The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Thing is where do you draw the line ... you ban cheeseburgers ... what next ... crisps, some sandwiches, fried chicken ... anything with a high salt content?
Well, that's my point... Smoking is something people enjoy, but is harmful to them. Banning that simply because it's harmful opens the floodgate to ban loads of other items which are unnecessary and unhealthy, despite the fact that people do enjoy them.
Food and smoking are not the same thing. Junk food or not, you still need to eat. There is no need to smoke though and if it wasn't so addictive, most people would have quit once they'd got bored of it.
Wherever you draw the line, smoking isnt needed. Now let me ask you a question.
Why smoke?
I want an answer without anything referring to enjoying it because thats irrelevant. I might enjoy setting fires but that doesn't mean i have a right to do it.
Wherever you draw the line, smoking isnt needed. Now let me ask you a question.
Why smoke?
I want an answer without anything referring to enjoying it because thats irrelevant. I might enjoy setting fires but that doesn't mean i have a right to do it.
There is no reason. But requiring everyone to justify every one of their actions, and telling them their enjoyment of something is comlpetely irrelevant... Well, as I've said before, there are so many things which are 'pointless' if you discount the fact that people enjoy doing them.
Sibs wrote:
> But something like a Triple Big Mac With Cheese And Bacon (I'm
> not sure if it actually exists, but I'm sure something similar
> does...) isn't 'necessary'.
> I'm just saying, based on your argument for
> banning smoking there are a hell of a lot of other things that
> should also be banned...
But eating a Big Mac with Cheese and Bacon doesn't affect anyone else, just you. (though granted i haven't read the whole topic and just responding to this one specific point so don't have the backstory of it so if there's something missing, my apologies)
> But something like a Triple Big Mac With Cheese And Bacon (I'm
> not sure if it actually exists, but I'm sure something similar
> does...) isn't 'necessary'.
> I'm just saying, based on your argument for
> banning smoking there are a hell of a lot of other things that
> should also be banned...
But eating a Big Mac with Cheese and Bacon doesn't affect anyone else, just you. (though granted i haven't read the whole topic and just responding to this one specific point so don't have the backstory of it so if there's something missing, my apologies)
Sibs wrote:
> There is no reason.
Thankyouverymuch
> But requiring everyone to justify every one
> of their actions, and telling them their enjoyment of something
> is comlpetely irrelevant
Their enjoyment is irrelevant when it's cancelled out by other people hating it.
> there are
> so many things which are 'pointless' if you discount the fact
> that people enjoy doing them.
Indeed there are, but most of them aren't as unhealthy or as unsociable and those that are, are illegal.
> There is no reason.
Thankyouverymuch
> But requiring everyone to justify every one
> of their actions, and telling them their enjoyment of something
> is comlpetely irrelevant
Their enjoyment is irrelevant when it's cancelled out by other people hating it.
> there are
> so many things which are 'pointless' if you discount the fact
> that people enjoy doing them.
Indeed there are, but most of them aren't as unhealthy or as unsociable and those that are, are illegal.
It's all about book passing ... some guy in america sued a tobacco company because he got cancer and 'didn't know they were bad for him' ... right ...
Machiavelli wrote:
> But requiring everyone to justify every one
> of their actions, and telling them their enjoyment of something
> is comlpetely irrelevant
>
> Their enjoyment is irrelevant when it's cancelled out by other
> people hating it.
Even if they do it in their own homes or gardens when there's no-one else around...?
> there are
> so many things which are 'pointless' if you discount the fact
> that people enjoy doing them.
>
> Indeed there are, but most of them aren't as unhealthy or as
> unsociable and those that are, are illegal.
Again, I raise the point that smoking can be enjoyed without it impacting on anyone's health (the smoker themselves aside, obviously). Thus it's not unsociable if enjoyed responsibly.
> But requiring everyone to justify every one
> of their actions, and telling them their enjoyment of something
> is comlpetely irrelevant
>
> Their enjoyment is irrelevant when it's cancelled out by other
> people hating it.
Even if they do it in their own homes or gardens when there's no-one else around...?
> there are
> so many things which are 'pointless' if you discount the fact
> that people enjoy doing them.
>
> Indeed there are, but most of them aren't as unhealthy or as
> unsociable and those that are, are illegal.
Again, I raise the point that smoking can be enjoyed without it impacting on anyone's health (the smoker themselves aside, obviously). Thus it's not unsociable if enjoyed responsibly.
Kawada wrote:
> But eating a Big Mac with Cheese and Bacon doesn't affect anyone
> else, just you. (though granted i haven't read the whole topic
> and just responding to this one specific point so don't have the
> backstory of it so if there's something missing, my apologies)
The thing I've said repeatedly (not getting at you, just saying this is what I've been saying...) is that smoking can be enjoyed responsibly, such as in your own home or garden, making sure there are no children or non-smokers around. I think a lot more needs to be done to make sure non-smokers don't have to breath second-hand smoke, however I wouldn't support a full ban on smoking by any means, because I think it's far too heavy handed and frankly, no-one would stick to it anyway.
And, as I've said before, drinking effects just as many people inadvertantly. Does the person beaten up by drunks not count? Or the person run down by a drink driver? Granted, those happen less often than someone breathing second-hand smoke, but the effects are also more severe and immediate. But no-one raises drinking, because it's far more 'acceptable' and people can't smell it as much...
> But eating a Big Mac with Cheese and Bacon doesn't affect anyone
> else, just you. (though granted i haven't read the whole topic
> and just responding to this one specific point so don't have the
> backstory of it so if there's something missing, my apologies)
The thing I've said repeatedly (not getting at you, just saying this is what I've been saying...) is that smoking can be enjoyed responsibly, such as in your own home or garden, making sure there are no children or non-smokers around. I think a lot more needs to be done to make sure non-smokers don't have to breath second-hand smoke, however I wouldn't support a full ban on smoking by any means, because I think it's far too heavy handed and frankly, no-one would stick to it anyway.
And, as I've said before, drinking effects just as many people inadvertantly. Does the person beaten up by drunks not count? Or the person run down by a drink driver? Granted, those happen less often than someone breathing second-hand smoke, but the effects are also more severe and immediate. But no-one raises drinking, because it's far more 'acceptable' and people can't smell it as much...
Borat §agdiyev wrote:
> It's all about book passing ... some guy in america sued a
> tobacco company because he got cancer and 'didn't know they were
> bad for him' ... right ...
I'm kind of with the bloke suing to be honest... Not that I think for a minute he wasn't aware of the dangers, or that I support the culture of 'blame' and "where there's a blame, there's a claim" kinda thing...
But, I think the 'baccy company probably has more than enough money... It's likely small change to them. I think the companies that profit from addiction and health problems should be forced by governments to contribute more to taking care of these people when they do inevitably fall ill.
After all, jacking up the price to the consumer won't do much to discourage those already hooked, they'll just end up spending less on other items or buying them cheaper off people who've smuggled 'em back duty free from other countries...
Still, if he won the case, it does set a slightly worrying precendent...
> It's all about book passing ... some guy in america sued a
> tobacco company because he got cancer and 'didn't know they were
> bad for him' ... right ...
I'm kind of with the bloke suing to be honest... Not that I think for a minute he wasn't aware of the dangers, or that I support the culture of 'blame' and "where there's a blame, there's a claim" kinda thing...
But, I think the 'baccy company probably has more than enough money... It's likely small change to them. I think the companies that profit from addiction and health problems should be forced by governments to contribute more to taking care of these people when they do inevitably fall ill.
After all, jacking up the price to the consumer won't do much to discourage those already hooked, they'll just end up spending less on other items or buying them cheaper off people who've smuggled 'em back duty free from other countries...
Still, if he won the case, it does set a slightly worrying precendent...
Page: