Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
vaccinations/health care and product promotions.
Options
Replies
-
paperpudding wrote: »Riverside, no you didn't, I see I mixed you up with another poster - I posted that I didn't know what it meant and poster did not clarify.
Sorry. There are a lot of posts in this thread and it's easy to miss one.
We have a phrase, vote with your dollars, which translates to consumerism has replaced civic participation.
It's unfathomable that most Americans would have a problem with a large company giving things away for a good cause and to promote themselves. As you've seen in this thread, those of us who complain at all complain about how this "discriminates against" people who choose not to get vaccinated.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Clarification: Corporations have no feelings on an issue. I believe that *individuals* within a corporation, those making specific donation decisions, can have genuine feelings on an issue and that a case can be made that public positions and actions on an issue by a corporation can sometimes serve a positive purpose.
It's also true that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. Henry Ford tried to increase his workers' pay, was sued by shareholders, and lost. It's more complicated now and there are corps who's stated purpose extends beyond profit. And I'm not disputing your point about corporations not having feelings, but they do have interests they are obliged to pursue and act with purpose. And that purpose is generally not altruism.
With all that said, I enjoyed my time at Microsoft working to improve the lives of people with disabilities, for a company that changed from being the devil to leading its industry to more ethical practices.
Absolutely -- I wasn't at all trying to argue that a corporation doesn't have those obligations. Any corporation that had altruism as a primary motivation would be a terrible investment. We have other organizational structures for that type of activity.
I was just arguing that within that structure, a corporation that also attempts actions that go beyond pure profit motive aren't necessarily acting completely cynically.
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Clarification: Corporations have no feelings on an issue. I believe that *individuals* within a corporation, those making specific donation decisions, can have genuine feelings on an issue and that a case can be made that public positions and actions on an issue by a corporation can sometimes serve a positive purpose.
It's also true that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. Henry Ford tried to increase his workers' pay, was sued by shareholders, and lost. It's more complicated now and there are corps who's stated purpose extends beyond profit. And I'm not disputing your point about corporations not having feelings, but they do have interests they are obliged to pursue and act with purpose. And that purpose is generally not altruism.
With all that said, I enjoyed my time at Microsoft working to improve the lives of people with disabilities, for a company that changed from being the devil to leading its industry to more ethical practices.
Absolutely -- I wasn't at all trying to argue that a corporation doesn't have those obligations. Any corporation that had altruism as a primary motivation would be a terrible investment. We have other organizational structures for that type of activity.
I was just arguing that within that structure, a corporation that also attempts actions that go beyond pure profit motive aren't necessarily acting completely cynically.
I would totally agree with this assertion. We have local businesses (not giant corporations but profit driven businesses none the less) that will have 'charity' nights. The purpose of these nights are to support local charities - homeless shelters, food banks, etc - and the way that the events are normally run is that all PROCEEDS (not profits but proceeds) that are taken in during the event are passed on to the charities. The business pays for all overhead (salaries, food, rent, etc) associated with the event. I have a hard time trying to link any of these type of events to some 'cynical' reasoning on the part of the local businesses.2 -
So here's my hypothetical from above again. I'm really curious how those bothered by the KK thing would respond, as I think it's basically the same except the promoted product is considered healthy:
Well, let's say Kroger or Safeway offered a free $10 certificate for fruits and veg for anyone who showed they got their annual check up, to encourage that. Would that be bad? I don't think there would be any backlash in the US although there might well be complaints from some groups who would claim it was classist, etc, since we don't have universal health care. If there would be a backlash in AU, then that's definitely a difference. (And I see nothing wrong with such a promotion personally.)
Or, for vaccine-focused, how about Starbucks giving out a free waters in containers that say "I'm Vaccinated, Are You?" -- I might not want one since it seems snotty given that it's still hard to get appointments, but let's say this is in May.
I would have no problem with either of those, and see them as basically the same as the KK example.
I can't imagine such a voucher thing working here, logistics of enforcing fruit veg purchase at the shop end - but no, probably not same level of backlash - it is soft approach at point of sale, not an widely advertised campaign irelevant to the health promotion.
Like when we gave away free apples in a Bowel Health promotion - the basket did say donated by WW, and they were free to anyone coming in to the surgery, no strings attached and the give away product was relevant to the health promotion - ie eating more fibre.
Water - not sure about the I'm vaccinated, are you? message - but water given away to people whilst in waiting room - yes i think that would be ok.
Is basically same as drinks and food given to people after blood donating - the juice boxes etc have labels, so advertising their brand - but soft point of sale appraoch and relevant to the the health activity - ie rehydrating after blood donation.
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Clarification: Corporations have no feelings on an issue. I believe that *individuals* within a corporation, those making specific donation decisions, can have genuine feelings on an issue and that a case can be made that public positions and actions on an issue by a corporation can sometimes serve a positive purpose.
It's also true that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. Henry Ford tried to increase his workers' pay, was sued by shareholders, and lost. It's more complicated now and there are corps who's stated purpose extends beyond profit. And I'm not disputing your point about corporations not having feelings, but they do have interests they are obliged to pursue and act with purpose. And that purpose is generally not altruism.
With all that said, I enjoyed my time at Microsoft working to improve the lives of people with disabilities, for a company that changed from being the devil to leading its industry to more ethical practices.
Absolutely -- I wasn't at all trying to argue that a corporation doesn't have those obligations. Any corporation that had altruism as a primary motivation would be a terrible investment. We have other organizational structures for that type of activity.
I was just arguing that within that structure, a corporation that also attempts actions that go beyond pure profit motive aren't necessarily acting completely cynically.
I would totally agree with this assertion. We have local businesses (not giant corporations but profit driven businesses none the less) that will have 'charity' nights. The purpose of these nights are to support local charities - homeless shelters, food banks, etc - and the way that the events are normally run is that all PROCEEDS (not profits but proceeds) that are taken in during the event are passed on to the charities. The business pays for all overhead (salaries, food, rent, etc) associated with the event. I have a hard time trying to link any of these type of events to some 'cynical' reasoning on the part of the local businesses.
Businesses do gain, potentially: People who support the charitable cause may come to the event, decide they like the products/foods, and become patrons. Good will is created. There is extra publicity (either paid publicity or social media shared stuff) that mentions the business and perhaps creates positive feelings about it in those who see the advertising even if they don't attend.
I'm still not arguing that businesses do this for cynical reasons, or that they get more out of it than they put in. But they can be getting benefits from doing it, beyond the gratification of doing something generous. (And I think that's totally fine!) It's kind of unavoidable that they benefit *somewhat*, unless they support something deeply unpopular (or similar odd cases).
3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Clarification: Corporations have no feelings on an issue. I believe that *individuals* within a corporation, those making specific donation decisions, can have genuine feelings on an issue and that a case can be made that public positions and actions on an issue by a corporation can sometimes serve a positive purpose.
It's also true that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. Henry Ford tried to increase his workers' pay, was sued by shareholders, and lost. It's more complicated now and there are corps who's stated purpose extends beyond profit. And I'm not disputing your point about corporations not having feelings, but they do have interests they are obliged to pursue and act with purpose. And that purpose is generally not altruism.
With all that said, I enjoyed my time at Microsoft working to improve the lives of people with disabilities, for a company that changed from being the devil to leading its industry to more ethical practices.
Absolutely -- I wasn't at all trying to argue that a corporation doesn't have those obligations. Any corporation that had altruism as a primary motivation would be a terrible investment. We have other organizational structures for that type of activity.
I was just arguing that within that structure, a corporation that also attempts actions that go beyond pure profit motive aren't necessarily acting completely cynically.
In the interest of terminological clarity, or perhaps pedantry (pick one 😉), I'd observe that a lot of charities (in the US) actually *are* corporations. Not all corporations are profit-making, not all have shareholders, etc.
Not all charities are corporations, but it's not an unusual form for them to take.1 -
paperpudding wrote: »So here's my hypothetical from above again. I'm really curious how those bothered by the KK thing would respond, as I think it's basically the same except the promoted product is considered healthy:
Well, let's say Kroger or Safeway offered a free $10 certificate for fruits and veg for anyone who showed they got their annual check up, to encourage that. Would that be bad? I don't think there would be any backlash in the US although there might well be complaints from some groups who would claim it was classist, etc, since we don't have universal health care. If there would be a backlash in AU, then that's definitely a difference. (And I see nothing wrong with such a promotion personally.)
Or, for vaccine-focused, how about Starbucks giving out a free waters in containers that say "I'm Vaccinated, Are You?" -- I might not want one since it seems snotty given that it's still hard to get appointments, but let's say this is in May.
I would have no problem with either of those, and see them as basically the same as the KK example.
I can't imagine such a voucher thing working here, logistics of enforcing fruit veg purchase at the shop end - but no, probably not same level of backlash - it is soft approach at point of sale, not an widely advertised campaign irelevant to the health promotion.
Like when we gave away free apples in a Bowel Health promotion - the basket did say donated by WW, and they were free to anyone coming in to the surgery, no strings attached and the give away product was relevant to the health promotion - ie eating more fibre.
I can't claim to know what the US public would think, but that seems *more* objectionable, to me personally: They're marketing right there in the health care facility, and the health care facility is allowing the provider's "advertising". (I wouldn't complain about it in practice - does me no harm - but I might eye-roll a little.)
In the KK instance, it has nothing to do with the health care initiative directly, it's strictly a deal between KK and the KK customer. The health care facility or initiative isn't directly involved at all. I do think it's more similar to giving free meals (or other products) to veterans on Veterans' Day, which is super common here; huge numbers of businesses do it.
Water - not sure about the I'm vaccinated, are you? message - but water given away to people whilst in waiting room - yes i think that would be ok.
Is basically same as drinks and food given to people after blood donating - the juice boxes etc have labels, so advertising their brand - but soft point of sale appraoch and relevant to the the health activity - ie rehydrating after blood donation.
2 -
paperpudding wrote: »So here's my hypothetical from above again. I'm really curious how those bothered by the KK thing would respond, as I think it's basically the same except the promoted product is considered healthy:
Well, let's say Kroger or Safeway offered a free $10 certificate for fruits and veg for anyone who showed they got their annual check up, to encourage that. Would that be bad? I don't think there would be any backlash in the US although there might well be complaints from some groups who would claim it was classist, etc, since we don't have universal health care. If there would be a backlash in AU, then that's definitely a difference. (And I see nothing wrong with such a promotion personally.)
Or, for vaccine-focused, how about Starbucks giving out a free waters in containers that say "I'm Vaccinated, Are You?" -- I might not want one since it seems snotty given that it's still hard to get appointments, but let's say this is in May.
I would have no problem with either of those, and see them as basically the same as the KK example.
I can't imagine such a voucher thing working here, logistics of enforcing fruit veg purchase at the shop end - but no, probably not same level of backlash - it is soft approach at point of sale, not an widely advertised campaign irelevant to the health promotion.
Like when we gave away free apples in a Bowel Health promotion - the basket did say donated by WW, and they were free to anyone coming in to the surgery, no strings attached and the give away product was relevant to the health promotion - ie eating more fibre.
Water - not sure about the I'm vaccinated, are you? message - but water given away to people whilst in waiting room - yes i think that would be ok.
Is basically same as drinks and food given to people after blood donating - the juice boxes etc have labels, so advertising their brand - but soft point of sale appraoch and relevant to the the health activity - ie rehydrating after blood donation.
Just to be clear, both of the examples I gave here (the grocery store and the Starbucks) were at point of sale (the stores) and not where the vaccinations are given, because that's what the Krispy Kreme thing is -- no one is giving out donuts at vaccine sites (at least, no national chain, and no one I've heard of). Instead, you can go to a KK store that is participating and they give you a donut. At least, that's what I've read.3 -
Yes I understand what Kk is doing.
No one is giving out water at vaccination sites here either - but that was your hypothetical, wasn't it?
Bottled water and juice boxes are given out at blood donation sites though _ which neither I nor anyone else objects to - it isn't explicit or media advertising and is relevant to the health activity.
No I wouldn't say our apples give away was Ww marketing right there in the surgery although was indirect promotion by saying apples were donated by WW
Also WW did not initiate it - we were running a promotion and asked if they would contribute.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Clarification: Corporations have no feelings on an issue. I believe that *individuals* within a corporation, those making specific donation decisions, can have genuine feelings on an issue and that a case can be made that public positions and actions on an issue by a corporation can sometimes serve a positive purpose.
It's also true that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. Henry Ford tried to increase his workers' pay, was sued by shareholders, and lost. It's more complicated now and there are corps who's stated purpose extends beyond profit. And I'm not disputing your point about corporations not having feelings, but they do have interests they are obliged to pursue and act with purpose. And that purpose is generally not altruism.
With all that said, I enjoyed my time at Microsoft working to improve the lives of people with disabilities, for a company that changed from being the devil to leading its industry to more ethical practices.
Absolutely -- I wasn't at all trying to argue that a corporation doesn't have those obligations. Any corporation that had altruism as a primary motivation would be a terrible investment. We have other organizational structures for that type of activity.
I was just arguing that within that structure, a corporation that also attempts actions that go beyond pure profit motive aren't necessarily acting completely cynically.
In the interest of terminological clarity, or perhaps pedantry (pick one 😉), I'd observe that a lot of charities (in the US) actually *are* corporations. Not all corporations are profit-making, not all have shareholders, etc.
Not all charities are corporations, but it's not an unusual form for them to take.
Yes, great point. Thanks!0 -
paperpudding wrote: »Yes I understand what Kk is doing.
No one is giving out water at vaccination sites here either - but that was your hypothetical, wasn't it?
No, my hypothetical was Starbucks giving away free water bottles with some kind of vaccine-related slogan to people who showed proof of vaccination at their stores. Both hypotheticals were designed to be basically the same but for the product given away (and in the grocery store example, the specific health care action that is being encouraged).
In the US, I would compare this to, say, KK giving a free donut on election day (again, at their stores) or the day after to anyone who showed their "I voted" sticker, and just as I have no issue with this, I would have no issue with that, although donuts have 0 to do with voting.
Yes, the point on KK's part would probably be to get their name associated with public spiritedness, as well as to get people to come to the store for the free thing, but as others have said, I don't see the effort to get positive press/social capital by associating their name with encouraging voting or a public health campaign any different than sponsoring a race for some kind of cancer or donating stuff to a charity auction or a million other such things that are common.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »Yes I understand what Kk is doing.
No one is giving out water at vaccination sites here either - but that was your hypothetical, wasn't it?
No, my hypothetical was Starbucks giving away free water bottles with some kind of vaccine-related slogan to people who showed proof of vaccination at their stores. Both hypotheticals were designed to be basically the same but for the product given away (and in the grocery store example, the specific health care action that is being encouraged).
In the US, I would compare this to, say, KK giving a free donut on election day (again, at their stores) or the day after to anyone who showed their "I voted" sticker, and just as I have no issue with this, I would have no issue with that, although donuts have 0 to do with voting.
Yes, the point on KK's part would probably be to get their name associated with public spiritedness, as well as to get people to come to the store for the free thing, but as others have said, I don't see the effort to get positive press/social capital by associating their name with encouraging voting or a public health campaign any different than sponsoring a race for some kind of cancer or donating stuff to a charity auction or a million other such things that are common.
This specific type of giveaway is illegal in the U.S. (for federal elections), although it happens anyway and I don't think the laws are often enforced.
https://www.eater.com/2016/11/8/13561804/election-day-free-food-for-voting-illegal
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Yes I understand what Kk is doing.
No one is giving out water at vaccination sites here either - but that was your hypothetical, wasn't it?
No, my hypothetical was Starbucks giving away free water bottles with some kind of vaccine-related slogan to people who showed proof of vaccination at their stores. Both hypotheticals were designed to be basically the same but for the product given away (and in the grocery store example, the specific health care action that is being encouraged).
In the US, I would compare this to, say, KK giving a free donut on election day (again, at their stores) or the day after to anyone who showed their "I voted" sticker, and just as I have no issue with this, I would have no issue with that, although donuts have 0 to do with voting.
Yes, the point on KK's part would probably be to get their name associated with public spiritedness, as well as to get people to come to the store for the free thing, but as others have said, I don't see the effort to get positive press/social capital by associating their name with encouraging voting or a public health campaign any different than sponsoring a race for some kind of cancer or donating stuff to a charity auction or a million other such things that are common.
This specific type of giveaway is illegal in the U.S. (for federal elections), although it happens anyway and I don't think the laws are often enforced.
https://www.eater.com/2016/11/8/13561804/election-day-free-food-for-voting-illegal
Interesting. I do think I've seen it less than I used to, but didn't think to check the status. It makes sense.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »Yes I understand what Kk is doing.
No one is giving out water at vaccination sites here either - but that was your hypothetical, wasn't it?
No, my hypothetical was Starbucks giving away free water bottles with some kind of vaccine-related slogan to people who showed proof of vaccination at their stores. Both hypotheticals were designed to be basically the same but for the product given away (and in the grocery store example, the specific health care action that is being encouraged).
In the US, I would compare this to, say, KK giving a free donut on election day (again, at their stores) or the day after to anyone who showed their "I voted" sticker, and just as I have no issue with this, I would have no issue with that, although donuts have 0 to do with voting.
Yes, the point on KK's part would probably be to get their name associated with public spiritedness, as well as to get people to come to the store for the free thing, but as others have said, I don't see the effort to get positive press/social capital by associating their name with encouraging voting or a public health campaign any different than sponsoring a race for some kind of cancer or donating stuff to a charity auction or a million other such things that are common.
Ok, I misunderstood the hypothetical free water scenario then.
I was thinking more like the free drinks one gets on site after blood donation
I think Starbucks offering free water with a vaccine slogan would be same as the real Kk scenario , not sure what we are suppossed to see differently - and like the Kk one it isn't just to get positive press and name awareness , it is, like most freebie promotions, to get more sales. Ie you buy other things plus take the free thing.
I see sponsoring a race or donating to an auction as different - there is no direct increase in sales and usually the organisation has approached the company and the organisation receives something tangible, and doesn't put themselves as the mouthpiece of a govt health message.
I don't see how free food for voting ( just voting, not endorsing any candidate) is any different to free food for vaccinating- yet interestingly that is illegal.
Why would you accept one and not the other - both are companies giving freebies piggy-backed to a govt social or health message
( cannot do direct comparison to here because voting is a compulsory responsibility here not an optional thing people get enticements for)1 -
paperpudding wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Yes I understand what Kk is doing.
No one is giving out water at vaccination sites here either - but that was your hypothetical, wasn't it?
No, my hypothetical was Starbucks giving away free water bottles with some kind of vaccine-related slogan to people who showed proof of vaccination at their stores. Both hypotheticals were designed to be basically the same but for the product given away (and in the grocery store example, the specific health care action that is being encouraged).
In the US, I would compare this to, say, KK giving a free donut on election day (again, at their stores) or the day after to anyone who showed their "I voted" sticker, and just as I have no issue with this, I would have no issue with that, although donuts have 0 to do with voting.
Yes, the point on KK's part would probably be to get their name associated with public spiritedness, as well as to get people to come to the store for the free thing, but as others have said, I don't see the effort to get positive press/social capital by associating their name with encouraging voting or a public health campaign any different than sponsoring a race for some kind of cancer or donating stuff to a charity auction or a million other such things that are common.
Ok, I misunderstood the hypothetical free water scenario then.
I was thinking more like the free drinks one gets on site after blood donation
I think Starbucks offering free water with a vaccine slogan would be same as the real Kk scenario , not sure what we are suppossed to see differently - and like the Kk one it isn't just to get positive press and name awareness , it is, like most freebie promotions, to get more sales. Ie you buy other things plus take the free thing.
I see sponsoring a race or donating to an auction as different - there is no direct increase in sales and usually the organisation has approached the company and the organisation receives something tangible, and doesn't put themselves as the mouthpiece of a govt health message.
I don't see how free food for voting ( just voting, not endorsing any candidate) is any different to free food for vaccinating- yet interestingly that is illegal.
Why would you accept one and not the other - both are companies giving freebies piggy-backed to a govt social or health message
( cannot do direct comparison to here because voting is a compulsory responsibility here not an optional thing people get enticements for)
In US history, there is a historical tradition of electoral corruption involving expansive food and alcohol giveaways for voters. Although it has been years and years since such things have been a feature of American life, I imagine these laws are a reaction to that history. I don't think the average American would think it inappropriate for a Starbucks to give someone a coffee for wearing an "I voted" sticker, but when looking at US laws it's important to recognize that they don't always represent the average sentiments of the American people on a particular issue.
Although the corruption is a thing of the past, there is a current issue of a state making it illegal to even give water to someone who is waiting in a long line to vote (Georgia). I personally don't believe that this law is much a response to legitimate fears of corruption as it is an attempt to make it unpleasant for people in certain districts to vote . . . but that's a whole other issue.
3 -
paperpudding wrote: »Ok, I misunderstood the hypothetical free water scenario then.
I was thinking more like the free drinks one gets on site after blood donation
I think Starbucks offering free water with a vaccine slogan would be same as the real Kk scenario , not sure what we are suppossed to see differently - and like the Kk one it isn't just to get positive press and name awareness , it is, like most freebie promotions, to get more sales. Ie you buy other things plus take the free thing.
Yes, I also think it is the same, which was my point, and expected you would see it similarly. Some people were suggesting the issue was that donuts were "not healthy" so I wanted to take that aspect out of it.
I wouldn't see anything wrong with Starbucks having a promotion that also encouraged vaccination in that way. I don't really even understand what is supposed to be bad about it, despite your explanations, other than if it's perceived to be unfair to those unable to be vaccinated. It doesn't seem bad to me for a company to encourage positive health behaviors, even if they (of course) also expect some benefit as a result.I see sponsoring a race or donating to an auction as different - there is no direct increase in sales and usually the organisation has approached the company and the organisation receives something tangible, and doesn't put themselves as the mouthpiece of a govt health message.
I see this as not meaningfully different -- the company hopes additional sales will come out of it (it's not uncommon for coupons or such to be included, in fact) -- and there's no organization in the vaccine/KK example to receive something tangible (the entity responsible for the vaccines is ultimately the gov't).I don't see how free food for voting ( just voting, not endorsing any candidate) is any different to free food for vaccinating- yet interestingly that is illegal.
Why would you accept one and not the other - both are companies giving freebies piggy-backed to a govt social or health message
The problem with the free stuff for voting (which is federally illegal, it is legal in many state/local elections) is that it's essentially paying people for voting which is too closely tied to paying people for voting in a certain way (which was a common form of corruption at one time). I don't really have a personal problem with it so long as it is rigidly non partisan and there's no hint of it being associated with one campaign or another, but I can accept an argument that that's hard to do as by group or location one can easily predict what candidate is likely to benefit (so companies doing it in big cities are in essence acting to benefit one candidate, and those doing it in rural areas are acting to benefit another, and same with the type of product in question in many cases).0 -
paperpudding wrote: »( cannot do direct comparison to here because voting is a compulsory responsibility here not an optional thing people get enticements for)
I'm just curious... how on earth do you force people to vote?
0 -
This thread is pretty sad and when my turn to be vaccinated came up I could not get to the centre for mine quick enough. I was just grateful to have it.
And I can report to any and all conspiracy theorists that while my reception of 5G may have improved I am not yet dead.
I do not need to be bribed to vote either.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »( cannot do direct comparison to here because voting is a compulsory responsibility here not an optional thing people get enticements for)
I'm just curious... how on earth do you force people to vote?
People are fined for not voting. There are exemptions eg ill on the day, religious reasons.
0 -
You don't think it is a sorry state of affairs that in a country where people are entitled to a free vaccination, one that is being shown to be both safe and effective, they are having to be bribed with donuts to take it?0 -
paperpudding wrote: »( cannot do direct comparison to here because voting is a compulsory responsibility here not an optional thing people get enticements for)
I'm just curious... how on earth do you force people to vote?
The same way you force people to wear seat belts etc - you promote the message that it is a community responsibility and you fine people if they do not comply.1 -
You don't think it is a sorry state of affairs that in a country where people are entitled to a free vaccination, one that is being shown to be both safe and effective, they are having to be bribed with donuts to take it?
I highly, HIGHLY doubt a donut influences anyone to get the vaccine or not. It’s just an advertising promotion. The debate is about whether it is appropriate or not.6 -
paperpudding wrote: »Ok, I misunderstood the hypothetical free water scenario then.
I was thinking more like the free drinks one gets on site after blood donation
I think Starbucks offering free water with a vaccine slogan would be same as the real Kk scenario , not sure what we are suppossed to see differently - and like the Kk one it isn't just to get positive press and name awareness , it is, like most freebie promotions, to get more sales. Ie you buy other things plus take the free thing.
Yes, I also think it is the same, which was my point, and expected you would see it similarly. Some people were suggesting the issue was that donuts were "not healthy" so I wanted to take that aspect out of it.
I wouldn't see anything wrong with Starbucks having a promotion that also encouraged vaccination in that way. I don't really even understand what is supposed to be bad about it, despite your explanations, other than if it's perceived to be unfair to those unable to be vaccinated. It doesn't seem bad to me for a company to encourage positive health behaviors, even if they (of course) also expect some benefit as a result.I see sponsoring a race or donating to an auction as different - there is no direct increase in sales and usually the organisation has approached the company and the organisation receives something tangible, and doesn't put themselves as the mouthpiece of a govt health message.
I see this as not meaningfully different -- the company hopes additional sales will come out of it (it's not uncommon for coupons or such to be included, in fact) -- and there's no organization in the vaccine/KK example to receive something tangible (the entity responsible for the vaccines is ultimately the gov't).I don't see how free food for voting ( just voting, not endorsing any candidate) is any different to free food for vaccinating- yet interestingly that is illegal.
Why would you accept one and not the other - both are companies giving freebies piggy-backed to a govt social or health message
The problem with the free stuff for voting (which is federally illegal, it is legal in many state/local elections) is that it's essentially paying people for voting which is too closely tied to paying people for voting in a certain way (which was a common form of corruption at one time). I don't really have a personal problem with it so long as it is rigidly non partisan and there's no hint of it being associated with one campaign or another, but I can accept an argument that that's hard to do as by group or location one can easily predict what candidate is likely to benefit (so companies doing it in big cities are in essence acting to benefit one candidate, and those doing it in rural areas are acting to benefit another, and same with the type of product in question in many cases).
Picking up a couple of points.
Yes, my issue and what i believe would be the australian public's issue with the KK donuts was nothing to do with them being healthy or not - was surprised to see thread take that tangent as that was not my point at all
No the issue isnt that it is perceived to be unfair to those unable to be vaccinated (although I suppose there is that too) - but that it is inappropriate commercialisation/advertising piggy backing on to a health message.
By something tangible in the donating to auctions. sponsorship scenario - I mean the reciprient organisation -eg Childrens Cancer Fund, the local football club or whoever, receives the prizes or catering or whatever is donated or covered by sponsorship.
It is done at the request of the reciprient organisation and the donor does not become the mouthpiece of the Cancer Fund
Not sure if I explained that clearly.
Interestingly here I dont think there would be any issue with a group offering no strings, no electoral slogan free water or basic food at a voting venue - and indeed BBQ's selling food at voting venues to raise money for local sports clubs, local charities and such like is very common -so much so that the colloquial term "democracy sausage" refers to exactly that - sausage sandwiches sold at voting venues.
0 -
This thread is pretty sad and when my turn to be vaccinated came up I could not get to the centre for mine quick enough. I was just grateful to have it.
And I can report to any and all conspiracy theorists that while my reception of 5G may have improved I am not yet dead.
I do not need to be bribed to vote either.
Why is it sad? What is sad?
Nobody posting in it, as far as I could see, was against getting vaccinated
Nor was anyone suggesting any conspiracy theories - not sure where you are getting that from or why you are bringing it in
2 -
paperpudding wrote: »This thread is pretty sad and when my turn to be vaccinated came up I could not get to the centre for mine quick enough. I was just grateful to have it.
And I can report to any and all conspiracy theorists that while my reception of 5G may have improved I am not yet dead.
I do not need to be bribed to vote either.
Why is it sad? What is sad?
Nobody posting in it, as far as I could see, was against getting vaccinated
Nor was anyone suggesting any conspiracy theories - not sure where you are getting that from or why you are bringing it in
I have already answered the first question that in my last post. As for conspiracy theories, I admit I was making an assumption that's the reason people are not hammering down the door to get their jab without being bribed. If that is not the case then why are the bribes necessary?????
And to be clear - I was referring specifically to the discussion here re bribes, which IS sad. The bribes that is.... not the discussion.1 -
tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »
People are fined for not voting. There are exemptions eg ill on the day, religious reasons.paperpudding wrote: »The same way you force people to wear seat belts etc - you promote the message that it is a community responsibility and you fine people if they do not comply.
Interesting. Here you are encouraged to vote, it's your civic duty, etc but it's entirely voluntary. And I always have to produce proof of identity, age and residence, which some people in different circumstances just don't have.
Although I suppose anyone who had an objection to voting could always dodge the fine by showing up and simply turning in a spoiled or blank ballot (assuming you vote by secret ballot like we do).0 -
paperpudding wrote: »This thread is pretty sad and when my turn to be vaccinated came up I could not get to the centre for mine quick enough. I was just grateful to have it.
And I can report to any and all conspiracy theorists that while my reception of 5G may have improved I am not yet dead.
I do not need to be bribed to vote either.
Why is it sad? What is sad?
Nobody posting in it, as far as I could see, was against getting vaccinated
Nor was anyone suggesting any conspiracy theories - not sure where you are getting that from or why you are bringing it in
I have already answered the first question that in my last post. As for conspiracy theories, I admit I was making an assumption that's the reason people are not hammering down the door to get their jab without being bribed. If that is not the case then why are the bribes necessary?????
And to be clear - I was referring specifically to the discussion here re bribes, which IS sad. The bribes that is.... not the discussion.
A free donut is not a bribe. It’s just a corporation capitalizing on current events and looking for some news coverage.
Someone who believes conspiracy theories is not going to be influenced by a donut.4 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »This thread is pretty sad and when my turn to be vaccinated came up I could not get to the centre for mine quick enough. I was just grateful to have it.
And I can report to any and all conspiracy theorists that while my reception of 5G may have improved I am not yet dead.
I do not need to be bribed to vote either.
Why is it sad? What is sad?
Nobody posting in it, as far as I could see, was against getting vaccinated
Nor was anyone suggesting any conspiracy theories - not sure where you are getting that from or why you are bringing it in
I have already answered the first question that in my last post. As for conspiracy theories, I admit I was making an assumption that's the reason people are not hammering down the door to get their jab without being bribed. If that is not the case then why are the bribes necessary?????
And to be clear - I was referring specifically to the discussion here re bribes, which IS sad. The bribes that is.... not the discussion.
A free donut is not a bribe. It’s just a corporation capitalizing on current events and looking for some news coverage.
Someone who believes conspiracy theories is not going to be influenced by a donut.
Yes even me who started the thread and with whom most posters are disagreeing (that's fine, its been a interesting discussion) - does not see KK as being part of some conspiracy or donuts as influencing or bribing people to vaccinate.
and as has been pointed out ,one can get the free donut without being vaccinated.
1 -
tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »
People are fined for not voting. There are exemptions eg ill on the day, religious reasons.paperpudding wrote: »The same way you force people to wear seat belts etc - you promote the message that it is a community responsibility and you fine people if they do not comply.
Interesting. Here you are encouraged to vote, it's your civic duty, etc but it's entirely voluntary. And I always have to produce proof of identity, age and residence, which some people in different circumstances just don't have.
Although I suppose anyone who had an objection to voting could always dodge the fine by showing up and simply turning in a spoiled or blank ballot (assuming you vote by secret ballot like we do).
You do not have to have proof of identity - you just get your name and address (and DOB?? having mental blank about whether they ask for that) crossed off the voting list at the venue.
Yes, to be exact, voting is not compulsory - getting your name crossed off list and putting a voting slip in the box is. (or returning via postal vote if you are eligible to do that)
There is nothing to stop you putting in a blank or not filled in properly slip.
and of course there are exemptions - temporary ones if you have a medical emergency or go into early labour or something like that. And you can vote early or apply for postal vote if you have planned surgery, working on the day or something.
And permanant ones if you have dementia or an intellectual disability or suchlike.
Elections are always on a Saturday here - so most people are not working.
But big industrial sites, hospitals etc who have lots of shift workers will have voting venues on site.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.9K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 453 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.1K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions