The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We've all seen the public service TV ads that go much further than most ads could get away with - people getting physically crippled in car accidents (or pub table accidents), nasty fatty goo squeezed from arteries and all the others on the theme - violence and gore with abandon, in the name of saving lives.
Today I saw a new one:
Guy hits on a pretty girl in a pub, she's feeling it, suddenly he pulls away, makes his excuses and leaves.
Cut to the girl with a cigarette and the message - "If you smoke, you stink".
When it was graphic violence and gore, I was surprised how far they were going, but it seemed acceptable given the message.
As soon as it gets personal, I find myself starting to reconsider.
We're not giving people a hard-hitting message that forces them to accept the dangers of smoking to their own health and others'.
We're not providing compelling life-saving information about in a hard-hitting format.
This is all about making people feel social shame. Making them feel socially rejected, objects of disgust, people so unpleasant everyone else will try to avoid them.
This just seems like victimisation.
If people aren't harming other through passive smoking, and they realise the health issues, they have the right to smoke if they want to. Civil liberties, as the law in this country has defined them.
Ram the health message down peoples' throats, in an emotive 'sit up and listen' way designed to make sure it hits home. It forces them to understand the consequences to their health.
But cheap personal shots designed to chasitse and humiliate smokers? Isn't that just below the belt.
We're not talking about education or information any more. We're talking about trying to manipulate, through shame and fear, people into compliance with how certain individuals have decided we should live our lives.
Those people can go to hell.
But wait!
Isn't that what pretty much *any* TV ad is all about - trying to coerce and manipulate someone into compliance to buy a specific product or service?
Yes. But can they go so far as to shame and ostracise the non-compliant - to do so in such a direct, explicit and personal way?
I don't think they'd get away with it.
But isn't this one justified on the grounds that it's for peoples' health?
It may be distinct from the previous public service ads by its commmercial use of manipulation, but it's the same as normal commercial ads. Only taken much further.
And isn't going much further justified by all the lives it'll save?
Or are we back to trying to powerfully shame and manipulate people out of engaging in one of their civil liberties?
We don't have the 'right' to stop them damaging their health like this if they choose to do so.
But if it's normal for commercials to try to manipulate people out of engaging in their civil liberties, say the liberty not to buy product X, then is this ad so different?
What do you make of it all?
[I'm a non-smoker]
Today I saw a new one:
Guy hits on a pretty girl in a pub, she's feeling it, suddenly he pulls away, makes his excuses and leaves.
Cut to the girl with a cigarette and the message - "If you smoke, you stink".
When it was graphic violence and gore, I was surprised how far they were going, but it seemed acceptable given the message.
As soon as it gets personal, I find myself starting to reconsider.
We're not giving people a hard-hitting message that forces them to accept the dangers of smoking to their own health and others'.
We're not providing compelling life-saving information about in a hard-hitting format.
This is all about making people feel social shame. Making them feel socially rejected, objects of disgust, people so unpleasant everyone else will try to avoid them.
This just seems like victimisation.
If people aren't harming other through passive smoking, and they realise the health issues, they have the right to smoke if they want to. Civil liberties, as the law in this country has defined them.
Ram the health message down peoples' throats, in an emotive 'sit up and listen' way designed to make sure it hits home. It forces them to understand the consequences to their health.
But cheap personal shots designed to chasitse and humiliate smokers? Isn't that just below the belt.
We're not talking about education or information any more. We're talking about trying to manipulate, through shame and fear, people into compliance with how certain individuals have decided we should live our lives.
Those people can go to hell.
But wait!
Isn't that what pretty much *any* TV ad is all about - trying to coerce and manipulate someone into compliance to buy a specific product or service?
Yes. But can they go so far as to shame and ostracise the non-compliant - to do so in such a direct, explicit and personal way?
I don't think they'd get away with it.
But isn't this one justified on the grounds that it's for peoples' health?
It may be distinct from the previous public service ads by its commmercial use of manipulation, but it's the same as normal commercial ads. Only taken much further.
And isn't going much further justified by all the lives it'll save?
Or are we back to trying to powerfully shame and manipulate people out of engaging in one of their civil liberties?
We don't have the 'right' to stop them damaging their health like this if they choose to do so.
But if it's normal for commercials to try to manipulate people out of engaging in their civil liberties, say the liberty not to buy product X, then is this ad so different?
What do you make of it all?
[I'm a non-smoker]
Page:
Smedlos wrote:
> The thing that bugs me is when people say that smokers are the
> bain of the NHS and that they take up it's resources and
> shouldn't be treated.
>
> Smokers put way more money into the NHS through taxes than they
> take out!
hm. That gives me an idea. Other things they could tax:
Attempted Suicide
Rollercoaster Rides for people with heart conditions
Fatty foods for obese people
> The thing that bugs me is when people say that smokers are the
> bain of the NHS and that they take up it's resources and
> shouldn't be treated.
>
> Smokers put way more money into the NHS through taxes than they
> take out!
hm. That gives me an idea. Other things they could tax:
Attempted Suicide
Rollercoaster Rides for people with heart conditions
Fatty foods for obese people
I'd be happy if they banned smoking to be honest ... keeps me away from the bloody things ...
Some people want to give up smoking, but when they're around friends who smoke, they find it difficult not to.
Do work places have to provide an area for smokers now? Or do they have to stand outside in the rain like that advert on TV?
Do work places have to provide an area for smokers now? Or do they have to stand outside in the rain like that advert on TV?
A lot of places do yeah.
I was in scotland a couple of months ago ... all the bars have a no smoking policy ... crowds of people in the street freezing their asses off, you have to laugh ...
I was in scotland a couple of months ago ... all the bars have a no smoking policy ... crowds of people in the street freezing their asses off, you have to laugh ...
pb wrote:
> Smedlos wrote:
> The thing that bugs me is when people say that smokers are the
> bain of the NHS and that they take up it's resources and
> shouldn't be treated.
>
> Smokers put way more money into the NHS through taxes than they
> take out!
>
> hm. That gives me an idea. Other things they could tax:
> Attempted Suicide
> Rollercoaster Rides for people with heart conditions
> Fatty foods for obese people
A tax per post on chat sites :D NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I was pleased when they scrapped betting tax though as I like a flutter.
> Smedlos wrote:
> The thing that bugs me is when people say that smokers are the
> bain of the NHS and that they take up it's resources and
> shouldn't be treated.
>
> Smokers put way more money into the NHS through taxes than they
> take out!
>
> hm. That gives me an idea. Other things they could tax:
> Attempted Suicide
> Rollercoaster Rides for people with heart conditions
> Fatty foods for obese people
A tax per post on chat sites :D NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I was pleased when they scrapped betting tax though as I like a flutter.
Borat §agdiyev wrote:
> A lot of places do yeah.
>
> I was in scotland a couple of months ago ... all the bars have a
> no smoking policy ... crowds of people in the street freezing
> their asses off, you have to laugh ...
aww the poor smokers, they can do that until Scotland bans people from smoking in public places too.
Or is that already happening. Any views on that? Beaches, parks, town centres etc.
> A lot of places do yeah.
>
> I was in scotland a couple of months ago ... all the bars have a
> no smoking policy ... crowds of people in the street freezing
> their asses off, you have to laugh ...
aww the poor smokers, they can do that until Scotland bans people from smoking in public places too.
Or is that already happening. Any views on that? Beaches, parks, town centres etc.
Like I say ... anything that discourages me from doing it ... not that I'm saying people shouldn't be allowed to ...
Can i aks why you took up smoking Borat? And have you tried quitting in the past?
My brother, his last two relationships, they really didnt like him smoking so he would do it secretly. But his new girlfriend is a smoker too, and heavy drinker. I've noticed he does both a lot more now.
My brother, his last two relationships, they really didnt like him smoking so he would do it secretly. But his new girlfriend is a smoker too, and heavy drinker. I've noticed he does both a lot more now.
I started smoking when I was 16, drinking 20/20 behind our high school ... really slick ...
I've quit for months in the past but seem to lapse back into it each time ... regret ever starting.
Page: