Caro called out, Footy Classified

[tigerlove]

Sportsbet has polarised 'emselves here by hiring Ben Johnson. maybe deliberate? dunno. But I'll bet you $20 it bites 'em

This is all planned, the more exposure, the better, good or bad. Sportsbet have made many un-PC ads of late. Clever marketing. Whether you like it or not, it's creating much more exposure than it deserves.

 

[tigersnake]

Really

agree

 

[tigersnake]

This is all planned, the more exposure, the better, good or bad. Sportsbet have made many un-PC ads of late. Clever marketing. Whether you like it or not, it's creating much more exposure than it deserves.

we all know how advertising works love. That isn't the issue here. The controversial nature of the ad is the catalyst, but not the issue.

 

[tigerlove]

we all know how advertising works love. That isn't the issue here. The controversial nature of the ad is the catalyst, but not the issue.

My comment was in relation to the question (designated by a question mark) of whether they've deliberately tried to polarise themselves and the comment that it will come back to bite them. As I said I think it is 100% deliberate and no I don't think it will come back to bite them as it's already created significantly more exposure than they could have possibly wished for.

 

[Giardiasis]

Restricting the amount of gambling advertising is a violent act, how? Oh because if a media outlet defys the ban the state will send in the miltary? Or the TV exec will be manhandled to the courts/ prison? Yeah strong argument G.

If they do it they will be fined, if they don't pay the fine the government will use the police to arrest them. This is just a fact of what government is. Pretending otherwise doesn't change that.

 

[B1 and B2]

i dislike Caro and Hutch both fit for each other!
and now Lyon rejoined!!
Harvey Norman show i call it! No

B2

 

[tigersnake]

If they do it they will be fined, if they don't pay the fine the government will use the police to arrest them. This is just a fact of what government is. Pretending otherwise doesn't change that.

Yeah, like I said, strong argument G. Restricting when the big media outlets can advertise gambling is a horrifically violent act, worse than waterboarding. I feel really sorry in advance for the Kerry Stokes being thrown roughly to the floor in Barwon Prison. ;D

 

[Giardiasis]

Yeah, like I said, strong argument G. I feel really sorry in advance for the Kerry Stokes being thrown roughly to the floor in Barwon Prison. ;D

That's because you are envious of people better than you.

 

[tigersnake]

That's because you are envious of people better than you.

Kerry Stokes is better than me? I wouldn't know I've never met the guy.

 

[HR]

quote author=easy,tiger link=topic=53170.msg2108593#msg2108593 date=1494907270
I hate corporate bookmakers, I hate gaming advertising, I hate everything about gambling.
Agree and rarely bet, but I am fine with it being legal. It should not be in our faces in relation to AFL. It should not have any implication to the running of the game.
Caro doesn't have to do anything about it in my eyes, her job is to write and comment. What her editor puts in the paper either next to her or on another page is their business. It is just a shame its there at all.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Really

A bit more cred than Ralph Carr I dare say.

 

[Giardiasis]

Kerry Stokes is better than me? I wouldn't know I've never met the guy.

Yet you make light of putting him in prison.

 

[Merveille]

I understand the concern and the sentiment. I just think there are bigger poisons to tackle than this advertisement and ads in general.
Can the Cox Plate and Melb Cup be advertised?
Can Tattslotto be advertised..?

And the diffirence is..? Gambling is gambling, can't pick and choose.

What about the scourge of the Pokies in pubs, what a disgusting advertiemt they are when you walk the kids into the
Pub or RSL for a meal.
What about the people spending $100 a week on usesless Tatts tickets..?

What single out one Sportsbet add? The guy is a disgraced cheat - and he plays himself in the ad.
Educate don't ban - teach odds and take outs in school, how the machines are programmed etc

 

[tigersnake]

Yet you make light of putting him in prison.

I'll make light of anything.

 

[tigersnake]

I understand the concern and the sentiment. I just think there are bigger poisons to tackle than this advertisement and ads in general.
Can the Cox Plate and Melb Cup be advertised?
Can Tattslotto be advertised..?

And the diffirence is..? Gambling is gambling, can't pick and choose.

What about the scourge of the Pokies in pubs, what a disgusting advertiemt they are when you walk the kids into the
Pub or RSL for a meal.
What about the people spending $100 a week on usesless Tatts tickets..?

What single out one Sportsbet add? The guy is a disgraced cheat - and he plays himself in the ad.
Educate don't ban - teach odds and take outs in school, how the machines are programmed etc

restricting advertising of the activity is not a ban on the activity, or a ban on advertising of an activity for that matter

 

[Mr Brightside]

A bit more cred than Ralph Carr I dare say.

That's Mr Carr or Sir at this point

 

[Giardiasis]

restricting advertising of the activity is not a ban on the activity, or a ban on advertising of an activity for that matter

It's an arbitrary measure that has no guiding principle. Merveille pointed out where do you draw the line? The only argument you have is because "you think so". Looking at the issue as a private property dispute provides a clear principle from which to draw the line.

 

[Leysy Days]

I hate corporate bookmakers, I hate gaming advertising, I hate everything about gambling.

except doing it.

I, like every other person who eats and sh!ts, am a hypocrite.

my point being, like everything, there are degrees of hypocracy. Im pretty *smile*in' hypocritical. Always have been.

But Caro's in this instance is way, way down the left hand end of the spectrum. If Caro was a convicted steroid dealer with a sportsbet account with a $1m limit and was married to Florence Joyner, she'd be up the right hand side of the spectrum.

People who call out semantic, small-scale hypocracy in argument are most often, in my experience, lacking the cognitive horsepower to come up with a decent counter. Which is kind of OK. people who arent very smart have a right to argue.

Its hard to argue that hiring a disgraced, steroid-taking, cheating, 'sportsman' to promote an Android platform for a bookie under the slogan 'putting the 'roid into android', isnt witty.

and its very, very difficult to mount a case that its good for society. Which is why they trot out the flimsy hypocrite chestnut.

like I said, i think this one will morally sort itself out. The bookie spivs are getting bold. The havoc they are reeking on Australian society is statistically clear. A ballsy lawmaker will ban gaming advertising pretty soon.

Leysy laughed.

 

[tigersnake]

It's an arbitrary measure that has no guiding principle. Merveille pointed out where do you draw the line? The only argument you have is because "you think so". Looking at the issue as a private property dispute provides a clear principle from which to draw the line.

Of course it has guiding principles, a shipload of them. Society, not just me, has values, impacts are identifiable and measurable, lines can be drawn and are drawn. But off you go with your private property as the only valid guiding principle trip again. The end.

 

[Giardiasis]

Of course it has guiding principles, a shipload of them. Society, not just me, has values, impacts are identifiable and measurable, lines can be drawn and are drawn. But off you go with your private property as the only valid guiding principle trip again. The end.

What is your guiding principle then to answer the question, "where do you draw the line?".