"used" is a past tense word. It means that previously it happened. If you go back you will find I did quote you. You are incredibly silly for saying I didn't quote you.

“The commercial is significant because it was made into a commercial?” – You “quoting” me, ostensibly.

No, that is not at all what I’m saying. These are not my words. Do you know what quoting someone means? It doesn’t mean putting words in their mouth or misinterpreting what they are saying.

Correct, so please explain how the following is not saying that the commercial was evidence that it is a significant issue:

"The fact that such a thing is an issue in the first place to even warrant the need for a commercial, however insubstantial that need you consider it, is a problem."

Because you could omit the middle portion and it will still reflect my position the way I intended.

The fact that [kids being killed due to traffic violations] is an issue in the first place, is a problem with this world.

As I said the first time you “quoted” me and accused me with committing a tautological argument: ”I’m saying that the fact that children are killed, no matter how insignificant you consider the amount to be which would warrant a commercial, just the fact that anyone is killed due to negligence behind the wheel of a 45mph 2 ton missile, is a problem.”

"Regardless, someone considered it significant enough of an issue to afford it the infinitesimal amount of airtime."

Don't those both say that you can tell it is a significant issue because someone took the effort to create a commercial?

No. I’m not saying that ‘I can tell its significant because there’s a commercial.’ I’m saying I see the issue as significant, and apparently whoever made the commercial does as well. Subsequently, I admitted that I don’t actually know the intentions or views of the people who made the commercial. Like you correctly pointed out, they could have just made it as a CYA thing, could be, I don’t know.

No, you reasoned that the use of commercials is worthless, therefore any message in the commercial is worthless. "As are the appearance of commercials addressing this issue. So the chance that such a commercial is a “waste of time” is a statistical anomaly as well." You are the one who said that the commercial won't accomplish anything.

That was in response to your statement that children dying as a result of speeding violations is a statistical anomaly and your original statement where you said a commercial representing that issue is therefore a waste of time. I’m pointing out that both child deaths and commercials representing them are both statistical anomalies; suggesting that the amount of time “wasted” representing the issue is congruent with the amount of deaths. I said nothing on the subject of a commercial’s worth.

Who said it had to be significant to waste time? I said it was a waste of time and an issue that is insignificant, but you seem to want to argue about whether the waste of time is significant. Interesting.

Yes, it’s ridiculous. As is complaining of there being a small amount of commercials representing a small amount of deaths.

I was suggesting that a minute worth of commercial once every 6 months or so could be afforded to the death of a child every 6 months or so.

Oh, when you use flo it was proper, but when I use flo it isn't. Sure.

“You think preventing .008 child deaths a day is significant enough to make a commercial about?” - Cartman

Yes, far more significant than Flo and her car insurance. – coldfire.

I compared the issue at hand with car insurance, something that gets a lot of airtime for commercials. I believe that the issue is far more significant than car insurance. My reference to Flo in particular was an attempt to add some color, forgive me.

There are no inconsistencies here.

“You are going to use a tautological argument? The commercial is significant because it was made into a commercial? Doesn't that mean that Flo becomes super important?” - Cartman

Your use of the comparison here was inconsistent with what I was arguing, as I’ve already pointed out that I wasn’t using a tautological argument.

To everyone it is. You don't care about 99% of deaths around the world. If you search deep down you will realize I am right.

My presumed lack of caring only has an effect on those 99% of deaths’ importance as it pertains to me. I choose to believe that there are less selfish people in the world, but overall the species demonstrates what you claim.

In that case, speaking in terms of selfishness and lack of concern, I can see why you consider traffic related deaths in children to be insubstantial. Indeed, I posit that that is why it is an issue in the first place; selfishness and lack of concern.

You said the commercial won't be played frequently enough to be more than an anomaly:

"As are the appearance of commercials addressing this issue. So the chance that such a commercial is a “waste of time” is a statistical anomaly as well."

Read above for my indication of what this quote was in reference to. It wasn’t to say “the commercial won't be played frequently enough to be more than an anomaly.” Those are not my words.

Oh, now the backpeddling.

As I’ve stated, I’ve never agreed to or claimed that “the commercial will have no affect on anyone and won't save anyone.” Those are not my words. Stating my belief that media has a considerable effect on society is not backpeddling but a disclosure of my beliefs.

Sweet, back to the "it's significant because they made a commercial" argument. You are fucking awesome. "I never said them making a commercial makes it significant" ... "extrapolate the commercial to deduce the significance of what is in the commercial".

I was suggesting you reconsider your extrapolation when I said “I’d reconsider extrapolating on the commercials significance to deduce the significance of the commercial’s subject.”

Your words:

“you know that the commercial is insignificant, and I am just extrapolating to the idea that what the commercial is targeting must also be insignificant.”

It's your prerogative to respond, but I won’t promise to go on any further. I have no interest in continuing to defend my words from the ones you put in my mouth or the misinterpretations you have of them. This is obviously going nowhere.