Polar bears go splat

[portlandatheist]

These people need to choose their battles more wisely. Air travel should be at the very bottom of ones list of ways to reduce carbon emissions. We'll have nuclear power, electric cars, mass transportation and fast trains, wind and solar power, and dozens of other measures taken place long before air planes run on something other than fossil fuels. I'm not going to see passenger travel in carbon free planes in my lifetime nor am I going to see an end to air travel. If I'm very very lucky, I may, just may see the end of coal powered electricity generation but even that is a stretch.

If your intended goal is to make a stink without accomplishing anything in the real world, then choose air travel as your target.

 

[Meed]

For mine it is emotive, alarmist and over the top

Isn't your complaint about the ad over the top? I don't see anything wrong with it, except that it's a little silly.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I can imagine that if 9/11 traumatized me in any way, I'd love an ad that reminds me of it by having office workers bears fall to their deaths from huge buildings.

 

[slingblade]

Isn't your complaint about the ad over the top? I don't see anything wrong with it, except that it's a little silly.

I think one thing that aids critcal thinking is to try to see how something could affect others who don't think the same way we do. To be empathetic, to see life through other lenses, enhances our world view and our cognition.

When we say "I don't see anything wrong with it," we simply shut other people, other opinions, and other minds out of our reasoning. We fail to take into consideration that our opinion may apply to a limited number of people, and that other concerns might be vaild. How would one know, unless one is willing to consider it?

Does that make any sense? How does anyone decide anything about good taste, for example, if one only considers one's own tastes, exclusively?

 

[GreyICE]

The inference is obvious even to my eleven year year old son and 10 year old neice. Not a reasonable interpretation is laughable.
Tell me, why do you think they used polar bears in the ad and not something else?

My bold

And the prize for not reading his own OP goes to... the OP!

"We wanted to confront people with the impact that short-haul flights have on the climate," said Robert Saville, a director at Mother. "We used polar bears because they are a well understood symbol of the effect that climate change is having on the natural world.

It's really not some giant conspiracy, they... kinda stated it.

Polar bears are a symbol of climate change, short trip airplane flights are not good for the environment.

Planes kill polar bears is kinda... stupid. Yeah, that's the exact word I'm looking for. Stupid.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And the prize for not reading his own OP goes to... the OP!


It's really not some giant conspiracy, they... kinda stated it.

Polar bears are a symbol of climate change, short trip airplane flights are not good for the environment.

Planes kill polar bears is kinda... stupid. Yeah, that's the exact word I'm looking for. Stupid.

Hmmm.

Not really sure why you think I've contradicted myself nor how I've misread the OP. Or for that matter where I've suggested a conspiracy. Seems to me it is you that's misinterpreted something.
If not, you might need to explain it to me as all I've basically said is that it is over the top and alarmist; and that there is a realtionship between GW and polar bears - something someone else wanted to deny and the reason for the quote you've used of mine above. Honestly, I don't get you.

 

[Whiplash]

I was confused by that too. His quote of yours followed by the quote from the article seemed to be saying the same thing.

 

[GreyICE]

Hmmm.

Not really sure why you think I've contradicted myself nor how I've misread the OP. Or for that matter where I've suggested a conspiracy. Seems to me it is you that's misinterpreted something.
If not, you might need to explain it to me as all I've basically said is that it is over the top and alarmist; and that there is a realtionship between GW and polar bears - something someone else wanted to deny and the reason for the quote you've used of mine above. Honestly, I don't get you.

Since the launch of the ad, at the rate they fell the polar bear population would probably be zero already. But that isn't really the point either.
Is this alarmist type advertisement appropriate? Who should we show it to? Is it ok to show kids as part of the political indoctination of AGW theory that is under a huge cloud at the moment anyway, given recent revelations?

So we have a conspiracy to indoctrinate our children and you're wondering where you suggested a conspiracy?

Your posts are right there. I can still read them.

 

[Whiplash]

ETA: woops I misread and thought this was about teachers for some reason. I withdraw what I said. The commercial as indoctrination is different from what I was saying. My mistake.

 

[Careyp74]

Hmmm.

Not really sure why you think I've contradicted myself nor how I've misread the OP. Or for that matter where I've suggested a conspiracy. Seems to me it is you that's misinterpreted something.
If not, you might need to explain it to me as all I've basically said is that it is over the top and alarmist; and that there is a realtionship between GW and polar bears - something someone else wanted to deny and the reason for the quote you've used of mine above. Honestly, I don't get you.

Let me give a third opinion. The ad uses polar bears because they are a symbol for climate change. The Ad does not, however, say that polar bears are dying. They don't infer that either, even though the ad shows them falling from the sky. They could have used inanimate objects for the same purpose. What the ad is saying, as pointed out earlier, is that the WEIGHT of the polar bears is equivalent to the amount of carbon emissions being generated.

 

[Careyp74]

ETA: woops I misread and thought this was about teachers for some reason. I withdraw what I said. The commercial as indoctrination is different from what I was saying. My mistake.

Yeah, I was kinda curious where all that was coming from

 

[MattusMaximus]

What a stupid ad

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So we have a conspiracy to indoctrinate our children and you're wondering where you suggested a conspiracy?

Your posts are right there. I can still read them.

CTers thatta way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I see what you are saying however I did not mean to suggest there is some sort of world wide conspiracy. Nor is conspiracy a word I have ever used in this context.
That said, my two older teenage kids recognise that many of their teachers preach their form of politics and/or religion in the classroom already. Is that an attempt at indoctrination? Is that a conspiracy?

The ad is over the top and emotive and that is entirely its aim. Apart from the indoctrination point, I wondered at what age we should show this thing to our kids - five years old? Eight?
"Daddy why is that man flying to Copenhagen? Doesn't he know he will kill all the polar bears?"

Kind of a distorted view on the world if you ask me.
Whilst it is loose (or devoid) with facts its conclusions are clear: Polar bears die when you catch a plane.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Good CGI tho

 

[GreyICE]

CTers thatta way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Great. Go get em, sparky.

I see what you are saying however I did not mean to suggest there is some sort of world wide conspiracy. Nor is conspiracy a word I have ever used in this context.
That said, my two older teenage kids recognise that many of their teachers preach their form of politics and/or religion in the classroom already. Is that an attempt at indoctrination? Is that a conspiracy?

I suppose teaching must involve a certain amount of informing people about facts. As facts are dreadfully inconvenient things when one has an agenda, that's obviously going to get labeled indoctrination by certain subsets of the population.

Science teachers keep indoctrinating our kids into this evolution garbage as well. How sad.

Oh wait...

The ad is over the top and emotive and that is entirely its aim. Apart from the indoctrination point, I wondered at what age we should show this thing to our kids - five years old? Eight?
"Daddy why is that man flying to Copenhagen? Doesn't he know he will kill all the polar bears?"

Kind of a distorted view on the world if you ask me.
Whilst it is loose (or devoid) with facts its conclusions are clear: Polar bears die when you catch a plane.

Or maybe, maybe it requires just a smidgen of thinking. Hold on a second, let me think. Oh, here it is: Our actions have consequences. In this case, the specific action of us specifically choosing to use short trip plane flights has a specific consequence on the environment, and maybe we should take the train instead.

Let me guess, in the anti smoking ad where they're loading a gun with cigarettes (caption: Smoking Kills), you're furious that the makers of the ad would suggest that smokers wander around shooting people...

 

[Bill Thompson]

Great. Go get em, sparky.
...

Let me guess, in the anti smoking ad where they're loading a gun with cigarettes (caption: Smoking Kills), you're furious that the makers of the ad would suggest that smokers wander around shooting people...

How is this ad accurate? Just because the amount of co2 per person per flight equals the weight of an average polar bear does not equate to each flight kills the number of polar bears that are on each flight.

I am just asking.

 

[GreyICE]

How is this ad accurate? Just because the amount of co2 per person per flight equals the weight of an average polar bear does not equate to each flight kills the number of polar bears that are on each flight.

I am just asking.

Can you rephrase the question into something that makes sense, unless your planes regularly have polar bears on them?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I suppose teaching must involve a certain amount of informing people about facts. As facts are dreadfully inconvenient things when one has an agenda, that's obviously going to get labeled indoctrination by certain subsets of the population.

Indeed. As long as the facts are what they teach - no problem. This ad is not that. Nor is AGW theory in English Literature relevant except as indoctrination at some level.

Oh wait... Or maybe, maybe it requires just a smidgen of thinking. Hold on a second, let me think. Oh, here it is: Our actions have consequences. In this case, the specific action of us specifically choosing to use short trip plane flights has a specific consequence on the environment, and maybe we should take the train instead.

How does a five year old make this distinction?
How the hell am I going to catch a train from Australia to Copenhagen?
How much electricity does the train take to run in comparison?
Where does it say use the train?
Is it an ad funded by the railways?

I wont respond to your smoking ad nonsense, because it's, well ... nonsense.

 

[GreyICE]

Indeed. As long as the facts are what they teach - no problem. This ad is not that.

I'm reasonably sure teachers don't use advertisements, except as props to go along with the teaching. I remember my teachers using ads mostly to encourage thought, provoke criticism, or jump start discussion.

I doubt any teachers are even using this ad that way, since this is a TV advert that is currently showing. And no one besides you has dragged teachers into this.

But don't let facts get in the way of a good diatribe. Seriously, do you sanity check these things?

How does a five year old make this distinction?
How the hell am I going to catch a train from Australia to Copenhagen?
How much electricity does the train take to run in comparison?
Where does it say use the train?
Is it an ad funded by the railways?

I wont respond to your smoking ad nonsense, because it's, well ... nonsense.

Man, I'm so tempted to take the advice in your last sentence and add you to ignore on the basis of the body of your work.

Is any of those questions supposed to be sensible? Seriously, lets run down the list.

1) Five year olds and 'think of the children' is a classic fallacy. Maybe they shouldn't be going to movies that feature violent ads (hint: not rated G) or browsing the web unsupervised, since that's where the ad is. And actually, if that's the worst thing your child finds browsing the web, consider yourself damn lucky.
2) Australia to Copenhagen is a short flight. *facepalm*
3) Airplanes don't use electricity, they use Jet Fuel. ETA: Seriously. Think about this. Electrical lines in the sky!
4) Maybe it's suggesting 'find an alternative?' God, this thinking stuff is tough.
5) The ad is funded by 'Plane Stupid' as stated in the title and first line of the story, which YOU posted.

This gets nuttier and nuttier. Seriously, what the hell?

 

[GreyICE]

No really, upon further review, your questions remain firmly grounded in some alternate reality universe. What the ****.