Lovelyish

It’s silly, but at least the UK seems to be sticking to making advertisements more realistic, though I don’t think anyone over 10 would believe mascara can create lashes that you don’t have.

Banning something for looking too good and hurting other people’s feelings. Lol. All while insulting the intelligence of the average mascara purchaser.
“Here honey… you’re too stupid to know that wearing this advertised product won’t make you look like an airbrushed Natalie Portman. You know, we’re going to keep you from seeing that nasty, lying bitch

for your own good

.”

I disagree, it’s completely fair. If Dior had complained about L’oreal and the commission or whatever would have deemed it too photoshopped too. At the end of the day, marketing is a competition, and obviously there was a third non-biased party looking into this and they appeared to have crossed some sort of line. Yeah it was a bitchy move by L’oreal, but all in all, the point is to keep advertising honest.  

lol the uk should look into some maybelline last blast ads.

Ironic L’Oreal complained. Really? LOL

Filling in “missing” or “damaged” lashes, as if there is something wrong with her plain ol human eyelashes. It’s just funny. Sad and funny.

I don’t think that calls for it to be banned, though. Just worth rolling your eyes..

I think if they’re going to do that, they should ban all of the ads that did even a little bit of retouching where the make up advertised is involved. 

This shouldn’t have been banned. That’s too much.

I’m disgusted with how happy people are to see a nanny state poking it’s head into something that shouldn’t be it’s business. Obviously, L’Oreal is just gaming the political system. Rather than turn to the government cronies, they could have just rolled out an ad stating they did not touch up their model unlike Dior and whoever else. But, hey, they have to have something for all those lawyers they hire to do.

If they are going to ban misleading advertising, then the politicians should no longer be allowed to speak. At all.

@The_ATM@xanga - So dishonesty shouldn’t be against the law?  Should people be allowed to give false expert testimony in court?  I mean isn’t not allowing perjury just getting in the way of the business of competing experts who could be hired to rebut them?  And why stop a car company from selling cars they know are defective, isn’t that just stopping their competitors from running ads saying their cars aren’t defective?  And what’s with this nanny state nonsense about food companies not being able to lie about what’s in their products on the label, shouldn’t the thousands who die from allergic reactions fuel lawsuits and ads from their competitors to fix the problem that wouldn’t have existed without regulations?

I say let the free market (and a pile of dead bodies) sort itself out.

And for that matter who needs actual nannies?  Why not just let the babies who can leave their cribs die so natural selection (a sort of free market) will select for babies that don’t or can’t leave their cribs.  Because blind market forces are always better than intelligent design.

@agnophilo@xanga - Your comment is 99% irrelevant to mine. In your fantasy free market world, there are no courts. Idiot.

@The_ATM@xanga - That makes zero sense, and my comment was 100% relevant to yours.  You said corporations should be allowed to lie and should be curtailed purely by natural consequences.  I performed a reductio ad absurdum on your premise, ie debunked your position logically.

@agnophilo@xanga - It is irrelevant. Let me look at your examples:

“why stop a car company from selling cars they know are defective”

“What stops car companies from selling cars they know are defective”? Governmental regulatory bureaus almost always too incompetent and in the dark to know whether they are defective or not? No, civil suits. Car companies know if someone dies, they may very well pay huge damages. This is not to say government regulatory agencies cannot play a role in improving safety, but I can assure you they are not the primary motivator behind companies behaving as they should.

So you see, what stops car companies in your example, is not what I am opposing in my comment. You see, you created a caricture of my view that does not actually represent my view and then called what you did reductio ad absurdum, though that term doesn’t really fit at all. A better fitting term would be a strawman.

“food companies not being able to lie about what’s in their products on the label, shouldn’t the thousands who die from allergic reactions fuel lawsuits and ads from their competitors to fix the problem that wouldn’t have existed without regulations?”

This is dictating the course of counter-factual history. If product labeling had not enforced by regulation, you don’t know what would have formed in the absence of this regulation. I would venture to say there would be product labeling. Product labeling that would go beyond the scope of government mandates (mostly because they would be verified by neutral and competent third parties, like many voluntary ISO standards). I am sure you would disagree and explain to me how everyone would be dying in the streets if we didn’t have product labeling as part of federal regulation. Counter-factual history always, for some reason, supports the ideology of the person who is making it up. We can agree to disagree. I don’t care to debate it with you. Either way, this point is bogus because you are making a big assumption about a history that didn’t happen.

“Why not just let the babies who can leave their cribs die so natural selection (a sort of free market) will select for babies that don’t or can’t leave their cribs.”

You are starting to sound like 10$4way, 40% in just sounding ridiculous and 60% in not properly understanding what exactly you are strawmanning.

“I performed a reductio ad absurdum on your premise, ie debunked your position logically.”Im not sure you had a good grasp of my premise, only what you assumed it to be. The premise of my first comment was that L’Oreal is trying to use political advantage rather than producing a better product (whether in the form of actual product or advertisements) and that I am disgusted to see people happy when they twist the government’s arm to try to hurt a competitor. It is cronyism. They do the same crap in their ads.

So, no, I don’t consider your comment relevant. I did not find it informative at all, yet you post your tripe on your blog like you are walking on water, defeating ignorant, government-non-loving barbarians like myself. You were just being dense. If dragging out the same strawman over and over, seems somehow noble or intelligent to you, I can assure you, you are wasting your time (and mine). I have read the same Elizabeth Warren “Where would we be without government holding our hand and guiding our every step” nonsense on your blog probably around once a week. I am somehow unpersuaded. So please, don’t talk to me if you are just going to regurgitate pro-government propaganda. I ripped that hook out out of my mouth quite a few years ago.

“Because blind market forces are always better than intelligent design.”

This is an incredibly retarded thing to say. Do you think the market functions blindly? What are market forces? Market forces are intelligent individuals acting. Tell me: in terms of information, what is more blind, billions of intelligent individuals or government bureaucrats? I say, let blind government regulations sort it out. Now get back to not farming and killing off your livestock for your country while your other countrymen starve, we must not let the price of wheat fall!

P.S. It is pretty cowardly to go post something like that on your own blog where you have a bunch of ideologically aligned folks waiting to jump on me if I were to respond. It would be justified if you had commented on my blog and I deleted it, but this is already a neutral forum. You just wanted to drag it back to your slanted playing field.

@The_ATM@xanga - You are awesome.  I am reminded of why I value you as a friend on here.  Major props!

I think it’s silly to ban it. I think most people realize that ads are touched up, and if they don’t, hopefully they’re smart enough to realize not everyone is lucky enough to look like Natalie Portman.
Also, did anyone else really not notice her eyelashes? Because I didn’t even look at them until I read that they were the reason the ad was banned. I noticed her skin first.
@The_ATM@xanga - 

“If they are going to ban misleading advertising, then the politicians should no longer be allowed to speak. At all.”  

Good one.

@The_ATM@xanga - retarded?  wow, you’re pathetic.

@DrummingMediocrity@xanga - TY! I like reading your stuff too.

@EccentricSiren@xanga - I am glad you agree with that line. I trust the guy that says he is going to punch me in the face more than I trust the guy who promises me the moon. Politicians are almost always the second guy.
@flapper_femme_fatale@xanga - I will take that as a compliment coming from you or anyone else in agno’s cadre.

@The_ATM@xanga - cadre?  i barely know the guy.  and i don’t see how my affiliation with anyone or anything else would affect whether i find use of the word “retard” to be as offensive as “nigger” or “faggot.” 

judging by your post, though, you seem like the kind to resort to personal insults when your arguments fall through.  

@flapper_femme_fatale@xanga - I see your comments on his site, doing exactly what I described. Did I insult you? Not exactly. You were the first person to insult, calling me pathetic, not responding to the content of the comment to which you were replying. That’s an awfully black pot you have there.

@The_ATM@xanga - there’s a difference between being insulted and being offended.  if you weren’t aware of it, that’s a pity.  i know you didn’t insult me.  and i apparently didn’t insult you.  so… how am i a hypocrite, again?  

as for responding to the content, it’d be a waste of my time.  i’d disagree with you, you’d call me a stupid liberal out to destroy capitalism, etc.  i’ve done this song and dance before.  it’s boring.  
“I see your comments on his site, doing exactly what I described. ”
doing what, precisely?  agreeing with him that you’re a moron for having so much faith in profit-driven enterprises to look out for the interests of everyone?  OMG!  /endsarcasm.  

@flapper_femme_fatale@xanga - “you’re pathetic.”

This would be called an insult.

“as for responding to the content, it’d be a waste of my time.” … “how am i a hypocrite, again?”

As responding to you would be a waste of my time. But the thing is, you say to me “you seem like the kind to resort to personal insults when your arguments fall through.” while resulting to personal insult instead of providing an argument. That seems a little ridiculous to me.

“i find use of the word “retard” to be as offensive as “nigger” or “faggot.” “

I am sorry. I will clean up my ranting in the future. I justify name calling with Agno because he does the same.

“i’d disagree with you, you’d call me a stupid liberal out to destroy capitalism”

I doubt the possibility, but if you were honest, I don’t mind discussing differing points of view in a non-emotional, reasonably unbiased context. Usually in a ‘neutral towards one’s own point of view’ context, two people will almost always learn from the points the other brings up. I really do enjoy learning in that context. Agno is almost never one of those types, and I have been subscribed to him off and on for something like five years now; so I don’t pretend like he is when I address him.

@The_ATM@xanga - 

“This would be called an insult.”
and you said you took it as a compliment  

@flapper_femme_fatale@xanga - Very nice. That went over my head.