U.S. conservatives defend-the right to bear fat

Originally posted by Ragnorak
What are you rambling on about?

I hope you remember your flippant remarks when you have loved ones dying of cancer or heart disease. I'm sure they'll entertain you in your time of need.

D

Dijouti

Apologies if my post wasn't clear I was responding to this:

From Dijouti: "Do you agree with Health and Safety laws governing the way food is kept to insure that the cases of illnesses like gastroenteritis are minimised? Is this not government "meddling"?"

Yes it is guvamint meddling, the department that goes around certifying restaurants and food handling should be privatised (Previously I said the law, essentially the same thing but I can see how a state worshipper may become confused).

Originally posted by Wajoma
Addiction is a choice mcstabby, there isn't one addiction that hasn't been beaten by a person just deciding not to do it.

Weak people claim 'addiction' and I doubt there isn't one thing that some nutcase hasn't claimed an addiction to, buyer beware, try to take just a little responsibility for your own choices and leave others to run their own lives while ...[text shortened]... n that company would be responsible. I am unaware of any companies making such a claim.

Addiction is a scientifically recognised psychological process. It can be beaten, but it is very, very difficult, especially when the addiction is the result of a psychological problem. You can't just say "too bad" with addiction, it's a medical problem. It's like saying some people get over AIDS, so leave them to it.
There's little difference now between what the fast food companies are doing and what Britain did to China with opium.

Originally posted by mrstabby
Addiction is a scientifically recognised psychological process. It can be beaten, but it is very, very difficult, especially when the addiction is the result of a psychological problem. You can't just say "too bad" with addiction, it's a medical problem. It's like saying some people get over AIDS, so leave them to it.
There's little difference now between what the fast food companies are doing and what Britain did to China with opium.

First you say it's psychological, then you say it's medical, then you say a person can 'will' AIDS away in the same way that another chooses to give up smoking?

Are you drunk?

That's about the third time you've made that comparison and like your faulty product comparison it dosen't work. Fast food companies are private enterprise out to sell their product. While we're at it, are we talking about all fast food companies, or just companies over a certain size? or who spend over a certain amount on advertising? are you including the chinese takeaways down by the pub? or the kebab shop just outside the train station?

Originally posted by reader1107
Really? Why not make a list of every commercial you see in one day, and then make a mark next to each one that is for a product you bought that week. I rarely seem commercials for the things I do buy, and even more rarely buy things I see in commercials. I've seen enough beer ads in football games that I could stock a bar if I actually bought the stuff ...[text shortened]... form your opinions and habits? And if you don't -- then why do you assume that others do?

Companies wouldn't spend millions on advertising and research into how it works if it wouldn't have an effect on people. I try not to let myself be influenced by advertising, but I am quite sure that some advertising has some influence on me. If it doesn't affect you at all, all the better for you, but in that case there's no reason to keep it either. I think people should be allowed to choose if they want to get advertising or not (as is already the case, at least in Norway and Germany, with advertising which comes through the mail, and in theory also with phone advertising).

Originally posted by Wajoma
First you say it's psychological, then you say it's medical, then you say a person can 'will' AIDS away in the same way that another chooses to give up smoking?

Are you drunk?

That's about the third time you've made that comparison and like your faulty product comparison it dosen't work. Fast food companies are private enterprise out to sell their prod ...[text shortened]... the chinese takeaways down by the pub? or the kebab shop just outside the train station?

Aren't your views strong enough to stand up on their own anymore? You now have to resort to deliberately muddying up the words of others to score points? Any psychological illness can be considered to be a medical problem. Whether it be a mental illness or a personality disorder, whether debilitating or simply mildly inconveniencing can usually be treated by some medical therapy.

How does It's like saying some people get over AIDS, so leave them to it become "then you say a person can 'will' AIDS away in the same way that another chooses to give up smoking and then you reckon that the macstabulator is drunk????

What are you smoking?

Originally posted by kmax87
.... another chooses to give up smoking[/b] and then you reckon that the macstabulator is drunk????

What are you smoking?[/b]

Smoking is bad and should be outlawed by da guvamint!

Originally posted by monster truck
Smoking is bad and should be outlawed by da guvamint!

But it goes so well with my burger and fries!

Originally posted by kmax87
But it goes so well with my burger and fries!

Don't forget that cold 6-pack of Sierra Neveda Pale Ale.😵

Originally posted by Nordlys
Companies wouldn't spend millions on advertising and research into how it works if it wouldn't have an effect on people. I try not to let myself be influenced by advertising, but I am quite sure that some advertising has some influence on me. If it doesn't affect you at all, all the better for you, but in that case there's no reason to keep it ...[text shortened]... , with advertising which comes through the mail, and in theory also with phone advertising).

I'm OK with banning all advertising! 😀

(The rest isn't directed toward you but the thread in general)

I'm against blaming advertising for forcing parents to buy something for their children. I'm against calling a food group "addicting" and comparing it to opium in the absence of any proof that people have actually had cravings that interfered with their lives until the craving was satisfied. I know what real addiction is, and have never once heard a story of anyone having those symptoms in relation to McDonald's. There were no commercials on television in the days immediately after 9-11, yet companies survived. Alas, I guess it's just a dream that the companies would take that money spent on advertising and instead make better products or make their products or production process more environmentally friendly, or more inexpensive, or ...

Now, if you want to mention the dangers (e coli I think) of children dying from eating fast food burgers, that's a whole other (and quite valid) issue...

Originally posted by Wajoma
First you say it's psychological, then you say it's medical, then you say a person can 'will' AIDS away in the same way that another chooses to give up smoking?

Are you drunk?

That's about the third time you've made that comparison and like your faulty product comparison it dosen't work. Fast food companies are private enterprise out to sell their prod ...[text shortened]... the chinese takeaways down by the pub? or the kebab shop just outside the train station?

No, I'm saying obesity is a medical problem and addiction is a psychological problem, which in turn is ultimately medical.
Your treatment for this problem is to tell them to get over their addiction, something in practice that is very ineffective.
I'm thinking of banning certain advertising techniques, especially advertising directed towards children. There's a difference between creating awareness of you product, and brainwashing people into associating your product with status and success.

Originally posted by reader1107
I'm OK with banning all advertising! 😀

(The rest isn't directed toward you but the thread in general)

I'm against blaming advertising for forcing parents to buy something for their children. I'm against calling a food group "addicting" and comparing it to opium in the absence of any proof that people have actually had cravings that interfered w ...[text shortened]... en dying from eating fast food burgers, that's a whole other (and quite valid) issue...

I think obesity is enough to interfere with people's lives. The damage is caused indirectly by the addiction.
Fast food may not have a physical addiction, but like cannabis, it sure as hell has a psychological one.

Originally posted by kmax87
Aren't your views strong enough to stand up on their own anymore? You now have to resort to deliberately muddying up the words of others to score points? Any psychological illness can be considered to be a medical problem. Whether it be a mental illness or a personality disorder, whether debilitating or simply mildly inconveniencing can usually be treated by ...[text shortened]... moking and then you reckon that the macstabulator is drunk????

What are you smoking?[/b]

mcstabby was comparing AIDS to addiction (a choice) I merely bought that out to show how ridiculous that is.

Originally posted by mrstabby
No, I'm saying obesity is a medical problem and addiction is a psychological problem, which in turn is ultimately medical.
Your treatment for this problem is to tell them to get over their addiction, something in practice that is very ineffective.
I'm thinking of banning certain advertising techniques, especially advertising directed towards children. Th ...[text shortened]... f you product, and brainwashing people into associating your product with status and success.

Which techniques would you ban?

Originally posted by Wajoma
mcstabby was comparing AIDS to addiction (a choice) I merely bought that out to show how ridiculous that is.

You said how people can kick habits by using will power. People can recover from AIDS through a strong immune system (or however it is they recover).
Neither of those facts help the people who don't have the will power, nor the immune system to recover.

Originally posted by lepomis
Which techniques would you ban?

I'm no psychologist, but I'll name a few (generally the more modern techniques), most of which I believe are the advertisers lying or deceiving their customers by suggestion.
Associating a product with status, success, and idea etc
Weakly founded scientific claims
Peer approval (making you think a product will make you gain friends if you buy it, lose friends if you don't)
Nurture - suggesting to parents that the product is good for their children when it very much isn't
Possibly even celebrity endorsement, unless the celebrity says how much they're getting paid for the ad.... hehehe
Children's ads I'd ban altogether, especially young children being so susceptible.