A wilding Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 Obesity may be a complex problem, but just about all nutritionists agree that junk food advertising is a major cause, and that attempting to tackle obesity without doing something about advertising is not likely to be very successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 Yeah honestly I don’t buy it, I know there are studies out there that like to correlate the two things, but I haven’t seen anything that outright proves one causes the other. Ive been overweight, I’ve been around obese and overweight people, and i don’t think advertising is even 1% of the cause of it, when you consider all the mental , physical and biological factors going into why people tend to over eat. The idea that someone is going to not rely on tasty food that makes them feel good because it’s not advertised on tv before 9pm is just a really weak idea. You could also point out that kids aren’t even watching tv these days so don’t see advertising as another reason why it’s just nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 Studies repeatedly find the same results, but I don't believe them. Lol. Dude, just as one example, it's been widely shown that advertisers targeted kids and taught them how to get their parents to buy them sugary treats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 Studies say that there is correlation between purchase choices and requests and advertising. They only suggest a very small connection between that and obsesity, and even then they throw in tv watching as a factor ( as in being sedentary) Its really pretty tenuous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 1 hour ago, A wilding said: By the way, has anyone else spotted that UK mobile phone companies are starting to add roaming charges for travel to Europe again, now that Brexit makes it possible? Throughout the whole Brexit campaign they all consistently swore that they would not, and were still doing so right up until the final Brexit agreement was signed. What a surprise. Oh look, another Project Fear prophecy has come to pass. Still waiting for all those Brexit benefits we were promised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorn Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 34 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Studies say that there is correlation between purchase choices and requests and advertising. They only suggest a very small connection between that and obsesity, and even then they throw in tv watching as a factor ( as in being sedentary) Its really pretty tenuous You should write an email to Pringles and tell them to shut down their marketing department, since they're just wasting money anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 12 minutes ago, Spockydog said: Oh look, another Project Fear prophecy has come to pass. Still waiting for all those Brexit benefits we were promised. There’s a long list of project fear prophecies that haven’t come to pass.. actually almost all of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 Just now, Gorn said: You should write an email to Pringles and tell them to shut down their marketing department, since they're just wasting money anyway. If Pringles sole aim is getting people to be obese then yeah maybe I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raja Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 1 hour ago, Spockydog said: Still waiting for all those Brexit benefits we were promised. I give it a week before the spectator has a piece stating why roaming charges are actually good etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 Lol at the thought that the sort of parents who can't stop their kids eating shit send them to bed before 2100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 41 minutes ago, Raja said: I give it a week before the spectator has a piece stating why roaming charges are actually good etc etc "Roaming fees remind us that we are British in a foreign land. We should thank the telecom companies for their contribution to unity and national pride. Making the homeland home again." /s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derfel Cadarn Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said: Lol at the thought that the sort of parents who can't stop their kids eating shit send them to bed before 2100. And if they’re in bed, it’s with a phone/tablet bombarding them with adverts in-between YouTube videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 6 hours ago, A wilding said: I have to agree. Allowing speech while banning certain types of advertising seems perfectly coherent to me, and I am in favour of both. The government's proposals on 'free speech' on campus go considerably further than allowing it. 'Compelling' it would be closer to the mark. I'd also say that almost everyone is broadly in favour of both free speech and limiting some advertising, but it's the detail of these two things that counts. Libertarians, of course, are in favour of more or less unrestrained free speech including advertising. This is a belief that the Prime Minister and several of his cabinet profess to and use as a justification for more or less forcing universities to host selected varieties of hate speech (homophobia, transphobia, several flavours of racism, Islamophobia, and some misogyny), the real harm these speakers do being disregarded as unimportant in the face of the greater good of unrestrained 'freedom of speech'. As this is their argument, it's fair game to point out the hypocrisy. Of course, nobody is completely consistent, but the point here is that the ostensible arguments about campus speech are bollocks and everyone knows this. This merely confirms it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 11 minutes ago, mormonte said: The government's proposals on 'free speech' on campus go considerably further than allowing it. 'Compelling' it would be closer to the mark. I'd also say that almost everyone is broadly in favour of both free speech and limiting some advertising, but it's the detail of these two things that counts. Libertarians, of course, are in favour of more or less unrestrained free speech including advertising. This is a belief that the Prime Minister and several of his cabinet profess to and use as a justification for more or less forcing universities to host selected varieties of hate speech (homophobia, transphobia, several flavours of racism, Islamophobia, and some misogyny), the real harm these speakers do being disregarded as unimportant in the face of the greater good of unrestrained 'freedom of speech'. As this is their argument, it's fair game to point out the hypocrisy. Of course, nobody is completely consistent, but the point here is that the ostensible arguments about campus speech are bollocks and everyone knows this. This merely confirms it. It’s a strange thing when I agree with every word of this while having a distinct feeling that you and I fundamentally disagree on the subject! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 18 hours ago, L'oiseau français said: I’m always bemused at stories like this. Do you think advertising doesn’t work? That companies throw millions at advertising because sales don’t go up? Do you think banning cigarette advertising had no impact on the drop in the number of smokers? There was a really interesting statistic in Australia back when smoking ads were allowed. There was a period where different brands sponsored the major sports differently across different states. Research into the demographics of smokers showed that young smokers' choice of cigarettes aligned with the advertising in their state. So it absolutely has an effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 Sleaze upon sleaze. Resign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 It’s really going to be hard to try and remove the image of Hancock grabbing ass like it’s a drunken Christmas office party. Totally gross. I have to wonder how they got hold of that CCTV footage though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 It's a complete mystery, yes. Tabloids have in the past really struggled to get hold of images of celebrities and politicians misbehaving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Which Tyler Posted June 25, 2021 Author Share Posted June 25, 2021 As for "it's a conspiracy to make him jump" In normal ties, it would absolutely have a wiff of that; but these aren't normal times, and being utterly shameless and refusing to jump is an active requirement for cabinet currently - not to mention the numerous indiscretions of the man at the top. Personally, I've never felt that the sex-lives of politicians should be held against them (assuming no corruption/cronyism, and no issues with consent). I see no particular reason to change my mind because I happen to dislike the politician in question. Hancock is an incompetent idiot, whether he's been screwing around or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derfel Cadarn Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 22 minutes ago, Which Tyler said: As for "it's a conspiracy to make him jump" In normal ties, it would absolutely have a wiff of that; but these aren't normal times, and being utterly shameless and refusing to jump is an active requirement for cabinet currently - not to mention the numerous indiscretions of the man at the top. Personally, I've never felt that the sex-lives of politicians should be held against them (assuming no corruption/cronyism, and no issues with consent). I see no particular reason to change my mind because I happen to dislike the politician in question. Hancock is an incompetent idiot, whether he's been screwing around or not. There are the optics though; for over a year he’s been telling people to socially distance. People haven’t seen partners, grandchildren, family, friends etc for months on end, while he’s getting it on with an employee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.