Do you find these billboards offensive?

pickarooney

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I noticed the other day that my can of diet coke, which is advertised as "calorie free" actually has one calorie in it (not that it makes much difference) but this has me thinking now, is there (and I would bet money that there is) some kind of "licence" in marketing and advertising where if the exception is negligible (in respect of the overall figures - before you all start barking about rape victims not being "negligible - I am talking purely figures) that the company can make the claim?? Maybe not, just a thought...

They just mean they don't charge you for that calorie.

Shenshen

Zulu wrote: »

Seriously, W.T.F. Pointing out that I'm like Bill Clinton found out to be a bare faced lie, trying to weasel out on a technicality is an ad-hominem attack.

No. It's a comparison of your way of arguing. Not on your person.

Zulu

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not an ad hominen. It's an example of a similarity in trying to weasel out on technicalities.

Thats exactly what an ad hom... oh nevermind.

Is there any difference in how those two sentences are constructed?

Yes. Apparently one is highly offensive.

"Abortion is cool. There is never a better option." If your definition was correct that would be every bit as acceptable and truthfull as the youth defence one..

What? You not making any sense now at all. :rolleyes:

sbsquarepants

Zulu wrote: »

Thats exactly what an ad hom... oh nevermind.

OK

Zulu wrote: »

Yes. Apparently one is highly offensive.

Which one?

Zulu wrote: »

What? You not making any sense now at all. :rolleyes:

Come on now zulu, surely you can see the point. If one "definitive statement" is ok, why wouldn't the other be. They are either both ok, or they're both not ok. Which one is it?

OldNotWIse

Shenshen wrote: »

This is the one you wanted me to reply to? I asked you for an example of European advertising with that slogan... and yes, I did go an look for it.
The slogan was used in the US, not here.

Oh ok...so its ok for you to use statistics and advertising guidelines pertaining only to US food and drink.... But I have to stick to European examples.... interesting set of double standards there...

by the way, your post was ten minutes after I had to prompt you for a reply

OldNotWIse

pickarooney wrote: »

They just mean they don't charge you for that calorie.

er...ok thanks. I'm glad we did this...

jhegarty

Shenshen wrote: »

This is the one you wanted me to reply to? I asked you for an example of European advertising with that slogan... and yes, I did go an look for it.
The slogan was used in the US, not here.

You didn't look very far.

http://www.toyota.ie/about/best-built-cars/

Shenshen

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Oh ok...so its ok for you to use statistics and advertising guidelines pertaining only to US food and drink.... But I have to stick to European examples.... interesting set of double standards there...

You missed the post where I said for all that I could find out, European Standards conform to US standards on the labal "calorie free"?

Shenshen

jhegarty wrote: »

You didn't look very far.

http://www.toyota.ie/about/best-built-cars/

Ah, that is interesting. And they weren't challenged on that?

Edit : They were, and apparently provided documentation, facts and statistics that satified the courts to let Toyota keep the slogan.

You learn something new every day

Zulu

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Come on now zulu, surely you can see the point. If one "definitive statement" is ok, why wouldn't the other be. They are either both ok, or they're both not ok. Which one is it?

You claimed it was clearly bollix, not me.
Other than your clearly sensationalist "abortion is cool" part, and assuming that the later doesn't claim the statement to be a "fact" then they would both be a definitive statements. Neither would be facts.

I note that no one has pointed out where it's claimed that the statement is a fact. Seeing as the statement can not be proven, ergo it can't be a fact, are you happy to retract your statement claiming that it's presented as a "fact"?

OldNotWIse

Shenshen wrote: »

You missed the post where I said for all that I could find out, European Standards conform to US standards on the labal "calorie free"?

Where you said "for all I can tell"??? Definitive stuff :rolleyes:

Plus I'm pretty sure you were replying to another poster at the time?

Shenshen

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Where you said "for all I can tell"??? Definitive stuff :rolleyes:

Well, be my guest. I'm sure you can use goole, even if you seem somehow averse to it.
I'm not a lawyer, I'm not even a native speaker of English. All assistance is appreciated.

OldNotWIse

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, be my guest. I'm sure you can use goole, even if you seem somehow averse to it.
I'm not a lawyer, I'm not even a native speaker of English. All assistance is appreciated.

Be your guest? I'm not exaclty sure what you are talking about tbh. Just because I question your findings (when there are obvious holes in them) does not make me "averse to google"

Your posts remind me of a girl I knew in college who basically entrusted her entire knowledge to Google, believing that only truth would find its way there. She even became known as "according to google" - a name to show how ridiculous it was to cite every comment she made as being "according to google" - it's a search engine, not a reference.

Shenshen

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Be your guest? I'm not exaclty sure what you are talking about tbh. Just because I question your findings (when there are obvious holes in them) does not make me "averse to google"

Your posts remind me of a girl I knew in college who basically entrusted her entire knowledge to Google, believing that only truth would find its way there. She even became known as "according to google" - a name to show how ridiculous it was to cite every comment she made as being "according to google" - it's a search engine, not a reference.

I was referring to a previous post, where you stated that you don't like using google.

I haven't referenced google, if you care to check the links I provided.
I referenced the Irish Citizen Information webiste, snopes.com and a dictionary.

It doesn't have to be google, you know? Any search engine that will return any result on any reliable website will do.
As I said 3 times now, I couldn't find anything regarding the "calorie free" label that wasn't referencing the FDA, even on European side. If you can find something, by all means, do share.

girlonfire

I don't agree with it, but I guess I'm not offended either.
The anti-abortion crew are too "in your face"! Surely there's other ways they can ensure their drone is heard

OldNotWIse

Shenshen wrote: »

I was referring to a previous post, where you stated that you don't like using google.

I haven't referenced google, if you care to check the links I provided.
I referenced the Irish Citizen Information webiste, snopes.com and a dictionary.

It doesn't have to be google, you know? Any search engine that will return any result on any reliable website will do.
As I said 3 times now, I couldn't find anything regarding the "calorie free" label that wasn't referencing the FDA, even on European side. If you can find something, by all means, do share.

I never stated that I dont like using Google, I said that I dont live my life by it. I dont feel the need to substantiate every opinion and post with "according to google", or indeed, accuse other members of "not being able to use google" if they disagree with me...

regarding your post about European standards, I am aware of this but I am afraid you are twisting the argument now. As originally, I simply asked you to address a point I made to you regarding the Toyota advertising, which you had not done prior to accusing another poster of ignoring your posts.

sbsquarepants

Zulu wrote: »

You claimed it was clearly bollix, not me.
Other than your clearly sensationalist "abortion is cool" part, and assuming that the later doesn't claim the statement to be a "fact" then they would both be a definitive statements. Neither would be facts.

I note that no one has pointed out where it's claimed that the statement is a fact. Seeing as the statement can not be proven, ergo it can't be a fact, are you happy to retract your statement claiming that it's presented as a "fact"?

It is clearly stated as a fact.

There is ALWAYS a better answer. With the always highlighted, is quite clearly a statement of fact, that fact being that it is ALWAYS better not to abort.
For something to ALWAYS be a certain way, means it's never any other way - therefore it is a fact. There are no shades of grey or subtle nuances of language - it is ALWAYS that way. They chose to include and empahasise the word ALWAYS so therefore it must be important to what they are saying.
Now seeing as you are having trouble recognising statements of fact, i'll point this one out to you. It is a FACT, that the billboard in question is WRONG. This is not an opinion, it's a statement of fact.

AudreyHepburn

I wouldn't say I'm necessarily offended by the billboards no. The Pro-Lifers have every right to air their views imo. I would take issue with the idea that there is ALWAYS a better choice though....sadly that's just not true.

What offends me or rather disturbs me more are the Pro-Lifers who stand outside the GPO displaying horrific photos of aborted babies/foetuses.

That's going too far in my opinion.

There are children walking by not to mention potentially women who have had abortions or lost babies in other ways.

sbsquarepants

Those are the same shower of clowns who put up this billboard

Zulu

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Now seeing as you are having trouble recognising statements of fact, i'll point this one out to you. It is a FACT, that the billboard in question is WRONG. This is not an opinion, it's a statement of fact.

Sigh, I think it's yourself having the difficulty. A fact is something that can be proven, not simply something you decide to call a fact.

In terms of your example, seeing as you can not prove that the billboard is wrong, your statement is not a fact - capitals or otherwise. Similarly, their poster is not a fact as they can not prove there is always a better option.

finty

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It is clearly stated as a fact.

There is ALWAYS a better answer. With the always highlighted, is quite clearly a statement of fact, that fact being that it is ALWAYS better not to abort.
For something to ALWAYS be a certain way, means it's never any other way - therefore it is a fact. There are no shades of grey or subtle nuances of language - it is ALWAYS that way. They chose to include and empahasise the word ALWAYS so therefore it must be important to what they are saying.
Now seeing as you are having trouble recognising statements of fact, i'll point this one out to you. It is a FACT, that the billboard in question is WRONG. This is not an opinion, it's a statement of fact.

Again my friend. This is only your opinion!! (and your opinion is wrong)

You are very confused....

Having to preface any statement with "this is a fact" or "this is my opinion" would render the english language unusable (this is my opinion )

sbsquarepants

Semantics. Same as the Bill Clinton analogy. Weaseling is all it is.
The billboard is making a false statement, that's clear for most people to see. You can try the whole check your dictionary for what "fact" means nonsense all you like, it doesn't change what the facts are. The billboard clearly states there is ALWAYS a better answer, there quite clearly is not ALWAYS a better answer. The billboard is wrong.
Now that is a fact.

Zulu

Weaseling indeed, I'm just not sure who's being accused of it is the same person who's guilty of it!

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You can try the whole check your dictionary for what "fact" means nonsense all you like, it doesn't change what the facts are.

It just helps us to establish what the actual facts are. If you are relying on "fact" as part of your reasoning to get offended, I suggest it might help to understand what a "fact" is.

Shenshen

Zulu wrote: »

Sigh, I think it's yourself having the difficulty. A fact is something that can be proven, not simply something you decide to call a fact.

In terms of your example, seeing as you can not prove that the billboard is wrong, your statement is not a fact - capitals or otherwise. Similarly, their poster is not a fact as they can not prove there is always a better option.

So you wouldn't agree that the fact that some mothers would die carrying their preganacies to term is a fact clearly contradicting the statement in the ad?
Surely if something can be disproven, it's a lie?

OldNotWIse

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Semantics. Same as the Bill Clinton analogy. Weaseling is all it is.
The billboard is making a false statement, that's clear for most people to see. You can try the whole check your dictionary for what "fact" means nonsense all you like, it doesn't change what the facts are. The billboard clearly states there is ALWAYS a better answer, there quite clearly is not ALWAYS a better answer. The billboard is wrong.
Now that is a fact.

True, if it were my poster I would say something like, "we can't say that there is always a better answer because everything in life has caveats and if we say something that in any way is not 100% true then we will give the other side the justification they so depserately seek to overthrow our viewpoint. Better to say that in the majority of cases, there is a better answer but that for socio and economic reasons, this is by by-passed" or "abortion - there is usually a better answer" - dont quite roll off the tongue though, do they? This is why I dont work in marketing

sbsquarepants

finty wrote: »

Again my friend. This is only your opinion!! (and your opinion is wrong)

You are very confused....

Having to preface any statement with "this is a fact" or "this is my opinion" would render the english language unusable (this is my opinion )

If you can't see, or claim that you can't see, that the use of the word ALWAYS, discounts the possibility of other scenarios - then there is no point in me arguing the case. If any different scenario is impossible, how can the statement not be a statement of fact?

The add could have said there could be a better answer, and that would be fine and would even possibly be of some help to somebody, but it didn't it said ALWAYS and stressed the ALWAYS, ie no exceptions, black and white, right and wrong. If you have had an abortion, regardless of why - then you were wrong, no ifs ands or buts, you were wrong end of story. Now if you can't see that for the bullshít it is, then nothing i can say or do is going to change your mind.

OldNotWIse

Shenshen wrote: »

So you wouldn't agree that the fact that some mothers would die carrying their preganacies to term is a fact clearly contradicting the statement in the ad?
Surely if something can be disproven, it's a lie?

Would your poster be, "abortion, there is always a better answer..unless you are one of the very small percentage of women who must undergo a termination in order to save her life"

sbsquarepants

OldNotWIse wrote: »

True, if it were my poster I would say something like, "we can't say that there is always a better answer because everything in life has caveats and if we say something that in any way is not 100% true then we will give the other side the justification they so depserately seek to overthrow our viewpoint. Better to say that in the majority of cases, there is a better answer but that for socio and economic reasons, this is by by-passed" or "abortion - there is usually a better answer" - dont quite roll off the tongue though, do they? This is why I dont work in marketing

Your last one is ok!

I don't work in marketing either but i would have shortened it down to "there could be a better answer".
I think it has a nicer, softer ring to it. After all we are dealing with people going through a traumatic time, probably no point being dicks about it, is there!

sbsquarepants

Shenshen wrote: »

So you wouldn't agree that the fact that some mothers would die carrying their preganacies to term is a fact clearly contradicting the statement in the ad?
Surely if something can be disproven, it's a lie?

It is where I come from!

Zulu

Shenshen wrote: »

So you wouldn't agree that the fact that some mothers would die carrying their preganacies to term is a fact clearly contradicting the statement in the ad?

It doesn't matter what I believe. I've answered this very question earlier.

Surely if something can be disproven, it's a lie?

It could very well be a lie. It is not however, a fact.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If any different scenario is impossible, how can the statement not be a statement of fact?

If it can not be proven, it is not a fact. Simples.

If you have had an abortion, regardless of why - then you were wrong, no ifs ands or buts, you were wrong end of story.

That's pretty much their feeling on the matter. It's their opinion & they're entitled to it.