Just Tell Her Parents You Were...

Berzerker · December 2, 2003, 00:28

Getting stoned...

Or in the bathroom...

Or making dinner...

Or taking a nap...

Or teaching my own kids how to swim and avoid drowning...

Or wondering why I'm taking care of their kid when I have better things to do.

In case you're wondering, Freevibe.com, undoubtedly with money stolen from us (yeah yeah, it's legal), runs an ad on TV showing a little kid approaching a swimming pool obviously unsupervised and telling those who should be supervising the kid to "just tell her parents you were getting stoned" with the obvious implication the kid drowned and you weren't there to
prevent it because you were getting stoned...

Hey, if the parents don't mind me getting stoned in front of their daughter, I'll watch her too...

Or I can do a fair job of getting stoned and keep an eye on her without her knowledge... There are plenty of options... Why don't these people run ads about kids that drown because the adults were drunk or answering the phone or...fill in the blank...?

What did Thomas Jefferson say about compelling people to fund beliefs they don't agree with? Oh yeah, it's tyranny... So these people are using government to fund their attempt to portray pot smokers as irresponsible so we have yet another excuse to jail them? I disagree, stop ripping me off to pay for your slander you ******* parasites!!!

MrFun · December 2, 2003, 00:36

It's called information about possible consequences of using dope.

The Emperor Fabulous · December 2, 2003, 00:38

In other news, screw the Jets!

Berzerker · December 2, 2003, 02:31

Quote:

It's called information about possible consequences of using dope.

So these people would produce an ad and keep it running week after week on Monday Night Football if a pot smoker saved a kid from drowning? Hey, saving a life is a possible consequence of getting stoned!

Tell us, Mr Fun, how many times have children drowned in pools "because" the adult supervisor was off getting stoned? One in 10 million? One in 100 million? One in a billion? Where are the actual stats showing just how "possible" this consequence is?

How many kids have been electrocuted because people don't have socket protectors? How many kids have been killed or seriously injured because of trampolines, unguarded stairwells, bicycles, sports, blah blah blah? We don't see ads accusing parents of being irresponsible for all the ways a kid can get killed or hurt.

Hey, just tell her parents you were watching this TV ad...

JohnT · December 2, 2003, 02:37

You're just pissed cause the ad is so damned effective. My wife and I saw it and we both shut up for a minute. I finally broke the silence and said, "You know that child moves exactly like Sophie." Yeah, it was an emotional appeal and it hit the people who matters: voters.

I find it bizarre that even when people opposed to drug use become drug addicts, you deny that drugs can cause one harm and even go so far as to mocking those whose lives have been negatively impacted by them.

"Bizarre" barely covers it, but it's the best I can do. Perhaps "distasteful" is a better word.

JohnT · December 2, 2003, 03:00

People killed in 2001 because of illicit drug use: 21,683

How many kids have been electrocuted because people don't have socket protectors? Couldn't find within my self-imposed time limit (2:00am), however the number is likely very close to 0 as I couldn't find anything at all after 10 minutes of searching (and I'm pretty good at this).

How many kids have been killed or seriously injured because of trampolines: 0 in 2001. Neither the US Product Safety Commission's queryable database nor the National Fire Safety Association (which has obviously branched out into a general "Safety" Association to look at their website) list any fatality statistics for trampolines.

unguarded stairwells: Couldn't find within my self-imposed time limit (by 2:00am).

bicycles: 203 in 1998 http://www.nfpa.org/riskwatch/topbike.html

sports: Didn't have time to look up, but generally kids of the age in the commercial aren't playing sports. So I again would hazard a guess of "very few to none."

JohnT · December 2, 2003, 03:04

Uh, oh, haven't seen you reply to my post yet. I hope this means you aren't writing another of your parsing jobs filled with snide remarks towards my character, accusing me of ignoring "logic" for "emotion", yadda, yadda. We'll see...

Berzerker · December 2, 2003, 04:14

John T -

Quote:

You're just pissed cause the ad is so damned effective.

I don't like slander. Nor do I even smoke pot, but yes, the ad is effective, demagoguery usually is. But I resent being taxed to pay for this immorality... If you like it so much, fund it yourself...

Quote:

My wife and I saw it and we both shut up for a minute. I finally broke the silence and said, "You know that child moves exactly like Sophie." Yeah, it was an emotional appeal and it hit the people who matters: voters.

Right, it is an emotional attempt to tell voters they are justified when putting millions of people in jail for using pot but we don't see ads like this accusing alcohol users of irresponsibilty nor do we see ads indicting the character of every parent who loses a child because they were off doing something like cooking dinner while their kid gets into trouble. It's bad enough for a parent to lose a child because they weren't supervising their kid 24/7 without these a@@holes rubbing their noses in it (and you talk about mocking people?). The hypocrisy will be lost on far too many voters as it is lost on you. Of course, you got a thread about drugs deleted while jumping into a thread "promoting" alcohol use, so your outrage is selective.

Quote:

I find it bizarre that even when people opposed to drug use become drug addicts, you deny that drugs can cause one harm and even go so far as to mocking those whose lives have been negatively impacted by them.

Where did I ever say drugs cannot cause anyone harm? Just about everything in life can harm someone. Where have I ever mocked anyone for having a drug problem? I await the quotes or retraction...

Quote:

"Bizarre" barely covers it, but it's the best I can do. Perhaps "distasteful" is a better word.

As distasteful as false accusations and slander? You engage in one and applaud the other.

Quote:

People killed in 2001 because of illicit drug use: 21,683

How many children drowned in pools because the supervising adults were off getting stoned? You couldn't find a stat for that one? Tis is a simple question that needs answering by these people at Freevibe, but they conspicuously failed to provide any statistics to support their ad. As for citing the number of deaths from illicit drugs, why do you point to a result of the drug war as support of your position? How many of these people died because of adulterated drugs? How many died because of poor quality control? How many people died last year because of alcohol? Tobacco? Aspirin? Diabetes induced by poor nutrition? How many children have died because of the gang warfare over marketshare in illegal drugs?

Quote:

How many kids have been electrocuted because people don't have socket protectors? Couldn't find within my self-imposed time limit (2:00am), however the number is likely very close to 0 as I couldn't find anything at all after 10 minutes of searching (and I'm pretty good at this).

Which is probably a good estimate of the number of children who drowned because the supervising adult was off getting stoned.

Quote:

How many kids have been killed or seriously injured because of trampolines: 0 in 2001. Neither the US Product Safety Commission's queryable database nor the National Fire Safety Association (which has obviously branched out into a general "Safety" Association to look at their website) list any fatality statistics for trampolines.

No serious injuries? You mentioned only fatalities and that was not what I asked.

Quote:

sports: Didn't have time to look up, but generally kids of the age in the commercial aren't playing sports. So I again would hazard a guess of "very few to none."

Obviously I wasn't limiting my question to 2 or 3 year olds.

Quote:

Uh, oh, haven't seen you reply to my post yet. I hope this means you aren't writing another of your parsing jobs filled with snide remarks towards my character, accusing me of ignoring "logic" for "emotion", yadda, yadda. We'll see...

Ah, the hypocrite speaketh about snide remarks after accusing me of saying things I've never said. Are you going to whine to the mods to get this thread deleted too? Btw, so now you don't like "parsing" after saying you found it easier to follow debates because of the way I post? Oh, and learn what the word means, you're not the first person to mis-use the word...

Felch · December 2, 2003, 04:36

I remember lifeguarding in high school. There were times when three guards would be watching the pool, and we would all be high as ****. Teens get high. Kids usually don't drown. It's kind of a non-issue that freevibe acts like is a big deal.

The issue Berz is bringing up is that it's wrong to say, "Little kids might die because the person watching them was getting stoned, so we should arrest anybody getting stoned." The problem is that it puts an undue penalty on a large number of people. It makes sense to punish someone who failed to rescue the little kid for criminal negligence or something, but that's not what the makers of the commercial are advocating.

Besides, kids need to learn to fear and respect the power of water.

Felch · December 2, 2003, 04:37

Oh, and trampolines are dangerous.

self biased · December 2, 2003, 05:00

just tell her parents you were posting on apolyton.

Berzerker · December 2, 2003, 05:04

Quote:

I remember lifeguarding in high school. There were times when three guards would be watching the pool, and we would all be high as ****.

Did you guys ever rescue someone while stoned? Maybe we can get freevibe to do an ad about your efforts to show that saving someone's life is a possible consequence of getting stoned.

Quote:

It's kind of a non-issue that freevibe acts like is a big deal.

But it has emotional appeal, people who smoke pot are bad people and deserve punishment regardless of any negligence resulting in someone's death.

Quote:

The issue Berz is bringing up is that it's wrong to say, "Little kids might die because the person watching them was getting stoned, so we should arrest anybody getting stoned." The problem is that it puts an undue penalty on a large number of people.

Yup, if people who use alcohol were being attacked with this ad they wouldn't be extolling the virtues of slander. Freevibe might as well put out an ad blaming the Van Damms of San Diego for the death of their kid at the hands of a pedophile, there were plenty of bastards doing that in the media at the time. I don't recall these same people attacking that Utah family when their kid was abducted... The difference? Bad "swingers" who smoke pot v good religious folk...

Berzerker · December 2, 2003, 05:05

Quote:

just tell her parents you were posting on apolyton.

self biased · December 2, 2003, 05:07

dammit. if you're gonna quote me, make sure you've got the italics...

Nubclear · December 2, 2003, 05:15

Quote:

Originally posted by self biased
just tell her parents you were posting on apolyton.

Az · December 2, 2003, 05:17

Quote:

just tell her parents you were posting on apolyton

Nubclear · December 2, 2003, 05:19

self biased · December 2, 2003, 05:22

*giggle* i made a funny!

Spiffor · December 2, 2003, 05:23

Quote:

Originally posted by self biased
just tell her parents you were posting on apolyton.

self biased · December 2, 2003, 05:33

wheeee!

Nubclear · December 2, 2003, 05:53

Just tell her you were...

SELF BIASED

Aren't I funny?

self biased · December 2, 2003, 05:57

no. not really.

Dis · December 2, 2003, 07:00

pathetic advertisement. the adult could be doing anything that diverts attention- including posting at Apolyton. Are you fathers out there watching your children when you post?

Bosh · December 2, 2003, 07:11

Well at least its not quite as bad as the "you fund terrorists" drug ads since the "danger" of drugs they're talking about is just irrelevant while in those old ones they're using one of the nastier side-effects of the War on Drugs to promote the War on Drugs...

And I don't see how pot is even remotely as dangerous as alcohol.

DinoDoc · December 2, 2003, 09:06

Quote:

Right, it is an emotional attempt to tell voters they are justified when putting millions of people in jail for using pot

I thought it was an emotional attempt to get people to stop using drugs. The you fund terrorists were the ones that told voters they were justified to put you in jail Berz. God next you'll be whining about the "This is your brain on drugs" ads of old.

MikeH · December 2, 2003, 09:10

Just tell her parents you were... Drunk

****tards.

Ming · December 2, 2003, 09:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
But I resent being taxed to pay for this immorality... If you like it so much, fund it yourself...

You can stop being pissed about it then... The time for airing the commercial was donated by the Network. The production costs of the commercial were donated by the agency that developed it.

NOT A SINGLE TAX DOLLAR WAS USED TO PUT THAT COMMERCIAL ON THE AIR... So stop your whining

Ramo · December 2, 2003, 09:18

Quote:

People killed in 2001 because of illicit drug use: 21,683

Americans killed last year because of tobacco: ~400,000
Americans killed last year because of alcohol: ~100,000
Out of the ~22,000 killed because of illicit drug use, the number killed because of weed: No doubt relatively small

Shi Huangdi · December 2, 2003, 09:39

Quote:

Yeah, it was an emotional appeal and it hit the people who matters: voters.

I am pretty sure that wasn't a political ad.

Az · December 2, 2003, 09:46

yes, Ramo, but if it were legal, a whole lot more people would die of drugs.