When reading both Robert Liodice and Margo G. Wootan's articles about regulating the food advertisements for children, I was quite shocked about Margo's article. Margo G. Wootan, in her article speaks about a ban on bad food in advertisement and how children should follow these rules in order to live healthy lives. She is quite strong in her opinion in the article and literally gives a list on what is acceptable to eat and show in an advertising matter. Liodice sees this matter in a different light. He thinks that everyone is right to free speech and they should show and advertise whatever they want. He calls the other article unethical due to its lack of critical thinking. I agree with Liodice, he really does think about his argument and shows that people should be able to advertise and show whatever they want with food. Obesity is not going to be solved by changing the advertising in America, it is just senseless to think that.
I agree, Liodice makes much more sense compared to Wootan’s idea of regulating food advertisement for children. I think Wootan’s suggestion for letting the government regulate the food advertisement children see is unethical, just like Liodice says. Her article pretty much does suggest violating their First Amendment Rights of free speech and if that is being violated, there could be a domino effect of what the government may want to take away as well. Liodice has the strongest argument because it just clearly states that Wootan’s suggestion is unethical and if those regulations were to be implemented into the system, it would not solve the obesity problem but actually help bring another problem.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you that Liodice makes a better argument on the food advertisements for children. Wootan is too strong on making her standpoint which maybe a little too far or over in stating her opinions in the article. I think Wootan has a mistaken impression that the number of obese children will decrease after the guideline of regulation once set. However, Liodice gives out truly supportive evidence that everyone in America should have the right to choose what they want. Liodice states clearly about the right of freedom in the beginning of the article which is kind of showing his perspective by having sufficient information. Overall, I think Liodice’s argument is more persuasive with valid evidences.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Wootan was very passionate about in making his argument in banning unhealthy food advertisement to children, but that his argument was not very strong in comparison to Liodice's argument. I was not very moved by Wootan's massive amount of facts and guidelines, where as Liodice's argument made a connection with the readers in putting individual rights first. I did not think the Wootan had many things to back up his argument, he only stated what people should be doing, which is not very convincing. So in the end, I have to agree with you and say that Liodice's argument was the stronger one.
ReplyDeleteThat is great you placed that Margo G. Wootan, in her article speaks about a ban of bad foods with regulation that put the product out of the guidelines. That is right. While I agree she stand upon a conviction that only certain foods are accepted or should be accepted. While there should be placed certain guidelines into the to what is free speech. For example, “you will die if you don’t eat this.” Not so dramatic but you can figure a basic picture from those word.” I do think that taking speech from food to market does take free speech in a sense. Good written blog.
ReplyDelete