"Simply? There is nothing simple about the anaology. People "simply" starving. Huh? I do believe that obesity is a problem-- a major one. Both need to be addressed at least parents can feed their children junk food while in other countries children don't even have the option to turn down a twinkie. "
Firstly, this is not an analogy, I'd also prefer you not to take my words out of context. I didn't say anything like: "People "simply" starving."
I don't understand how you defend your position. Are you saying that because people in other parts of the world don't get enough food, having children in Australia eat junk food somehow lessens the fact that others are starving...please explain that. Also, you are changing what the argument is about. Mark Latham is not suggesting we ban fast food, he is not suggesting that it's not the parents responsibilty to monitor the food the child eats, but he is saying that these ads make children want to eat junk food, and that if the ads are removed, then they might not eat it was much.
Advertising is used for a reason, because it works. If the junk food companies weren't getting more business out of showing the ads, they wouldn't show them any longer.
Unfortunately I don't have time to continue this post right now.
thestickman