reply to post by Animal
Originally posted by Animal
You must be continually frustrated in today's world. Where we are endlessly bombarded by the most asinine advertisements.
Indeed, I often am.
Originally posted by Animal
So you must have a massive list of threads attacking the millions of advertisements that are intentionally manipulating you into wanting to buy and
consume endless products are varying degrees of worth, correct?
I doubt it.
Click on my profile. I think you will find ample evidence of my intense opposition to manipulation.
Of course, it's a whole lot easier to just assert a thing and not bother with the truth, huh? It tends to get in the way of the point you want to
make...
Originally posted by Animal
Your stance on the CO2 issue has been made clear by your presence here on ATS.
What exactly do you assume that to be?
(
Better check with ElectricUniverse )
If it is quite clear, I challenge you to find a SINGLE post of mine that articulates a stance other than my frequent confusion over what the science
says with respect to
causation. I have neither condemned anthropogenic assertions, nor their denials. I have only ever sought clarity, with as
little politicization as possible. (So I'm an unrealistic idealist. Sue me.
)
Unlike your apparent willingness, I do not manufacture facts by pulling them out of my ass, as you make plainly obvious by your focus on me and your
unfounded desire to paint me with falsehood.
I begin to see now why the source ad (which is the actual subject of this thread) appeals to you.
Originally posted by Animal
Your stance on the issue and the fact that the media alerted you on the inappropriate nature of this video and you responded.
...
It is no surprise you found a controversy right where you were told to.
I ran across the video in a blog. No commentary other than a single word: "Unbelievable."
But don't let that stop you from making the specious argument that I am somehow led around by the nose by those who know far better than I what I
should think.
Should I just listen to you then?
Originally posted by Animal
You say you don't like it because it is miss-leading? Becasue it is saying every flight kills the X amount of bears that fell from the sky? Well I
did not see where they said that. The only figure they gave was the amount of CO2 produced, which happened to be the same as the avergae weight of a
polar bear.
I'm not confused about that.
But I'm surprised that you weren't, given your clear and obvious confusion about anything I've posted here or elsewhere.
Originally posted by Animal
You then offer us examples of more straight forward presentations of the issue such as:
Energy and Emissions in Transportation
Tell me mate, in the above piece what audience was the author writing for and how many average Joes and Janes would even bother reading it?
I guess you didn't bother to read it either...
Former Civil and Environmental Engineering grad student, Mikhail Chester, and his adviser, CEE Associate Professor Arpad Horvath, however, have taken
a big step toward making it easier. Four years ago, when Chester started on the road toward a PhD, he set out to produce the first comprehensive
environmental lifecycle assessment of passenger transportation modes in the U.S.
Horvath’s primary research area is lifecycle assessment. Under his guidance another former CEE grad student, Cristiano Facanha, had tackled the
lifecycle of freight in the U.S. a few years earlier. Taking on passenger travel was an even more complex challenge because of the multitude of
transportation options, and for Chester, one that would become his doctoral thesis.
In other words, the Civil and Environmental Engineering community. They are, after all, the ones who shape to some degree the structure and operation
of our infrastructure.
Originally posted by Animal
The IMPLIED significance of the ad's polar bear number distorts its context.
No, I disagree. I think this is just the case you make to discredit and attack the commercial ( a rather weak case I might add).
I object to the manipulation, and more so, to the manner of the manipulation.
Yet, this is the first such thread I have seen you write in regards to the continual manipulation by the media.
Where are the threads bashing the bikini girl beer adds?
Where are the threads bashing the AXE shower gel adds that make boys think they will get laid if they use the product?
Where are the threads bashing the adds that make girls think that skinny is beautiful and using X product will help them achieve skinny?
No-where. Becasue this is not about disingenuous advertisement but about your opposition to the CONTENT. Your reaction was triggered by the sudden
media attention the article got and you did as you were told, you reacted.
That is how I see it.
I've already addressed each of these points, above.
I have trouble understanding how anything I've written merits this kind of vehemence and vitriol from you.
Moreover, though I don't always agree with you, I often have.
But I never believed you just made stuff up!
Now, I see the substance of who you really are and my error in judgment.
Silly me.
[edit on 24-11-2009 by loam]
