U.S. conservatives defend-the right to bear fat

Originally posted by Wajoma
I 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.

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 ...[text shortened]... ustified in response to the initiation of the three f's, (Force, threats of force and fraud)

If modern advertising techniques aren't fraud, they're definitely in the same spirit.
I'm not advocating banning advertising, just the techniques that are making fraudulent suggestions. A company shouldn't have to trick people into buying their product. If they're relying on advertising to sell, then this opens the door to routinely selling substandard products, which in the case of fast foods, are downright harmful.

Originally posted by mrstabby
If modern advertising techniques aren't fraud, they're definitely in the same spirit.
I'm not advocating banning advertising, just the techniques that are making fraudulent suggestions. A company shouldn't have to trick people into buying their product. If they're relying on advertising to sell, then this opens the door to routinely selling substandard products, which in the case of fast foods, are downright harmful.

Not interested in your spirits and suggestions mcstabby, or your double speak, I've seen your "ban' list.

Don't like someones advertising? don't buy their product.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Not interested in your spirits and suggestions mcstabby, or your double speak, I've seen your "ban' list.

Don't like someones advertising? don't buy their product.

Laws against fraud are there to protect the consumer. Consumers are being persuaded into buying products that ultimately harm them based on what the seller is telling them.
If a cult sprang up persuading people to self harm for social status, would you say this was wrong? Fast food advertising makes people harm themselves for what they are led to believe is fashionable.
Is the world's health that irrelevant to you?

Also; ban list? Huh? Where did I use doublespeak?

Originally posted by mrstabby
Laws against fraud are there to protect the consumer. Consumers are being persuaded into buying products that ultimately harm them based on what the seller is telling them.
If a cult sprang up persuading people to self harm for social status, would you say this was wrong? Fast food advertising makes people harm themselves for what they are led to belie ...[text shortened]... he world's health that irrelevant to you?

Also; ban list? Huh? Where did I use doublespeak?

lepomis asked you specifically what you wanted banned, you then provided a list.

Double speak: You say you don't want to ban advertising just certain techniques.

Techniques of what?

Well techniques of advertising of course.

If ever there was an example of brainwashing you are it mcstabby. You're worse than the god botherers.

Originally posted by Wajoma
lepomis asked you specifically what you wanted banned, you then provided a list.

Double speak: You say you don't want to ban advertising just certain techniques.

Techniques of what?

Well techniques of advertising of course.

If ever there was an example of brainwashing you are it mcstabby. You're worse than the god botherers.

You know the list I posted? Those are some of the advertising techniques. That is what I'm arguing against - techniques that create associations with things that the product has nothing to do with, or claiming that the product gives you status. I even stated later that I'm not for an outright ban on advertising.
That means that I don't believe that advertising should be banned outright. It's quite simple.

Did you think that because there are certain advertising techniques that lie by suggestion I mean to ban all advertising? No - an advert should be to boldly state what the product is and sell itself on that basis. Anything else is attempting to lead the consumer to believe something else about the product which isn't true.

Leave out the personal comments, if your argument is strong then it'll stand up on its own.

Originally posted by mrstabby
You know the list I posted? Those are some of the advertising techniques. That is what I'm arguing against - techniques that create associations with things that the product has nothing to do with, or claiming that the product gives you status. I even stated later that I'm not for an outright ban on advertising.
That means that I don't believe that a eave out the personal comments, if your argument is strong then it'll stand up on its own.

No dolt I didn't think you were so far gone as to want to ban all advertising only non-mcstabby approved advertising.

"Free speech" says mcstabby, as long as we run it by the thought police first.

Originally posted by Wajoma
No dolt I didn't think you were so far gone as to want to ban all advertising only non-mcstabby approved advertising.

"Free speech" says mcstabby, as long as we run it by the thought police first.

The united declaration of human rights states that:

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.


Rights come with duties and responsibilities. These become more important when applied to companies as by and large they have a larger influence than individuals.
"Free speech" says Wajoma "and no responsibilities to go with it"

Originally posted by mrstabby
The united declaration of human rights states that:

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in ...[text shortened]... fluence than individuals.
"Free speech" says Wajoma "and no responsibilities to go with it"

Is that the declaration of human rights or company rights?

Originally posted by monster truck
Is that the declaration of human rights or company rights?

Human rights, though in a weird twisted way where companies are people.
Either way, I don't see why a company should have more rights than a human being or bear fewer responsibilities than an individual.

Originally posted by mrstabby
Human rights, though in a weird twisted way where companies are people.
Either way, I don't see why a company should have more rights than a human being or bear fewer responsibilities than an individual.

Weird, twisted way describes your logic perfectly.

Originally posted by monster truck
Weird, twisted way describes your logic perfectly.

Is the logic of the main point twisted - the right to free speech bears responsibilities whether you're a person or a company?
Or is the opposing argument once again based on my ability to communicate coherently at midnight?

Originally posted by mrstabby
Is the logic of the main point twisted - the right to free speech bears responsibilities whether you're a person or a company?
Or is the opposing argument once again based on my ability to communicate coherently at midnight?

Yes, it is twisted.
As soon as you begin to impose Mrs. Tabby's (or anyone else's) restrictions, it becomes a misnomer. It is no longer free, is it?
I'll take my "freedom" in as pure a form as I can get it. I'll also accept the consequences of living in such a state. I prefer that to living in some nanny state where my "brothers" determine what's best for me. What about you?

Originally posted by monster truck
Yes, it is twisted.
As soon as you begin to impose Mrs. Tabby's (or anyone else's) restrictions, it becomes a misnomer. It is no longer free, is it?
I'll take my "freedom" in as pure a form as I can get it. I'll also accept the consequences of living in such a state. I prefer that to living in some nanny state where my "brothers" determine what's best for me. What about you?

Are you saying that the UN declaration of human rights is flawed? Are you saying rights do not come without their responsibilities?
What is so important about a fast food company being allowed to advertise so aggressively? Individually, how does it make any country a better place?

Originally posted by mrstabby
Are you saying that the UN declaration of human rights is flawed? Are you saying rights do not come without their responsibilities?
What is so important about a fast food company being allowed to advertise so aggressively? Individually, how does it make any country a better place?

Yes.
No.
Nothing.
It doesn't.
If you keep to one or 2 questions per post, I'll try to answer in more detail.

Originally posted by monster truck
Yes.
No.
Nothing.
It doesn't.
If you keep to one or 2 questions per post, I'll try to answer in more detail.

How's it flawed?