Are we seeing eye to eye on this?

gkim55593

Hi,
Since this has no video explanation for it, I want to know whether I fell in line with the rest when I reached that conclusion. In this question, the author argues that butter manufacturers should be allowed to call their products "Can't believe it's not butter or Skim fat butter" to ward off any negative nuances from the term "Imitation butter". This person cites two reasons to back up one's allegation. A) People should be fostered to consume more low fat butter products because of their health concerns, arising from a high cholesterol level. This hostile naming like Knock-off/Ersatz could stave potential consumers off from those well-intentioned products owing to their aversion to the names. In that way, the industry could push people to indulge in more butterfat which could pose a threat to their health (esp. cardiovascular). In order to weaken this assertion, I thought it would be better off for me to claim that this aversion could beget more positive results healthwise for those buyers in the market. What if they, finding those suggestive names unbearably repulsive, decided to find the authentic low fat butter products which significantly slashed the fat content? For instance, they would rather find a real McCoy low fat butter, projecting an image of authenticity,instead of phonier butter substitutes, which happened to have less butterfat in it? People who voted for Trump would rather turn to him to gratify their desires, whatever they might be, in lieu of settling down for his miniature, Ron DeSantis, emulating his extreme creeds. I just thought that it was important for me to tackle the author's point that the negative naming could take a toll on public health because it deters people from purchasing the imitation butter which is healthier for them thanks to the low fat content in comparison with the regular ones. Thus, one of the ramifications was supposed to bear the unexpected consequence that made everyone more robust and hale: cutting off the consumption of butterfat more noticeably than what was expected from the fake butter. What are your thoughts on this? I would like to hear from other would-be legal minds. Thanks!