Slashdot Mirror
Big Mother Is Watching
theodp writes "Newsweek reports that high-schoolers are being denied the joy of ordering unhealthy lunches thanks to their schools' adoption of services like MealpayPlus. New web-based services allow moms to prepay for cafeteria food, specify what their kid can and can't buy, and go online to track his purchases." From the article: "If the child tries to buy a prohibited item, an alert flashes on the cashier's computer. Of course, the system isn't foolproof. According to a KRC Research survey, 73 percent of 8- to 12-year-olds are throwing out part of their lunches at least once a week; 36 percent are trading them." All I ever got was PB&J.
If you feel the need to control what your kid eats in high school through a system like this, you've allready failed as a parent.
"The more you tighten your grip on the galaxy, the more star systems will slip through your fingers!"
I realize that is not the original text of the quote, but I revised it for clarity. Also, before you mod me offtopic, how many of you won't admit that your parents were like the evil empire? I know mine were.
Ah, nothing beats the love and care put into making your child's lunch... ...checklist.
When I read "alert" I though of a loud siren.
I wonder how they know what percentage is trading.
I doubt the kids are going to be cooperative enough to get a valid value.
What would be good is "dessert credits."
When you buy enopugh good stuff you can get same bad as well.
Well unless you are in Arizona then "desert credits" might be reasonable.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
When your in school, you're already bound by what you can and can't say, write, hear and wear. That said, why not just serve only HEATHY food in the first place!!! Now that would be something worthy of enforcing.
The amount of porkers I see in the malls these days scare me! Their shit diet is going to cost society massive amounts in health care!
Life is not for the lazy.
Too much is made about child's rights and too little is spoken about dubious advertising for unhealthy food items. In Japan, there is a huge promotional campaign to get kids eat Whale Meat for Lunch!
Obesity in kids is the no. 1 health problem facing the US today, and if parents can have a say on what their kids can order, it's great! The choice is between listening to one's parents and listening to (untrulthful) advertisemsnts. Parents ought to know better.
As usual, the title Big Mother is misleading and mischevous. Parents watching their children cannot be equated to the Government spying on citizens. The former is a duty, the latter is a violation of rights to privacy.
Too bad, Slashdot is resorting to Flamebait to ensure more replies.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
MealpayPlus doesn't charge for its system; it makes money on transaction fees when parents put money on kids' accounts.
If this is like some offices, you can't pay in case (article doesn't specify). Approach the counter without a card and you're just met by a queer look from the cashier.
The site says it's a flat $2.00 fee per transactions. Now you're torn between a 1% tax to give the kid a whopping $200 on the card (max) or a 10% tax if you just give them a benjamin every few days.
Bill Thompson, the only kid at Deerbrook High School still granted pizza privileges, has become the youngest person ever to retire at age 17.
My Hello World is 512 bytes. But it's also a valid Fat12 boot sector, Fat12 file reader, and Pmode routine.
Why not forbid them to leave the school grounds, and only serve healthy food?
In Finland school lunches are free. Not only are they free, but kids get a healthy meal including fresh vegetables and often fruit every single day, bread and milk is included as well. Everyone eats the same meal, including the teachers. The only exceptions are people with allergies / ethic issues (vegetarians etc). You're free not to eat if you don't like the food, of course.
I strongly believe that good eating habits at an early age is paramount for learning a healthy lifestyle. One can have many opinions of socialistic solutions, but when it comes to nutrition and education I'm all for it. Having seen the muck english school kids have to eat I'm rather grateful I was born in Finland.
My 2 cents, anyway.
.: Max Romantschuk
The solution is for schools to serve only health food as determined by a qualified nutritionist. However, states, or better yet, the federal government, needs to throw more money at making school lunches healthier. In fact, why not make it so school lunches are 100% free, limit one per student per day, if all the food there is healthy.
As for soda in schools, charge more (like $1 to $1.25 per 12 oz can). Plus, the caffeine can be beneficial in my opinion.
Y'know, some of these kind of practices produce some surprising results in the real world. Whilst you or I probably look on slightly bemused, this kind of behaviour in schools can produce some interesting quirks.
Here in the UK, there has been a similar kind of healthy food drive. Although parents are not given the levels of oversight seen here, fast food and vending machines are quickly becoming dirty words.
However, in some cases children are fighting back in rather funny ways. In one school (I'd find the link if I wasn't late for work!) a group of children started buying snacks, cans of fizzy drink and chocolate from a local wholesaler, and then sold them on to children during break time and lunch.
Expect to see something similar happen here; and make a note of the kids that start doing it, because they might just be the kind of people we see doing well in the business world in a few years time. Of course, it'll cause this prepay system to fall apart and be branded a failure as well, which is probably no bad thing.
I hear so many people talk about how Americans eat too much, how kids are too fat, and how it's always the parents' fault if a kid is fat.
Now here's a way for parents to control what their kids eat, and people are screaming about how it's invasive and controlling.
Screw you guys. If you're gonna play two sides of an issue, at least seperate it by a few degress, don't sit here and say how it's wrong for parents to let their kids eat crap and then say it's wrong for parents to NOT let their kids eat crap.
Christ.
We had NO junk food in italy at school
up to university (included).
It really was cheap and healty way to feed kids:
they gave you simple food that was properly cooked.
I live in uk and I've been in the States and now
I'm more than proud of this way.
I'm 18, so my experience with school cafeterias is still fresh in my memory. I can tell you this: almost every 12-16 year old likes at least one kind of fast food. AND? Fast food means burgers, pizza, and chips, right?
You can't stop them from eating it. They love the stuff. Hell, I know I like it.
The fact is, if your food is COOKED PROPERLY you can get most of the grease and fat OUT of said dishes. You can also reduce the portion, and serve it with healthy food - even INSIDE it. Tomato slices are definitely healthy, and make a great garnish to burgers.
I can't name many situations in which direct "bans" like this should be used, or even work. The article even points out how flawed this system is.
We should be controlling the actual food they eat - not preventing them from eating specific things. Kids just won't eat "health" food unless you bring them up that way from day one. And even then, once they hit 13 they're likely to turn against their upbringing.
It's easier for both them and you if you improve the quality of the food they eat in schools rather than limiting their options.
If my mother had done this to me, I'd have shouted at her until she stopped it, or never paid a penny on school lunches again.
(Yes, I'm a brat. Deal with it.)
And am whole-heartedly offended by a lot of these comments. This program is yet another level of abstraction between parenting and the children.
I have raised my kids, taught them right from wrong. I am also smart enough to realize that my kids are not idiots. They are not stupid and will find ways around things they don't understand or agree with... Just like I did as a child. When that happens, all you can do as a parent is hope you instilled the proper morals into the child.
I'm sorry, it is NOT up to the lunch lady to determine what my kids eat. If I am that concerned about what my children eat at school, I'll make it myself! At one school they attended, this is exactly what I did. "Some parents don't have time for that!", you might say... Bullshit. If you have the time to screw around and have kids, you MAKE THE DAMN TIME to raise them. It's called parenting.
This shit ranks right up there with Net-Nanny type things. If you mistrust your children to these kinds of extents, then you have failed as a parent and nothing can fix this. More and more the definition of "children" is getting pushed further up the age curve. This lunch program is in High-Schools for crying out loud. Kids who have their driver's licenses and are nearly the age of majority, yet they can't pick their own lunches? Um, yeah. That makes sense.
I could rant on, but I'm tired. Night.
Disclaimer: I am 17 years of age and have just recently finished my grade 12.
;-)
;-)
First off, I would like to say that I enjoy the (mis)use of technology to help students in what they eat. However, this is not going to stop them. I am definately not fat or over weight, and I try to eat healthy as often as I can. I cook my own meals, so sometimes I like to relax and just grab a burger... but only once in a while! Although, I am not the greatest role model, as I do sit around on the computer a little too much.
My younger brother is just entering high school this up-coming year. I hate to admit it, but he seriously needs help in controlling his weight. He weighs much more than I do, and I am very concerned for him. He's an absolute genius in his school work, and he's also very into computers/animation. He's really into Flash Animation, so he sits around a lot. This up-coming year I am going to make sure he get's into a sports team of some sort, but I know that alone wont be enough.
I hate to say it, but right here is wheer Peer Pressure can do some good. These kids need to eat healthier, why not start with the children that do? Have them weasel their way into these kids minds and help show them the way! We need not restrict them, but try to show them that healthier food leads to a healthier lifestyle.
Threats and restriction only lead to uprisings... expect them.
Nope. You'll just pay for it in the form of higher insurance costs. You and everybody else, for that matter.
The owls are not what they seem
Fathers can't participate in this process then?
Indeed, about a third of my pay goes to taxes and other similar fees. I'm quite happy about it, as the money is mostly used for sensible spendings. How many medical procedures have you had for free? Education? Real social security?
Yes the system has flaws, and no it's not free as in magically free. But it is parctially free, for the one using the services. It's a matter of opinion if it makes sense to take from those who have and give to those who need, but I'm not complaining as long as I find I can use the services paid for with my tax money when I am in a time of need.
.: Max Romantschuk
I couldn't agree with you more
It's also worth pointing out that in a system of socialized or largely socialized healthcare, in a democratic and transparent state (like you have in the scandinavian countries), the state has an incentive in promoting a healthy lifestyle for its citizens, and they have a stake in keeping the healthcare system from bein overburdened. It isn't surprising, then, that the most agressive anti-tobacco campaigns in Europe were launched in Sweden before being imitated by other governments.
Of course, many libertarians will tell you that you have a right to pay for you own unhealthy behavior, which is true to a point, but if they believe your health exists entirely in a vacuum without affecting anybody else, they have no understanding of how social costs are... well... social.
Slashdot: news from nerds.
Even in High School. If you're a parent and you eat junk or have junk in your home, ie: buy it for your kids or have it around for 'snacking' then you're responsible for your child's bad eating habits. You want your kids to eat right? Keep good healthy food in your home...
Fresh vegetables and fruit.... once a week buy fresh stuff and put it out where it can be seen... fruits in a bowl and vegetables on display, both in fridge and on counter in a nice container or basket. Pre-make good salads... don't keep them in the pre-mixed bag you buy them in.. put them in a nice salad bowl that has a freshness feature (clay to keep moist but also has holes in bottom and sides to let extra moisture out... and add in some extras, carrot slivers, almonds, cranberries, etc. make them look tasty... if you eat meat add some hard-boiled egg white slices and turkey chunks
Make good meals and stick them in the fridge as instant left-overs. These will be cheaper and better than a frozen dinner (less preservatives, etc.) and your teen will actually eat them, cause they can grab them late at night or whenever and heat them up on their own schedule, instead of grabbing a bag of chips or something.
Easy pre-made meals: Lasagna or any Pasta dish, Stir-Fry, Burritos, Taco ingredients, Pre-made sandwiches and wraps, Roasts that can be sliced into cold-cuts (teen-age boys love cutting stuff and they'll just slice off a hunk and grab some cheese and bread), hard-boiled eggs (peeled or not), sliced up veggies (carrot sticks, cucumbers, brockley, etc.) with a good dip (humus or veggie/cream cheese is great).
This might not sound like health-food but compared to the crap they'd stuff their faces with (think any fast-food or junk from convenience store) it's completely healthy and they'll eat it if it's made convenient for them.
In the end you'll find that they will end up looking for similar foods when they are out of the house too. They might even end up taking their lunches to school because the food that's available at home is so much better than the crap at school... but let them keep their 'lunch money' as a reward or else they'll stop taking their lunch just to get the money so they can spend it on other things... who cares what,
Point is they'll be healthier and it will only take a few hours a week on your part to make the food available in a appetizing form that's also convenient.
BTW same thing applies to drinks... get rid of the canned sodas.. just put some pitchers of old-fahioned lemonade (cut the sugar down) and Iced tea and juice and plenty of water bottles.
They'll still have some junk in their diet when out with friends but they won't be creating a habit while at home and the reality is that we all really spend the longest part of our 24 hour day at home... so make it a healthy one and you'll have healthy kids.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Seriously, we communists in Sweden do know that taxes pay our school lunches, our healthcare and a shitload of more stuff. But the fact is (and this is the part that the allknowing capitalist gods of the west have a real trouble understanding), it all evens out. Our kids, being fed healthy food prepared on site with vegetables from the farm next door and good old 3% cow milk actually turn out better than little Tubby McLard praying at the McDonalds altar over there. When ther grow up they perform better at their work, they have less need for health care (The tax paid one, remember) and it actually turns out you become a happier person it you eat healthy and leave the car in the garage once in a while.
Our school lunches are free in the sense that we actually save money providing them, not now but when the kids eating them grow up. I bet you our school lunches actually costs less per student, staff sallaries included compared to what the american fast food-kid eats. That being not just the kids official lunch meal but also whatever he/she consumes before and after lunch to make it untill dinner.
Us communists over here may dislike gas-taxes(a bit over 200%) and other things that really burn a hole in our wallets, but the taxes that pay the school lunches are pure financial gain for us and our country in the long run.
I'm sorry but that's just not true, there is an obesity epidemic in this country.
the sunshine vacation states like cali and florida have a larger quantity of thin people, but you live someplace like texas, or georgia, or michigan, there are tons of fat flabby bastards walking around, they make up 60% or more of the population, and just looking at them damages your eyes and makes you scream in pain.
I want to see this tackled, if for no other reason than to see more thin women rather than houses and cars with feet walking around.
That said, it's not going to be enforced by "food DRM"... you have to teach healthy dietary habits and healthy activities to your kids.
You dont have to deny them or yourself the foods you like, even junk foods, but you can't eat 5lb of grease every meal.. For those of you who are thin and can't comprehend how people can get so fat, the "stop eating" people are right.. watch those body challenge weightloss shows on discovery health, it provides graphic illustration of their eating habits.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Overprotection does indeed leave children underprepared. For example, the parent's parents always corrected his spelling and broke apart his run-on sentences. Now look. For shame, overprotective parents...for shame.
You, on the other hand, have too much confidence that the parents won't be control freaks. "Over-protective" doesn't sound that bad until you end up basically in a straitjacket of motherly love that crushes the life and sanity out of you. Don't underestimate how much "over" there can be in "overprotective."
/. it contained such gems as one mother getting horrified and confronting her daughter because... said daughter had bought 3 ounces of juice to wash down the food with. "Noooo! Think of all the calories in 3 ounces of juice!" Not an exact quote, but the same idea.
The last time such a system was discussed on
To start with the _lesser_ problem, she was trying to raise her daughter as... what? An Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder case? Yes, obesity is bad, but if you're at the point where you count the few calories in a quarter of a cup of juice, do yourself a favour and kill yourself. We're not talking buying a big bottle of Coke, we're not talking even a can, we're talking 3 ounces. Of juice.
Moving a bit upwards on the scale, such a remotely-controlled kid will grow to be completely unprepared for life. They never were trusted with making a decision of their own, and seeing the results, so they (A) just don't know what to do when mommy isn't around to remote-control them, and (B) completely lack the data to base a decision on. Playing and exploration in childhood are learning. Someone who has grown up with mommy taking all their decisions for them, hasn't learned anything.
I know I basically went off guidance as every time I was out of reach of my control-freak parents. I ended up in an alcoholic coma in one of the few summer camps where they didn't tag along, as well as doing a thousand other stupid things. Partially because it was one occasion to vent all that built-up frustration of being little more than a remote-controlled puppet to my parents the rest of the time. But in retrospect the largest part was the aspect that I just had no freaking clue how to function without them remote-controlling me.
Even after finishing college and moving away, it was like running into a brick wall as learning curves go. Without mom telling me what to do and when to do it, I suddenly had no flipping clue what _am_ I supposed to do and when. It took some rediscovering from scratch how to even function as an adult. (In all fairness, mom still tries to remote-control me. She'd be more than happy to still tell me exactly what and when to do, but at that point I had decided to at least try functioning as myself for a change.)
But maybe more important is the psychological damage. Kids like adults (and like most animals, including your dog and cat) need some breathing space. Even the most affectionate lap cat needs its moments of being alone or doing its own thing, or it will go neurotic.
E.g., I only have to look at my brother who at one point had a fit of anorexia over my parents complete control over his food. At one point as a kid he just stopped eating, and eventually ended up in hospital. They even ran all sorts of medical tests on him, because they suspected cancer the way he was losing weight. He was basically deflating as fast as, well, someone who doesn't eat at all any more. I can easily see that possibility in the future of such kid as the girl with her 3 ounces of juice.
I managed to do somewhat better (or at least not swing to such extremes), partially by finding refuge in programming, partially by cherishing the moments I was finally out of my family's reach. I certainly didn't hate school too much. I actually had more freedom there than at home. Still, I ended up with some long term damage of my own anyway.
E.g., I basically have to roll for willpower (if I'm allowed the D&D metaphor) to do anything, because some circuit in the back of the brain says "you know, mom would disapprove of me doing that. Or doing it that way." And I don't mean doing bad stuff, but even stuff like taking the trash out. Mom would certainly find something to complain
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I'd say the problem is they're treating this as a supply problem rather than a demand problem: if you deny them the bad food, then they'll eat healthier.
But kids, especially resourceful high school kids, will figure out a way to get the food they want to eat. This is a demand problem. You need to focus on changing how kids feel about eating healthy food.
It's up to parents to raise their kids from an early age to enjoy food that's good for them. I know so many people may age or younger who don't care for vegetables, only like white bread, and think of fries as a vegetable.
From a young age, my parents forced healthy food on me. Although occasionally I was miserable and felt deprived, most of the time I greatly enjoyed the food I ate despite being "healthy".
In a sense, this is a supply problem being tackled too late. You need to have your house stocked with healthy food at an early age when the child is developing their food preferences, *not* when they're already in high school and set in their ways.
It's a shame that these parents are waiting until middle or high school to control their kids in this way. It suggests a lack of trust, and it also suggests that if the kid is unwilling or unlikely to make healthy food choices voluntarily.
Probably the best step would be to limit their budget for school food, but let them get whatever they want. Instead, focus on getting them to have a larger breakfast before they leave, and a larger dinner when they get home, minimizing the food they eat at school. Parents can easily control the food available at home so long as the child doesn't yet have the funds or wherewithal to do their own grocery shopping.
In a sense, this is what happened to me. Years of candy deprivation means it was the first thing I went for when I had my own spending money in high school. But because my funds were limited (around $5-6 per week or so, I think) I had to make my own lunch at home, and used all my money on candy or soft drinks. When I got home, there generally weren't easy snacks available, and we didn't have much in the way of frozen dinners (or a microwave), so I was forced to cook something for myself if I wanted to eat something before dinner (and on nights when my parents were busy, I'd have to cook dinenr). This had two benefits: one, it meant that I was eating food that was relatively healthy (at worst, "fast food" meant opening a can of vegetable soup) and two that I was learning to cook, something which is not encouraged enough I think.
Sorry this comment is so long but I did not have time to write a shorter one.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
Then maybe the answer is making healthy lunches enjoyable.
Kids have different tastes than adults, most of us are well-aware our own taste has changed over the years. Fast food chains get it, why can't the people who make healthy food understand this simple fact and start preparing meals the way kids would actually like them. Yes, that may mean adding a bit more fat or sugar than "none", but atleast it would be a lot better than what they buy now.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Face it. No law parents set up a child does not understand will be broken. Period. That starts with "don't go to construction sites" (without giving a reason why not to) and does not even end at "you won't go out with Jonny Sleazebag". Kids break through Net Nanny, they sneak out while under house arrest, they disable parental control on the remote.
Why should something like this work? Kids will trade their lunch with kids who can buy "normal" food, or they will pay those kids who do (and get ripped off too). Kids will leave school for some burger restaurant during lunch break, and if that isn't allowed, they will sneak out. Oh, the threat of being suspended? Hell, where do I sign to be thrown out of school!
Face it parents: You can't force your kids to do what they don't understand. Also, it's kinda hard to understand for Jonny why he should eat his broccoly and drink his healthy water while mom and dad are guzzling down greaseballs with root beer.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If you think that the human species was always based on babysitting your kid until the age of 21, sad to say, you're the one on the "utter bull" side.
For starters, for a large portion of the human history (in fact, for _the_ largest portion), the average life expectancy was in the 30 to 40 years range. Yes, literally. The life expectancy in ancient Egypt for example was in the low 30's. In the European middle ages and renaissance it wasn't much better, since they had very high mortality. In fact, all medieval cities had such high mortality (because of being filthy disease-ridden places) that they needed a constant influx of peasants moving in just to maintain their size. So, again, the average person would have a really really shitty life expectancy.
So pay attention: you wouln't have _time_ to babysit them until 21. If you got married at 21, took a year to get your first kid, and then babysat him to 21, that's a total of 43 years. Add a few tries, because of the extremely high infant mortality, and you'd end up needing some 50 years for such a bullshit babysitting utopia. It's more than 50% more than the actual life expectancy you'd have.
So for most of the human history, at 12 to 14 years old you'd be considered _adults_. At that age you'd be expected to get married, run a business, fight in a war, or, yes, maybe command a ship or an army. There were a lot of kings, nobles, generals, etc, who ruled a country or led its troops in battle at that age. There were decisions which changed history, at least on a local level, taken at that age.
Thinking that they always had mommy pack their lunch and check if they wear a sweater at that age... heh... to quote your own words: "is so utterly retarded I don't know where to begin."
So, yes, if you're trying to tell me that a modern 14 year old can't can't even decide what to buy without mommy deciding for them, then, yes, there must be something awfully wrong with the current crop of kids. Because "kids" of that age are what throughout most of human history were the _adults_, and perfectly capable of functioning as adults.
Or maybe, just maybe, it's not the kids, but their parents who are retarded. Just a thought. Maybe the kid would be perfectly capable of taking a mature and responsible decision, if mommy and daddy had taken the time to give him the data and the opportunity for those decisions, instead of just controlling what the kid does.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
We had a similar system when I was in school ages ago, it was called carrying your lunch. Mom got to choose what you ate. If you couldn't find a trade you either ate what you had or did without.
So they pay 33% taxes. So do we, the difference is in what you elect the government to spend the money on. They got free lunches, we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire solar system several times over. Now since it really doesn't matter who destroys the planet as we all die anyways, I'd rather have the free lunch.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
Saying stuff can be restricted, reading stuff can be restricted, the gender of the adult you can marry can be restricted, your movement can be restricted, your access to a fair trial can be restricted, your ability to sue for redress from government wrongs can be restricted, but if any corporation is blocked from marketing to you or in some way making money off of you, then that is the very freedom for which the forefathers fought, and a great wrong has been committed. All other freedoms are really luxuries.
There is another dynamic; high school age kids who either work after school and have access to their own money or have very generous allowances and can buy their own lunch and bring it to school.
I think that it might be interesting to have a study of four groups of high school kids:
Group One -- has the resources to buy what they want to for lunch and bring it to school
Group Two -- doesn't have the resources to buy their own lunches, and their moms tell the school what they can buy for lunch
Group Three -- doesn't have the resources to buy their own lunches and their moms don't tell the school what they can buy for lunch
Group Four -- doesn't have the resources to buy their own lunches and their moms pack their lunch
Groups Two and Three assume that school lunches are prepaid by the parents and/or the government
What is the difference in the nutrition in the lunches that the kids in these four groups actually consume?
Ten years after high school graduation, which group produced the healthiest adults?, the happiest adults?
First off I want to point out the similarities between this issue and one we discussed earlier and I made my position quite clear here.
Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children and this means teaching them to make the right choices in life and guiding them to make resposible and informed decisions. It also includes protecting them from both the dangers around them and also from themselves while you teach them things like self discipline.
While I admire the idea behind this, it's a bit like Net Nanny in that it will circumvented in an instant by a smart kid and is a poor substitute to correctly educating a child in the dangers of poor eating habits. Maybe it could be adapted so that instead of blocking poor food choices it alerts the parents so that they can be made aware of their failures as a parent and then take action to educate their offspring into making better food choices.
This is just 'lazy parenting' and that breeds lazy kids. It is a parenting style which fails to take resonsibility and that just breeds kids who do not take responsibility. I have been amazed at the 'fat camp' approach to parenting which has spread from the US to the UK in recent years... if your kid is fat then it is because YOU are a bad parent and that's the end of it, just as if your kid meets someone on the internet who rapes and murders them then YOU are to blame for not educating them in the dangers of the internet, for not supervising them correctly and also for letting them go and meet someone they met on the internet (or not knowing they were doing so). I personally think parents with obese children (who continue to spoil them with twinkies) should be prosecuted for child abuse because they are negatively affecting their child's long term physical and emotional health.
Technology will never replace parenting skills and in this case although it could be useful to monitor what a child is eating so you can speak to them about it, putting blocks on foodstuffs will just increase the likelyhood that your child will move their illicit junk food habits underground.
Be nice, sponsor me: http://jailbreak.ragabonds.org.uk
HALT CITIZEN
------
The Slashbot and Troll Unbiased Primary Insight Diagram does not include reasoning which leads to the above opinion on the related matter. Common causes for deviating from the Primary Diagram include the following:
1. Posts utilizing "common sense".
2. Posts resulting from "informed users".
3. Posts attempting to obtain a fair compromise on an issue.
Specifically, your post above violates the following principle(s) which have been listed as approved opinions that may be posted on Slashdot:
1. All activities engaged in by children, being pure and innocent, and never engaging in any behavior beyond the bounds set by "good" parents, which are not sanctioned as acceptable by the Slashdot population, are a direct result of poor parenting.
2. All monitoring, on any level, in any capacity, by any person and of any person, for any reason or goal, is strictly a matter of Big Brotherism and is to be abhorred without question or additional information, the circumstances not bearing relevance on the approved opinion.
Please immediately cease and desist all activites which may be characterized as "free thinking", "reasoned", or "rational". Failure to comply may result in poor moderation which could lead to the removal of your posting ability for pre-determined amounts of time, or for your posts to be removed from a threshold visible by normal users. However, note that the moderation system should not be construed as a form of censorship.
The Slashdot Pre-approved User and Troll Unbiased Moderation Committee thanks you for your cooperation. Together, we can make slashdot a wonderful place to mouthbreathe.
If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
And that's just an example of the "if you're for X, then you must be automatically, unthinking pro any X-related solution" fallacy. It's like saying "if you like water, then you shouldn't mind having your house flooded." Or "if you were saying that the government should do something about unemployment, then you shouldn't mind an euthanasia program to get rid of those." Or "if you're not for terrorism, you must support the war in Iraq and the PATRIOT act." That bogus. Just seeing that a problem X exists, doesn't mean any wrong solution is automatically worthy of unconditional support.
It has nothing to do with group think. Sometimes a solution is just snake oil, and bad snake oil at that. That's all. Even if it proposes to address the right problem, it may be the kind that doesn't really solve anything, or even makes it worse. It can be of the calibre of using mercury to treat syphilis in the past: it didn't actually cure the disease, and only added mercury poisoning to the list of problems.
It's not just that it'll make a few kids life even more nightmarish than it already is (e.g., see again the girl berated by her mom for buying 3 ounces of juice.) It's that even as solutions go, it's the kind of crap "solution" that tries to suppress the symptoms rather than fix the problem.
The problem is that kids, just like adults, take decisions based on the pre-existing data and habits they have. They're doing what they've learned from their parents, and by that I also mean immitating what they see daddy doing. They're pretty much pre-programmed to. (Hence, "do as I say, not as I do" doesn't really work.) Or if mommy and daddy weren't available for that, what they've seen Tom, Dick and Harry down the road doing.
The correct solution is to give them enough data and personal example to make a good decision, not to just build more barriers against the symptoms. If a kid's only knowledge about food, for example, is along the lines of "if I try to buy something bad the alarm rings", what do you do when they grow up and no longer have that artifficial surveillance? Or is it ok to go obese and diabetic in the 20's, just because it's not your responsibility any more? Or what do you do about them trading lunches to get past such restrictions? Is it ok just because now you have an online checklist as a conscience lullaby?
Solutions that just suppress the symptoms are often worse than no solution at all. They just maintain a false facade of everything being all right, when everything really isn't. They allow a bad parent to seemingly see results out of crap "explanations" like "because I said so" or "as long as you're in my house, you'll do as I say and stop asking why", and get back to watching the football game. But the problem is still there. As soon as that kid gets out of surveillance range (summer camp, college, growing up, whatever), he still doesn't know what not to do and _why_ not to do them.
If the only thing bad about a certain act or food is that "daddy say so", guess what will happen when daddy isn't around to say so? If the only rule they know about something is that is tied to living in your house, guess what follows logically when they're _not_ in your house? Etc.
In a nutshell, that's why: because it's the wrong solution.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.