• Re: bro imagine living in a society where we allow advertising useless sugary junk to children ?

    From Dude@punditster@gmail.com to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Sat Feb 28 19:07:39 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    On 2/28/2026 2:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
    On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 13:19:07 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2/28/2026 9:49 AM, dart200 wrote:

    In an open society we have a free market economy based on supply and demand. >>
    It's up to parents, whether or not to allow their children to have sweet
    drinks, not the government's responsibility to dictate.

    It is the govt's responsibility to prevent sale of harmful materials.
    The color of your kid's socks is up to you. But food choices with
    harmful ingredients should not be offered for sale. Because, you, in
    your ignorance might think that the harm was simply a matter of
    opinion.

    Let me start out by saying, that it is not illegal in the US to give
    your own child a soft drink.

    A parent has the right to choose, based on their own judgement. It isn't
    the government's job to dictate what people eat, drink, or not.

    That being said, it goes without saying that parents know what's best
    for their own children.

    Particularly when the government uses fake data and false propaganda to
    build a pyramid scheme to indoctrinate young people using social media
    in an attempt to turn kids into starting on fad diets and food fetishes.

    Just saying.
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Noah Sombrero@fedora@fea.st to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Sat Feb 28 22:10:21 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:35:54 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2/28/2026 4:22 PM, dart200 wrote:
    On 2/28/26 1:27 PM, Dude wrote:
    On 2/28/2026 1:19 PM, Dude wrote:
    On 2/28/2026 9:49 AM, dart200 wrote:

    In an open society we have a free market economy based on supply and
    demand.

    It's up to parents, whether or not to allow their children to have
    sweet drinks, not the government's responsibility to dictate.

    P.S. Avoid keying your query into the subject line, instead of the
    comment section. It's against internet chat room netiquette to do that
    because it interferes with data searching and threaded messaging in
    discussions. Thanks.

    instead of having a society where we make healthy choices fun and kid
    friendly ...

    we advertise and sell them addictive junk they can then spend a lifetime
    trying to get over

    i love how u support child abuse dude

    keep up the good work! ???

    So, you're thinking a parent giving sweets to their own child is child >abuse?

    And, government should step in and prevent parents from giving out any
    foods that contain sugar as a sweetener?

    That is not what I said.

    An extreme right-wing, authoritarian political ideology characterized by >dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong >regimentation of society and the economy.

    What I said was that govts should have the power to prevent sale of
    harmful substances. Nothing about strong regimentation of society.

    It is right wing thinking to imagine that power to prevent harm equals
    strong regimentation of society.
    --
    Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
    Don't get political with me young man
    or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
    <<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
    Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
    dares: Ned
    does not dare: Julian shrinks in horror and warns others away

    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Dude@punditster@gmail.com to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Sat Feb 28 20:42:04 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    On 2/28/2026 7:10 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
    On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:35:54 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2/28/2026 4:22 PM, dart200 wrote:
    On 2/28/26 1:27 PM, Dude wrote:
    On 2/28/2026 1:19 PM, Dude wrote:
    On 2/28/2026 9:49 AM, dart200 wrote:

    In an open society we have a free market economy based on supply and >>>>> demand.

    It's up to parents, whether or not to allow their children to have
    sweet drinks, not the government's responsibility to dictate.

    P.S. Avoid keying your query into the subject line, instead of the
    comment section. It's against internet chat room netiquette to do that >>>> because it interferes with data searching and threaded messaging in
    discussions. Thanks.

    instead of having a society where we make healthy choices fun and kid
    friendly ...

    we advertise and sell them addictive junk they can then spend a lifetime >>> trying to get over

    i love how u support child abuse dude

    keep up the good work! ???

    So, you're thinking a parent giving sweets to their own child is child
    abuse?

    And, government should step in and prevent parents from giving out any
    foods that contain sugar as a sweetener?

    That is not what I said.

    Nick said that. See above.

    What I said was that govts should have the power to prevent sale of
    harmful substances. Nothing about strong regimentation of society.

    So, I say nobody has the right to tell me what or not I can eat or
    drink. It's my body. It's your child. It's your junk. It's your right.

    It's not the job of government to tell anyone what they can consume.
    It's a free country, or supposed to be.

    My final answer.

    It is right wing thinking to imagine that power to prevent harm equals
    strong regimentation of society.

    It is liberal thinking that imagines individuals to have rights to their
    own body. That's why it's called libertarian.

    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Noah Sombrero@fedora@fea.st to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Sun Mar 1 00:47:45 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 20:42:04 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2/28/2026 7:10 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
    On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 18:35:54 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2/28/2026 4:22 PM, dart200 wrote:
    On 2/28/26 1:27 PM, Dude wrote:
    On 2/28/2026 1:19 PM, Dude wrote:
    On 2/28/2026 9:49 AM, dart200 wrote:

    In an open society we have a free market economy based on supply and >>>>>> demand.

    It's up to parents, whether or not to allow their children to have >>>>>> sweet drinks, not the government's responsibility to dictate.

    P.S. Avoid keying your query into the subject line, instead of the
    comment section. It's against internet chat room netiquette to do that >>>>> because it interferes with data searching and threaded messaging in
    discussions. Thanks.

    instead of having a society where we make healthy choices fun and kid
    friendly ...

    we advertise and sell them addictive junk they can then spend a lifetime >>>> trying to get over

    i love how u support child abuse dude

    keep up the good work! ???

    So, you're thinking a parent giving sweets to their own child is child
    abuse?

    And, government should step in and prevent parents from giving out any
    foods that contain sugar as a sweetener?

    That is not what I said.

    Nick said that. See above.

    What I said was that govts should have the power to prevent sale of
    harmful substances. Nothing about strong regimentation of society.

    So, I say nobody has the right to tell me what or not I can eat or
    drink. It's my body. It's your child. It's your junk. It's your right.

    It's not the job of government to tell anyone what they can consume.
    It's a free country, or supposed to be.

    I am glad when people smarter than me can figure out what is harmful
    and what is good and protect me from the first and offer me the second
    (as covid shots). Because I do not under any circumstances want harm
    or want to avoid the good. And I don't always know what is best.

    If you choose harm, I am sure you will find a way to get it. Is there
    a shortage of soda pop where you are?

    My final answer.

    It is right wing thinking to imagine that power to prevent harm equals
    strong regimentation of society.

    It is liberal thinking that imagines individuals to have rights to their
    own body. That's why it's called libertarian.

    In practice I don't find that relationship. But I welcome you to
    imagine whatever fantasy you choose.

    For instance liberals think they have the right to an abortion, while conservatives think they do not. I expect libertarians would be with
    the do not crowd.
    --
    Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
    Don't get political with me young man
    or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
    <<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
    Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
    dares: Ned
    does not dare: Julian shrinks in horror and warns others away

    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Noah Sombrero@fedora@fea.st to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Sun Mar 1 00:51:57 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 19:07:39 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2/28/2026 2:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
    On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 13:19:07 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2/28/2026 9:49 AM, dart200 wrote:

    In an open society we have a free market economy based on supply and demand.

    It's up to parents, whether or not to allow their children to have sweet >>> drinks, not the government's responsibility to dictate.

    It is the govt's responsibility to prevent sale of harmful materials.
    The color of your kid's socks is up to you. But food choices with
    harmful ingredients should not be offered for sale. Because, you, in
    your ignorance might think that the harm was simply a matter of
    opinion.

    Let me start out by saying, that it is not illegal in the US to give
    your own child a soft drink.

    A parent has the right to choose, based on their own judgement. It isn't
    the government's job to dictate what people eat, drink, or not.

    That being said, it goes without saying that parents know what's best
    for their own children.

    There is no doubt that parents sometimes think they know what is best
    when they don't. It is called ignorance.

    I hope that smarter people than me will be allowed to keep harmful
    substances out of my hands. With luck, maybe I will see 100.

    Particularly when the government uses fake data and false propaganda to >build a pyramid scheme to indoctrinate young people using social media
    in an attempt to turn kids into starting on fad diets and food fetishes.

    Propaganda is not evidence.

    Just saying.
    --
    Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
    Don't get political with me young man
    or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
    <<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
    Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
    dares: Ned
    does not dare: Julian shrinks in horror and warns others away

    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Noah Sombrero@fedora@fea.st to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Sat Feb 28 17:28:24 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 13:19:07 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2/28/2026 9:49 AM, dart200 wrote:

    In an open society we have a free market economy based on supply and demand.

    It's up to parents, whether or not to allow their children to have sweet >drinks, not the government's responsibility to dictate.

    It is the govt's responsibility to prevent sale of harmful materials.
    The color of your kid's socks is up to you. But food choices with
    harmful ingredients should not be offered for sale. Because, you, in
    your ignorance might think that the harm was simply a matter of
    opinion.
    --
    Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
    Don't get political with me young man
    or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
    <<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
    Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
    dares: Ned
    does not dare: Julian shrinks in horror and warns others away

    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Noah Sombrero@fedora@fea.st to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Sat Feb 28 17:28:50 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 13:27:46 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2/28/2026 1:19 PM, Dude wrote:
    On 2/28/2026 9:49 AM, dart200 wrote:

    In an open society we have a free market economy based on supply and
    demand.

    It's up to parents, whether or not to allow their children to have sweet
    drinks, not the government's responsibility to dictate.

    P.S. Avoid keying your query into the subject line, instead of the
    comment section. It's against internet chat room netiquette to do that >because it interferes with data searching and threaded messaging in >discussions. Thanks.

    ok, mama.
    --
    Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
    Don't get political with me young man
    or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
    <<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
    Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
    dares: Ned
    does not dare: Julian shrinks in horror and warns others away

    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Dude@punditster@gmail.com to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy on Sat Feb 28 14:53:05 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

    On 2/28/2026 2:28 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
    On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 13:27:46 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2/28/2026 1:19 PM, Dude wrote:
    On 2/28/2026 9:49 AM, dart200 wrote:
    >
    In an open society we have a free market economy based on supply and
    demand.

    It's up to parents, whether or not to allow their children to have sweet >>> drinks, not the government's responsibility to dictate.

    P.S. Avoid keying your query into the subject line, instead of the
    comment section. It's against internet chat room netiquette to do that
    because it interferes with data searching and threaded messaging in
    discussions. Thanks.

    ok, mama.

    Do you have any comments to contribute about children and sweets and parenting? Thanks.
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2