TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Politically Correct Pop Machines!
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

Hey I like angelgirl's points

It doesnt matter anymore anyways because common sense has prevailed for at least the next 5 years.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 It doesnt matter anymore anyways because common sense has prevailed for at least the next 5 years.

It's clearly not COMMON - parents were fighting this agreement with pepsi from day 1.

I like PEPSI

quote:

Originally posted by starsearcher I think you are seriously underestimating children and their maturity today...There are plenty of 8 and 9 graders that sniff coke get drunk and fuck randomly at parties...I don't see vending machines dealing in drugs I'd have to agree with Jayx1 this time...these companies are competing for sponsorship...the top sponsor wins and that's the only way schools can get funding for IMPORTANT things...don't blame the vendors it's not their fault...the money the schools get from them should be put to good use. Obesity is a part of a much larger problem and it has nothing to do with vending machines in schools alone...once again little kids smoke and smoke a lot...don't tell me that they started smoking when they turned legal age of 19.

eek...sorry...I'll take Sarah's side, no question.

Kids smoking drugs at younger ages doesn't mean that they understand the psychological and physiological ramifications of their choices. The drug vending machine example is silly...don't blame the vendors, it's not their fault??? That's such a cop out, lol. That's like saying don't blame the cigarette companies for all the toxic substances in their products, it's not their fault!

Sorry, but the "schools have no choice" argument just doesn't cut it. This whole "I live in the real world" outlook can go to far and become a cop out too (as I think it has in this debate). Schools need to get creative to raise funds instead of taking a corporate handout that, while providing funds to the school, is counter productive to the health of the students.

My high school (um...yes, back in the day) wanted a school van to take sports teams to other schools, for small trips, etc. We had a walkathon and raised the bulk of the money for it ourselves.

Your last point actually supports the opposite position...people learn behaviours...and those behaviours, like smoking, eating poorly, etc., can be hard to break. We know many parents don't promote healthy eating at home...combine that with not reinforcing healthy eating at school...not to mention mass media...and it's no wonder obesity is a huge problem.

I think school have a responsibility to foster good beviours...kids go to school to be educated and education goes further than opening a textbook, IMHO.

Jayx1 (jeez, can I say Jay if that's your name? lol), I agree that we need choice...but choice only really works when there's a level playing field. When the choice is between "boring" water, fruits and veggies, and highly marketed and packaged pop and snackfood...is that really fair "choice"? I really don't think so.

part of the money goes to nutritional programs...um...the end do not justify the means.

and pop is nutritionally void being water, processed sugars and chemicals...at least that burger has some nutritional value in it

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper It's clearly not COMMON - parents were fighting this agreement with pepsi from day 1.

How many parents? the 15 or 20 or so of the whole greater toronto area who obviously are too frustrated to deal with the real issues? There was a time when the 2% of people with crackpot thinking used to be ignored.

mark: v8, juice and other "healthy drinks" are marketing just as much as water. As for my last point. I remember what its like to be a teenager. I know that if they only had food i didnt want and i had other options offsite i would go there to get it. Routinely on spares and breaks i went next door to get the food i wanted (even though they had burgers and pop except the burgers tasted like dogmeat). That was MY choice.

As for raising money. Following this rediculous arguement i guess the school should also ban selling chocolates and fruitcakes and candies and other such organized practices as a means to raising revenue for school as well? After all... junk food is evil right?

someone buying a box or two of chocolate almonds once in a while to support a school is hardly the same as marketing pop to kids who will then drink it every single day at school.

no v8, juice or water company (except maybe Evian or Perrier?) has half the markteing resources that major soft drink companies do. Like I said, it's not a level playing field.

Let's just hope it's not one of >>these<< pop machines...

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT someone buying a box or two of chocolate almonds once in a while to support a school is hardly the same as marketing pop to kids who will then drink it every single day at school. no v8, juice or water company (except maybe Evian or Perrier?) has half the markteing resources that major soft drink companies do. Like I said, it's not a level playing field.

Newsflash..most of those juice and water companies are OWNED by pepsi and coke.

And selling chocolate almonds are the same thing because if pushing junk food is bad... its bad period. Isnt children selling junk at people's door setting a bad example as well?

You see? The whole thing is rediculous. Lets get back to debating REAL issues in this world and leave the pop machines alone.

Newsflash, it doesn't matter who owns them and I'd disagree that "most" are owned by pepsi and coke (especially water)...the ones that are owened by them are run independently and have substantially smaller marketing budgets...do you really think Pepsi or Coke would pour more money into marketing one of their juice or water subsidiaries at the expense of their main brand name? no.

chocolate almonds are hardly on the same level of "junk food" as pop. Do you really need me to post the nutritional info for each or can you accept that fact? There is ZERO nutritional benefit from pop.

I think obesity, unhealthy eating, and poor home-based health education is a major issue and worthy of further scrutiny.

I personally see schools as needing to take a bigger responsibility in the OVERALL education of children and teens...especially given that most kids spend a substantial portion of their time at school, if not even more time then they do with their own family.

I'm all for free choice and non-interference from the gov't...but that seems to only work as a theory because so many people are sooooo ignorant and irresponsible...and that's fine when their actions affect just themselves...but kids need to be educated and develop good habits early on.

So your theory is that since people arent capable of thinking for themselves then the government should do the thinking for them?

Thanks Stalin!

PS the people who are against pop also use chocolate bars in their arguement as examples of food they want kept out of schools.

You constantly use slippery slope arguments...no, I don't think the gov't needs to think for us...and I didn't say that people are not "incapable" of thinking for themselves...they're just ignorant and LAZY. You advocate individual free choice. I support that...to a point.

We have gov't for specific reasons...one is to maintain order...even the most ardent anarchists recognize the need for at least a minimal gov't for that reason. You seem to be in favour of a minimalist gov't...a "laissez-faire" approach...fair enough...but while I agree somewhat, I think there are some very specific areas where our society benefits from gov't involvement and two of those areas are education and health care. Health care doesn't just mean having doctors available to treat illness...THAT is exactly what's wrong with our society...we treat symptoms instead of focusing on prevention.

Parent are no longer just "thinking for themselves" when they have kids...they're affecting the lives of their kids and they should be responsible for that...since many are not...and there's no legal or moral way to police the way they raise their kids, I think it's beneficial for schools and gov't to step in and fill the disturbing void in kids health education, for one.

Why is that so wrong? You're one of the people that always says "why" instead of "why not". You think it's "fair" for Coke and Pepsi to be able to throw money at school boards who are desperate for funds, to give kids "free choice" about what they eat, instead of promoting healthy eating and living in schools, where kids BY LAW must attend? I wouldn't even support water and veggie producers signing contracts with school boards. It's not a balanced relationship...school boards are crying for money...corporate sponsorship from unhealthy food and drink producers is a sad, pathetic band-aid solution.

Individual rights are important, but a mild paternalistic approach in this case is hardly stripping the "freedom to choose" away from kids. You're so high on this silly notion of eveyrone having 100% free choice...well...if kids CHOOSE not to go to school, why should the gov't force them to go then? There ARE reasonably limits on choice and I thinking canning pop machines, at least from elementary schools, is a very good idea.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Sounds like a fortune cookie message!

















































Yes, I know that is actually a common saying.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Sadly the government seems to keep trying to be our second parent from cradle to grave and increasingly so. Im sick of the government treating all of society as if it were 10 years old.

Hear Hear

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.