> Yeah, since you're arguing that the campaign was bad because people disagreed with it and stating it as a fact.
It is a fact. I've met people who do this.
> In what way?
There are people who disagree with a law that orders them to do something they think should be a personal choice. There are people who disagree with an ad campaign that orders them to do something they think should be a personal choice.
If you had to propose a hypothesis about whether a correlation exists between these two groups, what would it be?
If the only reason why people react badly to the campaign is the fact that they disagree with the seatbelt law in general, then the whole argument about whether or not the campaign was too aggressive is moot. They hate the campaign because of the law, not because of what the sign says.
It is a fact. I've met people who do this.
> In what way?
There are people who disagree with a law that orders them to do something they think should be a personal choice. There are people who disagree with an ad campaign that orders them to do something they think should be a personal choice.
If you had to propose a hypothesis about whether a correlation exists between these two groups, what would it be?