SA ban on Junk Food Ads

Do you want to take this one Andy?

Mmmm, nah, you go ahead.

*tag*

Nick wrote:I don't really like the junk food people but all an add dose is tell the comunity about a product, nothing else. How it that harmful?!?? And don't give me this crap about "helping parents outs". I am sure there are much better was a Government can "help parents" other then shelter children from the knolage of a happy meal for a couple of months.

Were you drunk?

No, I just didn't care!

Fuck, you guys whinge so much... is this better???
I don't really like the junk food people very much but all an add does is tell the community about a product, nothing else. How is this harmful?!?? And don't give me this crap about "helping parents out". I am sure there are much better ways a Government can "help parents" other then just sheltering children from the knowledge of a happy meal for a couple of months.


jerks...

Damn it, I knew I should have just left it for Andy. Now Nic is angry with me. On the plus side though, make-up sex!

You missed out this one.

Nick wrote:I don't really like the junk food people very much but all an add does is tell the community about a product, nothing else. How is this harmful?!?? And don't give me this crap about "helping parents out". I am sure there are much better ways a Government can "help parents" other then just sheltering children from the knowledge of a happy meal for a couple of months.

Just thought I'd help.

you could have corrected it...

Could have...

I know its a bit late but I did want to use it after "the spelling incident"...





I DON'T CARE!!!

Nick wrote:I know its a bit late but I did want to use it after "the spelling incident"...

I DON'T CARE!!!

You could also have used this one
http://download.lardlad.com/sounds/season15/anymore8.mp3
Ah, Milhouse. What a gold character.

And now to continue the discussion.

Nick wrote:all an add (sic.) does is tell the community about a product, nothing else. How is this harmful?!??

I agree with that, in theory. But surely advertising companies exploit so much more than that: they use colours (red etc, which have known psychological effects); they use famous (and therefore, for some reason, 'respected') people; they sex, sex and SEX up their ads (which has know sexy results); and there's more, and I'm sure you know them.
You and I may be less affected (though I think we'd be kidding ourselves to say we're completely unaffected... did you say NIKE?), but when we talk about toddlers and young children, I don't think their mental skills are as developed.

Nick wrote:I am sure there are much better ways a Government can "help parents" other then just sheltering children from the knowledge of a happy meal for a couple of months.

Agreed. But couldn't this be a help? And would it cost much? I don't know.

What constitutes 'junk food' to these people? If you are going to ban Maccas ads you should also ban ads for most cereals as well. I saw an ad for cocoa pops the other day. That shit is junk food.

Yes, absolutely. In fact, they should just ban the whole 'cereal'. It reminds me of that interview I think I put up on the forum (but I can never seem to find those old topics, con-sarnit. This forum's turning into something similar to a defunct intelligence agency's old files archive, without the archiving part) anyway, the interviewee was talking about "cereals the equivalent of candy being sold on the goodness of their wholegrains" or something.

Fuck helping parents out. They already have way too much help as it is. This is a country, not a fucking day care. Parents have already divulged all their parental responsibilities on the teachers, on the health department, on the movie rating board. I am sick of these people who whine because their kid is playing GTAIV and is starting to swear. FFS its already rated M15+ don't fucking buy it for them. Along the same vein they already know that Macca's is bad for you so don't fucking buy it for them!

Junk food is great in little bits. Its a treat. In fact i think that it is fantastic to advertise it to children because it gives them something to wish for that is naughty. That's why its so great, because it is naughty. It means that you can, every once in a while give your child a relatively harmless and inexpensive treat which you can also share with them. Every once in a while. Grow some fucking balls and say no!

I would vote for you as Premier, Tom. Also for Prime Minister (possibly because I daren’t oppose you and your awesome onslaught of exclamation marks).

And there definitely are some points that I agree with, such as that parents should be responsible.
The thing is... stupid people are stupid. They just are, and no amount of yelling at them to ‘stop being so stupid!’ will change them (oh god how I wish that it weren’t so). And I think that it’s the kids who suffer the most from their stupid parents (and stupid babies need the most attention). So, while I agree that perhaps parents should exhibit some sort of control they manifestly do not, as can be witnessed by all the disappointing statistics that we hear.

And in terms of ‘treats’ (1) couldn’t we offer something that doesn’t possess such well documented potential for a degree of life-long harm to children as treats instead? (2) Kids already have way, way, way too many things as ‘treats’, basically because they’re all made available. I don’t even think that banning the actual food would be too harsh in terms of ‘limiting their treats’, and that’s the extreme version; as you know we are only talking about removing the commercials from kids' television programs.