Wring, would you care to respond to my post?
Seeing as Bricker and wring are on the same page, I’d say his posts are in the spirit of the thread, and enlightening if the person who made the original statement enters the thread.
wisernow’s drive-by was an one-time attempt at humor, foiled by poor coding (the message board equivalent of having to explain a joke).
You, on the other hand, have statements lined up and ready to fire off at board republicans, and you don’t give an airborne rodents buttocks where you fire them.
The only source that needs considering in this thread is the source of your posts.
I think saying no one is entitled to lie, is like saying no one is entitled to steal bread from a shop. They are generally true, but in cases of scavenging for food in New Orleans I expect most would say that the ‘right’ to eat outweighed the badness of stealing the bread.
I suspect that the legal framework dealing with this kind of lying is quite large. For example, as regards the example above, see the following from the website of the Massachusetts AG:
“(2) Deceptive Pricing. No claim or representation shall be made which represents or implies, in advertising or otherwise, that a product or service may be purchased for a specified price when such is not the case; or that a product or service is being offered for sale at a reduced price when such is not the case; or that such special or reduced price is to be in effect for a limited time only when such is not the case; or otherwise deceives purchasers or prospective purchasers with respect to the price of products or services offered for sale.” (Bolding mine).
Other states may have different regulations, but I would expect that consumer protection would generally be pretty expansive, human nature being what it is.
At that point, I think it becomes a matter of definition. For me, I have a hard time saying someone lied if they honestly thought they were telling the truth: the intent to deceive is a necessary component of a lie, as far as I’m concerned. But like I said, that’s a semantic difference: it’s certainly legitimate to consider the intent to deceive an optional component of lying.
Daniel
By whom? A more proper definition includes the elements of depriving another of property or rights through deception, and also an inherent advantage that the fraudulent party holds over the victim.
If you advertise the Bosda penis enlarger, I buy it, and it doesn’t work, caveat emptor. If you call me and persist into talking me into buying one, we are much closer to a legal definition of fraud.
Note: despite my example, my unité estimée simply couldn’t be any bigger without becoming a danger to others.
If you offer for sale something which doesn;t do what it’s name claims it will do, that looks like fraud to me, especialy if I can’t test it before buying it. I shouldn’t even have to ask, “Will this really enlarge my penis?” It’s like buying a thing in a sealed box labelled “CD player”, taking it home, and finding it won’t play CDs. The seller knows what’s in the box, and presumably should know what services it will perform.
If you think I’m wrong, then I’ve got a very nice bridge to sell you, already wrapped up in this sealed carton.
Funny that you cite the Massachusetts law. When I read the OP I was reminded of the fact that Kohl’s constantly advertises things that are never sold at full price as “on sale”. The Mass AG originally pursued this as a violation of the law. However, in 2004, he decided not to prosecute them after all:
I think you’re wrong. The difference is making a claim that can instantly and empirically be proven false, and making a claim that can be subjectively interpreted. The latter is the cornerstone of marketing misdirection.
Official response: what the fuck?
How is that in any way responsive to the issue I raised? Something may indeed be “oft defined” does not mean “always” and does not mean the reverse is true.
Well, calling something a “penis enlarger” is a claim that can empirically be tested, even if not instantly. So, if “penis enlargers” do not in fact enlarge penises, then calling them that is a lie and is part of a fraud to get money with a false claim.
Just to play devil’s advocate; would it be safe to say that the penis in question is larger than it was prior to vigorously applying the “enlarging” cream?
According to the Federal Trade Commision, the following rules apply:
Bolding mine (obviously). I think quite a few advertisers go more by whether or not the drawbacks are outweighed by the benefit to consumers than they do whether or not the ad is misleading. If they can point and say a majority of consumers are satisfied compared to the relatively few who complain, then they have fulfilled their promises.
Perhaps this example hits too close to home. Don’t worry little dude, maybe it hasn’t stopped growing yet.
Doubletalk.
Fraud is fraud.
False claims about an item for sale are fraud.
and we see now an idiot is an idiot. So?
Your low personal standards of honesty are not compensating for your less-than-imaginative Pitting techniques, Sunshine.
The act of deliberate, willful deception as to whether or not a product works is fraud, like it or no.
And, if no, a judge can adjuxst your bad boy attitude.
For clarification, I assume you are talking from a lay perspective. From a legal perspective, “false claims about an item for sale” are not necessarily fraud. Fraud requires more than mere falsity; generally, the falsity must be with respect to a material issue. In addition, fraud requires reliance. So merely making a false statement about something may not be fraud and, in fact, may not even be actionable.
Wouldn’t it also be dishonest to accuse someone of low standards of honesty, not because it has been shown to be true, but merely because they disagreed with you?
Recognizing that there is no legal requirement to be honest in certain circumstances does not make you dishonest. It does even mean you like the situation, just that you recognize the facts. But you should know that.
aww, don’t be so harsh on the guy, he seems to be having a difficult time ‘wrapping his mind around’ the concept that “some” does not mean “all” for example.