alpha_dk said:
1) You're flat out wrong. As I am assuming you've never done yoga, I will just tell you to try it sometime before you pass judgement. Chances are, if you do try it and you don't goof around, the next day you will be more sore then you would be from rowing a canoe for a mile. Until you have a clue what you're talking about, I would recommend giving up on this argument. I'll cede that there are things that yoga doesn't do for you, much like there are things that running doesn't do for you, and (insert name of other exercise regimen) doesn't do for you. Used as part of a healthy lifestyle, Yoga is very helpful to many parts of being fit, many of which are the opposite of what running does for you. For example, if you are an amateur runner, you may not know that you should stretch afterwards, and so your flexibility will suffer. Yoga, on the other hand, is all about tone and flexibility, so it will get you less buffed but more toned than many other workouts. Wii-Fit =/= Yoga . I'm fuly aware you need a range of exercises and workouts to be able to achieve all round health and fiteness. I think Yoga Instructor ( or what ever you call them) wouldn't even recomend Wii-Fit as your main source of Yoga work out. 2) Since you are apparently too lazy to actually do a google search, here is citiation for his claim about KFC: http://www.slate.com/id/2090861 He said "KFC was advertised as a health food". that's different from "fried chicken can be part of a healthy, balanced diet" and quotes the company's executive vice president of "marketing and food innovation" as saying: "With more and more Americans on diets and increasingly health-conscious, we thought it was important to get this information to consumers so they can judge for themselves how to make KFC part of their healthy lifestyle." Forgive me for not researchning every single thing he said and assuming it to mean exactly what he said it did. KFC would get sued the to hell if they advertised it as healthy food. 3)"I probably know far more about advertising law than you do , I study LAW." You apparently don't study law very often if you aren't aware of the egrigious claims people are allowed to make. Even if we assume WiiFit contains no benefits, which we've already established is a false assumption, then it gets down to what they claim in the commercial. For example: ANY 'male enhancement' ad ever. Dell Sued for false advertising http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4785641.stm Yogurt maker sued for false advertising http://www.woai.com/entertainment/story.aspx?content_id=7b9a8e5d-e186-4167-899e-b008fd7f7176 Dannon sued for false advertising http://food.propeller.com/story/2008/02/23/dannon-lawsuit-false-advertising-or-smart-marketing/ Company's sued over false weight loss claims http://news.sizenet.com/showdoc.asp?id=969 The reason those male enhancement ads such as Hair growth , Muscles builder etc can't be sued is because it's as hard to proove something like this is fake as it is to disprove it. As long as nintendo don't advertise Wii-Fit as a viable way to get fit they'll avoid getting their asses kicked in a court of law. On a related note, appeal to authority as an argument really only works if you have actual authority in the matter. It also helps if you provide evidence instead of just claiming authority.
I hope i've provided enough evidence :) l, Bai |
