Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Роберт » Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:49 pm UTC

DaBigCheez wrote:
Mostly, I hate cheap emotionally manipulative tricks in commercials

You mean there's adverts without this?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 837
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby DaBigCheez » Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:52 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
DaBigCheez wrote:
Mostly, I hate cheap emotionally manipulative tricks in commercials

You mean there's adverts without this?


Sure - there's expensive emotionally manipulative tricks! ;)

(Heck, at least paper towel ads generally involve "50% more absorbent than the unnamed 'leading brand' according to a study funded and performed by us* and using criteria we define" alongside the clips of happy smiling families using their product and frustrated, harried, disheveled mothers (never fathers) in chaos-filled houses using their competitor's product; it's mostly when they don't even try to claim their product is good that it really starts to bug me)

*: study may or may not have actually ever been carried out, and may or may not have actually included such things as a sample size greater than one if so
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Роберт » Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:01 pm UTC

DaBigCheez wrote:
Роберт wrote:
DaBigCheez wrote:
Mostly, I hate cheap emotionally manipulative tricks in commercials

You mean there's adverts without this?

it's mostly when they don't even try to claim their product is good that it really starts to bug me

Oh, I get it now. When it's SOLELY cheap manipulative tricks is when it really bothers you. If they mix in some more refined manipulation with the cheap manipulation it's a bit more palatable.

I think I agree.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Xeio » Sun Apr 08, 2012 4:10 am UTC

So... the new Geico "Taste Test" commercials...

What the hell?

onjenae
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:42 am UTC

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby onjenae » Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:07 am UTC

mary j. blige's new commercial made me sick

why msut the media constantly play on negative stereotypes of african american women to make a profit goddamn shit is fucking annoying :evil:

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Zarq » Sun Apr 08, 2012 9:20 am UTC

Didn't they already pull that one of the air?
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26528
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby SecondTalon » Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:39 pm UTC

Due to licensing issues with the music, apparently?

Having just now watched it, it's... just a terrible, terrible commercial. The kind of commercial we let Willie Nelson slide on because the IRS finally caught on that his accountant hadn't paid Willie's taxes... like, ever... and he needed to make some cash quickly. So.. yeah, she recently get caught for tax evasion or something?



(No, I'm not kidding. Willie Nelson pushed tacos in early 90s to pay off the IRS.)
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
AnnaArmour
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:54 am UTC
Location: Kansas City

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby AnnaArmour » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:13 am UTC

Yuck, there's another Dr.Pepper 10 commerical. Fuck ironic sexism.

User avatar
TimelordSimone
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:05 pm UTC
Location: Cambridge ish

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby TimelordSimone » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:31 am UTC

Are 'manly calories' somehow different to just 'calories'?
I mostly lurk. Hello.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5939
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Angua » Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:30 am UTC

I like playing pool and watching explosions. My favourite movies are generally special effects heavy with explosions.

My bf pointed out that things marketed as 'not for women' manage to get both markets because you get the guys it's marketed at, women who buy it to prove a point, and then the rest of the population who buy what they want without thinking about the slogan because they think it tastes good.

Possibly related anecdote:
When my British boyfriend came home for Christmas (in the Caribbean) he was surprised at how many low-calorie beer commercials there were (we get US television). He said, 'surely that's not a really important selling point.' Then we went to the US and he realised how much low-calorie beer they do sell and was amazed.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Kyreles
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:23 pm UTC

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Kyreles » Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:21 pm UTC

There was an old American Express commercial where a couple was in the jewlery store. The guy wants to get an engagement ring. He hands the guy a card and it's declined. The fiance tells him to use the American Express no limit whatever card. So this guy has at least one maxed out credit card and is being encouraged to buy this ring anyway on credit. Doesn't seem like wise financial planning
In compliance with rule §05.02 this signature may be construed as a promotion of Nomic 16.0

User avatar
philsov
Not a fan of Diane Kruger
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Texas

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby philsov » Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:36 pm UTC

TimelordSimone wrote:Are 'manly calories' somehow different to just 'calories'?


Image

I think this thing clocks in at well over 1000 manly calories.

It's 100 times better than Dr. Pepper 10.
The time and seasons go on, but all the rhymes and reasons are wrong
I know I'll discover after its all said and done I should've been a nun.

User avatar
Magnanimous
Madmanananimous
Posts: 3491
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Magnanimous » Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:03 pm UTC

philsov wrote:Image
I love that the Hungry Man is made by a company called Swanson.

Image

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 837
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby DaBigCheez » Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:42 pm UTC

There's a radio ad going on for one of those "Kid's Learning Adventure"-type places in the area, Gilroy Gardens.

It starts out "It seems like parents will do anything these days to help their kids learn faster - like getting them a tablet PC at the age of four, or giving college prep courses in utero...so why not go a little further?"

...is their advertising strategy really "Buying a ticket to our thing is more extreme than giving college prep courses to a fetus"? That seems...counterproductive.

Interestingly, in the last week or so they've started running a new commercial which has basically the same start, but replaces the last line with something like "...so doesn't it make sense that if they could take your kids to a place where learning was not only easy, but fun, they would?" So, it seems like they realized the issue with their original phrasing...and yet they're still running the original commercial alongside it, on the same station...I'm kinda confused.
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

User avatar
philsov
Not a fan of Diane Kruger
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Texas

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby philsov » Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:23 pm UTC

Pandora Squirrel.

"Hi. I'm a squirrel. You know how you hate that song you disliked? Well, what I dislike is when your brakes fail and I get run over."

When you one-line attempt to try and establish a personal connection jumps from "songs you dislike" to "I dislike dying" I can't help but feel a little spiteful and want to do the exact opposite of NOT checking my brakes every 50,000 miles.
The time and seasons go on, but all the rhymes and reasons are wrong
I know I'll discover after its all said and done I should've been a nun.

User avatar
Kithplana
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:12 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Kithplana » Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:03 am UTC

Kyreles wrote:There was an old American Express commercial where a couple was in the jewlery store. The guy wants to get an engagement ring. He hands the guy a card and it's declined. The fiance tells him to use the American Express no limit whatever card. So this guy has at least one maxed out credit card and is being encouraged to buy this ring anyway on credit. Doesn't seem like wise financial planning

Not a commercial, exactly, and not financial planning, but a while back I would occasionally pass a jewelry store with one of those A-frame signs out on the sidewalk that advertised them as being "the hardware store for women". Yeah... I will avoid you like the plague. The sign was up for at least a couple of years, too...

User avatar
The Scyphozoa
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Sector 5

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby The Scyphozoa » Fri May 11, 2012 2:00 am UTC

Up&up, which I think is Target's generic brand for most things, lists "HIV" as something that their disinfecting wipes kill.

As if you're going to use disinfecting wipes on something that is going to be in contact with your blood or your orifices. These are not the type of wipes you use to wipe your hands, they are the type you use to wipe down counters and toilets. It is not a good idea to put something that has been wiped with these wipes in your mouth.
Image
3rdtry wrote:If there ever is another World War, I hope they at least have the decency to call it "World War 2: Episode One"

doogly wrote:murder is a subset of being mean

User avatar
walkerm930
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 3:53 am UTC
Location: Canada: Ontario: Toronto

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby walkerm930 » Sat May 12, 2012 7:42 am UTC

Well, the disinfecting agent that is in those wipes probably does kill HIV, and there are probably some people who are price conscious and really paranoid about HIV, whether or not they have reason to be, and they will buy these wipes. Also, normal people will see this and be reassured.

Don't you just hate marketing?
In the gospel according to trig there are 3 primary rules: sin θ = x/h , cos θ = y/h and tan θ = x/y. These rules are not open to interpretation and are to be treated as law.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby folkhero » Tue May 15, 2012 8:00 pm UTC

I just saw a commercial for Smirnoff lemonade in which a man who has been drinking says that he is going to walk home. The bartender then gives him a high five and the narrators says to get home safe. Um.. Smirnoff, walking drunk is actually more dangerous than driving drunk, so I hope not too many people die because you are perpetuating a dangerous myth.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
wam
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:08 am UTC
Location: South England

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby wam » Tue May 15, 2012 9:24 pm UTC

Erm come again?

Do you have any evidence for that claim?
Come join us playing mafia signup here

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Zarq » Tue May 15, 2012 9:28 pm UTC

folkhero wrote:I just saw a commercial for Smirnoff lemonade in which a man who has been drinking says that he is going to walk home. The bartender then gives him a high five and the narrators says to get home safe. Um.. Smirnoff, walking drunk is actually more dangerous than driving drunk, so I hope not too many people die because you are perpetuating a dangerous myth.


Say what?
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

User avatar
Deva
Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
Posts: 2043
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Deva » Tue May 15, 2012 9:46 pm UTC

Refers to a Freakonomics article, most likely.
LEVITT: For every mile walked drunk, turns out to be eight times more dangerous than the mile driven drunk. To put it simply, if you need to walk a mile from a party to your home, you’re eight times more likely to die doing that than if you jump behind the wheel and drive your car that same mile.

Levitt is not advocating that people drive drunk instead — but rather that we look harder at the numbers behind drunk walking. In 2009, the most recent year for which we have data, about 34,000 people died in traffic accidents. Roughly half of them were drivers — 41 percent of whom were drunk. There were more than 4,000 pedestrians killed — and 35 percent of them were drunk. Of course, a drunk walker can’t hurt or kill someone else the way a drunk driver can, and people drive drunk much farther distances than they’d walk drunk.

Note the distinction of "per mile".
Changes its form depending on the observer.

User avatar
wam
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:08 am UTC
Location: South England

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby wam » Tue May 15, 2012 9:53 pm UTC

Well just from breifly looking at the article. They don't say how drunk the drivers/walkers are.

My guess is that the walkers who died would generally be a lot more drunk than the drivers.

Also alchol can start affecting your driving at much lower levels than walking.
Come join us playing mafia signup here

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Zarq » Tue May 15, 2012 9:54 pm UTC

Is there any evidence that their being drunk had any effect on them being in a car accident?
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Роберт » Tue May 15, 2012 10:20 pm UTC

Zarq wrote:Is there any evidence that their being drunk had any effect on them being in a car accident?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_walking
Drunk walking is a risk factor for pedestrian–motor vehicle collisions. [...] U.S. government data from 2008 reported that 36% of pedestrians killed in motor vehicle crashes had a blood alcohol content over 0.08.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby folkhero » Tue May 15, 2012 10:22 pm UTC

Deva wrote:Note the distinction of "per mile".

Which is the most important figure when the question is how to get home.
Zarq wrote:Is there any evidence that their being drunk had any effect on them being in a car accident?
Unless 41% of all drivers and 35% of all pedestrians are drunk, then being drunk would seem to increase your chances of being killed as a driver or pedestrian.

We can try to get into the specifics of how dangerous it is per mile vs. per minute, or per unit of blood alcohol, but any way you look at it, presenting drunk walking home as a safe alternative to drunk driving home is wrongheaded and dangerous.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Zarq » Tue May 15, 2012 10:27 pm UTC

folkhero wrote:
Zarq wrote:Is there any evidence that their being drunk had any effect on them being in a car accident?
Unless 41% of all drivers and 35% of all pedestrians are drunk, then being drunk would seem to increase your chances of being killed as a driver or pedestrian.


Given how a lot of accidents happen at night and the cut-off for "drunk" is 0.08, which is 2 beers if I'm not mistaken, then yeah, that is definitely possible.

If anything, the cut-off for "drunk walking" should be a lot higher than 0.08. 0.08 might be high enough to slow down your reaction time enough that it's dangerous for you to drive a very heavy machine at high speeds, but not to walk yourself down the street.

And what do you suggest as alternative? Everybody taking a taxi? Do you have any idea how much that would cost?
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby folkhero » Tue May 15, 2012 10:51 pm UTC

Zarq wrote:
folkhero wrote:
Zarq wrote:Is there any evidence that their being drunk had any effect on them being in a car accident?
Unless 41% of all drivers and 35% of all pedestrians are drunk, then being drunk would seem to increase your chances of being killed as a driver or pedestrian.


Given how a lot of accidents happen at night and the cut-off for "drunk" is 0.08, which is 2 beers if I'm not mistaken, then yeah, that is definitely possible.

If anything, the cut-off for "drunk walking" should be a lot higher than 0.08. 0.08 might be high enough to slow down your reaction time enough that it's dangerous for you to drive a very heavy machine at high speeds, but not to walk yourself down the street.

And what do you suggest as alternative? Everybody taking a taxi? Do you have any idea how much that would cost?

If I accept your premise, then that means that walking at a time you are likely to be drunk is much more dangerous than drunk driving no matter what your level of sobriety is. Unless you find yourself getting drunk at noon and Tuesday a lot, then it's still really bad advice to suggest walking home drunk instead is a safe alternative to driving.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Zarq » Tue May 15, 2012 10:56 pm UTC

Walking at night IS more dangerous than walking during the day, regardless of your drunkenness. Are we going to tell people they shouldn't walk at night?

And if I'd accept your premise, I'd have to have a cut-off higher than BAC 0.08. You're never going to convince me that walking with BAC 0.08 is more dangerous than walking sober.

Oh, and the "Don't drink and drive" PSA is generally more intended to keep you from hurting other people, and not to protect you. That is not translatable to the context of drunk walking.
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Роберт » Tue May 15, 2012 10:58 pm UTC

Zarq wrote:Given how a lot of accidents happen at night and the cut-off for "drunk" is 0.08, which is 2 beers if I'm not mistaken, then yeah, that is definitely possible.

Four for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alco ... evel_Chart

It's definitely not likely, IMO.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Zarq » Tue May 15, 2012 11:04 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
Zarq wrote:Given how a lot of accidents happen at night and the cut-off for "drunk" is 0.08, which is 2 beers if I'm not mistaken, then yeah, that is definitely possible.

Four for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alco ... evel_Chart

It's definitely not likely, IMO.


That's very high. Apparently in Belgium it's only 0.05 (and that is around 2 beers), and I assumed it was the same. Then it's less likely indeed, but 4 beers still doesn't sound drunk enough to me to start walking less responsibly.

I would rather like to see their dataset.
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby folkhero » Tue May 15, 2012 11:52 pm UTC

Zarq wrote:Walking at night IS more dangerous than walking during the day, regardless of your drunkenness. Are we going to tell people they shouldn't walk at night?
If it really is 8 times more deadly than drunk driving, then don't walk at night sounds like pretty good advice to me.

Zarq wrote:Oh, and the "Don't drink and drive" PSA is generally more intended to keep you from hurting other people, and not to protect you. That is not translatable to the context of drunk walking.
What makes you say that? From my experience they have heavily emphasized your safety in addition to the safety of others. The commercial in question uses the line "get home safe" which suggests its it's concerned about safety. And to nitpick, it wasn't a PSA, it was a commercial for a particular product that also had a get home safe message.
Zarq wrote:
Роберт wrote:That's very high. Apparently in Belgium it's only 0.05 (and that is around 2 beers), and I assumed it was the same. Then it's less likely indeed, but 4 beers still doesn't sound drunk enough to me to start walking less responsibly.
Mind that that is four drinks in less than 40 minutes, which could get me reasonably messed up. From the chart that's when peripheral vision and depth perception start to go, along with reasoning. I could see how that would make walking more dangerous, especially when it comes time to judge when it's safe to cross the street or something similar.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Zarq » Wed May 16, 2012 12:04 am UTC

Not going to debate this any further since I've said all I had to say on this, except for the following:

Assuming 0.08 is enough to impair safe walking, then why in Jesus Microwaving Christ' name is it still legal to drive at 0.07?

edit: in Belgium, the anti-drunk driving campaigns are aimed exclusively at not hurting other people. Might be different elsewhere.
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

Chen
Posts: 5579
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Chen » Wed May 16, 2012 12:54 pm UTC

Zarq wrote:edit: in Belgium, the anti-drunk driving campaigns are aimed exclusively at not hurting other people. Might be different elsewhere.


I thought this was the general idea too. Sure they want you to be safe as well, but one of the main reasons not to drive drunk is the danger you pose to other drivers and/or pedestrians.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Роберт » Wed May 16, 2012 1:28 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Zarq wrote:edit: in Belgium, the anti-drunk driving campaigns are aimed exclusively at not hurting other people. Might be different elsewhere.


I thought this was the general idea too. Sure they want you to be safe as well, but one of the main reasons not to drive drunk is the danger you pose to other drivers and/or pedestrians.

folkhero wrote:The commercial in question uses the line "get home safe" which suggests its it's concerned about safety.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Zarq » Wed May 16, 2012 1:32 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
Chen wrote:
Zarq wrote:edit: in Belgium, the anti-drunk driving campaigns are aimed exclusively at not hurting other people. Might be different elsewhere.


I thought this was the general idea too. Sure they want you to be safe as well, but one of the main reasons not to drive drunk is the danger you pose to other drivers and/or pedestrians.

folkhero wrote:The commercial in question uses the line "get home safe" which suggests its it's concerned about safety.


"Get home safe" is one of those standard sentences. It's to leaving somewhere what "Bless you" is to sneezing.
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Adacore » Wed May 16, 2012 11:23 pm UTC

Perhaps the idea is that they want people not to drink drive in order to reduce the risk to others, but also think that the kind of people who are likely to drink drive are selfish pricks, so they make the adverts telling them to worry about themselves, since they wouldn't care about the danger to others.

I have to say I'm mostly on the side of Zarq here, I think the slow reactions from a small number of drinks is a way more important factor for driving than it is for walking. I feel like walking only becomes significantly more dangerous once your decision making and/or balance become seriously impaired, which takes considerably more alcohol (but is not remotely uncommon for the average consumption in an evening in either a British pub or a Korean bar).

Now, that's not to say that drink-walking (with a higher level of blood alcohol than for driving) isn't very dangerous. But I suspect you'd probably find the same for a lot of activities - the incidence of household accidents, for example, is probably way higher when drunk (at least among non-elderly people). I suspect the best safety advice is 'don't drink', rather than 'don't drink-drive' or 'don't drink-walk'.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby folkhero » Thu May 17, 2012 7:18 am UTC

So deceiving your customers into engaging in behavior that may well kill them is not douchebaggery these days?
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

Chen
Posts: 5579
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Chen » Thu May 17, 2012 12:08 pm UTC

folkhero wrote:So deceiving your customers into engaging in behavior that may well kill them is not douchebaggery these days?


If the alternative is for them to harm others instead of just themselves? Yeah I'm ok with that.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Logical fallacies/douchebaggery in commercials.

Postby Роберт » Thu May 17, 2012 4:41 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
folkhero wrote:So deceiving your customers into engaging in behavior that may well kill them is not douchebaggery these days?


If the alternative is for them to harm others instead of just themselves? Yeah I'm ok with that.

Did you know that a pedestrian getting in the path of a vehicle unexpectedly will never ever endanger the occupants of the vehicle?


Or if you're drunk you could, you know, have a designated driver or take a taxi.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests