[Pawsies]

Should be banned.

'if you smoke it can get into my lungs and cause cancer'

Using someone's children to guilt trip them? That is way over the line in my opinion. If someone wants to smoke they will, the best thing we can do is educate them as to what they may be susceptible to.

I can't believe companies are allowed to manipulate children into doing what they want.

What do you think?

[Martyn*]

Charity adverts use a similar method; since many people are not going to just give out of the goodness of their heart, the response by charitable organisations is to exploit people's propensity for feeling guilt. And it seems to work.

[geetar]

Well, it works.

[Eightyeight]

I don't know but I find those type of adverts, whilst effective to some degree, annoying.

[fire2burn]

Just because you don't like it they should be banned? I don't like courgettes and think they taste rather disgusting, perhaps Tesco should be banned from selling them? You are under no obligation to watch the advert if you disagree with it, simply hit the mute button or channel hop. In any case the advert is not wrong passive smoking in confined environments such as cars and homes is harmful to children. I disagree with pro life campaigners using emotive advertising to coerce vulnerable women into going through with an unwanted pregnancy, but that doesn't mean I'd ever support banning them simply because I disagree with their stance or views. Most animal rescue charities use guilt trips to coerce the public into making donations... "George was found dumped in a bin, his owners did not love him and abandoned him to a life of misery and neglect. But you can help by donating just £5 per month!" I don't think they should be banned from doing that either.

This whole culture of micromanaging everything and banning things that certain people dislike is really annoying.

[Pawsies]

(Original post by fire2burn)
Just because you don't like it they should be banned? I don't like courgettes and think they taste rather disgusting, perhaps Tesco should be banned from selling them? You are under no obligation to watch the advert if you disagree with it, simply hit the mute button or channel hop. In any case the advert is not wrong passive smoking in confined environments such as cars and homes is harmful to children. I disagree with pro life campaigners using emotive advertising to coerce vulnerable women into going through with an unwanted pregnancy, but that doesn't mean I'd ever support banning them simply because I disagree with their stance or views. Most animal rescue charities use guilt trips to coerce the public into making donations... "George was found dumped in a bin, his owners did not love him and abandoned him to a life of misery and neglect. But you can help by donating just £5 per month!" I don't think they should be banned from doing that either.

This whole culture of micromanaging everything and banning things that certain people dislike is really annoying.

It's actually a radio advert so you can't skip it. Comparing courgettes to people's children is a bit silly. Parents have an emotional attachment to their children, not to a courgette.

It's not about disagreeing with their stance. I'm betting the kids used don't even have parental consent to be used- is that not something else?

It is emotional blackmail and should be stopped.

Animal charities rely on money to be donated, slightly different as people haven't usually got emotional attachments with money and have the choice to donate. Using someone's kids as a weapon takes away their choice and uses blackmail to get someone to give up a habit. Besides, going cold turkey is not the best way to give up.

[fire2burn]

(Original post by Pawsies)
It's actually a radio advert so you can't skip it. Comparing courgettes to people's children is a bit silly. Parents have an emotional attachment to their children, not to a courgette.

It's not about disagreeing with their stance. I'm betting the kids used don't even have parental consent to be used- is that not something else?

It is emotional blackmail and should be stopped.

Animal charities rely on money to be donated, slightly different as people haven't usually got emotional attachments with money and have the choice to donate. Using someone's kids as a weapon takes away their choice and uses blackmail to get someone to give up a habit. Besides, going cold turkey is not the best way to give up.

You can mute it or skip over to another station. That's what I do when charity adverts appear on the radio or tv, on websites I use adblock to disable them. No one is forced to view something if they don't want to. If you hate health adverts flick over to another station for 30 seconds.

Comparing it to a courgette is perfectly valid, the sole reason people have for banning adverts is simply because they don't like them. Banning things just because of a few people disliking something is a poor way to run a country.

You are a hypocrite if you are against health campaigns using emotive adverts but support them when it comes to animals. Animal charities aren't utilising a persons attachment to money, they are effectively saying this animal will die unless you give us X amount per month. They are trying to make you think the animals suffering is your responsibility and your fault unless you help them. It's no different to a health advert saying a child will suffer unless you do X, Y, or Z. It also has nothing to do with having choice/no choice, people have the choice to ignore their children if they pester them after seeing an advert. It is parents who make the choices, they are adults so they should act like one and not give in to the demands of others if they disagree with them.

[somethingbeautiful]

(Original post by Pawsies)
Should be banned.

'if you smoke it can get into my lungs and cause cancer'

Using someone's children to guilt trip them? That is way over the line in my opinion. If someone wants to smoke they will, the best thing we can do is educate them as to what they may be susceptible to.http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/edit...22&do=editpost

I can't believe companies are allowed to manipulate children into doing what they want.

What do you think?

What do you mean by 'companies are allowed to manipulate children into doing what they want'? I don't understand what you're annoyed with in that phrase and I don't see how it fits into what you said before that...

If you mean that the companies making the adverts manipulate the children in the adverts into participating - I'm sure that's not the case since they have to have their parents permission.

If you mean that the companies manipulate the adult viewer to give up cigarettes by using a child in the advert - then I disagree with you. The adult viewer is not manipulated at all - they could just as easily ignore the advert and even if they did quit smoking as a result of the advert then I would argue that the advert educated them, rather than manipulating them.

[Annoying-Mouse]

Stop expanding the state's power every time you disagree with something. It isn't the solution to your problems. Here's a simple solution. Go ask everyone else's opinion on the matter and protest the radio/advert until they take it down.

It's factual is it not? Second-handing smoking can cause cancer, can it not? Just because it's emotive doesn't mean it should be banned. Just like not donating to a child in X country where starvation is common can result in his death. Highly emotive but still factual. Marketing relies on emotional manipulation. How do you think over-the-counter pharmaceuticals are very popular? How do you think companies attract customers? How do you think Iceland came up with it's "Mom's go to Iceland"? What's the implication of that statement?

[A level Az]

(Original post by Pawsies)
Should be banned.

'if you smoke it can get into my lungs and cause cancer'

Using someone's children to guilt trip them? That is way over the line in my opinion. If someone wants to smoke they will, the best thing we can do is educate them as to what they may be susceptible to.

I can't believe companies are allowed to manipulate children into doing what they want.

What do you think?

As far as I'm concerned, it's the truth, and whether smokers that may or may not have children like the advert or not is irrelevant. Fact is these kinds of adverts have probably saved or prolonged lives at the very least, so I don't see why they should stopped. And smoking is repulsive anyway, so I'm glad it's deterring people from smoking.

[chrislpp]

charities have paid employees and the bigger ones have bosses earning 6 figures.

I don't give to them at all. Hardly any of the money gets where it is supposed to be. They're parasites if you ask me.

[TheHistoryStudent]

I think for examples like smoking guilt tripping adverts, in particular about the effects of a parent smoking in close proximity to their own child are a useful and necessary tool in getting people to quit.

The fact of the matter is that smoking is harmful, and second hand smoke is arguably worse - banning adverts which guilt trip parents into thinking of their kids (which they should be doing anyway) wont stop the fact that second hand smoke around children is extremely bad for their health, and in fact could make the situation worse if parents are no longer educated about the effect their habit is having on their kids. I mean if you think about it, if someone smokes and doesn't want to quit, they're not (at least I don't think) going to look for information about the damage to their (and others) health when they smoke, and so they might well smoke around their kids.

I must admit though I think differently when it comes to charity... honestly I dunno what to make of the adverts (that we've all seen) showing starving kids in Africa, or 10 mile walking distances to clean water and so on... I guess as I've got older I've become much more cynical of ads like that which ask for my money claiming it will sort everything out... as I think in parts of Africa where charity is needed, and indeed in other parts of the world where charity is needed (LEDCs... good ol' GCSE Geography...) there is more of a chance that the money will not go where it is needed, or worse, will fund more nefarious ends, such as warfare. This system of corruption and violence in government in these countries (and I'm not saying it's everywhere, but that it is prevalent) needs to change in my opinion so that I know that when I give my money to that charity, it will go to help people, and also that that help will not be destroyed by conflict, taken over by corrupt governments and so on...

Animal charities are different from that too... but my thinking is similar... if I donate to an animal charity I'll generally do it within the UK to be honest, as I think there's more of a chance of animal cruelty and so on being stopped here more successfully than abroad (again in LEDCs) where other things are viewed with greater importance (rightly or wrongly depending on your opinion) than animal welfare, and so the same desire to get rid of it doesn't exist as here in the UK... sadly I also think that animal cruelty will always exist, no matter how much money anyone donates to charity...

[SpicyStrawberry]

Well, it's true.

I doubt children want to breathe in your chemicals, they have no choice in it. Parents should stop being so selfish and smoke away from them if they don't want to put up with guilt trips.

Charities do it because it's an effective way of getting people to think about how many things we take for granted. Nobody forces you to watch these ads, you can change the channel. Personally I'm skeptical about a lot of charities because a lot of money goes on admin fees, so we don't truly know how much is actually benefiting the people/animals they are supposed to help.

[HARRY PUTAH]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Charity adverts use a similar method; since many people are not going to just give out of the goodness of their heart, the response by charitable organisations is to exploit people's propensity for feeling guilt. And it seems to work.

Not on me it doesn't.

Im more inclined to laugh and never give to their worthless cause.

[kristol90]

Why guilt? It's just another emotion.
Shouldn't we also ban ads that induce happiness and nostalgia in us to link it with the product? What's the difference? And hey, while we're already banning the use of emotional manipulation to get us to spend money, let's ban the use of emotion in movies too! And burn the books!

See, these are some of the implications people who actually make these decisions (and sci-fi writers) have to think about.

[Hopple]

(Original post by Pawsies)
Should be banned.

'if you smoke it can get into my lungs and cause cancer'

Using someone's children to guilt trip them? That is way over the line in my opinion. If someone wants to smoke they will, the best thing we can do is educate them as to what they may be susceptible to.

I can't believe companies are allowed to manipulate children into doing what they want.

What do you think?

Sounds like they're already doing what you want?

I thought this would be about charity adverts telling you about starving people during programmes on at mealtimes, which try to make you feel guilty despite it not being your fault nor it being within your power to fix it.