I think that just about any product can be “dangerous” on some level, but if the product KILLED PEOPLE when used EXACTLY AS INTENDED….then the answer is a simply (and unequivocal) “no.”
@hubbaduh - couldn’t have said it better myself. It depends on the level of danger, but generally no I think not.
As sad as it sounds, I think for a lot of people money is the highest, if not the sole motivating factor for people’s actions. I think this is reflected in the marketization of such sectors as the nonprofit sector, which I work in. For volunteers these days, who are specifically giving of their time without monetary compensation, there is a push to incentivize them with other perks, such as food, t-shirts, certificates, awards, making them look good to their primary employer, and the list goes on.
I, personally, would not endorse a product that I *knew* was dangerous, but a lot of products, especially in the U.S. industries, people do not know are harmful. For instance, the preservative high fructose corn syrup is linked to a rise in obesity, but it’s so pervasive. It’s in bread, in soda, in tons of products. I have in the past endorsed soda products. Cigarettes and other tobacco products I would not be caught dead promoting, because I have and always will think they are clearly harmful as well as disgusting.
Christ, how did I know it would be a “Truth” related stunt when I saw the featured question?
Do your readers know that you endorse NIKE, and their child labour? How much money did you motherfuckers get for that one?
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, people. Learn how to be accountable for your actions, don’t blame it all on some faceless corporation. The Truth campaign could certainly step up and take responsibility for their part in endorsing child labour, not to mention the millions they POCKET in donations for their bullshit campaign.
That depends on the product. If it kills people, no. If it doesn’t, maybe.
absolutely NOT. money’s a tool; a good thing for trade, paying bills, and keeping the moths in my wallet from starving. For me, I’d need an impossible inducement to endorse anything that I knew to be harmful. An “impossible inducement” like absolute control over the laws of physics, and influence over the flow of time.
here’s another chance for me to say: “Contentment is natural wealth; Luxury is artificial poverty”. I thanks Socrates for that one.
PAX
Never. Though it may not seem like it, I actually have some moral values.
@escritoire - I am a smoker, but certainly not avid about it. It’s a horrible addiction and I wish I had never started. However, I think it’s ridiculous to blame the tobacco companies for smoking — they own some of the blame, but the majority rests on the shoulders of US, the people who CHOOSE to smoke. I’m getting really fucking tired of seeing whiny bitches blaming everything on some faceless corporation, when in reality it’s their own fault.
Nothing wrong with discouraging smoking. However, the Truth Campaign is every bit as sleazy and dishonest as those tobacco companies are.
Ha ha ha. My brother is an avid smoker…love him to pieces, know he’s not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Didn’t know that Truth is sleazy…most organizations/corporations have their dark corners for sure. You’re reply was so honest, intelligent and pointed. Touche. Rock on.
Honestly? I agree with you completely. My issue is with any addicting drug…and those that sell them. My brother started smoking as a minor, and is mentally ill to boot. It doesn’t remove all of his responsibility, but why are these drugs available in the first place, and how do we prevent those with impaired or not yet developed judgement? Free choice stinks sometimes…
definitely not.
nowadays, everything is dangerous… yesterday i heard that milk can cause cancer. yet i doubt anyone’s going to be like “no, i won’t do that ‘got milk’ campaign. milk causes cancer.”
i mean, i do have my limits. i wouldn’t endorse tobacco, drugs, or alcohol. but since the question is so vague, perhaps i would endores something i “knew” to be “dangerous.”
People know what they’re buying. I see no moral issue with endorsing it.
Probably. Everyone has their price, whether they wanna admit it or not.
Define “dangerous”. There are a lot of dangerous things in the world. Some of them include dynamite, guns, the belief in God, girls who love the color pink too much, shoplifters, rape, the internet, cups made out of glass, penguins, cell phones, termites, and last but not least, sarcasm. It doesn’t mean these things should all be banned.
On a more serious note, probably not. Given all these dangerous things in the world, we should strive more to have less conflict in the world, not the other way around. =)
Depending why its dangerous, and what that is for.
A mouse trap is dangerous to a mouse, and I glad for that.
But, in general, no I could not see endorsing dangerous products,
then come volunteer for my organization, the New York Road Runners Foundation (www.nyrrf.org), and you’ll get a t-shirt!
it really would depend on the level of danger involved. but still i think not.
@escritoire - It’s tragic isn’t it – another dissenting voice against the lies that Crispin Porter and Bogusky call “Truth” and instantly “oh you must be a nasty mean smoker then” You simply can’t have an adult discussion based on that level of infantile knee-jerk reaction.
I wonder how much smoker money CPB paid Xanga to have their question Featured.
Incidentally I should also point out CPB also endorse Virgin Atlantic, which correct me if I’m wrong is one of the most environmentally dangerous companies going.
This is off topic, but I like what you guys are doing here, it’s funny but makes people aware of what’s going on. Kids in my school are always talking about your commercials and laughing but I hope they see the point behind them. I’m 14, by the way, so your ads aren’t just targeting adults and young adults, its getting through to teenagers to. Some of these facts you post on your site is really hard to believe.
And about the question, if I knew this product was able to kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people, the answer is no. Even if the product wasn’t as harmful as to kill people, it’d still be harmful and I don’t know if I could work for that company.
TRUTH needs to stop blaming everyone else for the cancer patients problems. So boohoo someone that started it had lost someone they cared about die from smoking cigarettes….. Therefor it must have had been big tobacco that FORCED them to smoke… its all about personal choice. and personally i find it disgusting the amount of money they pockey from ‘donations’. you will not stop children from smoking only a strong will can. and no they will not learn it from wasteful and tasteless ads
How often does The Truth put out these questions? When’s the next one? Is anyone interested in still responding to the question posed about “being part of the problem or solution”?
hellll no, if you try to make me sellout, I won’t go!
Maybe if I used it myself. Probably not though.
How much money? and how much danger?
no, i wouldn’t be able to sleep at night if i did
Only if Mr. Cool Smoking Wizard tells me too!
These stupid self analyzing questions aren’t cutting it Truth, neither did the ads about urea or dog shit. I still smoke and you know why? Besides the obvious; they’re soothing and helps the brain to think clearly, but to spite shit like this.
I’d eat a box full of puppies if it meant that Xanga would stop putting this stuff on the front page.
Comments (37)
what does it mean?
Everyone has their price.
I think that just about any product can be “dangerous” on some level, but if the product KILLED PEOPLE when used EXACTLY AS INTENDED….then the answer is a simply (and unequivocal) “no.”
@hubbaduh - couldn’t have said it better myself. It depends on the level of danger, but generally no I think not.
@cincyredsfan38 - Way to say it best.
No.
As sad as it sounds, I think for a lot of people money is the highest, if not the sole motivating factor for people’s actions. I think this is reflected in the marketization of such sectors as the nonprofit sector, which I work in. For volunteers these days, who are specifically giving of their time without monetary compensation, there is a push to incentivize them with other perks, such as food, t-shirts, certificates, awards, making them look good to their primary employer, and the list goes on.
I, personally, would not endorse a product that I *knew* was dangerous, but a lot of products, especially in the U.S. industries, people do not know are harmful. For instance, the preservative high fructose corn syrup is linked to a rise in obesity, but it’s so pervasive. It’s in bread, in soda, in tons of products. I have in the past endorsed soda products. Cigarettes and other tobacco products I would not be caught dead promoting, because I have and always will think they are clearly harmful as well as disgusting.
Christ, how did I know it would be a “Truth” related stunt when I saw the featured question?
Do your readers know that you endorse NIKE, and their child labour? How much money did you motherfuckers get for that one?
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, people. Learn how to be accountable for your actions, don’t blame it all on some faceless corporation. The Truth campaign could certainly step up and take responsibility for their part in endorsing child labour, not to mention the millions they POCKET in donations for their bullshit campaign.
That depends on the product. If it kills people, no. If it doesn’t, maybe.
absolutely NOT. money’s a tool; a good thing for trade, paying bills, and keeping the moths in my wallet from starving. For me, I’d need an impossible inducement to endorse anything that I knew to be harmful. An “impossible inducement” like absolute control over the laws of physics, and influence over the flow of time.
here’s another chance for me to say: “Contentment is natural wealth; Luxury is artificial poverty”. I thanks Socrates for that one.
PAX
Never. Though it may not seem like it, I actually have some moral values.
Yes..
*takes a drag of a cig*
No.
@ventricularX_Xfibrillation - I take it you’re an avid smoker. That’s okay…we all have problems.
@escritoire - I am a smoker, but certainly not avid about it. It’s a horrible addiction and I wish I had never started. However, I think it’s ridiculous to blame the tobacco companies for smoking — they own some of the blame, but the majority rests on the shoulders of US, the people who CHOOSE to smoke. I’m getting really fucking tired of seeing whiny bitches blaming everything on some faceless corporation, when in reality it’s their own fault.
Nothing wrong with discouraging smoking. However, the Truth Campaign is every bit as sleazy and dishonest as those tobacco companies are.
Now take your sarcastic bullshit and shove it.
@eyelikinguy - i want a t-shirt………………. v_v
Ha ha ha. My brother is an avid smoker…love him to pieces, know he’s not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Didn’t know that Truth is sleazy…most organizations/corporations have their dark corners for sure. You’re reply was so honest, intelligent and pointed. Touche. Rock on.
Honestly? I agree with you completely. My issue is with any addicting drug…and those that sell them. My brother started smoking as a minor, and is mentally ill to boot. It doesn’t remove all of his responsibility, but why are these drugs available in the first place, and how do we prevent those with impaired or not yet developed judgement? Free choice stinks sometimes…
definitely not.
nowadays, everything is dangerous… yesterday i heard that milk can cause cancer. yet i doubt anyone’s going to be like “no, i won’t do that ‘got milk’ campaign. milk causes cancer.”
i mean, i do have my limits. i wouldn’t endorse tobacco, drugs, or alcohol. but since the question is so vague, perhaps i would endores something i “knew” to be “dangerous.”
People know what they’re buying.
I see no moral issue with endorsing it.
Probably. Everyone has their price, whether they wanna admit it or not.
Define “dangerous”.
There are a lot of dangerous things in the world. Some of them include dynamite, guns, the belief in God, girls who love the color pink too much, shoplifters, rape, the internet, cups made out of glass, penguins, cell phones, termites, and last but not least, sarcasm. It doesn’t mean these things should all be banned.
On a more serious note, probably not. Given all these dangerous things in the world, we should strive more to have less conflict in the world, not the other way around. =)
Depending why its dangerous, and what that is for.
A mouse trap is dangerous to a mouse, and I glad for that.
But, in general, no I could not see endorsing dangerous products,
ACME Bag-O-Glass Shards? No.
NEVER!!! That would be preposterous!
no uh duh
@ventricularX_Xfibrillation -
then come volunteer for my organization, the New York Road Runners Foundation (www.nyrrf.org), and you’ll get a t-shirt!
it really would depend on the level of danger involved. but still i think not.
@escritoire - It’s tragic isn’t it – another dissenting voice against the lies that Crispin Porter and Bogusky call “Truth” and instantly “oh you must be a nasty mean smoker then” You simply can’t have an adult discussion based on that level of infantile knee-jerk reaction.
I wonder how much smoker money CPB paid Xanga to have their question Featured.
Incidentally I should also point out CPB also endorse Virgin Atlantic, which correct me if I’m wrong is one of the most environmentally dangerous companies going.
This is off topic, but I like what you guys are doing here, it’s funny but makes people aware of what’s going on. Kids in my school are always talking about your commercials and laughing but I hope they see the point behind them. I’m 14, by the way, so your ads aren’t just targeting adults and young adults, its getting through to teenagers to. Some of these facts you post on your site is really hard to believe.
And about the question, if I knew this product was able to kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people, the answer is no. Even if the product wasn’t as harmful as to kill people, it’d still be harmful and I don’t know if I could work for that company.
TRUTH needs to stop blaming everyone else for the cancer patients problems. So boohoo someone that started it had lost someone they cared about die from smoking cigarettes….. Therefor it must have had been big tobacco that FORCED them to smoke… its all about personal choice. and personally i find it disgusting the amount of money they pockey from ‘donations’. you will not stop children from smoking only a strong will can. and no they will not learn it from wasteful and tasteless ads
How often does The Truth put out these questions? When’s the next one? Is anyone interested in still responding to the question posed about “being part of the problem or solution”?
hellll no, if you try to make me sellout, I won’t go!
Maybe if I used it myself. Probably not though.
How much money? and how much danger?
no, i wouldn’t be able to sleep at night if i did
Only if Mr. Cool Smoking Wizard tells me too!
These stupid self analyzing questions aren’t cutting it Truth, neither did the ads about urea or dog shit. I still smoke and you know why? Besides the obvious; they’re soothing and helps the brain to think clearly, but to spite shit like this.
I’d eat a box full of puppies if it meant that Xanga would stop putting this stuff on the front page.