FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > the end of haribo? !
the end of haribo? !
Jump to: Newest in thread
Labour's plans are to put a 9pm watershed on advertising for sweets and sugary products, if they were to win the election  
Do you think that this would have an impact on childhood obesity, or would it not make a difference ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I doubt it - but hopefully it will put an end to the dreadful Haribo adverts where the adults are dubbed over with child like voices.
The bigger question is - if there's nothing to advertise between 6am and 9pm, how will the non licence fee subsidised channels stay in business? Could this spell the end of ITV? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I doubt it - but hopefully it will put an end to the dreadful Haribo adverts where the adults are dubbed over with child like voices.
The bigger question is - if there's nothing to advertise between 6am and 9pm, how will the non licence fee subsidised channels stay in business? Could this spell the end of ITV? "
Other products can be advertised. Not just sweets.
I don't think it will make a massive difference to be honest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man
over a year ago
NW London |
It won't make a bit of difference. Did the ban on tobacco advertising really change anything?
Maybe the next idea will be to put pictures of rotten teeth on the packaging and hide them away in cupboards like they do with packets of fags now days? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I doubt it - but hopefully it will put an end to the dreadful Haribo adverts where the adults are dubbed over with child like voices.
Oh I love those ads, especially the Rugby players  "
Me too:D |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ild-1Woman
over a year ago
york |
"I doubt it - but hopefully it will put an end to the dreadful Haribo adverts where the adults are dubbed over with child like voices.
Oh I love those ads, especially the Rugby players "
Me too I think they are hilarious |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. The problem starts at a much younger age than advertising is noticed. Poor eating is ingrained in society- all around is McDonald's etc. A lot of children are already obese by school age, and the increase in iPad usage etc has lowered kids playing outside like they used to.
I'll get off my soapbox but no, advertising after 9pm isn't going to help |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Labour's plans are to put a 9pm watershed on advertising for sweets and sugary products, if they were to win the election
Do you think that this would have an impact on childhood obesity, or would it not make a difference ? "
I think it would be far more positive to reduce obesity by putting more emphasis on exercise than banning and taxing everything pleasurable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. The problem starts at a much younger age than advertising is noticed. Poor eating is ingrained in society- all around is McDonald's etc. A lot of children are already obese by school age, and the increase in iPad usage etc has lowered kids playing outside like they used to.
I'll get off my soapbox but no, advertising after 9pm isn't going to help "
Guessing I'm not the only one cynical enough to wonder why Macy d's has installed kiddie friendly iPads at the tables?
Hmm let's distract the kids while eating and they won't notice how much they're shovelling in their gobs!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Labour's plans are to put a 9pm watershed on advertising for sweets and sugary products, if they were to win the election
Do you think that this would have an impact on childhood obesity, or would it not make a difference ?
I think it would be far more positive to reduce obesity by putting more emphasis on exercise than banning and taxing everything pleasurable. "
 Banning things just makes people want them more.
It's a fine line and they'll never get it right unfortunately. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. The problem starts at a much younger age than advertising is noticed. Poor eating is ingrained in society- all around is McDonald's etc. A lot of children are already obese by school age, and the increase in iPad usage etc has lowered kids playing outside like they used to.
I'll get off my soapbox but no, advertising after 9pm isn't going to help
Guessing I'm not the only one cynical enough to wonder why Macy d's has installed kiddie friendly iPads at the tables?
Hmm let's distract the kids while eating and they won't notice how much they're shovelling in their gobs! "
They are a terrible idea for exactly that reason!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Labour's plans are to put a 9pm watershed on advertising for sweets and sugary products, if they were to win the election
Do you think that this would have an impact on childhood obesity, or would it not make a difference ? "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If advertising didn't increase spending then they wouldn't do it. I'm guessing that it would reduce demand to some extent but no clue how much."
Not necessarily. Companies are not entirely rational, other reasons to to thinks include inertia, biases and miscalculation. The famous quote of marketing is "half of my advertising budget is wasted, i just don't know which half". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Labour's plans are to put a 9pm watershed on advertising for sweets and sugary products, if they were to win the election
Do you think that this would have an impact on childhood obesity, or would it not make a difference ? "
Depends what kind of parent you are I'd say. Makes no difference to me as I'm strict with mine so sweets isn't an issue |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No its down to parents guiding their children down the right path every time you go past McDonald's you can see what many are doing "
McDonalds isn't all that bad, depends what you order. It's miles ahead of KFC or Burger King in terms of offering lower fat alternative meals. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If advertising didn't make a difference then companies wouldn't spend a fucking fortune on advertising, in fact why not bring back smoking adverts?
I think we should have done it years ago along with gambling adverts and drinking adverts |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It wont end it, it is all down to education and patience, calories in, calories out, if you eat below maintenance you will lose weight. "
Word. When i was a child i ate like a fat fucking pig because i did so much exercise that a pizza a night wouldn't stop me having a six pack. Now i am a chubby fucking pig even though i eat a relatively clean diet because im desk bound all day. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It wont end it, it is all down to education and patience, calories in, calories out, if you eat below maintenance you will lose weight.
Word. When i was a child i ate like a fat fucking pig because i did so much exercise that a pizza a night wouldn't stop me having a six pack. Now i am a chubby fucking pig even though i eat a relatively clean diet because im desk bound all day. "
That is good you have a clean diet, do you track your macros daily? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
They should ban advertising it all the time. Whilst they're at they can ban GBBO and Master Chef as it makes me hungry watching those too.
Will they ban billboards with it on too and online ads? If not then it's a drop in the ocean. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It wont end it, it is all down to education and patience, calories in, calories out, if you eat below maintenance you will lose weight.
Word. When i was a child i ate like a fat fucking pig because i did so much exercise that a pizza a night wouldn't stop me having a six pack. Now i am a chubby fucking pig even though i eat a relatively clean diet because im desk bound all day. That is good you have a clean diet, do you track your macros daily?"
Nah, i used to be into all that and had a stomach like you. Now i don't and i have a stomach like a deflated football, funny that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They should ban advertising it all the time. Whilst they're at they can ban GBBO and Master Chef as it makes me hungry watching those too.
Will they ban billboards with it on too and online ads? If not then it's a drop in the ocean. "
Ffs, it's about limiting the access of advertisers to peddle food that kills people to the people who aren't capable of knowing any better.
And because they internet exists it's not worth bothering with?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think kids get very brand aware. And that disturbs me. Sugary cereals should be included in this. They'll see things then point them out in shops.
Of course, as a parent, I get to say no. And I do. It's tedious to have to deal with though! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They should ban advertising it all the time. Whilst they're at they can ban GBBO and Master Chef as it makes me hungry watching those too.
Will they ban billboards with it on too and online ads? If not then it's a drop in the ocean.
Ffs, it's about limiting the access of advertisers to peddle food that kills people to the people who aren't capable of knowing any better.
And because they internet exists it's not worth bothering with?
"
Read: It's about the government doing the job of parents |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
it will help addicts, but with help from other sources. part of stopping an addiction is avoiding sources of where you can fulfil that addiction.
so, shops are gonna have to move their sweets to a location where people aren't gonna be tempted to buy them, like if you go into my corner shop there are sweets everywhere.
also, by not normalising sweets, as in having them shoved in your face like they're acceptable, will help also.
everything that is bad for people now, in terms of being fat and/or unhealthy is seen a legit thing. sitting on your arse all day = acceptable, eating crap coz it's convenient = acceptable, being unhealthy = acceptable by proxy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Read: It's about the government doing the job of parents"
Which they do already, in a lot of circumstances.
If parents give their kids sweets all the time then it's the kids that suffer.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it will help addicts, but with help from other sources. part of stopping an addiction is avoiding sources of where you can fulfil that addiction.
so, shops are gonna have to move their sweets to a location where people aren't gonna be tempted to buy them, like if you go into my corner shop there are sweets everywhere.
also, by not normalising sweets, as in having them shoved in your face like they're acceptable, will help also.
everything that is bad for people now, in terms of being fat and/or unhealthy is seen a legit thing. sitting on your arse all day = acceptable, eating crap coz it's convenient = acceptable, being unhealthy = acceptable by proxy."
Why don't we just copy all the north korean governnent policies while we're at it. Their shops hide their sweets well, there are no haribo adverts on the TV and they don't have an obesity crisis. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Read: It's about the government doing the job of parents
Which they do already, in a lot of circumstances.
If parents give their kids sweets all the time then it's the kids that suffer.
"
Exactly, It's a never ending slope. Labour are the same party than want shitty free school meals for everyone in primary school because apparently parents don't need to take responsibility for feeding their kids. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It wont end it, it is all down to education and patience, calories in, calories out, if you eat below maintenance you will lose weight.
Word. When i was a child i ate like a fat fucking pig because i did so much exercise that a pizza a night wouldn't stop me having a six pack. Now i am a chubby fucking pig even though i eat a relatively clean diet because im desk bound all day. That is good you have a clean diet, do you track your macros daily?
Nah, i used to be into all that and had a stomach like you. Now i don't and i have a stomach like a deflated football, funny that"
That is right and yeah, it is hard to keep doing all the time, although haribos is my favourite sweet as well  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"it will help addicts, but with help from other sources. part of stopping an addiction is avoiding sources of where you can fulfil that addiction.
so, shops are gonna have to move their sweets to a location where people aren't gonna be tempted to buy them, like if you go into my corner shop there are sweets everywhere.
also, by not normalising sweets, as in having them shoved in your face like they're acceptable, will help also.
everything that is bad for people now, in terms of being fat and/or unhealthy is seen a legit thing. sitting on your arse all day = acceptable, eating crap coz it's convenient = acceptable, being unhealthy = acceptable by proxy.
Why don't we just copy all the north korean governnent policies while we're at it. Their shops hide their sweets well, there are no haribo adverts on the TV and they don't have an obesity crisis. "
they're doing it with cigs.
i used to be all for people policing themselves (and still am) but if they can't do it then why not help them? we are a civilised country and help others with special needs, where applicable) so why not help people who can't control their eating/exercise habits?
i think it will help us recognise that addiction is a serious problem and sometimes so are lifestyle choices. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Read: It's about the government doing the job of parents
Which they do already, in a lot of circumstances.
If parents give their kids sweets all the time then it's the kids that suffer.
Exactly, It's a never ending slope. Labour are the same party than want shitty free school meals for everyone in primary school because apparently parents don't need to take responsibility for feeding their kids. "
Just to clarify, I wasn't agreeing with you.
Your 'never ending slope' of improved nutrition, educational attainment and good health is what a lot of people call progress. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Read: It's about the government doing the job of parents
Which they do already, in a lot of circumstances.
If parents give their kids sweets all the time then it's the kids that suffer.
Exactly, It's a never ending slope. Labour are the same party than want shitty free school meals for everyone in primary school because apparently parents don't need to take responsibility for feeding their kids.
Just to clarify, I wasn't agreeing with you.
Your 'never ending slope' of improved nutrition, educational attainment and good health is what a lot of people call progress."
Parents are overwhelmingly superior at raising children to the state. What i resent is the lowest common denominator approach to policy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it will help addicts, but with help from other sources. part of stopping an addiction is avoiding sources of where you can fulfil that addiction.
so, shops are gonna have to move their sweets to a location where people aren't gonna be tempted to buy them, like if you go into my corner shop there are sweets everywhere.
also, by not normalising sweets, as in having them shoved in your face like they're acceptable, will help also.
everything that is bad for people now, in terms of being fat and/or unhealthy is seen a legit thing. sitting on your arse all day = acceptable, eating crap coz it's convenient = acceptable, being unhealthy = acceptable by proxy.
Why don't we just copy all the north korean governnent policies while we're at it. Their shops hide their sweets well, there are no haribo adverts on the TV and they don't have an obesity crisis.
they're doing it with cigs.
i used to be all for people policing themselves (and still am) but if they can't do it then why not help them? we are a civilised country and help others with special needs, where applicable) so why not help people who can't control their eating/exercise habits?
i think it will help us recognise that addiction is a serious problem and sometimes so are lifestyle choices."
Government policy should not be set at the lowest common denominator. Speed limits are set at the 85th percentile for a reason, if they set it at the 99th then it would be faster to walk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Read: It's about the government doing the job of parents
Which they do already, in a lot of circumstances.
If parents give their kids sweets all the time then it's the kids that suffer.
Exactly, It's a never ending slope. Labour are the same party than want shitty free school meals for everyone in primary school because apparently parents don't need to take responsibility for feeding their kids.
Just to clarify, I wasn't agreeing with you.
Your 'never ending slope' of improved nutrition, educational attainment and good health is what a lot of people call progress.
Parents are overwhelmingly superior at raising children to the state. What i resent is the lowest common denominator approach to policy. "
I care more about protecting kids from obesity than I care about protecting you libertarian ideals from the government |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"it will help addicts, but with help from other sources. part of stopping an addiction is avoiding sources of where you can fulfil that addiction.
so, shops are gonna have to move their sweets to a location where people aren't gonna be tempted to buy them, like if you go into my corner shop there are sweets everywhere.
also, by not normalising sweets, as in having them shoved in your face like they're acceptable, will help also.
everything that is bad for people now, in terms of being fat and/or unhealthy is seen a legit thing. sitting on your arse all day = acceptable, eating crap coz it's convenient = acceptable, being unhealthy = acceptable by proxy.
Why don't we just copy all the north korean governnent policies while we're at it. Their shops hide their sweets well, there are no haribo adverts on the TV and they don't have an obesity crisis.
they're doing it with cigs.
i used to be all for people policing themselves (and still am) but if they can't do it then why not help them? we are a civilised country and help others with special needs, where applicable) so why not help people who can't control their eating/exercise habits?
i think it will help us recognise that addiction is a serious problem and sometimes so are lifestyle choices.
Government policy should not be set at the lowest common denominator. Speed limits are set at the 85th percentile for a reason, if they set it at the 99th then it would be faster to walk. "
.
Ahhh the libertarian approach!
Hows it worked out in the USA?.. Hey, what do you mean they're all fat fuckers.
Ooooooh |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Read: It's about the government doing the job of parents
Which they do already, in a lot of circumstances.
If parents give their kids sweets all the time then it's the kids that suffer.
Exactly, It's a never ending slope. Labour are the same party than want shitty free school meals for everyone in primary school because apparently parents don't need to take responsibility for feeding their kids.
Just to clarify, I wasn't agreeing with you.
Your 'never ending slope' of improved nutrition, educational attainment and good health is what a lot of people call progress.
Parents are overwhelmingly superior at raising children to the state. What i resent is the lowest common denominator approach to policy.
I care more about protecting kids from obesity than I care about protecting you libertarian ideals from the government"
Sacrificing liberty for protection, what could possibly go wrong |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"Read: It's about the government doing the job of parents
Which they do already, in a lot of circumstances.
If parents give their kids sweets all the time then it's the kids that suffer.
Exactly, It's a never ending slope. Labour are the same party than want shitty free school meals for everyone in primary school because apparently parents don't need to take responsibility for feeding their kids.
Just to clarify, I wasn't agreeing with you.
Your 'never ending slope' of improved nutrition, educational attainment and good health is what a lot of people call progress."
idk. i have type 2 diabetes and have had a lot of education regarding food and diet over the past 2 decades. my cognitive functions are great so i could apply the knowledge given to me easily (and have done when pregnant) and mostly do it when i'm not (one day a month i binge on anything, the day after my PMT makes me feel sick and i can't eat anything for a couple of days i pig out then).
over 2 decades later i am going to health classes to help me figure out why i am overweight. i still have no idea. apparently it's food in should be less than going out, more exercise will help also. this isn't working and i'm not even compensating by eating more food this time because doing exercise isn't making me hungrier.
only thing that has ever worked for me is not eating at all, literal starvation. i don't think whoever is educating me has enough knowledge about how my body works for it to work. weird thing is every time i get my weight down it stays stable, no matter what weight i get it down to, but i always have to starve to get it down in the first place. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it will help addicts, but with help from other sources. part of stopping an addiction is avoiding sources of where you can fulfil that addiction.
so, shops are gonna have to move their sweets to a location where people aren't gonna be tempted to buy them, like if you go into my corner shop there are sweets everywhere.
also, by not normalising sweets, as in having them shoved in your face like they're acceptable, will help also.
everything that is bad for people now, in terms of being fat and/or unhealthy is seen a legit thing. sitting on your arse all day = acceptable, eating crap coz it's convenient = acceptable, being unhealthy = acceptable by proxy.
Why don't we just copy all the north korean governnent policies while we're at it. Their shops hide their sweets well, there are no haribo adverts on the TV and they don't have an obesity crisis.
they're doing it with cigs.
i used to be all for people policing themselves (and still am) but if they can't do it then why not help them? we are a civilised country and help others with special needs, where applicable) so why not help people who can't control their eating/exercise habits?
i think it will help us recognise that addiction is a serious problem and sometimes so are lifestyle choices.
Government policy should not be set at the lowest common denominator. Speed limits are set at the 85th percentile for a reason, if they set it at the 99th then it would be faster to walk. .
Ahhh the libertarian approach!
Hows it worked out in the USA?.. Hey, what do you mean they're all fat fuckers.
Ooooooh"
They seem happier than the skinny north koreans though? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"it will help addicts, but with help from other sources. part of stopping an addiction is avoiding sources of where you can fulfil that addiction.
so, shops are gonna have to move their sweets to a location where people aren't gonna be tempted to buy them, like if you go into my corner shop there are sweets everywhere.
also, by not normalising sweets, as in having them shoved in your face like they're acceptable, will help also.
everything that is bad for people now, in terms of being fat and/or unhealthy is seen a legit thing. sitting on your arse all day = acceptable, eating crap coz it's convenient = acceptable, being unhealthy = acceptable by proxy.
Why don't we just copy all the north korean governnent policies while we're at it. Their shops hide their sweets well, there are no haribo adverts on the TV and they don't have an obesity crisis.
they're doing it with cigs.
i used to be all for people policing themselves (and still am) but if they can't do it then why not help them? we are a civilised country and help others with special needs, where applicable) so why not help people who can't control their eating/exercise habits?
i think it will help us recognise that addiction is a serious problem and sometimes so are lifestyle choices.
Government policy should not be set at the lowest common denominator. Speed limits are set at the 85th percentile for a reason, if they set it at the 99th then it would be faster to walk. .
Ahhh the libertarian approach!
Hows it worked out in the USA?.. Hey, what do you mean they're all fat fuckers.
Ooooooh"
we're just as fat now here. the crisis is everywhere, well i say crisis but most of the people are still young who are obese so it's not having that much of an effect yet.
we're adopting their shitty life style habits and it's working in that we have caught up to them. except we don't have corn syrup in everything here yet, our food is better regulated.
only thing is here we have an NHS that is free for everyone so obese people will have a better prognosis overall and live longer and possibly maintain better health while obese, but still have problems (i predict). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"it will help addicts, but with help from other sources. part of stopping an addiction is avoiding sources of where you can fulfil that addiction.
so, shops are gonna have to move their sweets to a location where people aren't gonna be tempted to buy them, like if you go into my corner shop there are sweets everywhere.
also, by not normalising sweets, as in having them shoved in your face like they're acceptable, will help also.
everything that is bad for people now, in terms of being fat and/or unhealthy is seen a legit thing. sitting on your arse all day = acceptable, eating crap coz it's convenient = acceptable, being unhealthy = acceptable by proxy.
Why don't we just copy all the north korean governnent policies while we're at it. Their shops hide their sweets well, there are no haribo adverts on the TV and they don't have an obesity crisis.
they're doing it with cigs.
i used to be all for people policing themselves (and still am) but if they can't do it then why not help them? we are a civilised country and help others with special needs, where applicable) so why not help people who can't control their eating/exercise habits?
i think it will help us recognise that addiction is a serious problem and sometimes so are lifestyle choices.
Government policy should not be set at the lowest common denominator. Speed limits are set at the 85th percentile for a reason, if they set it at the 99th then it would be faster to walk. .
Ahhh the libertarian approach!
Hows it worked out in the USA?.. Hey, what do you mean they're all fat fuckers.
Ooooooh
They seem happier than the skinny north koreans though? "
.
Mmmmmm let me just check the internet for clarification.
https://youtu.be/EdlXeNC-9BI |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it will help addicts, but with help from other sources. part of stopping an addiction is avoiding sources of where you can fulfil that addiction.
so, shops are gonna have to move their sweets to a location where people aren't gonna be tempted to buy them, like if you go into my corner shop there are sweets everywhere.
also, by not normalising sweets, as in having them shoved in your face like they're acceptable, will help also.
everything that is bad for people now, in terms of being fat and/or unhealthy is seen a legit thing. sitting on your arse all day = acceptable, eating crap coz it's convenient = acceptable, being unhealthy = acceptable by proxy.
Why don't we just copy all the north korean governnent policies while we're at it. Their shops hide their sweets well, there are no haribo adverts on the TV and they don't have an obesity crisis.
they're doing it with cigs.
i used to be all for people policing themselves (and still am) but if they can't do it then why not help them? we are a civilised country and help others with special needs, where applicable) so why not help people who can't control their eating/exercise habits?
i think it will help us recognise that addiction is a serious problem and sometimes so are lifestyle choices.
Government policy should not be set at the lowest common denominator. Speed limits are set at the 85th percentile for a reason, if they set it at the 99th then it would be faster to walk. .
Ahhh the libertarian approach!
Hows it worked out in the USA?.. Hey, what do you mean they're all fat fuckers.
Ooooooh
They seem happier than the skinny north koreans though? .
Mmmmmm let me just check the internet for clarification.
https://youtu.be/EdlXeNC-9BI"
But if that's your evidence then surely the government needs to introduce restrictions on breeding?
Are you more in favour of child permits or sterilization those without 5 good GCSEs? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I doubt it will make any difference, all those smoking adverts dissapeared and has it stopped people smoking ?? So I doubt the same will happen."
.
Yes smoking is at an all time low |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a very complex problem that will be tackled by a cohesive plan that will include restrictions upon food producers and retailers, as part of the solution. "
I'd support it if they could show exactly how much the NHS will save and exactly how much my taxes will reduce as a result. My guess is absolute zero because it doesn't deal with the underlying reason people feel a need to eat too many treats. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"I doubt it will make any difference, all those smoking adverts dissapeared and has it stopped people smoking ?? So I doubt the same will happen."
less people smoke now, and the number of people starting has gone down considerably.
it might not be due to the smoking ban (vaping is popular) but it is correlative so we can't rule it out either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"it will help addicts, but with help from other sources. part of stopping an addiction is avoiding sources of where you can fulfil that addiction.
so, shops are gonna have to move their sweets to a location where people aren't gonna be tempted to buy them, like if you go into my corner shop there are sweets everywhere.
also, by not normalising sweets, as in having them shoved in your face like they're acceptable, will help also.
everything that is bad for people now, in terms of being fat and/or unhealthy is seen a legit thing. sitting on your arse all day = acceptable, eating crap coz it's convenient = acceptable, being unhealthy = acceptable by proxy.
Why don't we just copy all the north korean governnent policies while we're at it. Their shops hide their sweets well, there are no haribo adverts on the TV and they don't have an obesity crisis.
they're doing it with cigs.
i used to be all for people policing themselves (and still am) but if they can't do it then why not help them? we are a civilised country and help others with special needs, where applicable) so why not help people who can't control their eating/exercise habits?
i think it will help us recognise that addiction is a serious problem and sometimes so are lifestyle choices.
Government policy should not be set at the lowest common denominator. Speed limits are set at the 85th percentile for a reason, if they set it at the 99th then it would be faster to walk. .
Ahhh the libertarian approach!
Hows it worked out in the USA?.. Hey, what do you mean they're all fat fuckers.
Ooooooh
They seem happier than the skinny north koreans though? .
Mmmmmm let me just check the internet for clarification.
https://youtu.be/EdlXeNC-9BI
But if that's your evidence then surely the government needs to introduce restrictions on breeding?
Are you more in favour of child permits or sterilization those without 5 good GCSEs?"
.
I dont know but those yanks and their guns sure do make me cry with laughter.
Seriously though, these are people handling loaded weapons and there still complete retards.
What an earth makes you think there capable of deciding how many haribos their kids should eat?.
And then there's the whole crew who cant seem to avoid walking into holes that workmen have dug or take a radio in the bath with them, the world is full of plebs I'm afraid and as a society we can only go as fast as these fucking idiots allow us to go |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I doubt it will make any difference, all those smoking adverts dissapeared and has it stopped people smoking ?? So I doubt the same will happen.
less people smoke now, and the number of people starting has gone down considerably.
it might not be due to the smoking ban (vaping is popular) but it is correlative so we can't rule it out either."
About half of vapers give up smoking. Maybe they can come up with the vaping equivalent to sugar addicition. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it will help addicts, but with help from other sources. part of stopping an addiction is avoiding sources of where you can fulfil that addiction.
so, shops are gonna have to move their sweets to a location where people aren't gonna be tempted to buy them, like if you go into my corner shop there are sweets everywhere.
also, by not normalising sweets, as in having them shoved in your face like they're acceptable, will help also.
everything that is bad for people now, in terms of being fat and/or unhealthy is seen a legit thing. sitting on your arse all day = acceptable, eating crap coz it's convenient = acceptable, being unhealthy = acceptable by proxy.
Why don't we just copy all the north korean governnent policies while we're at it. Their shops hide their sweets well, there are no haribo adverts on the TV and they don't have an obesity crisis.
they're doing it with cigs.
i used to be all for people policing themselves (and still am) but if they can't do it then why not help them? we are a civilised country and help others with special needs, where applicable) so why not help people who can't control their eating/exercise habits?
i think it will help us recognise that addiction is a serious problem and sometimes so are lifestyle choices.
Government policy should not be set at the lowest common denominator. Speed limits are set at the 85th percentile for a reason, if they set it at the 99th then it would be faster to walk. .
Ahhh the libertarian approach!
Hows it worked out in the USA?.. Hey, what do you mean they're all fat fuckers.
Ooooooh
They seem happier than the skinny north koreans though? .
Mmmmmm let me just check the internet for clarification.
https://youtu.be/EdlXeNC-9BI
But if that's your evidence then surely the government needs to introduce restrictions on breeding?
Are you more in favour of child permits or sterilization those without 5 good GCSEs?.
I dont know but those yanks and their guns sure do make me cry with laughter.
Seriously though, these are people handling loaded weapons and there still complete retards.
What an earth makes you think there capable of deciding how many haribos their kids should eat?.
And then there's the whole crew who cant seem to avoid walking into holes that workmen have dug or take a radio in the bath with them, the world is full of plebs I'm afraid and as a society we can only go as fast as these fucking idiots allow us to go "
Exactly so what is the problem with not standing in the way of them killing themselves early? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"it will help addicts, but with help from other sources. part of stopping an addiction is avoiding sources of where you can fulfil that addiction.
so, shops are gonna have to move their sweets to a location where people aren't gonna be tempted to buy them, like if you go into my corner shop there are sweets everywhere.
also, by not normalising sweets, as in having them shoved in your face like they're acceptable, will help also.
everything that is bad for people now, in terms of being fat and/or unhealthy is seen a legit thing. sitting on your arse all day = acceptable, eating crap coz it's convenient = acceptable, being unhealthy = acceptable by proxy.
Why don't we just copy all the north korean governnent policies while we're at it. Their shops hide their sweets well, there are no haribo adverts on the TV and they don't have an obesity crisis.
they're doing it with cigs.
i used to be all for people policing themselves (and still am) but if they can't do it then why not help them? we are a civilised country and help others with special needs, where applicable) so why not help people who can't control their eating/exercise habits?
i think it will help us recognise that addiction is a serious problem and sometimes so are lifestyle choices.
Government policy should not be set at the lowest common denominator. Speed limits are set at the 85th percentile for a reason, if they set it at the 99th then it would be faster to walk. .
Ahhh the libertarian approach!
Hows it worked out in the USA?.. Hey, what do you mean they're all fat fuckers.
Ooooooh
They seem happier than the skinny north koreans though? .
Mmmmmm let me just check the internet for clarification.
https://youtu.be/EdlXeNC-9BI
But if that's your evidence then surely the government needs to introduce restrictions on breeding?
Are you more in favour of child permits or sterilization those without 5 good GCSEs?.
I dont know but those yanks and their guns sure do make me cry with laughter.
Seriously though, these are people handling loaded weapons and there still complete retards.
What an earth makes you think there capable of deciding how many haribos their kids should eat?.
And then there's the whole crew who cant seem to avoid walking into holes that workmen have dug or take a radio in the bath with them, the world is full of plebs I'm afraid and as a society we can only go as fast as these fucking idiots allow us to go
Exactly so what is the problem with not standing in the way of them killing themselves early?"
.
I've got no problem with it personally, however all "liberal" countrys? seem slightly obsessed with "saving" people |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"I doubt it will make any difference, all those smoking adverts dissapeared and has it stopped people smoking ?? So I doubt the same will happen.
less people smoke now, and the number of people starting has gone down considerably.
it might not be due to the smoking ban (vaping is popular) but it is correlative so we can't rule it out either.
About half of vapers give up smoking. Maybe they can come up with the vaping equivalent to sugar addicition. "
sweeteners is one thing.
i personally found that by cutting out everything sweet it helped me not to crave any sweet things. i even felt sick when eating my easter egg this year and didn't enjoy the taste of chocolate (kinda concerned about that lol, jk it's good really).
but what works for one person probably will work for some others too but not everyone. but cutting things out completely helps me stop wanting that thing, also training myself to look at it differently helps too. like i call all bad foods 'crap' now, not even junk food (coz that implies it's still food, it is just crap).
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The whole idea is stupid. Where do you stop. Ban car adverts because they pollute the air. Ban headache pills because people can use the to end their lives etc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There's no doubting it...sugar is the new evil!
Anyway..to all the doubters...I think children are highly susceptible to suggestive advertising BUT...the problem is parents feeding them the shite for a quiet life ! Anyway what exactly does Haribo taste of if you really think about it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Fortunately they have no chance of getting in. Unfortunately the conservatives will probably take on the idea within the next few years.
Even 'junk' food has some nutritional value. Whereas cigs don't have any value what-so-ever. It all boils down to the person making sure calories in aren't more than calories out. In addition to taking into account their sex, age, body type etc. If it's a child we are talking about then the parent should be taking notice!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The whole idea is stupid. Where do you stop. Ban car adverts because they pollute the air. Ban headache pills because people can use the to end their lives etc"
Are you...being ironic?
No we don't ban car adverts, but we banned leaded petrol. Large cities are being diesel engines.
Shops will only sell a certain amount of paracetamol to prevent exactly that.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'd support it if they could show exactly how much the NHS will save and exactly how much my taxes will reduce as a result. My guess is absolute zero because it doesn't deal with the underlying reason people feel a need to eat too many treats."
"My guess"
Well isn't it a good thing government policy isn't based on your guesswork. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'd support it if they could show exactly how much the NHS will save and exactly how much my taxes will reduce as a result. My guess is absolute zero because it doesn't deal with the underlying reason people feel a need to eat too many treats.
My guess
Well isn't it a good thing government policy isn't based on your guesswork."
Yup, i'll look forward to those figures in the labour manifesto then. We all know how good the labour front bench are with numbers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I doubt it will make any difference, all those smoking adverts dissapeared and has it stopped people smoking ?? So I doubt the same will happen..
Yes smoking is at an all time low"
Tho the we have no seen a boom ecigs and vaping, but do we really know the long term effects of ecigs and vaping ??
Actually that would be an answer for another thread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rwolfMan
over a year ago
bristol |
If the conservative party gets in again then i will truely be shocked...so far we have had from them
beastiality is ok (camerons dead pigs head)
Tax evasion is fine as long as you bury any evidence of profit
7 MPs under investigation for election fraud (the real reason the snap election was called) ...7 seats is their lead, loose it and oh look a snap election....call it before with new candidates in those spots and we can stay....
As for Labour getting a ban on sugar adverts.....really? Cant see it happening...they will still put sweets by check outs, you will still have the aisles in the supermarket and then there is easter, halloween, xmas....yep all got sugary treats attached to them
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I doubt it will make any difference, all those smoking adverts dissapeared and has it stopped people smoking ?? So I doubt the same will happen..
Yes smoking is at an all time low
Tho the we have no seen a boom ecigs and vaping, but do we really know the long term effects of ecigs and vaping ??
Actually that would be an answer for another thread."
.
Smoking was decreasing long before ecigs came into the market.
What drove the smoking figures down was a public campaign of awareness of the problems it caused, raising the costs of them and banning their advertising! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yup, i'll look forward to those figures in the labour manifesto then. We all know how good the labour front bench are with numbers. "
I'm not arguing for a political party I'm arguing for a policy which will improve the health of children |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the conservative party gets in again then i will truely be shocked...so far we have had from them
beastiality is ok (camerons dead pigs head)
Tax evasion is fine as long as you bury any evidence of profit
7 MPs under investigation for election fraud (the real reason the snap election was called) ...7 seats is their lead, loose it and oh look a snap election....call it before with new candidates in those spots and we can stay....
As for Labour getting a ban on sugar adverts.....really? Cant see it happening...they will still put sweets by check outs, you will still have the aisles in the supermarket and then there is easter, halloween, xmas....yep all got sugary treats attached to them
"
Go and have a read of the 1997 labour manifesto and you'll see a direct reference to exactly the same amount of uncollected tax they wanted to retrieve. Spolier alert: they don't get it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yup, i'll look forward to those figures in the labour manifesto then. We all know how good the labour front bench are with numbers.
I'm not arguing for a political party I'm arguing for a policy which will improve the health of children"
No it won't they'll just eat something else. You don't make real change unless you tackle the underlying causes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Go and have a read of the 1997 labour manifesto and you'll see a direct reference to exactly the same amount of uncollected tax they wanted to retrieve. Spolier alert: they don't get it. "
I'd simmer down on missed promises if I were your because there are some real clangers out there, and you don't have to go back 20 years to find them.
What is the the UK deficit at the moment? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rwolfMan
over a year ago
bristol |
"If the conservative party gets in again then i will truely be shocked...so far we have had from them
beastiality is ok (camerons dead pigs head)
Tax evasion is fine as long as you bury any evidence of profit
7 MPs under investigation for election fraud (the real reason the snap election was called) ...7 seats is their lead, loose it and oh look a snap election....call it before with new candidates in those spots and we can stay....
As for Labour getting a ban on sugar adverts.....really? Cant see it happening...they will still put sweets by check outs, you will still have the aisles in the supermarket and then there is easter, halloween, xmas....yep all got sugary treats attached to them
Go and have a read of the 1997 labour manifesto and you'll see a direct reference to exactly the same amount of uncollected tax they wanted to retrieve. Spolier alert: they don't get it. "
Same with the conservative mansion tax that never got enforced... Ultimately no matter which party gets in it, we will either get the devil or the deep blue sea..
The last election over 15 million didnt vote, now personally they should take it as a "no confidence" vote in any of the parties presented.
Sack them all off and start fresh rather than a bunch of "old school" boys who scratch each others backs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Go and have a read of the 1997 labour manifesto and you'll see a direct reference to exactly the same amount of uncollected tax they wanted to retrieve. Spolier alert: they don't get it.
I'd simmer down on missed promises if I were your because there are some real clangers out there, and you don't have to go back 20 years to find them.
What is the the UK deficit at the moment?"
Sorry are you mistaking me for a tory lover as opposed to just a rational voter who can make objective criticisms of people that deserve them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the conservative party gets in again then i will truely be shocked...so far we have had from them
beastiality is ok (camerons dead pigs head)
Tax evasion is fine as long as you bury any evidence of profit
7 MPs under investigation for election fraud (the real reason the snap election was called) ...7 seats is their lead, loose it and oh look a snap election....call it before with new candidates in those spots and we can stay....
As for Labour getting a ban on sugar adverts.....really? Cant see it happening...they will still put sweets by check outs, you will still have the aisles in the supermarket and then there is easter, halloween, xmas....yep all got sugary treats attached to them
Go and have a read of the 1997 labour manifesto and you'll see a direct reference to exactly the same amount of uncollected tax they wanted to retrieve. Spolier alert: they don't get it.
Same with the conservative mansion tax that never got enforced... Ultimately no matter which party gets in it, we will either get the devil or the deep blue sea..
The last election over 15 million didnt vote, now personally they should take it as a "no confidence" vote in any of the parties presented.
Sack them all off and start fresh rather than a bunch of "old school" boys who scratch each others backs"
Personally i dont think the 15m have any right to complain about the state of affairs if they can't tick a box to try and change it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sorry are you mistaking me for a tory lover as opposed to just a rational voter who can make objective criticisms of people that deserve them? "
After this thread I don't anyone will mistake you for a rational person |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sorry are you mistaking me for a tory lover as opposed to just a rational voter who can make objective criticisms of people that deserve them?
After this thread I don't anyone will mistake you for a rational person"
Anyone who would give up liberty for protection hasn't read and understood history. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sorry are you mistaking me for a tory lover as opposed to just a rational voter who can make objective criticisms of people that deserve them?
After this thread I don't anyone will mistake you for a rational person
Anyone who would give up liberty for protection hasn't read and understood history. "
.
Tag me, tag me..I can finish him, reach thru the ropes and tag me!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Oh fuck it..
I re posted the wrong post grrr
Anyhow yes, you give up liberty every day for protection, the liberty to ride your motorbike without a helmet, your seatbelt in your car, freedom to choose which drugs you want to use..
Were well past the liberty free bollocks thats peddled |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"I doubt it will make any difference, all those smoking adverts dissapeared and has it stopped people smoking ?? So I doubt the same will happen..
Yes smoking is at an all time low
Tho the we have no seen a boom ecigs and vaping, but do we really know the long term effects of ecigs and vaping ??
Actually that would be an answer for another thread."
your argument applies to this thread also, it's can be used as a comparison (if it makes sense to).
we don't know the effects of replacing what we have now for something else, unless it was tried previously and worked. which is why i suspect most advice for losing weight is eat less and move more.
a lot of new things come out all the time to help people, surgeries are recently new but because we know how the digestive system works we also knew these operations would work, unfortunately some have had side effects from this, some are rectifiable and so0e not. so now we know there are risks also and often it is a case of judging whether to take the risk or not if not taking it will likely produce a worse outcome. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rwolfMan
over a year ago
bristol |
"If the conservative party gets in again then i will truely be shocked...so far we have had from them
beastiality is ok (camerons dead pigs head)
Tax evasion is fine as long as you bury any evidence of profit
7 MPs under investigation for election fraud (the real reason the snap election was called) ...7 seats is their lead, loose it and oh look a snap election....call it before with new candidates in those spots and we can stay....
As for Labour getting a ban on sugar adverts.....really? Cant see it happening...they will still put sweets by check outs, you will still have the aisles in the supermarket and then there is easter, halloween, xmas....yep all got sugary treats attached to them
Go and have a read of the 1997 labour manifesto and you'll see a direct reference to exactly the same amount of uncollected tax they wanted to retrieve. Spolier alert: they don't get it.
Same with the conservative mansion tax that never got enforced... Ultimately no matter which party gets in it, we will either get the devil or the deep blue sea..
The last election over 15 million didnt vote, now personally they should take it as a "no confidence" vote in any of the parties presented.
Sack them all off and start fresh rather than a bunch of "old school" boys who scratch each others backs
Personally i dont think the 15m have any right to complain about the state of affairs if they can't tick a box to try and change it. "
And yet there is no "no confidence" box to tick to try and change it.
But then how else would a vote of no confidence be passed? We are not given the option for it so again stuck in a circle of who do we not want in power as to who do we want |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh fuck it..
I re posted the wrong post grrr
Anyhow yes, you give up liberty every day for protection, the liberty to ride your motorbike without a helmet, your seatbelt in your car, freedom to choose which drugs you want to use..
Were well past the liberty free bollocks thats peddled"
Yeah because it's one of those things where you can never have too much of a good thing. I mean the government did such a good job with those seatbelts that they'd better start feeding my kids for me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Oh fuck it..
I re posted the wrong post grrr
Anyhow yes, you give up liberty every day for protection, the liberty to ride your motorbike without a helmet, your seatbelt in your car, freedom to choose which drugs you want to use..
Were well past the liberty free bollocks thats peddled
Yeah because it's one of those things where you can never have too much of a good thing. I mean the government did such a good job with those seatbelts that they'd better start feeding my kids for me. "
.
There'd be a large amount amount driving around without one if it weren't for the law that says you can't |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the conservative party gets in again then i will truely be shocked...so far we have had from them
beastiality is ok (camerons dead pigs head)
Tax evasion is fine as long as you bury any evidence of profit
7 MPs under investigation for election fraud (the real reason the snap election was called) ...7 seats is their lead, loose it and oh look a snap election....call it before with new candidates in those spots and we can stay....
As for Labour getting a ban on sugar adverts.....really? Cant see it happening...they will still put sweets by check outs, you will still have the aisles in the supermarket and then there is easter, halloween, xmas....yep all got sugary treats attached to them
Go and have a read of the 1997 labour manifesto and you'll see a direct reference to exactly the same amount of uncollected tax they wanted to retrieve. Spolier alert: they don't get it.
Same with the conservative mansion tax that never got enforced... Ultimately no matter which party gets in it, we will either get the devil or the deep blue sea..
The last election over 15 million didnt vote, now personally they should take it as a "no confidence" vote in any of the parties presented.
Sack them all off and start fresh rather than a bunch of "old school" boys who scratch each others backs
Personally i dont think the 15m have any right to complain about the state of affairs if they can't tick a box to try and change it.
And yet there is no "no confidence" box to tick to try and change it.
But then how else would a vote of no confidence be passed? We are not given the option for it so again stuck in a circle of who do we not want in power as to who do we want"
If the 15m are politically engaged then there's nothing stopping a few of them putting themselves forward or forming a new party. Of course if that all sounds like too much effort and you still can't find a single candidate you like then maybe they are the ones with the problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"Sorry are you mistaking me for a tory lover as opposed to just a rational voter who can make objective criticisms of people that deserve them?
After this thread I don't anyone will mistake you for a rational person
Anyone who would give up liberty for protection hasn't read and understood history. "
eh? i know a lot about social history (and philosophy).
you don't have freedom if you're an addict anyway. your addiction ensures that, it controls you. and even if we ignore addiction:
if you are just making bad lifestyle choices then sure have the freedom and autonomy to do that. but do you think autonomy helps someone obese and in poor health if they are STILL making poor choices? no it does not, but seeing as we're all about autonomy we do not ban what they are choosing.
but hiding them and making them not a part of normal lifestyle will help them. it won't even take away their liberty or autonomy, they can still choose whether to partake in their poor choices or not. but sometimes support is needed to help them make better choices.
product sellers have been using psychological techniques to make shoppers buy what they want to sell, now we are considering taking that away from them and that is all.
i didn't think you were being irrational btw with your political comments.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh fuck it..
I re posted the wrong post grrr
Anyhow yes, you give up liberty every day for protection, the liberty to ride your motorbike without a helmet, your seatbelt in your car, freedom to choose which drugs you want to use..
Were well past the liberty free bollocks thats peddled
Yeah because it's one of those things where you can never have too much of a good thing. I mean the government did such a good job with those seatbelts that they'd better start feeding my kids for me. .
There'd be a large amount amount driving around without one if it weren't for the law that says you can't"
I'm not against all government regulation, but according to the NSPCC when the government takes care of children the facts show that they are 4x more likely to develop mental health problems, do less well in school, are significantly more likely to run away and are twice as likely to be unemployed when they leave care. So forgive me if i don't fancy taking parenting advice from the state. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"Oh fuck it..
I re posted the wrong post grrr
Anyhow yes, you give up liberty every day for protection, the liberty to ride your motorbike without a helmet, your seatbelt in your car, freedom to choose which drugs you want to use..
Were well past the liberty free bollocks thats peddled
Yeah because it's one of those things where you can never have too much of a good thing. I mean the government did such a good job with those seatbelts that they'd better start feeding my kids for me. .
There'd be a large amount amount driving around without one if it weren't for the law that says you can't
I'm not against all government regulation, but according to the NSPCC when the government takes care of children the facts show that they are 4x more likely to develop mental health problems, do less well in school, are significantly more likely to run away and are twice as likely to be unemployed when they leave care. So forgive me if i don't fancy taking parenting advice from the state. "
because institutions are not good environments for children, they need smaller family type environments. also these children have often been brought up in poor family environments already, (abusive or neglectful ones) and this contributes. i know a lot about psychology as well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh fuck it..
I re posted the wrong post grrr
Anyhow yes, you give up liberty every day for protection, the liberty to ride your motorbike without a helmet, your seatbelt in your car, freedom to choose which drugs you want to use..
Were well past the liberty free bollocks thats peddled
Yeah because it's one of those things where you can never have too much of a good thing. I mean the government did such a good job with those seatbelts that they'd better start feeding my kids for me. .
There'd be a large amount amount driving around without one if it weren't for the law that says you can't
I'm not against all government regulation, but according to the NSPCC when the government takes care of children the facts show that they are 4x more likely to develop mental health problems, do less well in school, are significantly more likely to run away and are twice as likely to be unemployed when they leave care. So forgive me if i don't fancy taking parenting advice from the state.
because institutions are not good environments for children, they need smaller family type environments. also these children have often been brought up in poor family environments already, (abusive or neglectful ones) and this contributes. i know a lot about psychology as well. "
True but the facts are that the overwhelming majority of children do just fine with their parents. Even those with shockingly bad parents tend to continue doing badly when the state takes care of them, unless they get full blown adopted by good parents in which case they tend to achieve what the state couldn't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sorry are you mistaking me for a tory lover as opposed to just a rational voter who can make objective criticisms of people that deserve them?
After this thread I don't anyone will mistake you for a rational person
Anyone who would give up liberty for protection hasn't read and understood history.
eh? i know a lot about social history (and philosophy).
you don't have freedom if you're an addict anyway. your addiction ensures that, it controls you. and even if we ignore addiction:
if you are just making bad lifestyle choices then sure have the freedom and autonomy to do that. but do you think autonomy helps someone obese and in poor health if they are STILL making poor choices? no it does not, but seeing as we're all about autonomy we do not ban what they are choosing.
but hiding them and making them not a part of normal lifestyle will help them. it won't even take away their liberty or autonomy, they can still choose whether to partake in their poor choices or not. but sometimes support is needed to help them make better choices.
"
This is the point i disagree with. Everyone needs to learn self control and to delay gratification, all this does is create moral hazard and delay their abaility to make proper decisions.
"
product sellers have been using psychological techniques to make shoppers buy what they want to sell, now we are considering taking that away from them and that is all.
i didn't think you were being irrational btw with your political comments.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"Oh fuck it..
I re posted the wrong post grrr
Anyhow yes, you give up liberty every day for protection, the liberty to ride your motorbike without a helmet, your seatbelt in your car, freedom to choose which drugs you want to use..
Were well past the liberty free bollocks thats peddled
Yeah because it's one of those things where you can never have too much of a good thing. I mean the government did such a good job with those seatbelts that they'd better start feeding my kids for me. .
There'd be a large amount amount driving around without one if it weren't for the law that says you can't
I'm not against all government regulation, but according to the NSPCC when the government takes care of children the facts show that they are 4x more likely to develop mental health problems, do less well in school, are significantly more likely to run away and are twice as likely to be unemployed when they leave care. So forgive me if i don't fancy taking parenting advice from the state.
because institutions are not good environments for children, they need smaller family type environments. also these children have often been brought up in poor family environments already, (abusive or neglectful ones) and this contributes. i know a lot about psychology as well.
True but the facts are that the overwhelming majority of children do just fine with their parents. Even those with shockingly bad parents tend to continue doing badly when the state takes care of them, unless they get full blown adopted by good parents in which case they tend to achieve what the state couldn't."
there are long lasting effects for abuse and/or neglect (sometimes they last a lifetime). depends what you mean by doing just fine?
what is definitely known so far is that institutions do not provide the correct environment for children and they do less well than children in families (any families).
despite the above evidence -leaving children in abusive or neglectful environments cannot be condoned and therefore children are removed. even if it produces long term effects, that have not been proven why yet, you cannot condone leaving children in harmful situations.
so sometimes things don't make sense in some ways.
if they do 'better' because the abuse is pushing them to be better it still doesn't mean it's the right choice to allow the abuse.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Not advertising sweets is just one step along from removing them from the checkouts, can't see the harm myself. If it has a similar effect to banning smoking ads then happy days.
The thing about the sweet advertisements too is they are aimed at children, children who get pocket money and can spend it to/from school where the parents can't necessarily exercise control.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"Sorry are you mistaking me for a tory lover as opposed to just a rational voter who can make objective criticisms of people that deserve them?
After this thread I don't anyone will mistake you for a rational person
Anyone who would give up liberty for protection hasn't read and understood history.
eh? i know a lot about social history (and philosophy).
you don't have freedom if you're an addict anyway. your addiction ensures that, it controls you. and even if we ignore addiction:
if you are just making bad lifestyle choices then sure have the freedom and autonomy to do that. but do you think autonomy helps someone obese and in poor health if they are STILL making poor choices? no it does not, but seeing as we're all about autonomy we do not ban what they are choosing.
but hiding them and making them not a part of normal lifestyle will help them. it won't even take away their liberty or autonomy, they can still choose whether to partake in their poor choices or not. but sometimes support is needed to help them make better choices.
This is the point i disagree with. Everyone needs to learn self control and to delay gratification, all this does is create moral hazard and delay their abaility to make proper decisions.
product sellers have been using psychological techniques to make shoppers buy what they want to sell, now we are considering taking that away from them and that is all.
i didn't think you were being irrational btw with your political comments.
"
but sometimes you can't learn how to, or learning doesn't even help. support is more likely to and not promoting bad things as good things will help even more, i reckon so.
do people eat too much/bad things when it is not beneficial for them to do so? yes. will the cravings for these foods go just coz they know it will improve their overall health? no.
it's not a simple psychology causing this, it has many factors. one of which is the way these foods in the first place are promoted to them. which is where removing the adverts will help. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh fuck it..
I re posted the wrong post grrr
Anyhow yes, you give up liberty every day for protection, the liberty to ride your motorbike without a helmet, your seatbelt in your car, freedom to choose which drugs you want to use..
Were well past the liberty free bollocks thats peddled
Yeah because it's one of those things where you can never have too much of a good thing. I mean the government did such a good job with those seatbelts that they'd better start feeding my kids for me. .
There'd be a large amount amount driving around without one if it weren't for the law that says you can't
I'm not against all government regulation, but according to the NSPCC when the government takes care of children the facts show that they are 4x more likely to develop mental health problems, do less well in school, are significantly more likely to run away and are twice as likely to be unemployed when they leave care. So forgive me if i don't fancy taking parenting advice from the state.
because institutions are not good environments for children, they need smaller family type environments. also these children have often been brought up in poor family environments already, (abusive or neglectful ones) and this contributes. i know a lot about psychology as well.
True but the facts are that the overwhelming majority of children do just fine with their parents. Even those with shockingly bad parents tend to continue doing badly when the state takes care of them, unless they get full blown adopted by good parents in which case they tend to achieve what the state couldn't.
there are long lasting effects for abuse and/or neglect (sometimes they last a lifetime). depends what you mean by doing just fine?
what is definitely known so far is that institutions do not provide the correct environment for children and they do less well than children in families (any families).
despite the above evidence -leaving children in abusive or neglectful environments cannot be condoned and therefore children are removed. even if it produces long term effects, that have not been proven why yet, you cannot condone leaving children in harmful situations.
so sometimes things don't make sense in some ways.
if they do 'better' because the abuse is pushing them to be better it still doesn't mean it's the right choice to allow the abuse.
"
As ever you make good points, but it just shows that there's no perfect system or easy solution. But i believe in the law of unintended consequences and so i favour less government intervention. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"Oh fuck it..
I re posted the wrong post grrr
Anyhow yes, you give up liberty every day for protection, the liberty to ride your motorbike without a helmet, your seatbelt in your car, freedom to choose which drugs you want to use..
Were well past the liberty free bollocks thats peddled
Yeah because it's one of those things where you can never have too much of a good thing. I mean the government did such a good job with those seatbelts that they'd better start feeding my kids for me. .
There'd be a large amount amount driving around without one if it weren't for the law that says you can't
I'm not against all government regulation, but according to the NSPCC when the government takes care of children the facts show that they are 4x more likely to develop mental health problems, do less well in school, are significantly more likely to run away and are twice as likely to be unemployed when they leave care. So forgive me if i don't fancy taking parenting advice from the state.
because institutions are not good environments for children, they need smaller family type environments. also these children have often been brought up in poor family environments already, (abusive or neglectful ones) and this contributes. i know a lot about psychology as well.
True but the facts are that the overwhelming majority of children do just fine with their parents. Even those with shockingly bad parents tend to continue doing badly when the state takes care of them, unless they get full blown adopted by good parents in which case they tend to achieve what the state couldn't.
there are long lasting effects for abuse and/or neglect (sometimes they last a lifetime). depends what you mean by doing just fine?
what is definitely known so far is that institutions do not provide the correct environment for children and they do less well than children in families (any families).
despite the above evidence -leaving children in abusive or neglectful environments cannot be condoned and therefore children are removed. even if it produces long term effects, that have not been proven why yet, you cannot condone leaving children in harmful situations.
so sometimes things don't make sense in some ways.
if they do 'better' because the abuse is pushing them to be better it still doesn't mean it's the right choice to allow the abuse.
As ever you make good points, but it just shows that there's no perfect system or easy solution. But i believe in the law of unintended consequences and so i favour less government intervention. "
yeah that's fine and i've enjoyed being able to use my brain for a change. was very nice debating with you and i do not debate opinions but am fine with others having them.
i also don't think governments should have to intervene, but i can see a lot of problems with allowing society to continue as it is doing already. many are in effect as of now, poor dental health increasing, obesity (many obese people are actually malnutritioned also), type 2 diabetes has gone up. i don't even think sweets is the main problem but a complete overhaul of society is needed. advertising is a huge problem, sedentary life style, lack of education of how to cook healthy meals, and just convenience. this is just a few of the things all the government can control is advertising and what foods are allowed to be sold (and have to do that in a way where people are not pissed off by it).
i only mentioned the obvious stuff and that's quite a lot to sort out in itself. producing a mentally *healthy society will be the biggest challenge of all, because people make better choices when they are able to. and this is where politics doesn't really want to intervene, i feel, and does it's best to ensure we do not have this.
*by mentally healthy i do am using the maslows hierarchy of needs scale to measure that. i am not reflecting on anyone's actual mental health because that's not fair or right to do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *htcMan
over a year ago
MK |
wont do a thing, changing adverts time, never seen a haribo advert on tv in years.
all they should do is limit what fat kids and family's buy. as there is some people who manage what they eat and live healthy still have sweets. same with sugar tax wont do a thing at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As ever you make good points, but it just shows that there's no perfect system or easy solution. But i believe in the law of unintended consequences and so i favour less government intervention.
yeah that's fine and i've enjoyed being able to use my brain for a change. was very nice debating with you and i do not debate opinions but am fine with others having them.
i also don't think governments should have to intervene, but i can see a lot of problems with allowing society to continue as it is doing already. many are in effect as of now, poor dental health increasing, obesity (many obese people are actually malnutritioned also), type 2 diabetes has gone up. i don't even think sweets is the main problem but a complete overhaul of society is needed. advertising is a huge problem, sedentary life style, lack of education of how to cook healthy meals, and just convenience. this is just a few of the things all the government can control is advertising and what foods are allowed to be sold (and have to do that in a way where people are not pissed off by it).
i only mentioned the obvious stuff and that's quite a lot to sort out in itself. producing a mentally *healthy society will be the biggest challenge of all, because people make better choices when they are able to. and this is where politics doesn't really want to intervene, i feel, and does it's best to ensure we do not have this.
*by mentally healthy i do am using the maslows hierarchy of needs scale to measure that. i am not reflecting on anyone's actual mental health because that's not fair or right to do."
Well once upon a time there were a people who lived possibly the optimal lifestyle in terms of balancing their health, impact on the environment and providing basic essentials. The problem was that the trade off to treating the environment nicely was tht that they didn't have heavy industry and corresponding weren't much good at inventing technology. Then one day people who were came and shot them all with guns.
So what i is saying is that as a collective, you either decide to push forward always wanting more and more and taking the consequences as we go / fucking the planet in the process. Or we all go and hunt, eat, wear and fuck buffalo. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
