Acreo Aeneas

Ever heard of cheese in moderation?

The stupidest laws get passed because average minded civilians forget to consume in moderation.

__________________
Acreo_Aeneas
Former 9th Member

sordavie

A serving size of cheese is like a cube with 1" sides, and that contains a third of one's daily requirement for saturated fat as outlined by the USDA. Maybe people don't quite realize how small a single serving is.

__________________

Ferris Bueller

Next thing you know, theres going to be guys in trenchcoats selling black market cheese on streetcorners in london. I can see it now...a late night stroll and you run across some seedy individual who shows you his merchandise hiding in his big black coat says "oy lad, got your cheese? i got swiss, cheddar and jack. your choice for 5 pounds a block."

__________________
|TG-6th|Ferris Bueller

DudeMan

well quite, but bare in mind that most of this generation was brought up on mcdonalds and fast food, and the effects of which were only realised really quite recently, you cant blame a generation of people that were force fed complete rubbish by uncontrolled advertising for this crap. smoking was seen as a great socially acceptable thing, and who enforced this message the same arseholes who are still trying to convince us that you can eat healthily at fast food places. the same idiots that advertise oil substitute cheese as a really fun and playful food in the form of strings and cool dippers, to take away from the fact that, the company behind its manufacture, add oil to increase profit, they make it fun to disguise the fact it tastes of nothing.

Guinness is good for you, it makes you strong yadda yadda, in poorer times with less of a dietary choice yes guiness was a substitute for the nutrients the poor missed out on, similarly cheese a necessary form of calcium, and making it a fun product served a purpose of making sure kids got their fill and ate it... spinnage and Popeye, carrots seeing in the dark etc etc... however, because we are now a more affluent society, the advertisers have moved from necessity to profit...

is government control on this issue ideal, no, but i will readily accept this eventuality over alternative, free advertising at anyone for anything for profit...

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

icky

They can have my cheese when they pry it from my cold, dead, fat hands!

__________________
Peace through fear... since 1947!

xTYBALTx

Wow, I couldn't disagree more with that.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

DudeMan

lmao....oh my god... i think enough has possibly been said on this lol....

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

Root

I disagree. No-one I know of has ever been force-fed. People made choices, and in the case of those who eat too much (or worse, allowed their children to), they made bad choices.

Governments place, is to govern for the people, with the consent of the people. What governments actually do, is pass as many laws as possible, restricting as much as possible, whether it makes sense (or whether the people approve) or not. This advert ban has nothing to do with the health of the nation. This is a political party trying to score points ready for the next election.

Q. What's the definition of someone who believes that, once they've actually tasted the average fast food product?

A. An idiot. I'm against making stupidity a crime, but the law shouldn't be wasting time protecting idiots either.

Advertising in the media isn't free. In fact, it costs huge amounts of money. As for government control, it's one of the only things I've ever heard the US republican party make sense on - government should be as small as possible, in order to do the bare minimum that government is supposed to do. They should have neither the time, money nor resources to interfere in what people get to advertise, Government should be about health, education, genuine national security, and providing basic essential services (police, fire, ambulance, genuine social services).

When I order a pizza, I know it's bad for me, and I choose to do it anyway. Extend these laws, and I'll have to get off my lazy ass and walk to the pizza shop, because they'll not be allowed to put a flyer through my door.

__________________

Steeler

Allow me to interject a little on the subject of advertising, since I work in that field.

IMO, government should ABSOLUTELY interfere with what people get to advertise. In the US, this is handled by a combination of regulations from the FCC and the FTC (Federal Trade Commission). The number of distortions and outright lies that make their way into print or on TV, even in our restrictive system, is staggering. Given the opportunity, any given manufacturer would have a "cure" for cancer on every page of every magazine in the country, and they would make millions. Snake oil salesmen are very real. In the sphere of mass communications, the power of someone with a little money and few scruples is extraordinary, and it is in the interests of the people to regulate that sphere.

Trust me, I know. I work with these jackasses. I'm not always happy with the arbitrary nature of the system, but I do understand the necessity of it.

__________________

Acreo Aeneas

Hmm...well the FCC and the FTC's authority has been weakened quite a bit over the last decade.

And unfortunately, false advertisements have become very subtle and takes a little thinking to realize that some claims by known and reputable companies will never get any backing or contain any substance.

__________________
Acreo_Aeneas
Former 9th Member

Revark

Yea, marketing is made for the not so intelligent. I always see this lawyer commercial about the IRS, saying she can "save you pennies on the dollar". But never says how many pennies. Perhaps she is just saving you 2 pennies out of a dollars.

*shrug* I love poking holes in marketing tactics.

__________________
Battlefield 2: Battlefield 2142: WoW: Oblivion: NWN2

DudeMan

agreed 100% with you there steeler although i dont suppose you would go as far as this ban, but i agree with the sentiment.

and root, we will never see eye to eye on this issue i can see that already but as to your Q&A, there are two answers,

idiots and children. the former will still be able to lap up this advertising because its only restricted during chilldrens television, not blanket on all advertisement.... but the latter is a different story and one advertisers of heart faliure should not target.

i know its a great cop out to say its the parents, but its not always the parents.

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

Root

Parents are morally and legally responsible for their children. Most parents are unwilling or unable to say no. That in turn causes lots of problems in society.

Children collectively (of course there are exceptions) need to be put in their place. Whether they like it or not, they are children. They shouldn't be out on the street with their friends late at night, they shouldn't be watching TV past the watershed, they shouldn't be demanding (and receiving) pretty much anything they want, they shouldn't be disrespecting their teachers (or any adults), they shouldn't be dictating their diet to their parents.

Whoops! MI5 just clocked up another child abuse charge against me there. Next I might start advocating all sorts of subversive ideas like smacking your children when they deserve it, sensible laws on drugs, guns and education. I might start pointing out that my police force has 2 civilians for every police officer, and the entire county force doesn't have enough officers to police my town.

Dudeman - the government (that's an apolitical term there) is to blame for all of this, and the only other people to blame are the fans of all polictical parties who trumpet their propoganda and vote for them. It wasn't children who let the cost for the Scottish parliment building go from £40 million to £400 millon, even though any other building contract would see the building contractor LOSE money for being late and not to spec. It wasn't children that banned protests within a mile of parliment, or let Bush come into the country without arresting him. It's not children bringing in laws based on the concept of guilty until proven innocent (and they're probably illegal laws), taking away the right to trial by jury, the right to hear evidence against you in a court case, removing double jepordy, or putting GPS tracking in every car so that they can spy on your movements.

Feel free to come back at me if you can prove children are really to blame for that or any other problem in this country.

__________________

xTYBALTx

Are these really decisions for you to make for everyone else? None of the behaviors you list here, with the possible exception of disrespecting teachers, should be regulated by the state. If a parent wants to raise bratty kids, that's their prerogative. Not mine. Not yours.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

Root

Maybe the behaviours shouldn't be regulated, but children get legal protection, so the state (through social services) should be stepping in if children aren't being brought up properly. Allowing a child to be out on the street late on a dark night is child neglect, if not abuse. Allowing them to watch TV programs that are deliberately put on late due to their content being unsuitable for children is child neglect, if not abuse. Are you advocating that social services shouldn't intervene when these things happen? Because in England, they're sure happy to get parents arrested or for smacking their naughty children. At "best", social services will lawfully kidnap the children and prevent them seeing their parents again.

Are you telling me it's not completely messed up that a morally decent parent gets treated like that, whilst irresponsible, neglectful, immoral parents get to bring their children up in a an appalling manner?

__________________