Our Prime Minister is a Moron

[Magn]

Irrelevent, the MODE of argumentation is the same, there is no advertising for eating junk food 80% of the time, or thinking about it 80% of the time or whatever it is you do.

I'm subjected to bad food ads at least 3 times a day. Unless I don't want to watch TV, don't go on the internet and don't go outside my house, I don't have a choice on the matter.

I'm only subjected to unprotected sex adds about once a week when I watch a movie with the topic matter and as it turns out, there are warnings at the beginning of the movie concerning sexual content, not to mention that a movie is easily avoidable in that I can watch other movies instead (unlike TV ads, internet ads and ads posted outside that you do not control).

Not just good for me, its a fact. sorry.

In your head only.

I say otherwise.

I've eaten donuts before, go for a jog. It doesnt matter how many calories you take in if you burn more off in excercise, you jsut have to know the numbers tehn you can do simple subtraction :)

If you can run over 2 hours even on a semi-regular basis, then you must have a lot of time on your hands. I envy you.

so run a bit faster/longer, you make out as if its impossible to lose weight if you eat a few donuts, simply not true, as I said i used to eat like a horse when I played rugby at a high level.

A lot of people don't have the time to run longer and there is a limit to how fast you can run.

The problem is eating donuts on a regular basis.

Doesn't have to be the box of 6 donuts each time, just a donut semi-regularly will do its work.

Those adds that you see daily won't go away.

Except I explained why, while you just went 'omg its sooo hard to lose weight and resist gorging on fatty foods, and willpower doesnt exist, my psychologist said so'

Actually, it was suggested that willpower is not infinite, but rather comes in limited quantity in a given time frame.

They do show you those adds all the time.

When you are down, they will be there for you with the fatties.

I guess different people find different things harder to resist.

Some people do love their sweets. I happen to be one of them.

Maybe you do not understand the problem in your self-centered frame of mind so let me spell it out for you: I enjoy pastries as much I enjoy sex (and I have higher than average libido).

Many people are like that as well.

The amount of willpower you have to exert when you walk beside the baked goods and the amount of willpower I have to exert when I walk beside the baked goods is not the same.

I feel harassed by those baked good adds. I feel like they are infringing on my personal space.

When I live my life and I'm not subjected to adds of sugary food, I am happier, because I don't think about it as much.

But each time I see those f*cking adds, I think about that type of food and I think how delicious is probably is, but then I think really shouldn't have it because its not good for my health and it's a struggle between two very conflicting desires which makes me unhappy.

Those morons are putting cr*p in my head to make a buck and you seem to be under the impression that this is cool based on some vague notion of complete enthropic, anarchistic freedom (which I really wish you would get a taste of).

Clearly, my situation is beyond your ability to grasp, because after all, you are so strong and I'm so weak willed and a pansy.

You are like so into your own head and your own little insignificant life, that you can't be bothered understand how other people might differ from you.

[John Snowstorm]

You have revealed two things,

1) you have a serious problem

I think you need professional help, honestly, if you haven't sought and received it already, I'm not trying to mock.

But if you enjoy pastrys more than sex then advertisement doesn't make a damn of a difference, I don't need advertisement to want sex, I don't care if I have to walk to the back of the store where the vaginas are hidden.

2) You are in no position to have a reasonable discussion on the topic.

Just because you have a problem does not mean you get to stop companies from advertising their products, if you wanna regulate hwo they do, then we're having a conversation. Like I stated earlier, show nutrional info in add, show genuine representation in add of actual product, disclaimer to eat as part of a balanced diet (we have a lot of these regulations in parts of europe). Even if you wanted to not have these ads on durign kids shows or whatever it is, we can have a conversation about that, as children do not have the cognitive capacity to make responsible choices.

vague notion of complete enthropic, anarchistic freedom (which I really wish you would get a taste of).

Completely wrong, never once did I say there should be no regulation. Furthermore, what is it I should get a taste of? we alraedy have food ads like I'm talking about, baked goods are on the door of the supermarket, the only thing I'm advising is more education and regulation on the ads. I have lived in countries with low gun control, no seatbelt laws, all the things I have talked about, no chaos ensued when drugs were decriminalised in portugal.

So what is it I am to be afraid of?

You are like so into your own head and your own little insignificant life, that you can't be bothered understand how other people might differ from you.

A clear case of projection, the majority do not enjoy pastries to sex, the vast majority do not think about junk food 80% of their time, and yet you are the one who wants to legislate on it.

We don't ban clowns because of the minority that have coulrophobia.

[Magn]

You have revealed two things,

1) you have a serious problem

I think you need professional help, honestly, if you haven't sought and received it already, I'm not trying to mock.

But if you enjoy pastrys more than sex then advertisement doesn't make a damn of a difference, I don't need advertisement to want sex, I don't care if I have to walk to the back of the store where the vaginas are hidden.

Actually, the advertisements make a world of difference.

The old saying is there for a reason: Out of sight, out of mind.

Without an immediate stimulus, the impulse to go for sweets is infinitely less. You know when I have the hardest time resisting it? Not when I have some vague idea of it in my head, but when it is shoved right into my face. Boy, that increases the difficulty by at least a factor of 10, easy.

And btw, sorry to burst your bubble, but at least 36% of the population (probably more) have my serious problem. Your understanding of the human psyche is truly horrible.

And for the record: you were talking about willpower. I haven't eaten sweets for 6 months now. How long has it been since you've had ready access to sex, that it was shoved in your face every day and you turned it down every time?

Who's the pansy now?

2) You are in no position to have a reasonable discussion on the topic.

Just because you have a problem does not mean you get to stop companies from advertising their products, if you wanna regulate hwo they do, then we're having a conversation. Like I stated earlier, show nutrional info in add, show genuine representation in add of actual product, disclaimer to eat as part of a balanced diet (we have a lot of these regulations in parts of europe). Even if you wanted to not have these ads on durign kids shows or whatever it is, we can have a conversation about that, as children do not have the cognitive capacity to make responsible choices.

You'd make a terrific modern day politician (or king of old), because they think the same as you and this is a great part of why modern day politics suck balls.

You want to make great public transportation, but don't ask the users anything.

You want to make a foster care system, but don't talk to the children.

You want to access the effects of bad food adds, but don't talk to those that are the most susceptible to them.

[John Snowstorm]

And btw, sorry to burst your bubble, but at least 36% of the population (probably more) have my serious problem. Your understanding of the human psyche is truly horrible.

You think everyone who is classified as overweight loves sweets more than sex? your understanding of reality is truly horrible.

The old saying is there for a reason: Out of sight, out of mind.

And distance makes the heart grow fonder, old sayings aint worth diddly squat.

You'd make a terrific modern day politician (or king of old), because they think the same as you and this is a great part of why modern day politics suck balls.

You want to make great public transportation, but don't ask the users anything.

You want to make a foster care system, but don't talk to the children.

You want to access the effects of bad food adds, but don't talk to those that are the most susceptible to them.

Do you think we should ban clowns because some people have coulrophobia? I already said we can have all sorts of discussions on the topic, but your psychological disorders do not give you the right to legislate over others.

And for the record: you were talking about willpower. I haven't eaten sweets for 6 months now.

Thanks for winning my argument for me. Congratulations on making a responsible choice.

[freemehul]

You are talking utter nonsense.

I never once said people could be irresponsible,

This makes no kind of sense,

again logically you did say that

actually you don't make sense

now choose!!

oh btw whatever extreme side you admit, both are false, but then reality is more nuanced than your point of view

Ok and one more thing, first you say you don't make strawman arguments and next you admit that you do (which according to the latter, makes your previous arguments false), now which one is it? Have you or have you not used it?

If you were honest you'd admit that you made more than strawman, but as I stated earlier you already lied twice before.

I see no point in continuing this discussion, because it will only end up in a refutation of "no I didn't, yes you did" kind of discussion that 5 year olds make, because bottomline is you're dishonest and you're lying through your teeth so to speak

oh btw you also made an ad hominem attack on magn

[John Snowstorm]

You still haven't been able to say where I said it was ok to break the law, because I never said that, saying people have the right to take risks without a reasonable expectation of injuring others or damaging their personal property does not logically lead to "you may break the law", I categorically state it now. You haven't been able to say where I lied, because I didn't, you say I advocate law breaking and 0 regulation, while I proposed several in this thread. Thats strawman argumentation.

Your vague nonsense doesn't fool anyone.

oh btw you also made an ad hominem attack on magn

So? I merely said his was amusing because it was failed.

[Magn]

You think everyone who is classified as overweight loves sweets more than sex? your understanding of reality is truly horrible.

I've talked to quite a few of them who did.

Both sex and consuming high calorific food are very low level survival drives that our species would have found desirable to survive in a prehistoric context (in which we evolved).

It's not that much a stretch of the imagination.

Technically, if you overeat (or eat badly) and get fat, you are less likely to get some action, and yet look at the number of people who do it anyways.

And distance makes the heart grow fonder, old sayings aint worth diddly squat.

Except that this ones applies well to this situation.

The less sugary food it brought to my attention, the less I miss it.

Do you think we should ban clowns because some people have coulrophobia? I already said we can have all sorts of discussions on the topic, but your psychological disorders do not give you the right to legislate over others.

Unfortunately for that argument, I didn't talk about banning junk food.

I was talking about giving the adds and solicitation a break.

The number of clown adds don't even compare to the number of junk food adds and neither does the number of people who have that phobia.

And furthermore, the phobia is not life threatening if they see a clown.

Eating rich food is a health threat and many people die every year from it.

Apples and oranges. I guess they can look the same from like a kilometer away. Perhaps you should get closer.

Thanks for winning my argument for me. Congratulations on making a responsible choice.

Then again, I'm also the guy who runs 1-2 hours a day, who was stubborn enough to finish 2 university degrees, not to mention giving up on a 45 000$+ yearly salary for a couple of years to work on my own project.

You know many people who would do all that? I don't.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are overweight.

I'd be a lot happier myself without all those adds. They are a drain on the willpower.

[John Snowstorm]

I've talked to quite a few of them who did.

Both sex and consuming high calorific food are very low level survival drives that our species would have found desirable to survive in a prehistoric context (in which we evolved).

It's not that much a stretch of the imagination.

Yes, it is.

Your anecdotal evidence is not compelling.

Except that this ones applies well to this situation.

The less sugary food it brought to my attention, the less I miss it.

It applies for you perhaps, but i just realised that I havent had a pecan plait in months and distance has definitely made the heart grow fonder. Sayings do not make an argument for you.

Unfortunately for that argument, I didn't talk about banning junk food.

I was talking about giving the adds and solicitation a break.

The number of clown adds don't even compare to the number of junk food adds and neither does the number of people who have that phobia.

And furthermore, the phobia is not life threatening if they see a clown.

You have once again completely failed to understand the logic. We do not make decisions based on your psychological disorders, if you ask a coulrophobe whether they should have films with clowns on tv or clowns at every circus, rodeo, etc, do you expect to get a reasonable measured answer?

Eating rich food is a health threat and many people die every year from it.

Apples and oranges. I guess they can look the same from like a kilometer away. Perhaps you should get closer.

People die of all sorts of things, no-one has a gun to your head telling you to eat yourself into a coronary, the mere sight of a pastry when you walk into a shop is not someone forcing you to eat them every day. Over eating is an *mis-use* of food that no advert instructs you to do, nor does seeing food instruct you to over eat, in the same way that I have decribed merely seeing a woman does not instruct you to have unprotected sex with her, as that is also a *mis-use*

Then again, I'm also the guy who runs 1-2 hours a day, who was stubborn enough to finish 2 university degrees, not to mention giving up on a 45 000$+ yearly salary for a couple of years to work on my own project.

You know many people who would do all that? I don't.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are overweight.

I'd be a lot happier myself without all those adds. They are a drain on the willpower.

So first the argument was that it was so much harder for you than me because willpower is so much harder for some people, and now you're making yourself out to be a willpower super hero or something?

To answer your question I know tonnes of people with multiple degrees, masters and phds, many of them working research jobs instead of going into corporate or industry jobs, I know many people like my father that gave up cigarettes or lost weight, you're not all that special.

'Extreme and fundamentalist religion is bad for people and leads them to making bad choices, they can kill and/or die because of it. We are bombarded with religious ads, religious billboards, slogans on our money, displays on public holidays, any a thousand other ways. We should ban religion from TV and billboards so I dont have to see it because it makes my fight against my desire to be a fundamentalist harder.'

Every argument analagous to yours fails for the same reasons yours does, we do not limit mass freedoms of expression and choice to make your life easier or to shield you from the risks of misusing and abusing things.

[Magn]

Yes, it is.

Your anecdotal evidence is not compelling.

So, I guess you are closed to the issue without having investigated it properly then.

It applies for you perhaps, but i just realised that I havent had a pecan plait in months and distance has definitely made the heart grow fonder. Sayings do not make an argument for you.

Because you are not actively trying to avoid the food.

Anyone who does will find it easier when the food is not in their face.

You have once again completely failed to understand the logic. We do not make decisions based on your psychological disorders, if you ask a coulrophobe whether they should have films with clowns on tv or clowns at every circus, rodeo, etc, do you expect to get a reasonable measured answer?

They might be offended if clowns appeared in movies with no prior warning.

But, if they had a way to assess the presence of clowns in movies beforehand, then I believe many would be ok with it as it would afford them a degree of control on whether they are exposed to clowns are not.

It would be a reasonable compromise which is non-existent with exposure to bad food atm.

People die of all sorts of things, no-one has a gun to your head telling you to eat yourself into a coronary, the mere sight of a pastry when you walk into a shop is not someone forcing you to eat them every day. Over eating is an *mis-use* of food that no advert instructs you to do, nor does seeing food instruct you to over eat, in the same way that I have decribed merely seeing a woman does not instruct you to have unprotected sex with her, as that is also a *mis-use*

I don't think you'll be open to any argument on the matter (as shown by your repeated use of unprotected sex as a poor analogy for the discussion at hand) so with that in mind, I will now excuse myself from the conversation.

[John Snowstorm]

So, I guess you are closed to the issue without having investigated it properly then.

stop making up my position, I said your anecdotal evidence is not compelling, show me the study to show that the majority of fat people prefer sweets to sex, not that it changes anything anyway.

Because you are not actively trying to avoid the food.

Anyone who does will find it easier when the food is not in their face.

And we still don't make decisions on mass freedoms of expression and choice based on what makes things easy for you.

They might be offended if clowns appeared in movies with no prior warning.

But, if they had a way to assess the presence of clowns in movies beforehand, then I believe many would be ok with it as it would afford them a degree of control on whether they are exposed to clowns are not.

It would be a reasonable compromise which is non-existent with exposure to bad food atm.

That wasn't the question, the question was do you expect to get a reasonable measured answer, by the definition of their problem you don't as it is irrational fear. Also; I have seen clowns at the mall or outside car dealerships plenty of times etc. Do you seriously propose to give people forewarnings of everythign they might see in every activity? lmao.

There is a perfectly good comprimise, go to a healthfood shop, organic markets, the open free market has provided you with alternatives, you can shop online so you don't have to smell baking pastries, you can simply go to small stores without bakeries.

Unprotected sex is a perfectly good analogy, you have completely failed to show how it isnt, overeating is a misuse of food in the same way that promiscous unprotected sex with unknown partners is a misuse of sex, ads for food do not instruct you to overeat, neither does the sight of food, in the same way that the sight of a woman does not instruct you to have tons of unprotected sex.

[Bishop]

They might be offended if clowns appeared in movies with no prior warning.

You don't really mean to use that example in real argument though, right?

[Magn]

You don't really mean to use that example in real argument though, right?

Well, I think that the clown analogy was not a good match to begin with, but if we'll argue that people that have clown phobia will settle for nothing less than clowns being banned, then I'll reply that they'd be happy to settle with limiting their own personal exposure to clowns, which in this case means getting a warning before seeing a movie with clowns in it.

It's not that hard nowadays with the internet.

[Bishop]

http://cdn.epicski.com/a/a0/a0560b4d...eIfSerious.jpg

That is the most impractical thing i have ever heard.

[Scott250]

basically it's a good marketing strategy to put things out there in the front to make sales on products. thats just good marketing. But the government can bann certing things and force where you can put things in a store. they just need to run it through the Legislature. They forced fast food joint to have hellthy foods. The next step could be to regulate stores and where there placing unhealthy foods.

[John Snowstorm]

But the government can bann certing things and force where you can put things in a store

The government can do all sorts of things, doesn't mean they should. I don't know whether forcing a business to sell certain products sits well with me but at least it supplies more choice to people, hiding away sugar and fatty foods is directly interfering with the market for no good reason.

but if we'll argue that people that have clown phobia will settle for nothing less than clowns being banned, then I'll reply that they'd be happy to settle with limiting their own personal exposure to clowns, which in this case means getting a warning before seeing a movie with clowns in it.

Or we could just not have ridiculous molly coddling of people with mental disorders. What happens when hydrophobes want warnings before films with water in them? there are people with fears of practically everything, http://phobialist.com/. In the end your logic would lead to a warning list before the start of the movie that is as long as the movie itself. Fact is you have to live in the world with the rest of us, and the majority shouldn't have to be tip toeing around your disorders.

Now, you wanna set up a movie phobia database listing all the phobias that a movie might agitate, you have at it haus, you might even make a buck outta these crazy ***ks. on the same token you're free to start a business selling healthy foods without pastries on the door.... oh wait.... those already exist, well you're free to go to them.