Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    A great deal of the advertising is aimed at children. How much will power do you feel a typical 12/13 year old has?
    As I've said it is the parents job to make sure their children are not obese. Besides, it's hardly every advertisements that make people eat sugary food. They just know it tastes good, and they buy it. I mean I ate a lot of chocolate and sweets and stuff but I barely remember seeing ads for any of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brahmin of Booty)
    I'm winning because Shariah May has learned her place and backed down.
    Again you seem a little confused, we're still getting a sugar tax.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think people are going to stop eating things that contain sugar just because of the tax. Things are just going to be more expensive and it would definitely bring more money to the government that supposedly cares about your diet.
    Also compared to other countries keeping a healthy diet in Britain is much more difficult cause most fruits and vegetables are very expensive.

    I don't think it's the governments role to control what you're eating. Most people have the common sense to know whether what they're eating is good or bad for them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by venetiaan)
    I don't think people are going to stop eating things that contain sugar just because of the tax. Things are just going to be more expensive and it would definitely bring more money to the government that supposedly cares about your diet.
    Nar, the sugar will be replaced with artificial sweeteners.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dingleberry jam)
    Nar, the sugar will be replaced with artificial sweeteners.
    Which is basically worse. Great!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    As I've said it is the parents job to make sure their children are not obese. Besides, it's hardly every advertisements that make people eat sugary food. They just know it tastes good, and they buy it. I mean I ate a lot of chocolate and sweets and stuff but I barely remember seeing ads for any of it.
    Their impact is sustained and subliminal. Proof that they work is that the junk food manufacturers reliably see spikes in consumption during and immediately after TV campaigns. The fact that you don't remember the causal connection is irrelevant to the facts. Also. children aren't always with their parents and aren't always buying things with adults around.

    An industry built on cynically exploiting a childhood weakness for sugar and mass producing and pushing stuff to them that makes them long-term sick has no business being in business, let alone being allowed to advertise their **** on the telly or, even more importantly, in social media.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brahmin of Booty)
    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 so grow some balls and sort yourself out.
    ^ even if it was photoshopped it still gave you motivation, good for you, how long did the results take ?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Their impact is sustained and subliminal. Proof that they work is that the junk food manufacturers reliably see spikes in consumption during and immediately after TV campaigns. The fact that you don't remember the causal connection is irrelevant to the facts. Also. children aren't always with their parents and aren't always buying things with adults around.

    An industry built on cynically exploiting a childhood weakness for sugar and mass producing and pushing stuff to them that makes them long-term sick has no business being in business, let alone being allowed to advertise their **** on the telly or, even more importantly, in social media.
    Interesting. But surely advertisement restriction would only have a partial impact? Similar to how loads of people still smoke despite lack of advertisement. I'm not saying a partial impact on a big problem isn't desirable, I'm just not sure it's worth the potential precedent that the banning could set.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    A great deal of the advertising is aimed at children. How much will power do you feel a typical 12/13 year old has?
    Responsibility for a child's health should be with the parents; not the state.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Interesting. But surely advertisement restriction would only have a partial impact? Similar to how loads of people still smoke despite lack of advertisement.
    Nothing wrong with a little sugar in our diets.

    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    I'm not saying a partial impact on a big problem isn't desirable, I'm just not sure it's worth the potential precedent that the banning could set.
    We already ban certain advertising, what is it you're worried this will lead to?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Do schools still have food tech? Where they require you to bake a cake or make a terrible un eatable pizza every couple of weeks? How about scrapping that and teaching children about nutrition. Drag their lardy parents along aswell
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    A great deal of the advertising is aimed at children. How much will power do you feel a typical 12/13 year old has?
    As much as their parents afford them
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    As much as their parents afford them
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dingleberry jam)
    Nothing wrong with a little sugar in our diets. We already ban certain advertising, what is it you're worried this will lead to?
    Well I meant there will probably be less people having too much sugar but still a lot of people having too much sugar. Well I just think it is a bit more of a "nanny state" policy than, for instance, the smoking advertisement ban. Smoking can be harmful even in "moderation"; it is altogether horrible for you. Whereas a small amount of junk food is no big deal. It's up to people to self-regulate and not have too much of this kind of stuff (Then again, I am not entirely of one mind as children who are not with their parents have less of an ability to self-regulate) If we ban advertising anything that can have long-term negative health effects if abused, then there isn't much left to advertise, is there? And advertising is of course important both for the companies advertising and for those they pay for advertising space/time.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brahmin of Booty)
    Don't be silly, it's the government's job to micromanage your life.

    /s
    More and more like 1984 everyday...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    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.
    Where are these kids getting their money from..?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Do schools still have food tech? Where they require you to bake a cake or make a terrible un eatable pizza every couple of weeks? How about scrapping that and teaching children about nutrition. Drag their lardy parents along aswell
    Yes and it's mostly premade crap they make you make because of 'health and safety' everyone's scared of knives and the oven :laugh:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Yes and it's mostly premade crap they make you make because of 'health and safety' everyone's scared of knives and the oven :laugh:
    As if.. in my day people just hated the grief from handing your parents a list of ingredients and then succesfullly getting them to that lesson provided. Most pointless waste of time ever, food tech

    I haven't once made anything we made in them lessons in my adult life except a cake which i googled the recipe in 5 seconds.

    Teach these idiot kids that energy drinks are crap and detrimental to your health, not good. You don't need to drink 3 cans a day because you woke 10 minutes before your alarm
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Well I meant there will probably be less people having too much sugar but still a lot of people having too much sugar. Well I just think it is a bit more of a "nanny state" policy than, for instance, the smoking advertisement ban. Smoking can be harmful even in "moderation"; it is altogether horrible for you. Whereas a small amount of junk food is no big deal. It's up to people to self-regulate and not have too much of this kind of stuff (Then again, I am not entirely of one mind as children who are not with their parents have less of an ability to self-regulate) If we ban advertising anything that can have long-term negative health effects if abused, then there isn't much left to advertise, is there? And advertising is of course important both for the companies advertising and for those they pay for advertising space/time.
    An occasional smoke really won't do you much harm, we seem to have developed some very funny ideas about how dangerous smoking is to the point people will flip out and whinge about getting cancer if they get so much as a whiff of smoke out on the street. I'm indifferent to a ban on advertising but i'd like to continue to have a choice to what i consume rather than have everything full of artificial sweeteners, if an advertising ban will placate the health freaks then great, they're irritating anyway and it won't have nearly so much impact on the rest of us as a sugar tax.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Responsibility for a child's health should be with the parents; not the state.
    Why not both?

    Banning adverts helps to prevent people from being persuaded to buy junk food.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.