SA ban on Junk Food Ads
:: Non paranormal :: Newsdesk!
Page 1 of 3 • Share •
Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3 
SA ban on Junk Food Ads
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/08/2157633.htm
I'm not sure if South Australia has actually gone ahead with the ban yet, but I think they were just talking about it. It's about banning junk food commercials during childrens' television programs.
I'm gunna say that I agree, so that there's a starting point for people to argue against/with.
I'm not sure if South Australia has actually gone ahead with the ban yet, but I think they were just talking about it. It's about banning junk food commercials during childrens' television programs.
I'm gunna say that I agree, so that there's a starting point for people to argue against/with.
_________________
George: Was I talking to you, Pin-head!?

Andrew.C- Larry David In Training

- Number of posts: 1611
Registration date: 2008-02-21
Re: SA ban on Junk Food Ads
I don't agree. I generally don't agree with censorship, nor do i agree with all these laws that are taking the responsibility away from the individual. When i was a kid i wanted macca's all the time, like most kids. But my parents wouldn't let me have it.. So sudenly parent's are not capable of stopping their kids from self harm. I think not.
I don't know how this revolution came about. We are still moving away from the socialist state (even if that move is slowing down) and yet we are handing more and more of our personal responsibilities to the government. Next it will be freedoms.
I don't know how this revolution came about. We are still moving away from the socialist state (even if that move is slowing down) and yet we are handing more and more of our personal responsibilities to the government. Next it will be freedoms.

Tom- Queen of France
-

Number of posts: 409
Age: 25
Humor: Sardonic
Registration date: 2008-02-27
Re: SA ban on Junk Food Ads
I've got to agree with Queenie.
The push to band junk food ads is by parents who can't say no to their children.
Besides children can eat junk food once a week without getting fat. It's the crap their parents are feeding them for breakfast, lunch and dinner thats doing it.
The push to band junk food ads is by parents who can't say no to their children.
Besides children can eat junk food once a week without getting fat. It's the crap their parents are feeding them for breakfast, lunch and dinner thats doing it.
_________________
the hammer is my penis

Groove Champion- I think it's a video game.
-

Number of posts: 329
Age: 27
Registration date: 2008-03-05
Re: SA ban on Junk Food Ads
They just want someone to blame for having fat kids. I always thought a childs diet was for the parents to regulate, if you let your child bully you into buying junk food you weren't really cut out to be a parent. Whats next no toys adds? where are they going to draw the line?
_________________
Goodnight Springton... there will be no encore!

Nick- Super-Corrupt Supreme Overload/Extreme-Executive Producer

-

Number of posts: 683
Age: 24
Location: Sydney, Australia
Registration date: 2008-02-21

Re: SA ban on Junk Food Ads
Yes they should also ban toy ads.
Next.
Next.
_________________
George: Was I talking to you, Pin-head!?

Andrew.C- Larry David In Training

- Number of posts: 1611
Registration date: 2008-02-21

Nick- Super-Corrupt Supreme Overload/Extreme-Executive Producer

-

Number of posts: 683
Age: 24
Location: Sydney, Australia
Registration date: 2008-02-21

Re: SA ban on Junk Food Ads
Uuggh, you and your stories:
"Bart broke my teeth.
The nurses are stealing my money.
This thing on my neck is getting bigger."
"Bart broke my teeth.
The nurses are stealing my money.
This thing on my neck is getting bigger."
_________________
George: Was I talking to you, Pin-head!?

Andrew.C- Larry David In Training

- Number of posts: 1611
Registration date: 2008-02-21
Re: SA ban on Junk Food Ads
Do you even try anymore?
_________________
Goodnight Springton... there will be no encore!

Nick- Super-Corrupt Supreme Overload/Extreme-Executive Producer

-

Number of posts: 683
Age: 24
Location: Sydney, Australia
Registration date: 2008-02-21


Nick- Super-Corrupt Supreme Overload/Extreme-Executive Producer

-

Number of posts: 683
Age: 24
Location: Sydney, Australia
Registration date: 2008-02-21

Re: SA ban on Junk Food Ads
hahaha that is the best emoticon ever. and i agree with myself.

Tom- Queen of France
-

Number of posts: 409
Age: 25
Humor: Sardonic
Registration date: 2008-02-27
Re: SA ban on Junk Food Ads
Fine, I guess I’ll try defend my position. I was trying to avoid having to specify my position too much so that my argument couldn’t be picked apart and refuted, but I guess now I’ve got no choice. But three against one, hey? I’m gunna have to do some fast yelling and loud insults to try and construct my great argument.
I totally agree that parents should be responsible. But some parents aren’t and so we take away their choice e.g. It seems common sense that parents’ shouldn’t smoke in their car with their children in there, but they did. So we said “Fine. Listen hear, you idiot. Now it’s against the law; you will be prosecuted.” Or something of the sort. I know this isn’t exactly related, since banning ads doesn’t ban the food (maybe we should), but it lessens the likelihood that the incompetent parent might be put in the situation for which they lack the competence to negotiate, and it shows we do step in when parents won't take the commonsense path.
In addition, couldn’t we just help parents out? I can’t understand why we’d be on the side of these amoral corporations who leech off the health of the surrounding population simply to fill their coffers. I would propose that it’s because they’ve (not only them) perpetuated this bogus myth about “censorship” that’s supposed to be some undeniable evil in and of itself: “Oooo, that would be infringing on our very human rights! Nevaarr!!” For what reason should we possibly keep these commercials (I don’t believe it’ll lead to some destructive slippery slope)? Without these commercials parents will still have many, many responsibilities and opportunities to disappoint their children by saying “no”. This will just decrease the load by one, and perhaps that’s good? Because no matter how much anyone thinks they’ll be a ‘super-parent’, everyone has their limit (especially because children never stop), and if this stops that one slip up from being cramming salted cakes of shortening down their gullets then I’m for it (not that removing the commercials entirely removes the problem, but it helps). And I also agree that eating this crap every now and then is perhaps not so bad, but it certainly isn’t good, and possibly could be just bad for some kids, and only good for those greedy fat cats who own the companies.
Plus, Mcdonalds told me you guys look like dorks.
I totally agree that parents should be responsible. But some parents aren’t and so we take away their choice e.g. It seems common sense that parents’ shouldn’t smoke in their car with their children in there, but they did. So we said “Fine. Listen hear, you idiot. Now it’s against the law; you will be prosecuted.” Or something of the sort. I know this isn’t exactly related, since banning ads doesn’t ban the food (maybe we should), but it lessens the likelihood that the incompetent parent might be put in the situation for which they lack the competence to negotiate, and it shows we do step in when parents won't take the commonsense path.
In addition, couldn’t we just help parents out? I can’t understand why we’d be on the side of these amoral corporations who leech off the health of the surrounding population simply to fill their coffers. I would propose that it’s because they’ve (not only them) perpetuated this bogus myth about “censorship” that’s supposed to be some undeniable evil in and of itself: “Oooo, that would be infringing on our very human rights! Nevaarr!!” For what reason should we possibly keep these commercials (I don’t believe it’ll lead to some destructive slippery slope)? Without these commercials parents will still have many, many responsibilities and opportunities to disappoint their children by saying “no”. This will just decrease the load by one, and perhaps that’s good? Because no matter how much anyone thinks they’ll be a ‘super-parent’, everyone has their limit (especially because children never stop), and if this stops that one slip up from being cramming salted cakes of shortening down their gullets then I’m for it (not that removing the commercials entirely removes the problem, but it helps). And I also agree that eating this crap every now and then is perhaps not so bad, but it certainly isn’t good, and possibly could be just bad for some kids, and only good for those greedy fat cats who own the companies.
Plus, Mcdonalds told me you guys look like dorks.
_________________
George: Was I talking to you, Pin-head!?

Andrew.C- Larry David In Training

- Number of posts: 1611
Registration date: 2008-02-21
Re: SA ban on Junk Food Ads
Glad to have you on the team, Trev.
2 vs 2! Now we got a game. Bring it on, suckas!
2 vs 2! Now we got a game. Bring it on, suckas!
_________________
George: Was I talking to you, Pin-head!?

Andrew.C- Larry David In Training

- Number of posts: 1611
Registration date: 2008-02-21
Re: SA ban on Junk Food Ads
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.
_________________
Goodnight Springton... there will be no encore!

Nick- Super-Corrupt Supreme Overload/Extreme-Executive Producer

-

Number of posts: 683
Age: 24
Location: Sydney, Australia
Registration date: 2008-02-21

Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3 
Permissions of this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum







» Random Task
» I dunno. Drug Lab?
» All your links are belong to us.
» Now that's a headline
» Yay, 1 more day till LHC (end of the world)!!!
» video Links
» The Dark Ages ended?
» Bus campaign.