The Big Picture: Arch-Villains
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Typical of society. Intentionally do something hurtful, and instead of blaming themselves for their own self-destruction behavior, they have to blame something from the media.
Side Note: I'm surprised a couple people didn't remember Joe Camel. He was Camel's mascot until the late 90s. To be honest, I still thought he was their mascot. You've got some pretty young viewers, Bob!
Side Note: I'm surprised a couple people didn't remember Joe Camel. He was Camel's mascot until the late 90s. To be honest, I still thought he was their mascot. You've got some pretty young viewers, Bob!
This is not a perfect world. Just cuz we teach people how to raise kids doesn't mean they will listen. It's impossible to reach all, and it's really hard to reach a very small amount. The only way to do anything of impact is to force it on people. People will still be able to have children all they want, but will receive no help from the state. It's force education on those that want it and those that don't care might at least have less children due to money constraints.Lordpils said:
If you want to continue this discussion, do it over PM, don't want to derail the thread.
He does have a point, in this day and age people are unwilling to accept that anything is their fault, scapegoats are the norm and people are sidestepping the real issues. Ronald McDonald is not making people inflate like balloons, people sitting around all day doing absolutely nothing except eating and sleeping is why people are getting fat, I'm not going to blame TV or anything for that either, I'm just saying take responsibility for your own flaws and actually get off you asses and do do something about it. Addiction is in itself only a problem when you let it become a problem, my mother used to smoke heavily before I was born, she actually put in the effort to break the habit and she hasn't looked back since, people just need the will power to say "No more!" and stick to their guns.
When you recall that McDonald's encourages people to eat its food in excess with marketing slogans such as: "Have you had your McDonald's today?" then Bob's argument really falls apart. McDonald's food is physiologically addictive and should be treated the same as any other similar substance, ie: heavy government regulation. McDonald's is, in essence, marketing heart attack inducing heroin to children, hoping to get them hooked from a young age so they'll be addicts their whole life. The "personal responsibility" argument is irrelevant.
Totally awesome. Glad I made my right-wing conservative sister watch it too! She was made the same "Joe Camel was bad, Ronald McDonald is too" jump in logic.
Exactly. I think you sometimes misjudge your audience here on the Escapist, Bob.Varya said:
I'm guessing we are on average a lot smarter than the average Joe, judging by the civility and well thought out comments I see on almost every forum topic.
We already know it's stupid yet easy to blame the McDonalds, so you're not making much people rethink their position with this. Make stuff that makes us smart nerds chuckle, we like the positive side
I've a few points to make. Firstly, most of what moviebob said was a fair argument (though the opening was bordering close to eugenics), though this issue of childhood obesity is a major one.
As a british medical student, part of our training revolves around public health, and naturally we did work on childhood obesity. Undoubtedly it is a serious problem, arguable more-so than smoking now. The morbidity can be just as severe (everything from type II diabetes, heart failure, stroke through to increased risk of certain cancers and complications under anaesthetic for surgery) and the sheer prevalence of it now - in the UK over 25% of children will be obese by 2050 - and that fat children often make fat adults - makes my point. The cost of this is already £16 billion annually, set to rise to over £50 billion by 2050.
Now its not all due to diet, we can't just blame corporations, and the parents need to be held accountable. But on the other hand, parenting is very difficult, and if a child tells mummy he wants McDonald's, sometimes for mummy its easier just to let her son have what he wants instead of dealing with the consequences. As for your options given in you video - interfere with the parents, or interfere with a corporation, I know what I'd back, and it isn't with you. Child protection courts in England are already shrouded in controversy and trials held behind closed doors, with numerous examples of children being taken away (okay, a lot of the time justifiably). I would suggest that you yourself don't have enough experience in the matter to judge that parents of overweight children should have to defend themselves from a government. So a more practical approach with fewer ethical issues would be to prevent such fast food companies from targeting children in the first place, so that a generation will hopefully grow up healthier and pass the lifestyle to the next. For as you said, if targeting junk food doesn't solve this epidemic, then how long before video games get brought into it?
I hope you (moviebob) read this (as you mentioned in your recent column), as I believe these arguments important and you have a voice more likely to be heard than mine.
As a british medical student, part of our training revolves around public health, and naturally we did work on childhood obesity. Undoubtedly it is a serious problem, arguable more-so than smoking now. The morbidity can be just as severe (everything from type II diabetes, heart failure, stroke through to increased risk of certain cancers and complications under anaesthetic for surgery) and the sheer prevalence of it now - in the UK over 25% of children will be obese by 2050 - and that fat children often make fat adults - makes my point. The cost of this is already £16 billion annually, set to rise to over £50 billion by 2050.
Now its not all due to diet, we can't just blame corporations, and the parents need to be held accountable. But on the other hand, parenting is very difficult, and if a child tells mummy he wants McDonald's, sometimes for mummy its easier just to let her son have what he wants instead of dealing with the consequences. As for your options given in you video - interfere with the parents, or interfere with a corporation, I know what I'd back, and it isn't with you. Child protection courts in England are already shrouded in controversy and trials held behind closed doors, with numerous examples of children being taken away (okay, a lot of the time justifiably). I would suggest that you yourself don't have enough experience in the matter to judge that parents of overweight children should have to defend themselves from a government. So a more practical approach with fewer ethical issues would be to prevent such fast food companies from targeting children in the first place, so that a generation will hopefully grow up healthier and pass the lifestyle to the next. For as you said, if targeting junk food doesn't solve this epidemic, then how long before video games get brought into it?
I hope you (moviebob) read this (as you mentioned in your recent column), as I believe these arguments important and you have a voice more likely to be heard than mine.
Not bad Mr. Chipman. Just one thing I'd like to mention in order to satisfy my crippling know-it-allism: Natural selection doesn't really exist anymore in the human population. Civilization and the advancements that it brought in regards to food production, medicine and whatnot have allowed us to radically alter our collective position to the point where we've essentially opted out of natural selection as a species. This means that what little evolution is still going on in the human genome is largely the result of sexual selection. Although evolution by sexual selection is probably largely negated by social constructs such as monogamous marriage and taboos against incest. With our current understanding of heredity and genetics we could probably take control of our own evolution but eugenics has been taboo for quite a while now.
It's all lies - Joe camels real purpose was to make camels start smoking.
But in any case this is the usual Bob perspective on things, Bob doesn't smoke so everybody who smokes is a raving idiot and Joe Camel is just a step to far.
On the other hand Bob IS a obese person who likes McDonald's and therefore Ronald McDonald is okay.
But in any case this is the usual Bob perspective on things, Bob doesn't smoke so everybody who smokes is a raving idiot and Joe Camel is just a step to far.
On the other hand Bob IS a obese person who likes McDonald's and therefore Ronald McDonald is okay.
Every somewhat not stupid person will agree on that and you made this episode well, but I can't help but feel that the density of new information was not as high as usual. "People, start to raise your children in a responsible and intelligent way" has been said quite often already.
But then again, we might have to repeat those words more often, because so far they don't want to listen ^^
But then again, we might have to repeat those words more often, because so far they don't want to listen ^^
It's always easy to make the, but he's X so he's Biased, yes he's fat so automatically he's going to do the opposite of what the majority of fat people do nowadays and defend the people supposedly responsible for obesity.....oh wait. Joe the Camel was a despicable way to market to children, the difference is that cigarettes for years were fine, they still caused health problems but nobody really cared, times changed and now smoking is an expensive habit which is pretty much reserved for your house, your car, and in an alley way somewhere. Fast food IS unhealthy for you, but unlike smoking is not going to give you cancer or emphysema or any permanent damage, also fast food is not the only food that's bad for you that may lead to obesity. Overall he makes a compelling argument based on HIS OPINION,if you don't agree than that's your prerogative doesn't automatically make him 100% wrongCooperblack said:
I watch, well see Sesame Street while kid watches it, all the time and cookie monster eats the letter of the day (on a cookie) every episode and once in a while he eats something else.portal_cat said:
They didnt pretty much kill cookie monster. 95% of his character is still eating cookies.
I think this is a situation where the backlash is bigger then the event.
I have to disagree with your views on evolution and survival of the fittest, even though it scientifically explains how we came to be, it in no way should be applied into a moral and social context. After Richard Dawkins wrote The Selfish Gene he had to explain to a load of dicks who took it to mean that everyone should just be selfish that Darwinism shouldn't be used as a way of life. Now we have acquired intelligence through natural selection, we can overcome it. We have developed morality and ethics, possibly as a side-effect of other traits acquired through evolution or maybe because of beneficial mutualism, this means we can move away from the cold and heartless world defined by natural selection. That's why we have Fuckin' hospitals!
PS I enjoy the odd cigarette
PS I enjoy the odd cigarette
the thing is so-called "fast food" is nowhere near as bad for you as stuff in a lot of sit-down restaurants. When at was at Anime Central nearly two weeks ago I ate at Giordano's (a famous Chicago pizza chain) and I don't even wanna THINK about how many calories that pie had.
So refreshing to see someone else discuss the belief that we have now broken Darwinism by sheltering the stupid from letting them off themselves. It's why I became a Libertarian actually, at least partially. People should be free to do most anything short of depriving another citizen of their freedoms, such as murdering them, and if that leads them to a quick death because they lack common sense or the concept of discretion, so be it.
I am a big fan of the California laws that resturaunts must post nutrition info openly. Its a bit shocking and I think people think twice when they see the numbers. Oh that large freis is 200 more calaries....maybe I wont. Not a solution but its a start.Aiddon said: