supposed to be providing.

No, it's not...not in this way, especially.

Government is not there to force a lifestyle on people, but it is there to ensure that people have the freedom to choose to live life the way that they deem fit for themselves, barring things like violent crime and theft, of course.

If you think that government should be forcing private business to offer only certain defaults in their meals, there's too much of an ideology gap between you and me on this issue to make any headway other than each of us saying, "Nuh-uh."

Call me crazy, but I prefer that people have the right to choose for themselves, and that means people who own businesses, too.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses
a reply to: SlapMonkey

This thread isn't about the rest of the laws on the books in California.

Not directly, but when this stupidity is just adding to previous authoritarian stupidity, I'm going to cite the sum total, whether some think that it's appropriate or not. If the mods think that I'm off-topic, they can handle it as they see fit.


If you're characterizing this bill as authoritarian, I disagree.

Okay, let's dissect your reasoning:


It requires retail food operations who serve children's meals to serve water as a default beverage, citing a 250% increase in childhood obesity during the past approximately twenty years - an issue that many people are rightly concerned about.

The reasoning is irrelevant--you properly cited that it's a government entity trying to force private business to off only certain things as default under penalty of law, regardless as to whether or not the private business wants to do that. Furthermore, if obesity is the issue, they ignore things like fried potatoes and fried, breaded pink-slime nuggets and only go for the drink, so they are being selectively authoritarian (the other obesity causes, I suppose, will wait for later legislation).

The bottom line that I will repeat for you is that, if a government takes it upon themselves to tell private business what they can and can't offer as a default beverage in their kids' meals, that is the definition of authoritarian. But just to prove that:


authoritarian

[uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uh n, uh-thor-]
    adjective
    1.favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom:
    authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.


    2.of or relating to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

    3.exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others

Please note that I did not underline number two because I'm not arguing that California is a textbook authoritarian regime, just that many of their laws and lawmakers approach things with an authoritarian spirit.



By casting a wide net, they seemingly hope to affect a positive change in the public health. It doesn't affect the retailers ability to sell, nor the customers ability to purchase, other normally available beverages.


That is irrelevant--the California legislature is seeking to usurp control of the freedom of a business to choose their own menu items and how to group them. Authoritarian actions are generally disguised as "in the best interest of the people," but some of use are savvy enough not to fall for it.



Like I have said from my very first post in this thread, I'm not too fired up about this. I'm just trying to get my soul right with God before I die.

I'm an atheist, so good luck with all of that. But I get fired up because I watch my family in Calfornia drowning in the authoritarian laws and actions of the state constantly, and then I have to hear about how upset that they are about it when they visit me. It's disgusting to watch a state get so mismanaged by its elected officials, who generally cater to the will of only one extreme segment of their majority voting base. Agree or not, I'm okay with that.




top topics



 
18
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join