I so predicted this.

The one about them being fattening. It is constantly mentioned, in Simpson's episodes even. The belief that fast food is good for you? Non-existent.

The belief that it tastes good? Tested... Confirmed.

That people will eat it anyway knowing it is fattening? Tested... confirmed.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Well said Darla. I support labeling. Hell if they want to put a skull and crossbones on the wrapper that says this will kill you go ahead. But if someone sees that and says "Fuck it! I like McDonalds fries enough to shave ten years off my life." let em have it.
Click to expand...

Canadian packaging regs for cigareetes required that about 1/3 of the pack consist of black background with various text. One of which was "Smoking Kills" and another was a graphic of a skull and crossbones. For some reason, some people in canada still insisted on smoking...
 
IHateGovernment said:
I tolerate them.

I didn't ask if you tolerated them. I asked if you are considerate of them. Do you see them merely as victims like those advertised to.

It is elitist to think that all people should be resistent to the immense and unquestionable power of advertising to the same degree that the privieleged few college educated are.

You think that a college education is necessary to question advertising? Who is the elitist here. It almost seems that you think people are generally stupid but that this stupidity is not their doing.

Deliberate ignorance of the effects of social stratification is not egalitarianism but rather the opposite of egalitarianism.

Who says I am being ignorant of social stratification. I simply don't believe that poor = stupid or ignorant.
Click to expand...
Who says that being susceptible to advertising or lacking a college education is equivalent to being stupid? "Stupid" is a rather revealing perjorative, in this context, as a matter of fact. ;)

Someone with an IQ of a hundred, give or take a dozen points or so, isn't stupid. That's average. Normal. Everyday. Give that person a high school education and you've got your typical American. And that's the sort of person our national and local policies should be geared for.

Shorn of (most) rhetoric and kidding around, this is what I mean. Advertising works. It really does. To say that it shouldn't or that people should be more resistant to it is, in my view, inherently elitist. We can wish that it wasn't so effective but if wishes were fishes we'd all be dead under a mile of decomposing crapie.

Bans like that in the proposal are, rightly or wrongly, intended to counter the effects of advertising. As previously stated, I think this particular one goes too far, but I don't dismiss the principle.
 
Canadian packaging regs for cigareetes required that about 1/3 of the pack consist of black background with various text. One of which was "Smoking Kills" and another was a graphic of a skull and crossbones. For some reason, some people in canada still insisted on smoking...

Yep. But at least they can't say: "I didn't know smoking was bad."

I read about Canada's policy we should try it here. Might end frivolous lawsuits.......nevermind doubt that.
 
Who says that being susceptible to advertising or lacking a college education is equivalent to being stupid? "Stupid" is a rather revealing perjorative, in this context, as a matter of fact.

I know. I have no qualms about calling people stupid. Hell I wish stupidity was painful.

Someone with an IQ of a hundred, give or take a dozen points or so, isn't stupid. That's average. Normal. Everyday. Give that person a high school education and you've got your typical American. And that's the sort of person our national and local policies should be geared for.

Shorn of (most) rhetoric and kidding around, this is what I mean. Advertising works. It really does. To say that it shouldn't or that people should be more resistant to it is, in my view, inherently elitist. We can wish that it wasn't so effective but if wishes were fishes we'd all be dead under a mile of decomposing crapie.

Bans like that in the proposal are, rightly or wrongly, intended to counter the effects of advertising. As previously stated, I think this particular one goes too far, but I don't dismiss the principle.

Thats fine but nothing you have said creates a situation in which people are prevented from knowing that fast food is bad for you. Telling someone that something tastes good or is enjoyable doesn't negate in that persons mind that it can be harmful.

People aren't so simple as to believe that something having a good attribute means it lacks any negative ones.

I think a person with a 100 or even 85 IQ can understand that concept.
 
Darned reformed tobacco types anyway :)
My soon to be ex wife has an uncle (preacher) that rags on everyone who smokes, but raises and sells tobacco.
No really jumping on ya trog, I just think it is funny.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
Do they really put more nicotine in cigarettes these days? Seriouosly, I don't see why they would want to do that, it makes little sense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they have been inching it up for the last twenty hears or so. There is about 15% more nicotine in cigarettes now than there was then, and no they haven't told anyone. It actually makes some sense, with all the ways to quite smoking out there they have decided to wage a battle with nicotine content as the artillery. They make the content higher smokers become even more addicted quicker and find it much harder to quit, even with patches and gum and other substitutes. Since most cigarette sales are to addicted smokers the faster they can be hooked the better. And since fewer and fewer people are smoking they had to have some way to addict people sooner than a month or more into the habit, the higher the nicotine content the sooner people are addicted. if they could design a cigarette that would addict after three puffs I am sure they would be marketing it within a day after designing it.
 
Tobacco companies are disgusting.

At the same time however its hard to pity a teenager who decides to take up smoking in this day and age.
 
The booze companies suck too.
I basically don't drink.
So far I don't go to jail for smoking and driving ;)
 
Exactly, US. I quit for a year and a half one time. Was doing well with it and then a buddy of mine had a baby (well, not him literally ;)) and gave me a cigar. Dummy me, I lit it up and the next day I bought a box of cigars. Now I'm back to my pack a day habit.
 
IHateGovernment said:

lets let people become fat pigs.... LOL but as for banning dogs then IHG appears fine with that...

Hey thanks strawbuddy. I know I have come on here frequently suggesting banning things.

:bs:
Click to expand...

if people weren't such fat pigs they would be able to outrun the supposed pitbull that was chasing them to bite their face off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top