RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were.

RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 12:32:53 PM)
Is limiting food ads any different than the smoking ad limits we've had in the US for quite awhile? Obviously you can disagree with both and consider both are wrong- but the US has long had limits on consumer product advertising. Heck in France you can see ads for cellphones with breasts in them on primetime free tv, no way that could happen in the US today.

juliaoceania -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 12:37:15 PM)
Children are not able to consent to contracts, sex, drinking, smoking, and other things... and yet we think that they should be able to be trusted to read nutritional information, understand this information, and make responsible choices based upon this information. I never said I was against advertising, I am against putting this shit into the schools. I am using this as an example of captalism gone awry in the other direction. I would also like to see trans fats made illegal. They are carcinogenic, cause circulatory problems, and are part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic.

farglebargle -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 12:38:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross Is limiting food ads any different than the smoking ad limits we've had in the US for quite awhile? Obviously you can disagree with both and consider both are wrong- but the US has long had limits on consumer product advertising. Heck in France you can see ads for cellphones with breasts in them on primetime free tv, no way that could happen in the US today. Well, we do let the Damned Feds get away with this shit, so we deserve it. After all, it's CLEARLY NOT in the Constitution that the Damned Feds get to tell anyone how to use bandwidth, so why do we let them create a FCC just to pay a bunch more Damned Federal Employees?

missturbation -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 12:38:30 PM)
So you are prepared to fight for the right to eat mcdonalds and smoke. Are you not prepared to fight for the right of the government to try and make us aware of how unhealthy these options may be? I could understand your argument if the government was stopping us from eating mcdonalds or smoking completely but they are not. In there own clumsy way they are trying to promote a healthy lifestyle. Lets take alcohol for instance nowhere in the Uk is it illegal to drink (other than in public on the streets without permit), if memory serves me right certain states in America still have prohibtion laws. Now that is control and taking away personal accountability and choice.

farglebargle -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 12:43:58 PM)
quote: Are you not prepared to fight for the right of the government to try and make us aware of how unhealthy these options may be? Since I do not see that education initiative delegated to the Federal Government in the Constitution or Amendments, it's not their damn job to do, or waste our Tax Dollars on. Keep that in mind. According to the 9th and 10th Amendments, EVERYTHING not explicitly delegated to the Feds is reserved to The People and The States.... If it's not in the Constitution, EXPLICITLY, it's neither their Duty nor Responsibility.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 12:46:00 PM)
quote: The judgement is in the 'why are you' instead of using something like 'are you'. I really think that the removal of a few commercials does not remove your choice to eat cheese or not. The British people are the royal "you" in this case. If it was the USA, it would have said why are "we". Much to MC's chagrin, collectively you voted this government into power to make this decision. As we here voted in ours. Using your stipulation that the government is "not done"; removal of commercials first, removal of the product, or access to the product, is a logical next step. quote: Nobody gets it right everytime but at least an attempt to make things better is being made. Should the goal of your government be to remove all possible sources that are potentially harmful for you? To be clear, are you supporting the position that a government can make better decisions for you than you? Should your choice to do something, eat/drink something inherently bad for you be regulated out of existence or in lieu of that reality be kept behind the counter only accessed with government approval? quote: What really amuses me about this thread though is the judgement of someone whos countrys politics and policies are far from perfect. Surely people in glass houses are well advised not to throw stones. Sidebar issue really, but note in the OP, I address this issue due to many current US Senators and Congressmen pointing to Europe and in particular the UK as an example for the USA. My concern is that our citizens will be as submissive and compliant when our government decides what is best for us. Edited to add response: quote: So you are prepared to fight for the right to eat mcdonalds and smoke. Are you not prepared to fight for the right of the government to try and make us aware of how unhealthy these options may be? The reality is without choice I PAY for that advertisement in taxes and increased product costs. Yes - the government not only has the right but the obligation to point these things out. I am grateful for the regulations that forced the current labeling on food products. However if the citizens of the country are too stupid or refuse to take the labeling and warning seriously why should we/you condone them dictating our access? Education is fine. Put a billboard on the moon that cheese is BAD. Every election period we have conflicting ads from the sides meant to "help" our vote decision. We are allowed to make a decision based upon these conflicting ads. You are saying, unlike our political choices, we can't make a rational decision after viewing conflicting commercials regarding cheese and therefore we shouldn't see them? Okay, forget the 'submissive' reference - do you agree with the government that we/you are that stupid?

missturbation -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 12:56:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: The judgement is in the 'why are you' instead of using something like 'are you'. I really think that the removal of a few commercials does not remove your choice to eat cheese or not. The British people are the royal "you" in this case. If it was the USA, it would have said why are "we". Much to MC's chagrin, collectively you voted this government into power to make this decision. As we here voted in ours. by stating your question the way you did you collectively put all brits in the same category. Using your stipulation that the government is "not done"; removal of commercials first, removal of the product, or access to the product, is a logical next step. quote: Nobody gets it right everytime but at least an attempt to make things better is being made. Should the goal of your government be to remove all possible sources that are potentially harmful for you? To be clear, are you supporting the position that a government can make better decisions for you than you? No but i do not condemn them for trying to make the public more aware of health issues either. Should your choice to do something, eat/drink something inherently bad for you be regulated out of existence or in lieu of that reality be kept behind the counter only accessed with government approval? Its no being regulated - they are providing information and then it is up to the individual whether o take it on board or not. quote: What really amuses me about this thread though is the judgement of someone whos countrys politics and policies are far from perfect. Surely people in glass houses are well advised not to throw stones. Sidebar issue really, but note in the OP, I address this issue due to many current US Senators and Congressmen pointing to Europe and in particular the UK as an example for the USA. My concern is that our citizens will be as submissive and compliant when our government decides what is best for us. there you go again stating we a re submissive and compliant in britian. i think you will find we are far from it. There are far bigger issues to get ur knockers in a twist about though than the removal of cheese adverts. You are saying, unlike our political choices, we can't make a rational decision after viewing conflicting commercials regarding cheese and therefore we shouldn't see them? Please do not put words in my mouth or twist them to fit your cause. I said no such thing. Okay, forget the 'submissive' reference - do you agree with the government that we/you are that stupid? Some people are yes. They cant read what is clearly stated in front of them. A little like this thread. They choose what they want to hear and read from it.

farglebargle -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 12:58:34 PM)
Perhaps holding Tony Blair responsible for enabling George Bush's Conspiracy to Defraud the United States? ( 18 USC 371 , btw... ) After all, Tony got a bunch of YOUR KIDS killed too, didn't he?

missturbation -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 1:01:30 PM)
Edited due to post being made out of temper and frustration - my apologies.

farglebargle -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 1:05:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Yeah he did by following your thick as fuck president into a war noone belonged in. Oh and hang on a minute Britain enabled george bush and mighty America to do something. Dont make me laugh. Hows that for pass the buck? The point being that before you challenge someone for acting on something trivial, we ALL have some SERIOUS work to get down to. OR... Those who live in glass houses, shouldn't.

missturbation -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 1:08:16 PM)
The point being that before you challenge someone for acting on something trivial, we ALL have some SERIOUS work to get down to. OR... Those who live in glass houses, shouldn't. [/quote] I'm not actually challenging anyone and if you had read my previous posts you would have seen 'There are far bigger issues to get ur knickers in a twist about though than the removal of cheese adverts. ' So before you throw stones at me be sure of what you are saying.

onestandingstill -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 1:08:17 PM)
OOPS ANOTHER BLOODY FLAME WAR.... I'LL JUST MOVE ON TO NICER CONVERSATIONS ELSEWHERE.

missturbation -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 1:11:38 PM)
OOPS ANOTHER BLOODY FLAME WAR.... I'LL JUST MOVE ON TO NICER CONVERSATIONS ELSEWHERE. Lol i think i speak a different language here sometimes. [:D]

Real0ne -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 1:18:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation The whole food categorizing policy has been ill thoiught out but that sums up the whole of Blair's period in office and that is why we are in Iraq. The prick is an idiot! Too true. What really amuses me about this thread though is the judgement of someone whos countrys politics and policies are far from perfect. Surely people in glass houses are well advised not to throw stones. We throw enough stones at the US so why can't they throw them back? We can't smoke, can't drink, can't fucking eat now, sex will be next. I HATE POLITICIANS THAT WANT TO SAVE ME FROM MYSELF. I can't discuss such nonsense rationally because Blairs just gets me frothing at the mouth. yeh we have seat belt laws here, they can fine us for not wearing a seat belt in a car... i feel discriminated against too because bikers dont have to wear them! quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation And the responsibility applied to a teacher or any care giver to dictate what is in a lunch box is more ridiculous? What gives you the idea a teacher is responsible for whats in a childs lunch box? Noone is dictating anything. We have not been told 'you will not eat cheese'. This is how it starts. Soften everybody up and then start making them feel like a pariah should the indulge in something that the government frowns on. yes later its exactly like the taliban telling women they have no rights. Its teaching the kids that government knows better than parents. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Failure to be educated is grounds to be regulated? Sorry - I just don't accept that and won't go quietly as more choices are taken away. the government lowered the sat scores by roughly 10 points so we would look better as compared to the east. Stoopidfy everyone so the government is the only one educated enough to make these choices. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Children are not able to consent to contracts, sex, drinking, smoking, and other things... and yet we think that they should be able to be trusted to read nutritional information, understand this information, and make responsible choices based upon this information. let the adds fly! Let the children trust their parents. Let government regulation take a flying f!*. The fda in the us passed nutrasweet when there is a no cal, no carb natural sweetner that has been used for over 5000 years and proven healthy!

meatcleaver -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 1:49:34 PM)
The easiest thing to do to make everyone happy is to LABEL products CLEARLY in PROPER ENGLISH. If people are too lazy to read the label well that's teir problem. While fat creates more health problems than smoking, I can understand the government's concern but lord protect us from the nanny state. I'd rather cut a few years off my life and eat good wholesome French cheese with a good full bodied red wine and fuck the government.

missturbation -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 1:53:25 PM)
I'd rather cut a few years off my life and eat good wholesome French cheese with a good full bodied red wine and fuck the government. mmmmmm i'm with you there although it was the red wine more than the cheese [:D]

LadyEllen -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 1:55:43 PM)
How on earth do you all expect to discuss and form any correct judgement on the policy of Government? You are all very sick people, suffering delusion and hallucination from the poisons you consume in your incorrect diet, brain damage from breathing in the pollutants you produce from your work and your car, and psychologically ill from being raised by dysfunctional families. Dont you see, that all this disagreement with Government is simply further evidence of your symptoms? Dont you want to be well? E

seeksfemslave -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 2:06:24 PM)
quote: Lets face it, most people do not understand that juice is as bad as soda when it comes to packing on pounds and the difference between good carbs and bad carbs, good fats and bad fats. Most people are still in the dark, and they are feeding our kids transfats and other poisonous goo while they are under the supervision of the schools. Not attributing the above quote but the correct response is to inform people,then let them make their own choices., not control them in a patronising, "we know best" way. I have no problem with independant experts advising say that such and such a food additive is dangerous and should be banned. So long as it IS dangerous.

NorthernGent -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 2:10:03 PM)
General reply based on the Daily Mail article: We have a growing obesity issue in this country i.e. an obesity issue that needs some attention. The Foods Standard Agency are recommending foods to be classified as a risk to young children. Now, whether or not you believe cheese is junk food is neither here nor there. Ultimately, it is sound logic to attempt to tackle a major issue in our society by warning children of the dangers of fatty food. Some parents are certainly fully equipped to make the right decisions for their children. However, not all parents are doing such a good job and this is shown by the levels of obesity in Britain and the US. The last 20 years have proven that if you leave some parents to their own devices then their kids will eat shit food and unnecessarily endanger their health through obesity. I suppose some will argue it's their call if they want to knock so many years off their lives but where do you draw the line - are you going to argue it's a person's call if they want to drink themselves into oblivion?, or a person's call if they want to commit suicide? or a child's call if he/she wants to go and meet sexual predators from the internet?. Surely there are certain areas where people need help and when families aren't doing the job (and we know some aren't because obesity is a very real and growing problem), or/and when families need outside help, then the government should step into support parents. Also, the government has a responsibility to society to ensure a large minority of society are not a burden on the rest of society through using tax payers money to fund treatment for obesity. It would be interesting to know what the cost of treating obesity is to taxpayers because if it's high (and it's a possibility) then there would be uproar if it was publicised that treatment for obesity is basically pissing tax payers money up against the wall.. The public would want answers and they'd be wanting the government to step in and do something about obesity. Yes, the government can be a pain in the arse and there are some areas of intrusion, such as the proposed DNA scheme, which leave me cold. However, supporting kids in a campaign to raise awareness of fatty foods and help them on their way to a healthy diet? I'm just not seeing the problem.

juliaoceania -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/3/2007 2:16:20 PM)
fast reply I just wanted to say all laws are a form of social control, they all have this function. If I want to walk down Main Street USA naked I will probably be arrested for it. If I have a store and I want to sell porn in the front window there is probably a law against this too. If I want to advertise hardcore porn on TV I am probably going to be in violation of the FCC. This is to Merc. You keep saying "submissive" as if this has anything to do with freedom, as if being submissive is a bad thing. I am submissive in my relationships, but not in how I comport myself within the law. I am willing to break laws I feel are immoral, are you? Actually I have broken laws I felt infringed on my right to make decisions also, have you? I would do so again if I saw an immoral law. I am a great believer in civil disobedience. We have a social contract with the government. We rely on them to uphold the rule of law and to make sure people play fairly and do not abuse each other. We also rely on the government to make sure that the guy who is selling snake oil as a cure for something has evidence of such. We also rely on the government to make sure that people have fair business practices. It seems as though lately what we have is a bunch of rich men writing these laws for the benefit for those with the products. These laws often repeal old ones that set different standards for suing (for example) if a company has been found to put out products that harm the consumer. I would agree that perhaps we should have less laws if people were allowed to sue if they are harmed by corporate America... increasingly big business has made themselves immune from laws. There was someone that said we should not throw bricks in glass houses, I think this is true... in some ways our laws are more Victorian in nature than the UK.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875