Yikes, how is that supposed to be uplifting? Sounds a whole lot like authoritarian overreach. Let people decide for themselves what they do and don’t want to eat.
Yikes, imagine conflating corporate advertising with freedom… Is this why companies hold so much power over us?
I expect you’d have a rather different stance if it was advertising for something you enjoy in life that was being singled out and banned.
It’d be very different if it was a blanket ban on all advertisement in these contexts, but it isn’t. It’s the government trying to decide what people eat.
I eat meat, so thats not true. I also smoke, so that’s not true. I use medicine, so that’s not true. I use drugs, so that’s not true. None of those i need to see advertisements for
Do i need to go on?
Lol, fair, you’re not a hypocrite at least.
Wtf. Regulations on advertising are not authoritarian, what the hell. Even if we’d put shock pictures of what happens in slaughterhouses (or even better, videos right next to the meat packages) like we do on cigarette boxes it still wouldn’t be authoritarian. If governments would ban meat altogether despite a majority of people being against such a ban, that would be authoritarian. If a majority was for the ban it would be democratic.
Given the clear science on the effects of and mechanisms behind public advertising this is clearly uplifting news.
No one is stopping them from buying meat though? There are still big sections full of it in stores that you see whenever you go grocery shopping.
Heck, I would ban the ads on all food products if it were me. Same with pharmaceuticals.
If you’ve gone that far already, why not ban all ads? It’s all brainwashing and mind control imo.
Should we start advertising cigarettes again so? Because that went really well! /s
This is the correct response.
I wouldn’t be opposed to blanket bans on advertisingin certain contexts. This however is the state going nanny on the populace.
authoritarian overreach
Like deciding what animals live and die?
Stop projecting.
Like deciding what animals live and die?
Yup, in most cases it is the owners of said animals that decide what happens to them, like with other property. The government trying to force (or prevent) putting an animal down would also be overreach.
The exceptions when it comes to property rights are generally when human beings are somehow endangered, which is where most rights and freedoms, sensibly, are limited.
Your whole comment comes from the selfish belief that animals should not have rights. Yet good people are fighting to make sure people like you don’t just see them as property.
If you continue down this path, I’ll laugh when people start considering you and your family as their property. Because somehow you believe you have authoritarian power over animals.
