Polar bears go splat

[Hallo Alfie]

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.

Is any of those questions supposed to be sensible?

On the teachers, I was making the point that any perceived indoctrination is not Conspiracy Theory as was your accusation of me.
If you don't get it, it's not my problem and I don't feel the need to explain it to you any further.

My whole question about the five year olds goes to the heart of my question that even you highlighted - at what age should we show this to kids? You say it's not rated 'G'. Do you know this, I don't. How did you learn it?
You threw up the trains, not me. Where do you think electricity comes from? Burning coal possibly? How much co2 is generated from that? Make the link - you make the calim of being someone able to think.
You said short trips. Not the ad.
It is actually your questions and assertions I am responding to. It might pay to run your own sanity checks.

At any rate, either you want o debate this rationally or simply argue.
Clearly you have a position on this - fine, I have mine. I think it is overly emotive and inaccurate.

 

[GreyICE]

On the teachers, I was making the point that any perceived indoctrination is not Conspiracy Theory as was your accusation of me.
If you don't get it, it's not my problem and I don't feel the need to explain it to you any further.

My whole question about the five year olds goes to the heart of my question that even you highlighted - at what age should we show this to kids?
You threw up the trains, not me. It is actually your questions and assertions I am responding to. It might pay to run your own sanity checks.

At any rate, either you want o debate this rationally or simply argue.
Clearly you have a position on this - fine, I have mine. I think it is overly emotive and inaccurate.

Dude, you asked what to say when your five year old sees it. That's not 'going to the heart.' That's asking 'what the hell is your 5 year old doing browsing the internet unsupervised?' That's not the heart of anything.

Your lousy parenting skills are not my concern, and trust me, everything in the world is not safe for 5 year olds.

When you suggest Australia to Copenhagen is a short flight, when you wonder how airplane electricity usage compares, when you ask if the ad was funded by the railroads, you're not getting 'to the heart.'

You're just being crazy.

That's NOT a legitimate difference of opinion, sorry. That's just stupid.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Misquoting me now?
Please reread the thread, get your facts straight, your arguments in order and your quotations accurate.
Your position on this is noted and your arguments ignored as irrelevant.
I am interested in hearing others now.

 

[GreyICE]

Misquoting me now?
Please reread the thread, get your facts straight, your arguments in order and your quotations accurate.
Your position on this is noted and your arguments ignored as irrelevant.
I am interested in hearing others now.

My post:

Today 05:28 PM

Your post:

Last edited by A.A.Alfie; Today at 05:31 PM.

You know forum software tracks this crap, so when you lie like this, it's hideously transparent.

I did not misquote you. If you dislike what you wrote... I don't care. I think I'm quite done responding to you now.

 

[Careyp74]

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.

This is the misconception that AA and Grey started arguing in the beginning. I don't know how it turned into where they are at now.

The message is like a pictograph, where each polar bear equals the same amount of weight in carbon emissions being released by a plane flying in the sky.

The use of polar bears is because it is an environmental issue, and polar bears are a common symbol of that.

The fact that they are falling is just a more graphic way of driving home the point, which is, planes create a lot of carbon emissions, and that there may be a relationship between carbon emissions and polar bears dying, although the commercial does not state the exact relationship.