Our Prime Minister is a Moron

[Magn]

So your end all solution is to ban things and hide them away from public eyes? now thats the 18th century outlook, its exactly the same argument as keeping women hidden away to prevent promiscuity.

If your real interest is pursuing this discussion, you'll need to moderate your view

PART of my solution to the OBESITY PROBLEM is to stop BOMBARDING the public with junk food stimuli, starting with the way some products are placed in the store.

The fact that every grocery store places junk food at the entrance is not coincidental freedom, it's a conscious decision to push food that is harder to resist on the customer.

I did not suggest that they force women to wear a veil. You did that all by yourself.

You don't compertamentalize situations. It's all in the same boat for you. Black and white everywhere.

Im not going off on any wild tangents whatsoever, youre arguing that they use your sense of smell and vision along with your impulse to eat to somehow 'force' you to eat yourself into a diabetic coma

I'm arguing that consistently bombarding the senses with suggestions that appeal to ingrained lower level impulse will lower the individual's ability to resist these impulses.

, I am saying they use your natural impulse to be attracted to good looking women to sell you cheap nasty deoderant that can give you heavy metal poisoning.

Actually, they are exploiting teenager insecurity by telling them that their gf won't sleep with them if they smell bad.

It's true to an extent, but they exagerate its degree.

You even seem to miss the entire point of the argument, even if education and information doesn't work, I'm STILL not going to ban things or hide them away from the populous, because that is an argument from utilitarianism, which leads you to some very bad places.

I don't miss the point of your argumentation at all.

Your argumentation is that education will solve all problems, because individuals don't have enough information and that with the proper information, individuals will be reasonable 100% of the time and that their reason will override any other impulse no matter the environment.

Classic 18th century stances.

If your goal is to get everyone in your society healthy, then forced excercise every morning and food rations doled out by the government would be very effective, that doesn't make it right.

That's your extreme moronic black&white proposition.

It comes 100% from you.

For my part, I was suggesting that the baked goods be relegated to the back of the store.

Case by case analysis of different problems. Not dumping everything in the same bag kinda mentality that I have there.

The rest of your post degenerates, but for the obesity statistics, here they are for Canada:

http://obesity.ulaval.ca/obesity/gen...prevalence.php

The situation is even worse in the US.

[John Snowstorm]

Wow, you dont seem to understand, I'm not insinuating that you want to cover women up, I'm saying you're using exactly the same mode of argument, it is internally logically flawed.

Your argumentation is that education will solve all problems, because individuals don't have enough information and that with the proper information, individuals will be reasonable 100% of the time and that their reason will override any other impulse no matter the environment.

No, you are 100% wrong, I stated very clearly that even if education does *not* solve the problem which is possible, I still wouldnt resort to hiding things away from people, peopel are entitled to make the wrong decision and over eat if they want, and thats totally fine. Way to completely miss the argument.

Your "case by case" nonsense is just away to distance yourself from your argument anyways because I know in this case you want to hide away the fatty foods so they cant be seen and to get rid of fatty food advertising.

I disagree fundamentally, I will not have things hidden away, and try to protect the public from themselves. If you want to change the regulations on advertising so that they have to include the nutritional information and give a fair representation of the appearance of the product (think junk food restuarant ads) then have at it haus.

Hows this for case by case: everyone with an obese bmi has to go on evening physical excercise courses. That'll be pretty effective, sound good to you? ?_?

Personally I take pleasure in walking into a supermarket and smelling baking bread and pastries, and sometimes I will impulsively buy something! :O get over it, go for a jog, you'll be alright.

My post didn't degenerate, you just chose to ignore it because I pointed out even if the advertising strategies are 100% effective it doesn't mean that you're going to turn into a fat ass and risk your own health, that is a whole bunch of choices a person has to make.

[Magn]

Wow, you dont seem to understand, I'm not insinuating that you want to cover women up, I'm saying you're using exactly the same mode of argument, it is internally logically flawed.

This is where you err.

My argumentation is that:

1) Fatty food is harmful

2) We are naturally driven to eat fatty food

3) People are entitled not to have fatty food suggestion in their faces all the time

4) Following the above, forcing grocery stores to put pastries in the back is a minor infringement on their freedom

How do women in veils argument not fit the above?

1) There is no evidence whatsoever that seeing a women's hair is harmful to men or women

2) Given the above, forcing women to wear the veil is a big infringement on their freedom (and detrimental to their self esteem) which no apparent benefit to counter it.

Hence, you are talking about apples and oranges.

You cannot take an argumentation used in a given context, put it in a completely different context and expect it to hold.

You need to look at those things on a case by case basis.

Sometimes you can make broad sweeping statements that will cover a wide variety of situations, but most times you can't.

Apples and oranges.

No, you are 100% wrong, I stated very clearly that even if education does *not* solve the problem which is possible, I still wouldnt resort to hiding things away from people, peopel are entitled to make the wrong decision and over eat if they want, and thats totally fine. Way to completely miss the argument.

Actually, you kinda lost it every time I even hinted that people could be made to eat fatty food despite their better judgment through constant reinforcement.

You kept jumping on the gun analogy.

Again, you seem to place 100% of the responsibility on the individual and seem to deny external factors that may shape the individual.

Your "case by case" nonsense is just away to distance yourself from your argument anyways because I know in this case you want to hide away the fatty foods so they cant be seen and to get rid of fatty food advertising.

Actually, more like make the fatty food available if you actively seek them out and throwaway the reinforcement if you don't.

I disagree fundamentally, I will not have things hidden away, and try to protect the public from themselves. If you want to change the regulations on advertising so that they have to include the nutritional information and give a fair representation of the appearance of the product (think junk food restuarant ads) then have at it haus.

You think that having the nutritional information will be enough. It's a start.

However, the impulse an hungry kid will have before supper when he sees someone eating that succulent pie on TV won't be entirely rational.

Hows this for case by case: everyone with an obese bmi has to go on evening physical excercise courses. That'll be pretty effective, sound good to you? ?_?

Sounds harsh. I'd try to incite them to exercise more through some sort of positive reinforcement.

Maybe a tax break if you are below a certain weight to reflect that fact that you'll be less of a drain on the health care system later.

Personally I take pleasure in walking into a supermarket and smelling baking bread and pastries, and sometimes I will impulsively buy something! :O get over it, go for a jog, you'll be alright.

And you could get just as much pleasure walking your arse to the back of the store and smelling the pastries there.

that is a whole bunch of choices a person has to make.

Again, you seem to believe that a choice a person makes are solely their own and dissociated from their environment.

That is not the case.

There is a lot of interactivity between the two, because our brain works by being stimulated by our environment, not in a vacuum.

If your environment is crap, you'll make crap decisions.

This is why people in some countries are a lot fatter on average than people in other countries. Because their environment is not conductive to keeping an healthy weight.

These are broad decisions that must be made at the community level.

Anyways, you seem to be a big proponent of education. If you are interested about your own, I recommend you try finding the following book somewhere:

http://www.amazon.ca/Political-Mind-...8024312&sr=8-1

I'm reading it atm and it's a pretty good example of what I'm talking about.

[John Snowstorm]

1) Promiscuity is harmful

2) We are naturally driven to have sex

3) People are entitled not to have sex suggestion in their faces all the time

4) Following the above, forcing women to cover up themselves in public is a minor infringement on their freedom

The analogy works perfectly well as unprotected sex with multiple partners is detrimental to society and individuals, just as overeating junk foods is. However the point is that having sex with your spouse unprotected after having a check up is fine, and having sex with multiple partners is likely to turn out fine provided you protect yourself adequately. Just as fatty foods in moderation as part of a balanced diet is fine.

1) Fatty food is harmful

Not in moderation :)

3) People are entitled not to have fatty food suggestion in their faces all the time

btw this is where your argument gets superretarded.

no-one is forcing you at gun point to watch ads or go to stores with pastrys at the front, hell, you can order online if you're such a weak willed pansy. You can even use ad block to make sure your choices aren't influenced by advertising.

Just because you are weak and can't make good choices, doesn't mean you get the right to regulate how a business lays out their premises, or limit my impulsive enjoyment of a pastry.

And you could get just as much pleasure walking your arse to the back of the store and smelling the pastries there.

The enjoyment is in the impulse, the spontaneity.

You're still making the argument that advertising working once = turning you into a fat summama*****. You could buy and eat a 12 inch cheesecake every time you go to the supermarket and you still wont be overweight if you do some freakin excercise.

Eating a pastry is not harmful to you in and of itself.

People seriously need to take some responsibility for themselves and their own choices and stop looking for someone to blame.

You think that having the nutritional information will be enough. It's a start.

Read what I said again, even if its not enough, thats fine, people are free to make the wrong choices and be fat, that's freedom for you, if people make informed decisions I don't care what they decide.

However, the impulse an hungry kid will have before supper when he sees someone eating that succulent pie on TV won't be entirely rational.

this is another restatement of the same stupid argument, advertising can work and you eat a succulent pie, that's not going to make you fat. Go for a jog, you'll be alright.

Again, you seem to believe that a choice a person makes are solely their own and dissociated from their environment.

That is not the case.

The fact is you can lose weight if you make that choice. It's really not that complicated, I've lost weight before when I needed to get fit for rugby. Eat healthy, and take in less calories than you burn through excercise, there's no magic to it, it is impossible not to lose weight if you take in less calories than you burn off. If you are educated on how to lose weight and eat healthy then you need to make the choice to overeat and not excercise to stay fat, that is a fact.

My father gave up smoking on his own after smoking 20 a day for 30 years, no patches, no drugs, no gum, I'm pretty sure most anyone can cut out the coca cola and go for a 20 minute jog.

The fact of the matter is, we have reached an impasse, you want the government to hide those things that tempt you away so you don't have to deal with your own problems, and I am unwilling to allow the government to choose what I see and hear and decide what risks I should be exposed to.

btw, best of luck ever getting that law through, and if you do, have fun with it when every supermarket in the country just puts the pastries next to the checkouts or lay out the store so you have to walk past it to get to the milk, or route one of the oven vents out by the main entrance, and it's going to be there with the bread anyways which has gotta be one of the top purchases anyways. lol.

[freemehul]

Completely non sequitir.

Not wearing a seatbelt =/= murder.

There is a world of difference between endagering yourself and endangering other people.

If you want to make a bomb, then go get the education, learn to do it in a safe way so you're NOT endangering people and go join a mining company, blow **** up all you like.

Please try to make coherent points instead of unrelated nonsense.

actually that's a non sequitir

like i said the difference between endangering oneself or another is not an obvious one, suppose you didn't wear the seatbelt and you fell right through the window and not only hurt yourself but the person you fell on. Such situations can happen.

so rather it is you who makes points of unrelated nonsense

like i said before, a tort remains a tort, hell even the romans knew this

[freemehul]

oh and if you think that can't happen, which i need remind you, it can

there is also the likeliness of medical costs being paid by the public, because you failed to wear a seatbelt

so again you point of view is sheer nonsense, we as a society have the right to ask of people to wear a seatbelt period

oh i think you're next move is probably, that you're going to ask why society has to pay the medical bill

let me remind you that by your own definition the person who had an accident also has the right not have any identification on him or her

oh and just in case you'll try to refute that, I can push the argument to either extreme side, why do you ask? because your point of view is an extreme, illogical and unrealistic view

[John Snowstorm]

actually that's a non sequitir

like i said the difference between endangering oneself or another is not an obvious one, suppose you didn't wear the seatbelt and you fell right through the window and not only hurt yourself but the person you fell on. Such situations can happen.

so rather it is you who makes points of unrelated nonsense

like i said before, a tort remains a tort, hell even the romans knew this

doesn't matter if it can happen, bounds of reason make it meaningless. You could also fall out of your second story window and land on someone, you could do any number of things that *may* endanger other people, even when you are driving a hubcap *could* come off and hurt someone, it's not in the realm of reasonable expectation, you're just stretching your argument because you realised its nonsense. I haven't been able to find a single case of someone getting thrown from a car and hitting someone else, let alone enough cases to consider it a reasonable expectation.

Whether or not you have socialised healthcare is irrelevent. If you don't then it is entirely up to individual responsibility, and if you do then you still aren't entitled to enforce people to stop risking their own health, otherwise you will end up banning various risky activities. If you want to have a free society people have to be free to take any personal risk they like provided they aren't endangering others within the realms of reasonable expectation.

When did I say you dont have to have ID? you have to have a drivers liscense when you're driving. derp.

[lastunicorn]

Go have a heartfelt discussion with someone whos dad etc is addicted to alcohol and stop trying to use an argument from emotion.

It obviously was not intended as an emotional argument, as that would require you having personal experience. You don't believe using drugs affects anyone besides yourself, and I showed you a case where that is contrary.

Your alcohol argument is invalid because crack causes addiction in a much higher percent of users than alcohol, and just because something harmful is legal does not mean another harmful substance should be legalized. The issue we are discussing is not the legalization of alcohol, although I think you'll find that alcohol use did not go down after prohibition was repealed.

I guess it comes down to your values. You value freedom. While this is a good thing to value, you have to a line to draw. How much do you value freedom over morality and civilization? In my opinion, legalization of crack would be a step towards the fall of morality in society. You say that you would not indulge yourself, so what would the value be to have it legalized? Would you be a little bit happier knowing that you could smoke crack if you wanted to?

How do you feel about freedom to buy whatever kind of gun you want? Would it make you feel safer if the government countered the legalization of fully automatics with more education on how to safely use them? Obviously the legalization of certain weapons is not the issue either, but I just want you to think about how much faith you would have in your idea of the government merely educating the populace when your own life is on the line.

[John Snowstorm]

Your alcohol argument is invalid because crack causes addiction in a much higher percent of users than alcohol

Go have a heartfelt discussion with someone whos father is dying of lung cancer.

Your argument is invalid, everyone dies of something, theres tonnes of things you can get addicted to that will make your family upset, doesnt mean the goverment should step in and ban that thing.

although I think you'll find that alcohol use did not go down after prohibition was repealed.

I think you'll find that alcohol consumption data from during the short period of prohibition (1920-1933) is almost entirely unavailable, so I don't know where you are getting your figures.

We have used proxy readings to estimate the consumption measuring death rates by cirrhosis (which has been shown to be a very good indicator for alcohol consumption), and indeed as one would expect the proxy reading would suggest that consumption went down at the start of prohibition due to the immediate removal of supply. Interestingly the cirrhosis proxy then starts to rise constantly throughout prohibition, as the supply from the black market increases in quality and quantity.

It should be noted that cirrhosis levels showed NO jump after the repeal of prohibition, which would certainly suggest to me that prohibition had only a marginal if any effect on consumption either way.

How much do you value freedom over morality and civilization? In my opinion, legalization of crack would be a step towards the fall of morality in society.

All of these are subjective terms, and granted you admit its your *opinion* but what are you basing this on? Has it drastically made portugal a less more civilised place, despite the fact consumption rates, and death rates went down?

How is saving peoples lives and giving them easy access to the medical and rehabilitation care they need immoral and uncivilised?

You realise that drugs were legal for an awful long time before they were illegal, right? Cocaine and opium where both in wide use up until the end of the 19th century, the opium trade was integral to the british empire, the height of civilisation and 'morality' at the time. If you read David Hillmans (Phd) book 'The Chemical Muse: Drug Use and the Roots of Western Civilization' you'll find ample evidence documented to show that opiates and other narcotics were in widespread use in the greek city states and all the way through the roman empire. Indeed there is evidence to show that the philosophers that we base our democratic ideas on used various narcotics.

You say that you would not indulge yourself, so what would the value be to have it legalized?

Maximised personal freedom. Choice.

How do you feel about freedom to buy whatever kind of gun you want? Would it make you feel safer if the government countered the legalization of fully automatics with more education on how to safely use them?

I feel just fine about it personally, but a gun is not a drug, you can't compare the two in good faith. I have had some experience firing various fully automatic weapons but
I really haven't considered the argument that much. Guns aren't about putting things into your own body, theyre more about putting things in other peoples bodies :D I mean theres certainly a line to be drawn, things like nuclear weaponry or chemical weaponary (to the best of my knowledge) simply can not be 'used' in any safe way by the private individual without risk to other people or other peoples personal property. You would have to think very hard and look at the evidence of where you think you can put the line of when it is reasonable for a private citizen to own a weapon and be able to use it in a controlled manner such that there is no reasonable expectation other peoples health and personal property rights are not infringed, if this requires extensive psychological vetting as well as handling training and storage regulations, then so be it.

[freemehul]

doesn't matter if it can happen, bounds of reason make it meaningless. You could also fall out of your second story window and land on someone, you could do any number of things that *may* endanger other people, even when you are driving a hubcap *could* come off and hurt someone, it's not in the realm of reasonable expectation, you're just stretching your argument because you realised its nonsense. I haven't been able to find a single case of someone getting thrown from a car and hitting someone else, let alone enough cases to consider it a reasonable expectation.

Whether or not you have socialised healthcare is irrelevent. If you don't then it is entirely up to individual responsibility, and if you do then you still aren't entitled to enforce people to stop risking their own health, otherwise you will end up banning various risky activities. If you want to have a free society people have to be free to take any personal risk they like provided they aren't endangering others within the realms of reasonable expectation.

When did I say you dont have to have ID? you have to have a drivers liscense when you're driving. derp.

^ entirely false

A sound logical conclusion can only be obtained if the premisse is true and the logic good (i.e. cannot be proven by logical laws to be false). A premisse can only be true if it is real, which isn't case with what you stated (in other words, you lied).

Whether or not you have it, is not irrelevant, according to the law you must give care. So that statement is again a blatant lie.

So what you're saying in that extremist view of yours, is that it is allright to kill people (hey afterall according to your definition you may not ban people from undertaking risky activities).

You did say that you don't need to have an ID, because again by your own view, you stated that you have the right to be irresponsible and hence not need to carry your driver license with you, because again by your own view the government does not have the right to demand it from you.

oh and John did I not warn you in my previous post that I could take your view to either extreme side? Just how thick are you man? ;)

[John Snowstorm]

You are talking utter nonsense.

I never once said people could be irresponsible, I said people can take risks responsibly, try to get it through your skull. I never once said people could break the law, I never once said there should be no regulations of any kind. It is perfectly sensible to require people to carry a valid drivers liscense if the choose to drive an automobile, to prove that they can indeed use that vehicle without reasonable expectation of causing injury to others or damage to others personal property.

I never once said it is alright to kill people, I said it is alright for people to endanger themselves so long as there is no reasonable expectation of injuring others or damaging others personal property. Sure, give care, unless it is expressly refused by the individual, and it is deemed they are in a competent state to make that decision. Doesn't mean they aren't responsible for the cost of that care in a private healthcare system.

I could take your view to either extreme side?

This makes no kind of sense, all you have done is make strawman arguments, because you can't actually deal with the issues, or perhaps you simply don't understand the discussion. It's amusing to see people make up a position for the opposition to hold and then argue against their made up position, but it is ultimately fruitless for your side, and you just show how little you comprehend the issues at hand.

By your logic you would be banned from driving for pleasure and all journeys must be out of utter neccesity, because every time you drive you do incurr a risk factor of injuring yourself or others.

[Magn]

The analogy works perfectly well as unprotected sex with multiple partners is detrimental to society and individuals, just as overeating junk foods is. However the point is that having sex with your spouse unprotected after having a check up is fine, and having sex with multiple partners is likely to turn out fine provided you protect yourself adequately. Just as fatty foods in moderation as part of a balanced diet is fine.

BUT, you do not have big corporate pushers that push for unprotected sex.

When you go to a store, you are not subjected to constant pictures of unprotected sex.

If there were, people would be screaming for such pictures to be placed at the back of the store or simply removed.

Not in moderation :)

Good for you.

I hope you realize that food like donuts is so rich that it is considered appropriate only for people who do arduous jobs like construction.

Most people eating such food on a regular basis, even in moderation will get fat over time.

Doing 1 hour worth of jogging won't even cover the calories for a donut if your exercise regularly (your body gets efficient and burns less fat). You have to cut on what you are eating for the remainder of the day to compensate as well.

Btw, I run 1-2 hours a day, I know.

btw this is where your argument gets superretarded.

From my perspective, your argumentation is extremely retarded. It's a mutual thing.

no-one is forcing you at gun point to watch ads or go to stores with pastrys at the front,

If you live in a cave maybe.

It's a 99% of the stores, on the streets, on TV, on the internet.

I guess you do have a choice: Live in a cave or be subjected to bad food adds.

This is the kind of freedom that you are about.

My kind of freedom is the kind of freedom where people, as a community, can decide they don't want to subjected to food adds.

hell, you can order online if you're such a weak willed pansy.

You kinda sound like a redneck here bud.

It's not about balls, it's about brains.

A lot of people with balls and no brains die in extremely brave and stupid ways.

You can even use ad block to make sure your choices aren't influenced by advertising.

They'll find a way to get around it if enough people uses it.

Just like I can find really creative ways as a web developper to get round pop-up blockers.

Just because you are weak and can't make good choices,

Everyone is weak and vulnerable at times.

That argument just shows a total lack of understanding concerning underlaying human psychology.

Seriously, read some books on the subject matter.

doesn't mean you get the right to regulate how a business lays out their premises, or limit my impulsive enjoyment of a pastry.

The former, yes, the later no.

There are plenty of circumstances where regulating how businesses operate is just the right thing. I'm sure you can figure out many of them on your own.

However, with the later, society should have a right to modify your taxes in consequence to reflect the extra drain you'll be on the healthcare system.

The enjoyment is in the impulse, the spontaneity.

Again, walk your ass to the back of the store and go enjoy your impulses and spontaneity there.

You're still making the argument that advertising working once = turning you into a fat summama*****. You could buy and eat a 12 inch cheesecake every time you go to the supermarket and you still wont be overweight if you do some freakin excercise.

It's not advertisements working once.

They are conditioning you to think about junk food 80% of the time. It's a freaking lifestyle.

They make sure to keep it on your mind.

Eating a pastry is not harmful to you in and of itself.

Doing it regularly is. Read what I posted above.

People seriously need to take some responsibility for themselves and their own choices and stop looking for someone to blame.

That argumentation out of context makes no sense.

There are plenty of circumstances where it does not apply.

Example: I raise my kid to be a violent savage and then I say it was his choice and decision to be a violent savage and it is his fault.

this is another restatement of the same stupid argument, advertising can work and you eat a succulent pie, that's not going to make you fat. Go for a jog, you'll be alright.

Not really. You have to jog AND watch what you eat.

[John Snowstorm]

BUT, you do not have big corporate pushers that push for unprotected sex.

When you go to a store, you are not subjected to constant pictures of unprotected sex.

If there were, people would be screaming for such pictures to be placed at the back of the store or simply removed.

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.

good for you.

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

I hope you realize that food like donuts is so rich that it is considered appropriate only for people who do arduous jobs like construction.

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 :)

Most people eating such food on a regular basis, even in moderation will get fat over time.

Doing 1 hour worth of jogging won't even cover the calories for a donut if your exercise regularly (your body gets efficient and burns less fat). You have to cut on what you are eating for the remainder of the day to compensate as well.

Btw, I run 1-2 hours a day, I know.

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.

From my perspective, your argumentation is extremely retarded. It's a mutual thing.

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'

If you live in a cave maybe.

It's a 99% of the stores, on the streets, on TV, on the internet.

I guess you do have a choice: Live in a cave or be subjected to bad food adds.

ads != gun to the head, learn to read.

My kind of freedom is the kind of freedom where people, as a community, can decide they don't want to subjected to food adds.

good for you, I want to live in a community where we can decide we don't want to be subjected to adds with women in them because it takes advantage of our natural human impulses and makes us buy deoderants that are harmful to our health.

You kinda sound like a redneck here bud.

failed ad hominem. amusing.

It's not about balls, it's about brains.

A lot of people with balls and no brains die in extremely brave and stupid ways.

Good for them, be smart and don't eat yourself to a coronary then. btw, non sequitir. I just gave you an easy way to avoid seeing the pastries and avoid seeing food ads without having to take them away from other people.

They'll find a way to get around it if enough people uses it.

Just like I can find really creative ways as a web developper to get round pop-up blockers.

just like I explained they will get round your 'move the bakery to the back of the store' idea. >havent see an ad in years online.

Everyone is weak and vulnerable at times.

you can be weak and vulnerable at times and buy a donut and not turn into a fat ass.

That argument just shows a total lack of understanding concerning underlaying human psychology.

Seriously, read some books on the subject matter.

You can allude to willpower not existing all you like but it's nonsense, theres tons of people that arent fat and dont think about junk food 80% of the time. Empirical proof.

However, with the later, society should have a right to modify your taxes in consequence to reflect the extra drain you'll be on the healthcare system.

nope, because I can eat a donut and not get fat or put any strain on any healthcare system that may or may not exist.

Again, walk your ass to the back of the store and go enjoy your impulses and spontaneity there.

By your own definition its not spontaneous if it is by design out of the way, otherwise your law has failed.

It's not advertisements working once.

They are conditioning you to think about junk food 80% of the time. It's a freaking lifestyle.

They make sure to keep it on your mind.

If you're thinking about junk food 80% of the time you have a psychological disorder, that doesn't give you the right to bring legislation on the rest of us. People can become obsessed with all sorts of things, doesn't mean that those things should be banned.

Doing it regularly is. Read what I posted above.

so don't do it regularly. I buy a pecan plait once every month or so and have it with a cup of tea, I *****n love it. I walk past them every time I go to the supermarket. You can pretend its not a choice all you like, but it is a choice.

That argumentation out of context makes no sense.

There are plenty of circumstances where it does not apply.

Example: I raise my kid to be a violent savage and then I say it was his choice and decision to be a violent savage and it is his fault.

Unless he's got a psychological disorder then he's still responsible for his own actions. If we're talking about advertising causing psychological disorders, then we're having a very different conversation, however I never heard of anyone having psychological disorders arising from having to walk past pastries.

You don't ban clowns because a minority have coulrophobia.

[TommyB]

People are dumb, and need to have important decisions made for them.

Made by whom ? Computers ?

[John Snowstorm]

There are plenty of cases of small townships in the US electing animals as their mayors and such, as well as one statue.

Emperor Caligula planned to appoint his favourite horse Incitatus to the consulship, which was the highest position in rome apart from emperor.