For what?
It still exists afaik.
Advertisement
by Katganistan » Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:42 am
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:58 am
Katganistan wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Honestly? That's pushing it as it is. It was used to convince kids someone's watching their behaviour, but it's hardly worth the damage in parental credibility. And really, it'd be better to use surveillance cameras in youth centers and at schools and parks in case some kids are faking belief in Santa anyway.
BIG BROTHER.... I mean, Santa Claus.... is watching YOU.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Katganistan » Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:37 am
by Des-Bal » Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:49 am
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Ethel mermania » Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:13 am
by Des-Bal » Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:55 am
Ethel mermania wrote:
From the wiki
Geritol was the subject of years of investigation starting in 1959 by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In 1965, the FTC ordered the makers of Geritol to disclose that Geritol would relieve symptoms of tiredness only in persons who suffer from iron deficiency anemia, and that the vast majority of people who experience such symptoms do not have such a deficiency. Geritol's claims were discredited in court findings as "conduct amounted to gross negligence and bordered on recklessness," ruled as a false and misleading claim, and heavily penalized with fines totaling $812,000 ($4,335,739 in 2015 dollars),[7] the largest FTC fine up to that date (1973).[8][9] Although subsequent trials and appeals from 1965 to 1973 concluded that some of the FTC demands exceeded its authority, Geritol was already well known and continued to be the largest U.S. company selling iron and B vitamin supplement through 1979.
Since then, supplemental iron products, including Geritol, have been contraindicated because of concerns over hemochromatosis,[10][11] and serious questions raised in studies for men, postmenopausal women, and nonanemic patients with liver disease, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, or cancer.[12][13]
It killed people with heart issues.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Ethel mermania » Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:23 am
Des-Bal wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:
From the wiki
Geritol was the subject of years of investigation starting in 1959 by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In 1965, the FTC ordered the makers of Geritol to disclose that Geritol would relieve symptoms of tiredness only in persons who suffer from iron deficiency anemia, and that the vast majority of people who experience such symptoms do not have such a deficiency. Geritol's claims were discredited in court findings as "conduct amounted to gross negligence and bordered on recklessness," ruled as a false and misleading claim, and heavily penalized with fines totaling $812,000 ($4,335,739 in 2015 dollars),[7] the largest FTC fine up to that date (1973).[8][9] Although subsequent trials and appeals from 1965 to 1973 concluded that some of the FTC demands exceeded its authority, Geritol was already well known and continued to be the largest U.S. company selling iron and B vitamin supplement through 1979.
Since then, supplemental iron products, including Geritol, have been contraindicated because of concerns over hemochromatosis,[10][11] and serious questions raised in studies for men, postmenopausal women, and nonanemic patients with liver disease, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, or cancer.[12][13]
It killed people with heart issues.
It sounds like they didn't know that when they were advertising it.
by VoVoDoCo » Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:48 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Here's a better idea. Make false advertising a felony, now. Have the feds seize this money and destroy it, raising the value of everyone else's more legitimately earned money.
by Katganistan » Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:43 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:Des-Bal wrote:
It sounds like they didn't know that when they were advertising it.
That is an interesting question. At one point they definitely did know, I don't remember when they found out.
They always knew it was useless pap, that it was a product that sold because of the slogan as opposed to any real utility. But as to when they found out they were killing folks, I don't know.
by Ethel mermania » Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:57 pm
Katganistan wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:
That is an interesting question. At one point they definitely did know, I don't remember when they found out.
They always knew it was useless pap, that it was a product that sold because of the slogan as opposed to any real utility. But as to when they found out they were killing folks, I don't know.
It's still marketed. You can buy it today. Do a search on Amazon.
Also the same Wiki article says that the FDA overstepped their bounds on their demands to the makers of Geritol, and that it continued to sell big despite it all.
by Neanderthaland » Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:31 am
by Des-Bal » Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:33 am
Neanderthaland wrote:Sea Monkeys seems like a silly hill to die on.
Supplements that don't even necessarily contain what they say they do, or claim to be able cure diseases without medical evidence; that's far more worrisome.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Neanderthaland » Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:36 am
Des-Bal wrote:Neanderthaland wrote:Sea Monkeys seems like a silly hill to die on.
Supplements that don't even necessarily contain what they say they do, or claim to be able cure diseases without medical evidence; that's far more worrisome.
Those are also very unpopular for large companies. Flat out lying to your customers only makes sense if you're playing the short con.
by Des-Bal » Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:48 am
Neanderthaland wrote:They seem to mostly get away with it though.
I mean, the amount of vitamin C that's sold as a cold and flu remedy is staggering.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:41 am
by Forsher » Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:09 am
Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Person A buys product X from person B. Product X appears to be a scam. A sues B in a civil court, and gets his money back. No harm done by the end of it. I don't see what a criminal case could add that would make this situation better.
by Des-Bal » Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:36 am
Forsher wrote:
But you just explained?
It's folly to imagine that everyone who falls victim to things like false advertising...
- knows about their rights as a consumer
- is able to engage legal representation to assess the merits of the case
- is able to tide over the case prior to winning
- is actually right that the firm has been caught red-handed and will win the case, thus earning costs which will retroactively compensate for (3).
However, it's quite remarkable how much of modern society is built on the premise that our folly is a castle. It's also somewhat perverse to argue that we should hope a charitable hand reaches out to fight these sorts of cases. What kind of inefficiency is that I ask? A lot I answer.
Were these criminal cases then none of the above applies... although (1) somewhat more so. However, what this actually concludes is that the real question is whether criminalising much of civil law is the best solution not that making false advertising criminal is right... all we have is an argument that the current system is deeply problematic.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Imperium Sidhicum » Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:42 am
Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Person A buys product X from person B. Product X appears to be a scam. A sues B in a civil court, and gets his money back. No harm done by the end of it. I don't see what a criminal case could add that would make this situation better.
by Des-Bal » Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:46 am
Imperium Sidhicum wrote:
It would certainly make an example of the scammers and make any who might follow in their footsteps in the future think twice. I don't think some small-time crook who just wants to make some easy money would be overly keen on ending up in the slammer with a bunch of burly brutes looking to turn him out for company.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Forsher » Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:50 am
Des-Bal wrote:When we observe society we see that false advertising is not rampant. This leads to the assumption that something is fundamentally wrong with your theory or your understanding of the world in which that theory is founded. On closer inspection, every one of your points is based on fundamentally not understanding lawsuits.
1. Punitive damages often consider how likely a company is to get away with their inappropriate conduct but even if they didn't just by filing a complaint you're informing similarly situated people that you think the company's done something wrong and you think that it's worth legal redress.
2. Class Action Lawsuits are a thing and the strain they put on members of the class is much less than that faced by a singular plaintiff. The idea behind delaying is that if there's certainty you're going to waste their time and uncertainty that they're going to win they may give up and go away without you paying out a settlement. More importantly you don't have precedent on the books that in your exact situation you should lose. After the FIRST person succeeds on a cause of action there's no reason for a company to bother delaying when dealing with the exact same issue from a different person. They're not going away because they're definitely going to win and they're not going to settle for less than the previous award. Even worse, a judge may decide that because you're continuing to do this even MORE punitive damages are necessary to dissuade you.
It's also somewhat perverse to argue that we should hope a charitable hand reaches out to fight these sorts of cases. What kind of inefficiency is that I ask? A lot I answer.
3. Lawyers exist and their fee arrangements reflect all of these concerns. The way a contingent fee arrangement works is that if you don't win you don't pay. The idea is that the firm invests money into your case and then gets a payout after they win. They take the case because they think they can win or because they think they can secure a settlement that's just as good. If they don't take the case it's because they can't win or get a settlement which really just means the company isn't actually engaged false advertising.
Civil litigation is doing it's job.
by Des-Bal » Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:24 am
Forsher wrote:
Not at all. As you somewhat seem to grasp, I'm not talking about false advertising, not really. In that specific case, the bad publicity is ruinous, the offence obvious enough and the victims need only be one and wealthy enough...
To my knowledge, punitive damages are neither desirable nor frequently awarded. They have absolutely nothing to do with paying costs, which is the theoretical "accessibility" mechanism. They have even less to do with anything I wrote.
Yes... I pretty obviously dismissed this argument. In fact, I called it perverse.It's also somewhat perverse to argue that we should hope a charitable hand reaches out to fight these sorts of cases. What kind of inefficiency is that I ask? A lot I answer.
Have you commented on any of that? No. Therefore, it's still perverse.
Both problems with the above at once. It also completely fails to understand points 1, 2 and 3.
Shockingly I, too, know these basic talking points from literally every episode of any show with lawyers in it.
Your defence of it isn't.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Katganistan » Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:00 am
Neanderthaland wrote:Sea Monkeys seems like a silly hill to die on.
Supplements that don't even necessarily contain what they say they do, or claim to be able cure diseases without medical evidence; that's far more worrisome.
by Katganistan » Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:04 am
Forsher wrote:Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Person A buys product X from person B. Product X appears to be a scam. A sues B in a civil court, and gets his money back. No harm done by the end of it. I don't see what a criminal case could add that would make this situation better.
But you just explained?
It's folly to imagine that everyone who falls victim to things like false advertising...
- knows about their rights as a consumer
- is able to engage legal representation to assess the merits of the case
- is able to tide over the case prior to winning
- is actually right that the firm has been caught red-handed and will win the case, thus earning costs which will retroactively compensate for (3).
However, it's quite remarkable how much of modern society is built on the premise that our folly is a castle. It's also somewhat perverse to argue that we should hope a charitable hand reaches out to fight these sorts of cases. What kind of inefficiency is that I ask? A lot I answer.
Were these criminal cases then none of the above applies... although (1) somewhat more so. However, what this actually concludes is that the real question is whether criminalising much of civil law is the best solution not that making false advertising criminal is right... all we have is an argument that the current system is deeply problematic.
by Valentine Z » Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:11 am
♪ If you are reading my sig, I want you to have the best day ever ! You are worth it, do not let anyone get you down ! ♪
Glory to De Geweldige Sierlijke Katachtige Utopia en Zijne Autonome Machten ov Valentine Z !
(✿◠‿◠) ☆ \(^_^)/ ☆
♡ Issues Thread ♡ Photography Stuff ♡ Project: Save F7. ♡ Stats Analysis ♡
♡ The Sixty! ♡ Valentian Stories! ♡ Gwen's Adventures! ♡
• Never trouble trouble until trouble troubles you.
• World Map is a cat playing with Australia.
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:28 am
Valentine Z wrote:It's not exactly a felony. I mean, sure, it's falsely advertised, but do you realise that it does have a few good outcomes, to my knowledge.
1) They're novelty toys. Like, in its heydays, you can tell your friends that you have a X-ray glasses, before they realise that it's a fake. It's a practical joke, not so much as false advert.
2) Moral of the story? Don't believe everything you see on TV! Kids can learn this if they finally realised that the sea monkeys, instant money magic tricks, and X-ray glasses are load of baloney.
3) It's not big enough to be a felon, in my opinion. It's just $1 to $10 loss, nothing too big. If you're advertising a $1500 weight-loss pill that "promises 5 kg loss in 1 week" (but does nothing), then you will have trouble.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Benuty, Europa Undivided, Filonian State, Free Land Nation, Heldervin, Infected Mushroom, Netouere, Nu Elysium, Senkaku, The Apollonian Systems, Tritaria, Uminaku
Advertisement