What's chips, Precious? What's chips?

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:14 am

djm wrote:If a similar receptor can be found on human tongues, and if this recepetor can be blocked somehow, they think they may have found a way to lower our cravings for fatty foods.

Actually, it'll probably shrink waistlines by magically making all food tasted like crap

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:45 pm

peeplj wrote:I am more disturbed by the idea of an intentionally disgusting ad. This is part of a general move toward an ever-more-nasty society which I have a real problem with.

I agree wholeheartedly.

djm · Post by **djm** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:10 pm

I think the "disgust" style ads are more effective with adults. Kids just lap it up. They have tried putting really gross pictures on cigarette pacjages here. The kids try to collect the whole set. I was told of a cigarette brand in the UK that used an all black package with skull and crossed bones on it. They couldn't keep them in stock for the kids buying them up.

djm

emmline · Post by **emmline** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:07 pm

If there had been a Chiff&Fipple in 1950, you could have found an almost identical thread decrying the sad state of today's youth. Or 1980. Or 1920. Or 1680. You folks are just fulfilling the obligatory destiny of the adult generation.

fearfaoin · Post by **fearfaoin** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:23 pm

djm wrote:I think the "disgust" style ads are more effective with adults. Kids just lap it up.

Word. See: Garbage Pail Kids.

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:28 pm

emmline wrote:If there had been a Chiff&Fipple in 1950, you could have found an almost identical thread decrying the sad state of today's youth. Or 1980. Or 1920. Or 1680. You folks are just fulfilling the obligatory destiny of the adult generation.

Well, I'm not really decrying the youth...I'm decrying the folks who came up with the "disgust-o-burger" ad.

You can't turn on the TV anymore without someone is eating some damn bug or even worse things.

We live in a culture that is wallowing in its own nastiness. And I'm not talking sexually nasty; I had much rather see clean naked people on TV than people eating bugs.

We have a lot backwards in our society. Pretty naked girls are considered obscene; same girl with clothes on eating worms is considered just fine. Sexual imagery is considered immoral, but torturing prisoners of war is just fine.

To quote the song, it's a crazy, mixed-up, muddled-up world.

--James

buddhu · Post by **buddhu** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:33 pm

peeplj wrote:
emmline wrote:If there had been a Chiff&Fipple in 1950, you could have found an almost identical thread decrying the sad state of today's youth. Or 1980. Or 1920. Or 1680. You folks are just fulfilling the obligatory destiny of the adult generation.
Well, I'm not really decrying the youth...I'm decrying the folks who came up with the "disgust-o-burger" ad.

You can't turn on the TV anymore without someone is eating some damn bug or even worse things.

We live in a culture that is wallowing in its own nastiness. And I'm not talking sexually nasty; I had much rather see clean naked people on TV than people eating bugs.

We have a lot backwards in our society. Pretty naked girls are considered obscene; same girl with clothes on eating worms is considered just fine. Sexual imagery is considered immoral, but torturing prisoners of war is just fine.

To quote the song, it's a crazy, mixed-up, muddled-up world.

--James

Yipe, and that song is apparently 'creepy' according to the creepy song thread.

I totally take James's point about nastiness in general, and overall I agree. I think this is a little different - the nastiness is meant constructively rather as part of some fatuous, sensationalist 'entertainment'.

The ads are unquestionably horrible and gross. On the other hand, exaggeration (sp?) aside there is some truth in the message if not the specific ingredients depicted. Personally, I find the new crop of MacDonalds ads, with their smug, cynical, token efforts to portray themselves as a company concerned with dietary health and fitness at least as disgusting. Similarly I find the fact that 'nice' advertising is used to exploit kids into habits which may be harmful quite hard to take.

If this message gets across, hopefully there will be fewer kids needing the chemo' that James mentioned. The truth isn't always pretty.

All that said, I don't know that these ads are the best way to approach the situation - but forget the pics for a sec. Look at the ignorance displayed by the kids in the quotes Gary posted.

Scary.

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:40 pm

I take your point, but if you do a bad thing for good reasons, it remains a bad thing.

--James

P.S. Unfortunately, skinny people get cancer too.

buddhu · Post by **buddhu** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:52 pm

peeplj wrote:I take your point, but if you do a bad thing for good reasons, it remains a bad thing.

--James

P.S. Unfortunately, skinny people get cancer too.

That's true, James, but my point is simply that obesity is, quite definitely, a contributing factor to many, many illnesses including cancer, heart disease, diabetes.

Of course, weight problems at the other end of the spectrum need to be tackled too, but the problem there is not how to counteract the advertising of junk food that makes people too thin. I think that is what is being attempted here. Although I'm not sure this is the best way to do it, I don't necessarily accept that these unpleasant adverts are a bad thing. They lack subtlety and good taste, but they address potentially life-threatening ignorance.

If kids can be taught the truth about nutrition (and its opposite) then hopefully fewer of them will become prematurely ill... or dead.

Saving a kid from the habit of being overweight is a kindness.

Trust me, I'm a fat bloke.

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:08 pm

I'm sorry, I just don't see this as an effective way to address ignorance.

As for whatever your own weight is, learn to accept it. It's part of who you are, and you'll never be at peace with yourself till you can accept yourself as you are, imperfections and all.

As for anyone else's weight, to speak plainly, that's their own business, not yours, and not society's.

I do not buy into this "damage people to help them avoid damage" crap.

--James

buddhu · Post by **buddhu** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:12 pm

Okey dokey...

Thanks for the analysis. I'll try to adjust

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:24 pm

I am sorry I reacted strongly. It's a subject I am somewhat passionate about.

Fat people face enough prejudice, misunderstanding, and even hatred from the rest of the world already in their day-to-day lives.

Now there's this wonderful new idea that by acting inhumanely towards fat people, you are doing them a wonderful favor.

"Make them hate themselves so much they just have to change!"

yeah, right. That's an attitude clinically proven to be helpful.

--James

buddhu · Post by **buddhu** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:37 pm

No apology necessary.

In this case, I really don't think the ads are designed to make people hate themselves. I think they are intended to make people aware that the stuff they are sold may be nastier than it looks and tastes.

I think you're right to care. I don't think we're going to agree about these ads though

Peace.

Redwolf · Post by **Redwolf** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:03 pm

peeplj wrote:I am more disturbed by the idea of an intentionally disgusting ad. This is part of a general move toward an ever-more-nasty society which I have a real problem with.

Not every kid it the world is fat, you know.

What is the parent of some poor kid undergoing chemo supposed to do? There are kids out there who can barely eat at all...how are they going to react to this "gore-burger" ad?!?

This is irresponsible and reprehensible.

--James

I have problems with them too. Educate children, yes...gross them out, no. And frankly, even with education, in the end, the choice of what they eat belongs to them and to their parents...not to the diet police. Give people the information they need to make reasonably well-informed choices, then get out of their way and let them tend to their own lives...that's what I say.

A few years ago, I had a run-in with a teacher who had decided that my daughter's ADHD was the result of eating sugar. Unbeknownst to me, she not only forbade Jo from eating the dessert I sent in her lunch, she set the other kids to watching her. I found out when I was on yard duty and actually overheard one of the kids saying "I'm telling Liz" as she ran to get the teacher after I'd told Jo to go ahead and eat her pie. Needless to say, the proverbial excrement hit the rotating implement. I get seriously p*ssed off when people pull that kind of thing....supposedly for someone else's "own good."

It scares me sometimes...the world I live in now is much more like the world of Orwell's 1984 than I ever could have imagined when I read it back in the '70s.

Redwolf

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:10 pm

peeplj wrote:I am sorry I reacted strongly. It's a subject I am somewhat passionate about.

Fat people face enough prejudice, misunderstanding, and even hatred from the rest of the world already in their day-to-day lives.

Now there's this wonderful new idea that by acting inhumanely towards fat people, you are doing them a wonderful favor.

"Make them hate themselves so much they just have to change!"

yeah, right. That's an attitude clinically proven to be helpful.

--James

I totally agree with you on this, too.