Theresa May blocks ban on junk food adverts.

^ even if it was photoshopped it still gave you motivation, good for you, how long did the results take ?

I'd say 2 years to go from normal to 'wow' but before I was well below normal. I couldn't even do a single pull-up so I had to start off doing negatives.

Great

btw wasn't saying it was photoshopped ( I know of people who model irl ) but js that because it's what people normally use as an excuse to justify putting down/jealous of someones looks, ( instead of turning around and using motivation from these models, like yourself) regardless or whether it is or not (photoshoped). But thanks man, gave me some motivation too. Keep it up dude

That's just rubbish. Parents are not with their children at all times - what about at school for example? Sugar is a powerful addiction for many kids.

You sound like one of those people who would be OK with drug dealers pushing smack to kids, on the basis that their parents should know better.

Lol, it kind of can. I used to be fat now I have a six pack and you know why, because I saw a picture of a shredded guy with a hot girl in the front of a magasine and said to myself these are the sorts of women I should be banging.


Food can never match the taste of pussy

Not sure what that has to do with the laxative effect of artificial sweeteners?

You can choose not to eat processed foods and it eliminates the issue entirely.

I can choose to buy sugary drinks rather than those containing artificial sweeteners and eliminate the issue and I reckon I still could if we banned advertising but after a sugar tax, not so sure and why should I pay for the fatties lack of control?

How much freaking cash do you think British children are carrying?

And honestly, let's not pretend candy bars are anything like doing heroin.

It's the parents responsibility to feed their children and make sure they receive a proper diet. The government shouldn't be adding to the long list of things it bans in its moral crusade to control every aspect of people's lives.

Businesses should have every right to advertise sugary junk just as you should have every right to consume said sugary junk if you so choose. And if your kids start getting fat because they just gotta get dat Hershey's high, put them on a diet and stop giving them so much money.

There shouldn't be a sugar tax either, because the governments needs to piss off, but if you're buying sugary drinks, you're one of the fatties, even if you're not fat so don't pretend you care about your health, because if you did, you wouldn't be buying that crap to begin with.

There's nothing unhealthy about an occasional sugary drink and our health isn't purely physical, we need pleasure and variety.

Someone has to pay for the fatties, not sure why advertising shouldn't shoulder some of the blame, they're partly responsible for how much we consume or else we wouldn't have ads.

Of course parents should know about this and control their children's habits, but in the real world, millions of parents are harassed, ill informed and short on time and attention - not to mention that a great many were themselves brought up on sugar drinks and remain essentially unaware of the negatives.

If a fraction of the huge sums spent on promoting junk food to the unwary were instead spent on informing them and educating about proper diets, this problem would go away. The truth is, this aspect of the liberal capitalist system is about the absolute right of the manufacturers of harmful foods to destroy lives at massive cost to everyone else (not least the NHS and the taxpayer) to make huge profits. The excuse that their customers are naive or easily duped is the refuge of the conman.

Why not both?

Banning adverts helps to prevent people from being persuaded to buy junk food.

It's unhealthy

and just because you have a normal body weight does not mean you are healthy.

Good. I don't want the government deciding what media I can and cannot be trusted to be exposed to.

Having both is simply impossible. There will be a point where one will feel the other is wrong. There is a serious moral dilemma there.

Evidence?