"Ireland Keep Your Taxes Low: Vote "NO" " Ad

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

DeVore wrote: »

I think this ad is pushing the boundaries and we will need to put something in our terms and conditions against false advertising.

I wonder what the ASAI would make of this ad...

DeV.

How about reporting it to the ASAI to see what they say? Might be interesting. Although, obviously not if there are potential negative consequences for boards.

I think though that this issue goes beyond what is legally acceptable - and is more about what people feel comfortable with.

For example an ad saying:

"5,000 Polish people are now claiming unemployment benefit and draining €50 mil per year from taxpayers. Vote for the Irish Nationalist Party and have the Irish government working for Irish people."

... might be legally correct, but i think we would all agree (hopefully) that it would be in bad taste. It also ignores percentages of Polish people claiming, ignores taxes paid by Polish people, and singles out a particular ethnic group.

Even though this would not be crossing a legal line, it would be crossing a line into stormfront territory. I'm fairly certain that is a territory we don't want to invade!

DeVore

DeVore wrote: »

Perhaps you should be asking why the "YES" campaign is not as interested in reaching people in this manner.

Yup I am,it's very slipshod of them but then a lot of their campaign has been slipshod.

I take your point though, I just feel that you are still arguing aginst this particular ad because you are opposed to the treaty

In my case you meant "for the treaty" there didn't you ?

I'd like to think you are wrong on that but I know by human nature you are probably largely right.
I still feel I'd want this position of mine to equally apply to all.Thats in my nature.
To give you an example I like Joe Higgins.He's probably the best politician around in my view-far better than some people who are more in tune with my own more conservative leanings.I'm also supporting a treaty that strictly speaking gives me in my opinion less of an opportunity to exploit people working for me for more profit.That speaks for itself I think.
(I almost hated writing that bit because my Granny always said "self praise is no praise" and it wasn't meant to come across like that but re reading it,it might.It's not the way I meant it though)

DeVore

RT2, denying people the opportunity to say something that is true but distasteful (to you) is a bit disturbing too. To an extent we are running up against the old "I dont agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it...... no I'm good for castor oil.... hey, gerrofff!!"

Perhaps we should just apply the normal commonsensical approach, not allow anything "uncivil" and demand sources for fact-quotation?

DeV.

Sparks

Deleted User wrote: »

How is testing the veracity of claims in a banner ad or the site it links to ideological?It's not when you apply the same standard to all.

Sure, if you do that. Which (1) drives up the workload immensely, and (2) isn't really possible anyway.

That "vote no to keep your commissioner" ad, for example. In practical terms it's daft as a brush. But it's not a lie because if you vote yes, you have a 100% chance of losing your commissioner; vote no and the chance of losing him/her is "only" 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%, which is less than 100%. On a theoretical level, the ad is correct enough to not be provable in a court to be an out-and-out lie. And if we started instead to insist on something being true on a pragmatic level before taking money to run the ad, we'd wind up with a lot less money. Besides, ads are always as far from truth as you can get without breaking the law - if you run them at all, then to quote Churchill, "I know what you are. Now we are just negotiating price".

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

DeVore wrote: »

Perhaps we should just apply the normal commonsensical approach, not allow anything "uncivil" and demand sources for fact-quotation?

DeV.

I will never make it as a writer ... what you say was actually what i was trying to say in my post

Would, for example, singling out the Polish in an ad in a negative way (to use my example) fall under the category of being 'uncivil'?

DeVore

Yes, I would say it would.

DeV.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

Sure, if you do that. Which (1) drives up the workload immensely, and (2) isn't really possible anyway.

That "vote no to keep your commissioner" ad, for example. In practical terms it's daft as a brush. But it's not a lie because if you vote yes, you have a 100% chance of losing your commissioner; vote no and the chance of losing him/her is "only" 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%, which is less than 100%. On a theoretical level, the ad is correct enough to not be provable in a court to be an out-and-out lie. And if we started instead to insist on something being true on a pragmatic level before taking money to run the ad, we'd wind up with a lot less money. Besides, ads are always as far from truth as you can get without breaking the law - if you run them at all, then to quote Churchill, "I know what you are. Now we are just negotiating price".

Incorrect again.
To keep a commissioner all the time we'd have to roll back the Nice treaty.
Voting No to Lisbon won't do that.
Ergo the ad is misleading.

If you want to split the hair further,thats fine-my eyesight is still good touch wood,I'll still see it

Sparks

Splitting hairs is what ads are all about BB. Nice said that commissioners would be lost. There was nothing in Nice about which commissioners or for how long. That's what's in Lisbon. Since there's no clause which definitively states otherwise, there is a - and I choose these words carefully - mathematically nonzero possibility of Ireland keeping its commissioner under Nice. I don't care that it's a vanishingly small chance. I don't care that it's as likely as winning the lotto jackpot every week for the next year. I don't care that it's up there with the probability that all the atoms in your body would simultaenously jump two feet to the left. None of that matters. The reason they can print that ad is that it is a mathematically nonzero possibility.

Now, you want to go off and try stating at what degree something becomes practically truthful, and then try applying it to each and every advert that boards.ie is approached about running, that's your business, but I'm going to call horse hockey on any claim you make of actually doing that successfully.

DeVore

What do we do if some people consider an ad "untruthful" and others consider it acceptible (because it seems that that is possible/likely!).

Its always fun for me to show you guys the rather less then black and white world we have to deal with when the idealism that underpins Boards runs headlong into cold reality.

As for the idea that we wont survive without an ad, thats not going to happen. We would be fine (imho). I'm just not ready to turn around and say "we are going to pretend that the outside world is having a general election or a referendum" and refuse to allow political advertisements. I feel we need MORE interaction with the political process rather then less (as a society that is).

In fact, I am really enjoying the way Lisbon has galvanised people on both sides of the vote, accross Boards. It makes a refreshing change!

DeV.

Sparks

Meh. Lisbon schmisbon. I just want the money

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

There was nothing in Nice about which commissioners or for how long. That's what's in Lisbon. Since there's no clause which definitively states otherwise, there is a - and I choose these words carefully - mathematically nonzero possibility of Ireland keeping its commissioner under Nice. I don't care that it's a vanishingly small chance. I don't care that it's as likely as winning the lotto jackpot every week for the next year. I don't care that it's up there with the probability that all the atoms in your body would simultaenously jump two feet to the left. None of that matters. The reason they can print that ad is that it is a mathematically nonzero possibility.

See'ing as you are a stickler for words,and you want to put as many of them into a post as possible to try and hide how vacant it is..I'm both surprised and not surprised you've ignored the words "Fair" and "rotation" in the section of Nice that deals with what happens when the EU becomes 27.
I'm not surprised though as you seem hell bent on ignoring the poor readers who are getting drenched with all the water leaking from your bucket at this stage..

Saying the opposite a quidzillion times doesn't not make it true.Nice confirms that the origin of commissioners will be rotated fairly.

The exact words are and I quote from page 5 of the summary

Nice Summary wrote:

"As from the first commission that will be appointed once the union reaches 27 member states,there will be fewer commissioners than there are member states.The commissioners will be selected by a system of rotation that will be fair to all countries.

Link (page 5)

Now I suggest you eat your words sparks to be honest and admit you are talking nonsense rather than facts.

Now, you want to go off and try stating at what degree something becomes practically truthful, and then try applying it to each and every advert that boards.ie is approached about running, that's your business, but I'm going to call horse hockey on any claim you make of actually doing that successfully.

Theres nothing practically truthfull about libertas's claims on the commissioner issue.
It a 100% lie.

Sparks

Now I suggest you eat your words sparks to be honest and admit you are talking nonsense rather than facts

First you have to provide the clause in Nice that defines "fair" as meaning "Ireland is not permitted to retain their commissioner"; and you have to prove that we can never renegotiate Lisbon (even though frankly, a treaty that cannot be renegotiated is not legally possible).

As I said, ads are all about hair-splitting. So quit trying to be the lord high arbiter of the Devine Truth (because there is no such thing) and just take the money.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

First you have to provide the clause in Nice that defines "fair" as meaning "Ireland is not permitted to retain their commissioner"; and you have to prove that we can never renegotiate Lisbon (even though frankly, a treaty that cannot be renegotiated is not legally possible).

Lol sparks.
you're wrong.
I have to define keyboard and check it's fit for purpose.
Then I have to go to the doctor and check that I won't sprain my finger replying to you.
I've also to check the doctors academic record..

Thats what you are saying right and more in your continued effort to plug the leaks in your bucket with your new invention of "define fair".
As regards renegotiating Nice.
I'm afraid thats already been accepted including the commissioner bit.

Thats called digging

As I said, ads are all about hair-splitting. So quit trying to be the lord high arbiter of the Devine Truth (because there is no such thing) and just take the money.

Face it,you can't handle facts

Sparks

BB, if you weren't so busy trying to convince me that Lisbon was a good idea, you might see my point.
Which is that we shouldn't give a hoot one way or the other, because if you try to prove that Ad X is "true", you wind up unable to do so because it all boils down to your interpretation of the ad versus someone else's, and that's simply not possible to resolve.

I've already pointed out above why the Libertas as can't be definitively said to be untrue. It may be untrue in your opinion. It may be untrue in my opinion (and if you ever actually read what I posted without your own bias you'd have noted that I don't agree with the ad, I think it is wrong).

But those are our opinions. And you can't ever get above making the decision to run or not to run based on your opinion if you're going down this road. Which means you're taking sides. As well as meaning that you'd better be into week-long debates over whether or not to accept an ad each and every time someone goes to run one.

So forget about it, take the money from anyone who wants to run a legal ad and just run it.

Sparks

Deleted User wrote: »

I've also to check the doctors academic record..

And pick better examples, would you? Or can you not recall any instance where a doctor was incorrect in his/her professional opinion? :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Sparks wrote: »

That "vote no to keep your commissioner" ad, for example. In practical terms it's daft as a brush. But it's not a lie because if you vote yes, you have a 100% chance of losing your commissioner; vote no and the chance of losing him/her is "only" 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%, which is less than 100%. On a theoretical level, the ad is correct enough to not be provable in a court to be an out-and-out lie.

Seeing as we're getting into the realm of pedantry: that's quite simply not the view a court would take.

The ad makes a very specific (implied rather than expressed) claim: A "no" vote will let us keep our commissioner. On balance of probability, by any reasonable measure, this is, quite simply, untrue. It has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever.

As you've pointed out, it has an infinitesimal basis in fantasy, but such is not the realm of the courts.

Sparks

oscar, you're not a court.
And you said it yourself - implied, not expressed.
Take this one to a court and only the barristers gain from it.
And you're also arguing the merits of Lisbon rather than the merits of taking the money to run Ad 'X'...

Sparks

BTW, am I just banging my head off the wall here trying to argue the original topic while everyone else tries to score points for the pro-Lisbon debate side?

oscarBravo

Sparks wrote: »

oscar, you're not a court.
And you said it yourself - implied, not expressed.

Are you familiar with the phrase "the man on the Clapham omnibus"?

And you're also arguing the merits of Lisbon rather than the merits of taking the money to run Ad 'X'...

That's an utterly, utterly bizarre interpretation of my post. I'd genuinely love to know how you arrived at that conclusion.

oscarBravo

Sparks wrote: »

BTW, am I just banging my head off the wall here trying to argue the original topic while everyone else tries to score points for the pro-Lisbon debate side?

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that you're seeing things: on-topic, if the admins are happy to accept ads that are factually inaccurate (which this one is), fine.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

BB, if you weren't so busy trying to convince me that Lisbon was a good idea, you might see my point.
Which is that we shouldn't give a hoot one way or the other, because if you try to prove that Ad X is "true", you wind up unable to do so because it all boils down to your interpretation of the ad versus someone else's, and that's simply not possible to resolve.

I'd imagine it isn't in your mind alright,that much you've convinced me of.

I've already pointed out above why the Libertas as can't be definitively said to be untrue. It may be untrue in your opinion. It may be untrue in my opinion (and if you ever actually read what I posted without your own bias you'd have noted that I don't agree with the ad, I think it is wrong).

Actually-thats not what you said here when you said that the libertas ad's are in theory correct and possible scenario's.They are not because once you start a rotation,Ireland eventually lose a commissioner for 5 years.

When pushed further you tried introducing a new invention of "define fair" in some sort of effort it seems to keep going on and on and on about the commissioner thing not being as black and white as it is despite the facts.
You invented that .
How you are coupling that with your acceptance that what Libertas is saying as untrue,I don't know.
But I'll tell you one thing,I'd rather park it and leave you go on elsewhere about that if you wish-for at this stage it makes no material difference whatsoever.

But those are our opinions. And you can't ever get above making the decision to run or not to run based on your opinion if you're going down this road. Which means you're taking sides. As well as meaning that you'd better be into week-long debates over whether or not to accept an ad each and every time someone goes to run one.

So forget about it, take the money from anyone who wants to run a legal ad and just run it.

I resolved my view on the way foward as regards that many posts ago.I know in my mind DeV saw where my opinion on that lay at the end of page 6 and the start of page 7.
I just gave the opinion,theres no need for anyone to agree with it.
I will stand by it.

Rb

So should FF be allowed to advertise "Vote Yes, It's good for Ireland!" ?
I'd take it as implying "If you vote no baaaadd things will happen, baaaadd things", which simply isn't true.

Actually, considering that the treaty has no positive implications for Ireland, the whole "Vote Yes, It's good for us" thing is nothing short of a lie underwritten with a veiled/implied threat.

Instead of complaining about Boards running the Libertas ad, why not go to the political parties that seem so, so keen to push this thing through and get them run an ad?

oscarBravo

Rb wrote: »

So should FF be allowed to advertise "Vote Yes, It's good for Ireland!" ?

There's a case to be made for that claim. You may or may not agree with the specifics of the case, but the case is there to be made. The "keep our commissioner" ad is completely and utterly factually inaccurate.

I'd take it as implying "If you vote no baaaadd things will happen, baaaadd things", which simply isn't true.

First, that's your interpretation of its meaning. Second, how do you know bad things won't happen if we vote no?

How do you know it isn't true Rb?
Have you a time capsule?

What you are asking is different to a discussion on what the treaty specefically provides for.

The answer to your question needs information on how our fellow EU members might react whereas the answer to mine just simply requres opening a text.

Yours is a basis of supposition whereas mine is a basis of fact.

oscarBravo

Rb wrote: »

Actually, considering that the treaty has no positive implications for Ireland...

See, Sparks: that's what it looks like when someone discusses the treaty on this thread.

Rb

Rb wrote: »

Actually, considering that the treaty has no positive implications for Ireland, the whole "Vote Yes, It's good for us" thing is nothing short of a lie underwritten with a veiled/implied threat.

You are making an unequivical statement there I see.In another place (forum 99) that would be referred to as opinion posted as fact.

It's nice though that you bring it up because it allows me to say that it's actually relevant to the thread in the sense that we are discussing here opinion as expressed in an advertisement that has been shown to be misleading as it's not factual.


See what I did there too...I dragged us back on topic

Sparks

*Commences banging head off desk in fustration*

Right.

Item 1. The question is, "If person Y approaches boards and offers amount Z to run Ad X; and Ad X is not obscene or libellous or in violation of any other pertinent law; Should boards.ie run the ad?"

Item 2. I'm saying take the money. If you run ads, and you refuse a subset based on whether or not you believe them, you're not being independent or objective or fair or even smart.

Item 3. BB, you've managed to argue for two pages with someone who thinks the contents of Lisbon are a Good Thing. Well done. Keep it up and Libertas will be very happy at the huge number of No votes.

Item 4. The Libertas ad is only wrong in your own subjective opinion. There is no law saying that it is physically impossible to keep a commissioner in the event of a No vote. It is overwhelmingly unlikely, not impossible that we could keep the commissioner in the event of a No vote. It is impossible to keep the commissioner in the event of a Yes vote because that's the text of the treaty. So Yes = impossible to keep him; No = overwhelmingly unlikely to keep him. NOT THE SAME BLOODY THING.

Sheesh. You try to make an unpopular example around here and see what happens? :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Sparks wrote: »

Item 4. The Libertas ad is only wrong in your own subjective opinion. There is no law saying that it is physically impossible to keep a commissioner in the event of a No vote. It is overwhelmingly unlikely, not impossible that we could keep the commissioner in the event of a No vote.

No, Sparks, the ad is wrong by any measure of reasonableness.

If there was an ad saying "If you vote Fine Gael, Enda Kenny will eat your hamster" - it is overwhelmingly unlikely, not impossible that the bould Enda would actually do such a thing.

Objectively, reasonably: the ad would be dishonest, misleading and untrue - which the Libertas ad is.

DeVore

I believe I asked that question about 3 pages back (the "what do we do if some people believe an ad is dishonest while others dont").

I've posed several questions but to be honest, I'm beginning to get a complex about posting here cos like on the surfing thread, no one seems to want to take up my points, despite me being the only one on the thread who can actually effect a policy change

DeV.

Rb

oscarBravo wrote: »

First, that's your interpretation of its meaning. Second, how do you know bad things won't happen if we vote no?

I'd call it just reading between the lines tbh.

Regarding the bad things, well what can they do? Boot us out of the EU? I can't see them evicting us from the EU for not approving some piece of legislation, can you imagine the reaction if they did? What would that say about the EU if they did?