Would you accept this ad?

[2952-0-0]

Late last year a dating website which caters to disloyal husbands/wives offered to advertise on Toronto's streetcars. The agency refused, claiming that taking the ads reflects badly on the transit agency and that it is against community moral standards.

Nonetheless, the media uproar that followed caused a surge in hits to the website, which would have happened whether the ads were taken anyway. Plus, the agency would have earned ad revenue which it now does not earn.

So would you have taken the sponsorship from this website?

More info: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/12/11/toronto-ttc-ashley-madison-cheating.html

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Of course not. The transit agency made the right decision.

[Free Palestine]

People are going to cheat, regardless of that site.  But something just pisses me off about people who make money off of the misery of others.  The agency made the right decision.

[Platypus]

If it's facilitating people in breaking the law (however real or otherwise the validity of that law is), the agency has no business making it part of its business.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes, duh

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Nah, I would have taken an other one, just because I don't like that one.

By the way, the fact that people go clicking on the site doesn't necessarily mean they approve of it, just that they are curious.

[Holmes]

Probably.

Too bad this was going on during my exams, I wish I knew about it at the time. Not that I ride the TTC often.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Yes, definitely. Refusing to run the ad demonstrates intolerance & denies the transit agency the revenue that would have come with running the ad.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No I wouldn't. Apple rejected an app allowing the site to be easily used for the App Store btw, thankfully.

[Magic 8-Ball]

Probably not.  I don't think that a streetcar is the right place to spark a debate on fidelity and, for the record, would also oppose an ad affirming marriage as a sacred bond or whatever.

As for the financial issue, I doubt that the agency had trouble finding a replacement.

[dead0man]

Probably not for the reasons given by others.  I also agree with Magic 8-ball in that I doubt they had trouble finding a replacement ad.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

     Yes, definitely. Refusing to run the ad demonstrates intolerance & denies the transit agency the revenue that would have come with running the ad.

Well, the question was, 'if it was you, would accept the sponsor?'. Given that in that position there would certainly be other sponsors, money would still come, and anyways it isn't denying something to this agency because the question is made to you, then it's you the agency that decide to take the money or not, it isn't question about someone that would deprive the money to it.

And that's not intolerant, it's just a personal choice/taste, if you don't like such a thing does it makes you intolerant? It's exactly as if the site proposed the one money to put their ad in your sig, would say that refusing it is intolerant?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

And that's not intolerant, it's just a personal choice/taste, if you don't like such a thing does it makes you intolerant? It's exactly as if the site proposed the one money to put their ad in your sig, would say that refusing it is intolerant?

^^^^

PiT clearly has no idea what "intolerance" is.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Yes, definitely. Refusing to run the ad demonstrates intolerance & denies the transit agency the revenue that would have come with running the ad.

Well, the question was, 'if it was you, would accept the sponsor?'. Given that in that position there would certainly be other sponsors, money would still come, and anyways it isn't denying something to this agency because the question is made to you, then it's you the agency that decide to take the money or not, it isn't question about someone that would deprive the money to it.

And that's not intolerant, it's just a personal choice/taste, if you don't like such a thing does it makes you intolerant? It's exactly as if the site proposed the one money to put their ad in your sig, would say that refusing it is intolerant?

     So? I don't like such a thing, but if people want to do it it's absolutely none of my business. If they do in fact have enough sponsors that they can't accept all of them then that's perfectly fine, but it strikes me as profoundly prudish if they were to refuse to run such an ad at the cost of losing ad revenue.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

     Yes, definitely. Refusing to run the ad demonstrates intolerance & denies the transit agency the revenue that would have come with running the ad.

Well, the question was, 'if it was you, would accept the sponsor?'. Given that in that position there would certainly be other sponsors, money would still come, and anyways it isn't denying something to this agency because the question is made to you, then it's you the agency that decide to take the money or not, it isn't question about someone that would deprive the money to it.

And that's not intolerant, it's just a personal choice/taste, if you don't like such a thing does it makes you intolerant? It's exactly as if the site proposed the one money to put their ad in your sig, would say that refusing it is intolerant?

     So? I don't like such a thing, but if people want to do it it's absolutely none of my business. If they do in fact have enough sponsors that they can't accept all of them then that's perfectly fine, but it strikes me as profoundly prudish if they were to refuse to run such an ad at the cost of losing ad revenue.

No matter how prudish it would be, this is question of taste/preferences, and people are still allowed to have theirs, not a question of intolerance. Intolerance would be to plead for the interdiction of the ad, accepting it on your displaying is a totally different matter.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

When even I consider the ad in such poor taste that I would deny it that's saying something.

[Platypus]

The ad isn't in particularly poor taste, the issue here is that it is an active encouragement of law-breaking. Whatever your feelings on the law or the issue more broadly, a public transport agency has no business encouraging crime.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The ad isn't in particularly poor taste, the issue here is that it is an active encouragement of law-breaking. Whatever your feelings on the law or the issue more broadly, a public transport agency has no business encouraging crime.

The ad doesn't involve any illegal behavior though, unless you mean prohibited in a civil sense, I'm not sure how Canadian law covers adultery in divorce cases although I'll assume it's not unlike here.