- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:36 am to SlowFlowPro
eh, whatever. You are FAR from the voice of absolute deregulation and completely unfettered speech on this forum. If it were coming from almost any other poster, I'd take it more seriously.
I'm not a libertarian or an anarchist, so I'm not going to line up behind unconditional deregulation, and my views don't betray my values, so you are barking up the wrong tree with this. Go peddle your No True Scotsman fallacy on someone who actually believes in lawlessness.
I'm not a libertarian or an anarchist, so I'm not going to line up behind unconditional deregulation, and my views don't betray my values, so you are barking up the wrong tree with this. Go peddle your No True Scotsman fallacy on someone who actually believes in lawlessness.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:37 am to TheHarahanian
quote:
If it removes massive financial incentives for media companies to peddle lies to the public, hurray.
fify
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:38 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
You are FAR from the voice of absolute deregulation
O rly
quote:
and completely unfettered speech
O rly
Or are you going to try to shoehorn free speech into private transactions? I am clearly talking about 1A issues, which are defined in terms of direct government infringement.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:40 am to SlowFlowPro
do you believe any private company should be able to advertise anything to anyone in any place without government regulation?
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:41 am to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
What would be your argument in favor of RFK, Jr.'s ban?
It's somewhat difficult to do when you avoid the silliness.
I'd have to go research other leftists causes like gun control outlets and figure out a way to mimic their emotional-irrational approach to targeting feelings. When people promote giving up their rights, usually fear is a good trigger.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:42 am to SlowFlowPro
yes really.
there is no free and private transaction that takes place between a pharmaceutical company and a patient. It may, in fact, be the least free and least private transaction of them all.
there is no free and private transaction that takes place between a pharmaceutical company and a patient. It may, in fact, be the least free and least private transaction of them all.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:42 am to VoxDawg
This would be great. Hope it really happens.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:43 am to deathvalleytiger10
Every country but two on the planet want to keep discussion of precription drugs between the patient and their doctor.
We allow pharma to pay millions to big media for a ad campaign that the presumed customers can't even order.
This is called a pay off for no negative coverage of the corporation.
We allow pharma to pay millions to big media for a ad campaign that the presumed customers can't even order.
This is called a pay off for no negative coverage of the corporation.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:43 am to Sam Quint
quote:
do you believe any private company should be able to advertise anything to anyone in any place without government regulation?
At most, there should be strict scrutiny.
But the market will sort that stuff out, in time. You start showing hardcore porn in ads on regular TV slots and you're going to lose a lot of viewers. I mean cable TV has been able to curse and show nudity since its inception and it only just started (and still does it very minimally).
What's funny, especially in light of the promotion of attacking perceived enemies/out-groups, is that gambling ads are much more susceptible to regulation in our current framework. Supplements, too. You start removing those ads and podcasts are fricked, generally.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:44 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
there is no free and private transaction that takes place between a pharmaceutical company and a patient
Literally irrelevant to this discussion.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:46 am to SlowFlowPro
There is no market between these ads and the viewers.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:47 am to VoxDawg
You mean I won’t be having to watch 2 gay guys smooch to sell hiv drugs during a football game?
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:47 am to Tandemjay
You know that Elizabeth "Pocohontas" Warren & Bernie Sanders will do everything they can to stop this from happening. They are, I believe, the two highest paid BigPharma hacks in Congress.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:48 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
is that gambling ads are much more susceptible to regulation in our current framework
not sure the point you're making - re: gambling ads
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:50 am to goatmilker
quote:
There is no market between these ads and the viewers.
eh? he's saying the market will sort it out like, if viewers hate the ads enough they will stop watching the shows. i dont really agree with him, mainly because these ads are too pervasive and ubiquitous for this to ever work, but it's a fair point.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:52 am to goatmilker
quote:
There is no market between these ads and the viewers.
And?
If the ads are truly offensive, people will stop watching, and networks will have to turn to different advertisers. That's how the free market works.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:52 am to Sam Quint
quote:
not sure the point you're making - re: gambling ads
Read the whole comment.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Read the whole comment.
i did, i just dont get what you're saying. it's probably my own reading comprehension on a monday morning
Posted on 3/24/25 at 11:58 am to Sam Quint
Fair enough. The selected quote made me unsure.
There are 2 justifications being promoted by the echo chamber to justify this:
1. They're manufacturing this "bribery" angle, in order to claim some impropriety/illegality necessitating the regulation
2. They're arguing this will hurt a perceived enemy/out group (The media/MSM) by removing their ad funding. Not a policy justification but a populist one.
In the post I referenced #2 with " in light of the promotion of attacking perceived enemies/out-groups"
The same people hoping #2 happens are promoting alternative media/podcasts. Those podcasts are disproportionately funded by outlets/industries MUCH more in danger of this sort of regulation, like gambling, supplements, etc.
You open up this Pandora's Box and you may not like the consequences down the line.
There are 2 justifications being promoted by the echo chamber to justify this:
1. They're manufacturing this "bribery" angle, in order to claim some impropriety/illegality necessitating the regulation
2. They're arguing this will hurt a perceived enemy/out group (The media/MSM) by removing their ad funding. Not a policy justification but a populist one.
In the post I referenced #2 with " in light of the promotion of attacking perceived enemies/out-groups"
The same people hoping #2 happens are promoting alternative media/podcasts. Those podcasts are disproportionately funded by outlets/industries MUCH more in danger of this sort of regulation, like gambling, supplements, etc.
You open up this Pandora's Box and you may not like the consequences down the line.
Page 11 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News