What's the woman's perspective on Coca Cola?

[bigfield]

I tried buying Mexican Coke online (much expensive!) but when it arrived it was in powdered form. There were no directions so I tried adding a tablespoon of it to a cup of water.

It tasted awful but...wow. The adverts full of people drinking suddenly make more sense.

 

[Metaphor]

On the contrary. After careful reflection and examination of the facts, I remain confident that my view is correct.

You have adduced no facts to examine. You made an assertion -- that nobody would like the taste of carbonated drinks without advertising.

This assertion appears to be based partly on the fact that you don't like carbonated drinks, and partly on an egomanic refusal to entertain that human beings are capable of having different tastes.

I don't suffer from the same delusion. For example, I freely accept, and even believe, that men can desire sex with women, even desire it without advertising, even though I find the idea of sex with women a tad offputting, as does the majority of the population.

 

[bilby]

On the contrary. After careful reflection and examination of the facts, I remain confident that my view is correct.

You have adduced no facts to examine. You made an assertion -- that nobody would like the taste of carbonated drinks without advertising.

Actually, I made no such assertion. YOU said that that was your interpretation of what I actually asserted and asked if that was what I was saying; and I said "Pretty much". Then in a later post, I refered back to that exchange with "Not precisely what you are painting it to be; but close enough that I cant be bothered to argue the details"

This assertion appears to be based partly on the fact that you don't like carbonated drinks, and partly on an egomanic refusal to entertain that human beings are capable of having different tastes.

I make no such refusal. I merely claim that the majority of Coca-Cola's sales would not exist absent their massive marketing campaigns. Sure, some people probably prefer Coke to any other drink; but that set of people is dwarfed by those who 'choose' Coke because they have been conditioned to do so - and who in the absence of marketing by the Coca Cola Company would likely choose a different drink - water, tea, coffee, fruit juice, Pepsi, cordial, beer, wine, whatever.

I don't suffer from the same delusion. For example, I freely accept, and even believe, that men can desire sex with women, even desire it without advertising, even though I find the idea of sex with women a tad offputting, as does the majority of the population.

Bully for you.

Your characterisation of your misinterpretation of my argument as reflecting poorly on me is quite amusing.

And the fact remains that Coca Cola's success as a company has a lot more to do with advertising than any inherent superiority of their product over other beverage options.

 

[Metaphor]

I make no such refusal. I merely claim that the majority of Coca-Cola's sales would not exist absent their massive marketing campaigns.

That's irrelevant to your claim that people only prefer Coke to Pepsi due to 'marketing', and 'normal' people don't like carbonated drinks at all. Or do you take back that assertion?

Sure, some people probably prefer Coke to any other drink; but that set of people is dwarfed by those who 'choose' Coke because they have been conditioned to do so - and who in the absence of marketing by the Coca Cola Company would likely choose a different drink - water, tea, coffee, fruit juice, Pepsi, cordial, beer, wine, whatever.

Yes, advertising is effective. That does not mean that people don't have taste preferences, even taste preferences independent of advertising material.

You have adduced no evidence that the majority of people who now drink Coke would prefer a different drink in the absence of marketing. You simply assert it without evidence and it can be dismissed without evidence.

And the fact remains that Coca Cola's success as a company has a lot more to do with advertising than any inherent superiority of their product over other beverage options.

Shifting the goalposts at this late stage won't help you.

You made an astonishing claim that sheeple have been tricked into liking carbonated drinks, and massaged and conditioned by marketing that they keep this preference their entire life.

You made the astonishing claim that 'normal' human beings would never try or like carbonated drinks without marketing. You made the astonishing claim that the taste is irrelevant. You made the astonishing claim that Coca-Cola already markets brown-coloured carbonated water. This is telling: it tells me you have no fucking clue and possibly have a disease that prevents you tasting the difference between brown-coloured carbonated water and Coca-Cola. I assure you that 99.9% of the human population can tell the difference.

In fact, brown-coloured carbonated water would be soda water, and I don't like the taste of soda water.

No doubt it's my sheeple brain that's been tricked into not liking it.

 

[bilby]

That's irrelevant to your claim that people only prefer Coke to Pepsi due to 'marketing', and 'normal' people don't like carbonated drinks at all. Or do you take back that assertion?

Actually, I made no such assertion. YOU said that that was your interpretation of what I actually asserted and asked if that was what I was saying; and I said "Pretty much". Then in a later post, I refered back to that exchange with "Not precisely what you are painting it to be; but close enough that I cant be bothered to argue the details"

Sure, some people probably prefer Coke to any other drink; but that set of people is dwarfed by those who 'choose' Coke because they have been conditioned to do so - and who in the absence of marketing by the Coca Cola Company would likely choose a different drink - water, tea, coffee, fruit juice, Pepsi, cordial, beer, wine, whatever.

Yes, advertising is effective. That does not mean that people don't have taste preferences, even taste preferences independent of advertising material.

You have adduced no evidence that the majority of people who now drink Coke would prefer a different drink in the absence of marketing. You simply assert it without evidence and it can be dismissed without evidence.

Be my guest. It remains true whether you dismiss it or not.

And the fact remains that Coca Cola's success as a company has a lot more to do with advertising than any inherent superiority of their product over other beverage options.

Shifting the goalposts at this late stage won't help you.

Then it's a good thing I am making no attempt to do so.

You made an astonishing claim that sheeple have been tricked into liking carbonated drinks, and massaged and conditioned by marketing that they keep this preference their entire life.

That's my claim, yes. It is far from 'astonishing'; indeed it's pretty obvious.

You made the astonishing claim that 'normal' human beings would never try or like carbonated drinks without marketing.

No, you made that claim on my behalf. I feel no obligation to adopt it.

You made the astonishing claim that the taste is irrelevant.

Not astonishing at all. People chose lots of things on the basis of 'image'; and such choices are clearly not made on the basis of taste.

You made the astonishing claim that Coca-Cola already markets brown-coloured carbonated water.

They DO. are you claiming that Coke is not brown; not carbonated; or not (mostly) water? It is obviously all of those things.

This is telling: it tells me you have no fucking clue and possibly have a disease that prevents you tasting the difference between brown-coloured carbonated water and Coca-Cola.

The one is a description of the other. The 'disease' to which you refer is called 'observation'

I assure you that 99.9% of the human population can tell the difference.

Between what?

In fact, brown-coloured carbonated water would be soda water, and I don't like the taste of soda water.

It might be. Or it might be Pepsi; or Coke; or Dr Pepper; or Sarsaparilla, or a few other things.

No doubt it's my sheeple brain that's been tricked into not liking it.

Oh, so I am responsible for your inability to see that a description of a substance need not be comprehensive in order to be valid. All Coca Cola is brown-coloured carbonated water; not all brown-coloured carbonated water is necessarily Coca Cola.

I am not responsible for the things you imagine I might say; nor am I responsible for your cognitive failings.

But yes, if you like Coca Cola, that probably has more to do with marketing exposure than any inherent liking for the flavour of the stuff.

(You are invited to ponder the non-absolute meaning of the word 'Probably' in that sentence. I doubt you will accept the invitation, but I feel obliged to at least make the offer).

 

[Metaphor]

They DO. are you claiming that Coke is not brown; not carbonated; or not (mostly) water? It is obviously all of those things.

Good lord, you're not even trolling me, you're serious.

Coke is not 'brown-coloured, carbonated water' even though it is brown-coloured, carbonated, and made mostly of water. Water doesn't have flavourings, caffeine and sugar.

Hint: hydrochloric acid is clear, colourless, and made mostly of water. But it is not water.

I can taste the difference between brown-coloured, carbonated water and Coke. You can't, apparently. I'd visit a doctor, if I were you.

Between what?

Between brown-coloured, carbonated water and Coke. Try to keep up.

It might be. Or it might be Pepsi; or Coke; or Dr Pepper; or Sarsaparilla, or a few other things.

No. All those things might have brown-coloured, carbonated, and 'mostly' water as part of their properties, but they are not those properties.

Oh, so I am responsible for your inability to see that a description of a substance need not be comprehensive in order to be valid. All Coca Cola is brown-coloured carbonated water; not all brown-coloured carbonated water is necessarily Coca Cola.

Is hydrochloric acid water?

But yes, if you like Coca Cola, that probably has more to do with marketing exposure than any inherent liking for the flavour of the stuff.

Uh huh. It's nice to be lectured about the truth of my own experiences from someone who so obviously and obscenely displays the third-person effect.

(You are invited to ponder the non-absolute meaning of the word 'Probably' in that sentence. I doubt you will accept the invitation, but I feel obliged to at least make the offer).

And you're invited to think critically about the limits of advertising to shape taste preferences of food and drink.

Here's a hint: most children have to be badgered into eating vegetables, but do not have to be badgered into eating ice-cream. Why do you imagine that is? Advertising?

 

[bilby]

Good lord, you're not even trolling me, you're serious.

Not just serious; I am right.

And your continuing attempts to suggest otherwise are becoming ludicrous. As you are clearly disinclined to try to understand me, even with nice, clear guidelines such as "You are invited to ponder the non-absolute meaning of the word 'Probably' in that sentence", we should probably stop bothering to try to communicate at this point. You seem to be desperate for someone to not just disagree with you, but to do so in a manner that you can easily refute. I can understand that, but using the 'all A are B, therefore all B are A' fallacy is a bit much.

Perhaps we can have a decent conversation when you are more inclined to the use of logic and reason, and/or less inclined to seek conflict.

 

[fast]

I don't suffer from the same delusion. For example, I freely accept, and even believe, that men can desire sex with women, even desire it without advertising, even though I find the idea of sex with women a tad offputting, as does the majority of the population.

That took me a few minutes.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't suffer from the same delusion. For example, I freely accept, and even believe, that men can desire sex with women, even desire it without advertising, even though I find the idea of sex with women a tad offputting, as does the majority of the population.

That took me a few minutes.

They're all facts.

 

[Metaphor]

Not just serious; I am right.

Obviously you believe so, but you cannot simply assert that the majority of consumers of carbonated drinks are only consuming them because of marketing and expect people to accept that. What is asserted without evidence ought to be dismissed without evidence.

I can understand that, but using the 'all A are B, therefore all B are A' fallacy is a bit much.

But I never used that fallacy. 'Coke' is not 'brown-coloured, carbonated water', any more than milk is 'white-coloured, still water' even though milk is white and mostly water.

Perhaps we can have a decent conversation when you are more inclined to the use of logic and reason, and/or less inclined to seek conflict.

You first. Perhaps you can start by admitting that characterising 'Coke' as 'brown-coloured, carbonated water' is as astonishingly idiotic as characterising milk as 'white-coloured water'.

 

[bilby]

Obviously you believe so, but you cannot simply assert that the majority of consumers of carbonated drinks are only consuming them because of marketing and expect people to accept that. What is asserted without evidence ought to be dismissed without evidence.

I can understand that, but using the 'all A are B, therefore all B are A' fallacy is a bit much.

But I never used that fallacy. 'Coke' is not 'brown-coloured, carbonated water', any more than milk is 'white-coloured, still water' even though milk is white and mostly water.

Perhaps we can have a decent conversation when you are more inclined to the use of logic and reason, and/or less inclined to seek conflict.

You first. Perhaps you can start by admitting that characterising 'Coke' as 'brown-coloured, carbonated water' is as astonishingly idiotic as characterising milk as 'white-coloured water'.

See, this is what I mean about seeking conflict rather than using logic and reason.

Coke IS 'brown-coloured, carbonated water', even though not ALL 'brown-coloured, carbonated water' is coke; and milk IS 'white-coloured water', although not ALL 'white-coloured water' is milk.

And describing this simple fact as 'astonishingly idiotic' is either seeking conflict, or is based on a complete failure to grasp when you are saying something insulting and inflammatory. Which, ironically, is an astonishingly idiotic thing to do.

 

[Metaphor]

Coke IS 'brown-coloured, carbonated water', even though not ALL 'brown-coloured, carbonated water' is coke;

No brown-coloured, carbonated water is Coke. None. Not ever in the history of anything. If something is water it is not Coke.

and milk IS 'white-coloured water', although not ALL 'white-coloured water' is milk.

No white-coloured water is milk. None. Not ever in the history of anything. If something is water it is not milk.

 

[bilby]

No brown-coloured, carbonated water is Coke. None. Not ever in the history of anything. If something is water it is not Coke.

If something is brown coloured, carbonated, caffeinated, flavoured water, bearing the brand name 'Coca Cola' then it's Coke. Regardless of your inability to grasp that a description is not equal to one of its parts, or that an incomplete description is still a description.

and milk IS 'white-coloured water', although not ALL 'white-coloured water' is milk.

No white-coloured water is milk. None. Not ever in the history of anything. If something is water it is not milk.

And by the same logic, if something is a vehicle, it is not a car.

 

[Metaphor]

If something is brown coloured, carbonated, caffeinated, flavoured water, bearing the brand name 'Coca Cola' then it's Coke. Regardless of your inability to grasp that a description is not equal to one of its parts, or that an incomplete description is still a description.

It is not an incomplete description; it is wrong. Coke is not water with a lot of adjectives applied to it. Water is an ingredient of Coke but Coke is not water. Vodka is not alcoholic water.

And by the same logic, if something is a vehicle, it is not a car.

A 'car' is a specific type of vehicle. 'Coke' is not a specific type of water. 'Milk' is not a specific type of water. 'Vodka' is not a specific type of water.

 

[bilby]

It is not an incomplete description; it is wrong. Coke is not water with a lot of adjectives applied to it. Water is an ingredient of Coke but Coke is not water. Vodka is not alcoholic water.

The word 'Vodka' is the Russian diminutive for 'Water'. Even your examples are telling you you are wrong.

And by the same logic, if something is a vehicle, it is not a car.

A 'car' is a specific type of vehicle. 'Coke' is not a specific type of water. 'Milk' is not a specific type of water. 'Vodka' is not a specific type of water.

Yes, they are. Every one of these things is mostly water; they are all 'water, plus some other stuff'. They are all types of water.

'Coke' is water, flavoured, coloured and carbonated.

Your narrow view of how things should be defined is entirely your own; I don't care, nor do I need to care, what you claim, because it affects the truth not one iota.

This is obviously important to you, for some bizarre reason. So what the hell; have the last word. Tell me how wrong I am again - it won't hurt me, because it won't make me wrong except in your head, where I am wrong, cars are not vehicles and Vodka has nothing to do with water.

I'm off to Lang Park to watch a football match.

 

[Metaphor]

The word 'Vodka' is the Russian diminutive for 'Water'. Even your examples are telling you you are wrong.

And wine and semen are water too.

And by the same logic, if something is a vehicle, it is not a car.

Yes, they are. Every one of these things is mostly water; they are all 'water, plus some other stuff'. They are all types of water.

None of them are water. I am not water, even though I'm mostly composed of it. Lettuce is not water, even though it is mostly composed of it. Hydrochloric acid is not water, even though it is mostly composed of it.

You made a category error, and are too proud to admit it.

'Coke' is water, flavoured, coloured and carbonated.

Your narrow view of how things should be defined is entirely your own; I don't care, nor do I need to care, what you claim, because it affects the truth not one iota.

This is obviously important to you, for some bizarre reason. So what the hell; have the last word. Tell me how wrong I am again - it won't hurt me, because it won't make me wrong except in your head, where I am wrong, cars are not vehicles and Vodka has nothing to do with water.

I'm off to Lang Park to watch a football match.

Take an informal survey of people you respect. Ask them if vodka is water. Ask them if semen is water. Ask them if lettuce is water. Ask them if you are water.

It is certainly important to me that my arguments are not mischaracterised, as you did when you claimed I made an "All A are B, therefore all B are A" argument.

It is also important to me that other errors of fact, of which you have made several, are corrected. For example, it is an error of fact to call semen 'water', because it is not water.

I'm going to get some refreshing Diet Coke.

 

[barbos]

Author derailed his own thread

 

[Tigers!]

I'm off to Lang Park to watch a football match.

Another bum sniffer

We've have to get you to follow real footy

 

[Jayjay]

I've taken the Pepsi challenge and couldn't tell the difference. It's a moot point.

Sort of like executives. They're basically interchangeable.

How I wish that were true.

I can assure you there are billions who can taste the difference between Coca-Cola and Pepsi, and of the people who can taste the difference, much more than half prefer Coca-Cola.

Source?

 

[Metaphor]

How I wish that were true.

I can assure you there are billions who can taste the difference between Coca-Cola and Pepsi, and of the people who can taste the difference, much more than half prefer Coca-Cola.

Source?

Coca-Cola has a 42% share of the carbonated beverage market, Pepsi has a 30% share. This shows that, as of 2014, Coke was #1 and Pepsi #2 (in individual varieties), but before 2013, Diet Coke was #2 making Pepsi third.

But this is indeed a derail, although an interesting demonstration of human psychology. The behaviour of some on this thread is analogous to a colourblind person saying he can't tell the difference between red and green, and therefore people prefer red only because of marketing.