27 Apr 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyI think I would agree with that... basically you do not want the advertiser lying to sell a product. I don't know how that would change much of the current advertising... except of course banning the children's ads.
I'm no psychologist, but I'll name a few (generally the more modern techniques), most of which I believe are the advertisers lying or deceiving their customers by suggestion.
Associating a product with status, success, and idea etc
Weakly founded scientific claims
Peer approval (making you think a product will make you gain friends if you buy it, lose fr ...[text shortened]... ehehe
Children's ads I'd ban altogether, especially young children being so susceptible.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by WajomaAt some level everything is a choice, but there is a need for regulation when the object of choice can be made to be so tantalizing that it could be considered almost cruel and unusual punishment for someone to resist the temptation to consume a particular product.
mcstabby was comparing AIDS to addiction (a choice) I merely bought that out to show how ridiculous that is.
For instance put a bunch of high school students who have grouped together to do some end of year studying for their final exams. Parents leave for a night out and while they are gone a few choices present themselves to the boys.
If one of their number produces some porn mags or DVD's do you really think that out of all the boys present any of their number could make the rational choice that they had studying to do and that to view porn at that moment would be an enormous waste of their time.
I just don't think that you would ever find a group of young adults where a majority would say "I can't look at that porn right now, please put those videos of exploited women to one side 've got real work to do.
In the same way that porn would be uncontrollably addictive to most young men, the inability of a younger person to make an educated choice on the subject of eating certain well advertised fast food brands when hungry would have to rank as a similar weakness. Rather than bleat about the poor corporation and their supposed innocence, we should talk of our responsibilities in the face of our culpability of allowing certain undesirable eating habits to become established.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by kmax87The worst is when I was young and my friends would come over with porn when I was trying to eat my McDonalds.
At some level everything is a choice, but there is a need for regulation when the object of choice can be made to be so tantalizing that it could be considered almost cruel and unusual punishment for someone to resist the temptation to consume a particular product.
For instance put a bunch of high school students who have grouped together to do some end of ...[text shortened]... ace of our culpability of allowing certain undesirable eating habits to become established.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by lepomisToo true. How would anyone be able to sell their hyper inflated sugar treats, I mean breakfast cereal as good food, if they had to advertise the truth about the detrimental effects of all that added sugar.
I think I would agree with that... basically you do not want the advertiser lying to sell a product. I don't know how that would change much of the current advertising... except of course banning the children's ads.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by kmax87I think it would have to revolve around getting your kids to shut up for 10 min while they eat it... maybe followed by ... then the kids will run around aimlessly outside for another 20 min till they are over their sugar high. So the ad campaign would be "Our product will give mothers 1/2 hour a day of peace and quite"
Too true. How would anyone be able to sell their hyper inflated sugar treats, I mean breakfast cereal as good food, if they had to advertise the truth about the detrimental effects of all that added sugar.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by RagnorakYour right on that count. I'd never think of beer if it weren't for the advertising. ***he said whilst noisly slurping his giant appletini***
Of course, every ad isn't targeted at every single person. But if you have an interest in purchasing what is being advertised, then it WILL have an effect on you. I had an amazing revelation a while back. I turned on the TV, realised that there was soccer on, and my first thought was "Hmmmm, beeeer!"
Re food advertising. I think it should definitely ...[text shortened]... nd instantly, I'd think, "oooh, I'd love one of those". Hunger is very suggestive.
D
28 Apr 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyLying by suggestion?,
I'm no psychologist, but I'll name a few (generally the more modern techniques), most of which I believe are the advertisers lying or deceiving their customers by suggestion.
Associating a product with status, success, and idea etc
Weakly founded scientific claims
Peer approval (making you think a product will make you gain friends if you buy it, lose fr ...[text shortened]... ehehe
Children's ads I'd ban altogether, especially young children being so susceptible.
Oh dear what an airy fairy subjective PC term if ever there was one. I'm with you all the way when it comes to making outright fraudulent claims about a product. There are already laws to cover this, but if a cigarette company wants to market their product by having some cool healthy guy surrounded by women whilst lighting a fresh cigarette off the still burning butt of one he's just smoked then they can go for it.
28 Apr 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat sounds like a good ad campaign for national unity and cultural pride.
We're a free people over here in the US. Guess what happens when a people is free and affluent? They apparently get fat. That's what the people want. Leave us alone and let us be fat!
"America, what a place! Still land of the rich, fat, free people."
Disclaimer:- While the US hopes that those who adapt to its ways will enjoy life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it in no way guarantees that affluenza will leave its citizens free of fat.
28 Apr 07
Originally posted by WajomaReasons? How does allowing them to do that make the world a better place?
Lying by suggestion?,
Oh dear what an airy fairy subjective PC term if ever there was one. I'm with you all the way when it comes to making outright fraudulent claims about a product. There are already laws to cover this, but if a cigarette company wants to market their product by having some cool healthy guy surrounded by women whilst lighting a fresh cigarette off the still burning butt of one he's just smoked then they can go for it.
28 Apr 07
Originally posted by kmax87Why do we come to RHP forums? Is it in the hope of convincing others that what you believe is right?
At some level everything is a choice, but there is a need for regulation when the object of choice can be made to be so tantalizing that it could be considered almost cruel and unusual punishment for someone to resist the temptation to consume a particular product.
For instance put a bunch of high school students who have grouped together to do some end of ...[text shortened]... ace of our culpability of allowing certain undesirable eating habits to become established.
Sadly I think it's a hopeless cause to try and get control freaks like; mcstabby, kmax, Dowddowd III, scottishgetoutofnz, dotty etc to get their hands out of my pocket, their gun out of my back and their filthy paws off of my life.
So I guess I must be here for the laffs then. While mcstabby's comparisons (opium to fast food, AIDS to smoking, faulty products to the pinnacle of mass produced fast food) are just plain pathetic. This observation of kmaxs that advertising is almost cruel and unusual punishment makes it all worth while, haha, not often I can just sit back and laugh like that, cheers.
kmax, if the students are old enough to view the porno then the decision to study or look at porno is theirs. Are you suggesting an age of consent for burgers? And again I ask: Is it all fast food, from the one man band to the small time entrepeneur with a string of four restaurants to huge international companies that you would like to 'police' or is it only companies over a certain size? advertising budget? turnover? number of restaurants? (go ahead name a criteria)
28 Apr 07
Originally posted by WajomaThe opium - fast food comparison is a parallel, as it's a company selling another product to another, telling them that it's a good product when it's damaging, then raking in the profits as the country's health deteriorates.
Why do we come to RHP forums? Is it in the hope of convincing others that what you believe is right?
Sadly I think it's a hopeless cause to try and get control freaks like; mcstabby, kmax, Dowddowd III, scottishgetoutofnz, dotty etc to get their hands out of my pocket, their gun out of my back and their filthy paws off of my life.
So I guess I must be ...[text shortened]... ertain size? advertising budget? turnover? number of restaurants? (go ahead name a criteria)
AIDS - smoking (it was obesity by the way) I'm looking at it from the point of trying to alleviate obesity, telling people they should have more will power plain just won't work
Faulty products - fast food, food should be nourishing. Fast food isn't. It is a bad, bad product.
All you do is criticise exaggerated analogies, you don't even argue the main points.
28 Apr 07
Originally posted by WajomaI will respond maybe when you stop your hypocritical holier than thou rant that somehow finds you above any convincing of anyone on this debates forum.
Why do we come to RHP forums? Is it in the hope of convincing others that what you believe is right? And again I ask: Is it all fast food, that you would like to 'police' or is it only companies over a certain size? advertising budget? turnover? number of restaurants? (go ahead name a criteria)
Maybe its the other Wajoma I'm thinking about because you apparently have never presented anything that even remotely resembles your own worldview on any given topic on this forum, in [gasp!] possibly the hope of convincing others that what you believe is right.
Or heavens forfend! - Are you actually trying to suggest that your libertarian view has given you a degree of objectivity and altruism in debates, where it is not merely your own self interest that you serve in any given discussion, but that actually, you have the clarity to argue from a perspective of discovered truth that would be unfair for you to withhold from the world?
..........................Eh!?
30 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87I took your post over to babelfish.altavista.com and ran it through a whole bunch of languages but I couldn't get a coherent translation.
I will respond maybe when you stop your hypocritical holier than thou rant that somehow finds you above any convincing of anyone on this debates forum.
Maybe its the other Wajoma I'm thinking about because you apparently have never presented anything that even remotely resembles your own worldview on any given topic on this forum, in [gasp!] possibly the h ...[text shortened]... uth that would be unfair for you to withhold from the world?
..........................Eh!?
My "own world view" is shaped by a couple of principles that I have made clear on a number of occasions and have applied to a number of different circumstances
1/ You are the owner of your life. To state otherwise is to claim that there is another person or group of persons with a higher claim.
Whodat?
2/ The initiation of force, threats of force and fraud are the prime evil.
Limits to advertising amount to an attack on freedom of expression, the only way these limits can be imposed is by the threat of force. There are laws against manufacturers making false claims about their products and this is as it should be. False claims amount to fraud. Force is justified in response to the initiation of the three f's, (Force, threats of force and fraud)