Kraft Zesty Dressing Ad Offends 'One Million Moms,' Sparks Debate

[Wake]

It's an advertisement, hellloooo... ads are intentionally provocative. If they weren't, they wouldn't work.

Morals are not corrupted by ads. More so they're corrupted by people enslaved to the mentality of letting ads and other voices in their heads tell them what to think.

They can be provocative without being morally decadent, Pogo. It's not true that the only way you can sell ranch dressing is to have an almost-naked man on the table. Do you think provocative ads can only work when it involves showing off human skin? If anything, ads can be examples of people who lack morals, respect, and self-restraint. Saying the decadent ads have been corrupted by the very people who find them to be decadent is, unfortunately, an absurd notion. The problem is that some people like to push the line and disrespect themselves and others by showing how loose, raunchy, and uncontrolled they really are. It's a sign of low self-esteem to not respect yourself to the point of having modesty and control.

If you want to sell salad dressing, pair it with a salad, not a practically naked body.

 

[dilloduck]

It's an advertisement, hellloooo... ads are intentionally provocative. If they weren't, they wouldn't work.

Morals are not corrupted by ads. More so they're corrupted by people enslaved to the mentality of letting ads and other voices in their heads tell them what to think.

They can be provocative without being morally decadent, Pogo. It's not true that the only way you can sell ranch dressing is to have an almost-naked man on the table. Do you think provocative ads can only work when it involves showing off human skin? If anything, ads can be examples of people who lack morals, respect, and self-restraint. Saying the decadent ads have been corrupted by the very people who find them to be decadent is, unfortunately, an absurd notion. The problem is that some people like to push the line and disrespect themselves and others by showing how loose, raunchy, and uncontrolled they really are. It's a sign of low self-esteem to not respect yourself to the point of having modesty and control.

If you want to sell salad dressing, pair it with a salad, not a practically naked body.

It's not the only way---It's just one way. It will work or it won't. It's the companies right to advertise the way they want. If they get rich off of "morally decadent" people so be it.

 

[Wake]

It's what I would call partial nudity and no. I don't think anyone should freak out over it.

Thanks for the clarification.

Though, as with most things, if you draw a line in the sand, it's human nature to cross it. Do you think progression will stop once everyone is fine with partial nudity, including children. It would not be surprising if there would then be those who pine for full nudity for adults, and then, well, beyond.

A slippery slope argument here could get down right nasty.

People often call arguments slippery slopes, but then, those same people often go sliding down them. There are and do exist slippery slopes, dilloduck. One can find them in the history books. As one example, some who stated the Patriot Act was unwise were accused of making slippery slope arguments. Look how far America has slid now, dillo. But back to my point, sometimes there are valid reasons to think things can slide down further with every foot we give.

 

[AmyNation]

It's a print ad in People. Don't like it, don't read the magazine.

 

[Wake]

It's not the only way---It's just one way. It will work or it won't. It's the companies right to advertise the way they want. If they get rich off of "morally decadent" people so be it.

It is a way that deserves the criticism it receives. It's their right of course, but getting rich off of morally decadent people has always been a symbol of decline in society.

One can only wonder what's next.

 

[dilloduck]

Thanks for the clarification.

Though, as with most things, if you draw a line in the sand, it's human nature to cross it. Do you think progression will stop once everyone is fine with partial nudity, including children. It would not be surprising if there would then be those who pine for full nudity for adults, and then, well, beyond.

A slippery slope argument here could get down right nasty.

People often call arguments slippery slopes, but then, those same people often go sliding down them. There are and do exist slippery slopes, dilloduck. One can find them in the history books. As one example, some who stated the Patriot Act was unwise were accused of making slippery slope arguments. Look how far America has slid now, dillo. But back to my point, sometimes there are valid reasons to think things can slide down further with every foot we give.

Please stop with the erotic symbolism. It's decadent and corrupting.

 

[novasteve]

It's a print ad in People. Don't like it, don't read the magazine.

If you don't like 100 watt bulbs, don't use them.

Oh wait, liberals knows whats best for people.

 

[dilloduck]

It's not the only way---It's just one way. It will work or it won't. It's the companies right to advertise the way they want. If they get rich off of "morally decadent" people so be it.

It is a way that deserves the criticism it receives. It's their right of course, but getting rich off of morally decadent people has always been a symbol of decline in society.

One can only wonder what's next.

Government spies ? we already have that.

 

[novasteve]

Is it okay to use scantily clad women to sell products but not okay to use men?
\

Probably the only good point you've ever made.

 

[Pogo]

It's an advertisement, hellloooo... ads are intentionally provocative. If they weren't, they wouldn't work.

Morals are not corrupted by ads. More so they're corrupted by people enslaved to the mentality of letting ads and other voices in their heads tell them what to think.

They can be provocative without being morally decadent, Pogo. It's not true that the only way you can sell ranch dressing is to have an almost-naked man on the table. Do you think provocative ads can only work when it involves showing off human skin? If anything, ads can be examples of people who lack morals, respect, and self-restraint. Saying the decadent ads have been corrupted by the very people who find them to be decadent is, unfortunately, an absurd notion. The problem is that some people like to push the line and disrespect themselves and others by showing how loose, raunchy, and uncontrolled they really are. It's a sign of low self-esteem to not respect yourself to the point of having modesty and control.

If you want to sell salad dressing, pair it with a salad, not a practically naked body.

Trust me, I wouldn't be putting a Kraft product on my food, with or without this ad.

But it's still an ad, and the function of advertising is to jump in front of your face, get your attention and sell you crap you don't need (if you do need it, you don't need to be told). So this ad, like any ad, is some ad agency's tactic.

If you're offended, what do you suggest? Censorship? Shall the State step in with a Decency Board? I'm more offended with that idea than with the ad. Free expression simply is going to be messy from time to time. Get over it.

I'll return to my original thought: given that they are nothing more than manipulative brainwashing tools, why is anyone paying attention to ads at all?

(On another note-- what's "morally decadent" about it anyway?)

 

[Wake]

Please stop with the erotic symbolism. It's decadent and corrupting.

Pardon?

Government spies ? we already have that.

But never to this extent.

It is human nature that, for every inch given, a foot will be taken. It is how progression and developments—whether good or bad—happen.

 

[Wake]

Trust me, I wouldn't be putting a Kraft product on my food, with or without this ad.

But it's still an ad, and the function of advertising is to jump in front of your face, get your attention and sell you crap you don't need (if you do need it, you don't need to be told). So this ad, like any ad, is some ad agency's tactic.

If you're offended, what do you suggest? Censorship? Shall the State step in with a Decency Board? I'm more offended with that idea than with the ad. Free expression simply is going to be messy from time to time. Get over it.

I'll return to my original thought: given that they are nothing more than manipulative brainwashing tools, why is anyone paying attention to ads at all?

I suggest criticism, and copious amounts of it. Free speech is a two-way street, and just as there is reason to post a stupid ad, there is reason to criticize it.

Government censorship is the enemy of free speech.

 

[dilloduck]

Please stop with the erotic symbolism. It's decadent and corrupting.

Pardon?

Government spies ? we already have that.

But never to this extent.

It is human nature that, for every inch given, a foot will be taken. It is has progression and developments—whether good or bad—happen.

I know a lot of people that would gladly take several inches but that doesn't mean they will. Because one thing happens DOES NOT guarantee that the next thing will happen. Are you saying this ad is bad because it will lead to an ad that reveals more ?

 

[Wake]

Please stop with the erotic symbolism. It's decadent and corrupting.

Pardon?

Government spies ? we already have that.

But never to this extent.

It is human nature that, for every inch given, a foot will be taken. It is has progression and developments—whether good or bad—happen.

I know a lot of people that would gladly take several inches but that doesn't mean they will. Because one thing happens DOES NOT guarantee that the next thing will happen. Are you saying this ad is bad because it will lead to an ad that reveals more ?

It is not guaranteed, and we are not psychic. However, it is reasonable to consider that some things may indeed happen. That is wisdom, and vigilance. By not considering that, say, giving a president consolidated power won't lead to abuses, is an example of being foolish. We may not know exactly what step another will lead to, but we can and ought to have ideas as to what may happen, while discussing it.

Not "will," dillo. "Could." "Could" is key, and is part and parcel of why we humans discuss and debate politics, religion, and philosophy. We don't know things for sure, but we can wonder at it, while considering the wisdom of such things.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It's an advertisement, hellloooo... ads are intentionally provocative. If they weren't, they wouldn't work.

Morals are not corrupted by ads. More so they're corrupted by people enslaved to the mentality of letting ads and other voices in their heads tell them what to think.

They can be provocative without being morally decadent, Pogo. It's not true that the only way you can sell ranch dressing is to have an almost-naked man on the table. Do you think provocative ads can only work when it involves showing off human skin? If anything, ads can be examples of people who lack morals, respect, and self-restraint. Saying the decadent ads have been corrupted by the very people who find them to be decadent is, unfortunately, an absurd notion. The problem is that some people like to push the line and disrespect themselves and others by showing how loose, raunchy, and uncontrolled they really are. It's a sign of low self-esteem to not respect yourself to the point of having modesty and control.

If you want to sell salad dressing, pair it with a salad, not a practically naked body.

Trust me, I wouldn't be putting a Kraft product on my food, with or without this ad.

But it's still an ad, and the function of advertising is to jump in front of your face, get your attention and sell you crap you don't need (if you do need it, you don't need to be told). So this ad, like any ad, is some ad agency's tactic.

If you're offended, what do you suggest? Censorship? Shall the State step in with a Decency Board? I'm more offended with that idea than with the ad. Free expression simply is going to be messy from time to time. Get over it.

I'll return to my original thought: given that they are nothing more than manipulative brainwashing tools, why is anyone paying attention to ads at all?

(On another note-- what's "morally decadent" about it anyway?)

I wouldn't buy a Kraft product either. I hate phony food.

But, I agree with you that this should not be censored.

Vote with your consumer dollar. Its the biggest and most effective weapon you have.

 

[dilloduck]

Pardon?



But never to this extent.

It is human nature that, for every inch given, a foot will be taken. It is has progression and developments—whether good or bad—happen.

I know a lot of people that would gladly take several inches but that doesn't mean they will. Because one thing happens DOES NOT guarantee that the next thing will happen. Are you saying this ad is bad because it will lead to an ad that reveals more ?

It is not guaranteed, and we are not psychic. However, it is reasonable to consider that some things may indeed happen. That is wisdom, and vigilance. By not considering that, say, giving a president consolidated power won't lead to abuses, is an example of being foolish. We may not know exactly what step another will lead to, but we can and ought to have ideas as to what may happen, while discussing it.

Not "will," dillo. "Could." "Could" is key, and is part and parcel of why we humans discuss and debate politics, religion, and philosophy. We don't know things for sure, but we can wonder at it, while considering the wisdom of such things.

if we start freaking out about what "could" happen we will be frozen in our tracks. There are ads everywhere that take advantage of human instincts. What events do you claim are caused by these ads ?

 

[Wake]

if we start freaking out about what "could" happen we will be frozen in our tracks.

That's false and a bit hyperbolic. If there's evidence of people who talk politics getting frozen in their tracks, I'd like you to refer them to me for ground-breaking case studies.

There are ads everywhere that take advantage of human instincts. What events do you claim are caused by these ads ?

True to the first.

As for the second, let's be a bit careful with the wording, please. It was never claimed that certain events would happen because of said ads. Merely, some things "could" happen, if given time, leeway, whatever. A myriad of things may or may not happen when these doors are swung open. Not "will." "May."

If you give a toddler a gun (as an example), by swinging open that door some things "may" happen. We can't know for sure what will happen, but we can speculate as to what could happen. That is the process of trying to connect the dots. Wonderings as to whether which effects may happen because of a certain cause.

 

[dilloduck]

if we start freaking out about what "could" happen we will be frozen in our tracks.

That's false and a bit hyperbolic. If there's evidence of people who talk politics getting frozen in their tracks, I'd like you to refer them to me for ground-breaking case studies.

There are ads everywhere that take advantage of human instincts. What events do you claim are caused by these ads ?

True to the first.

As for the second, let's be a bit careful with the wording, please. It was never claimed that certain events would happen because of said ads. Merely, some things "could" happen, if given time, leeway, whatever. A myriad of things may or may not happen when these doors are swung open. Not "will." "May."

If you give a toddler a gun (as an example), by swinging open that door some things "may" happen. We can't know for sure what will happen, but we can speculate as to what could happen. That is the process of trying to connect the dots. Wonderings as to whether which effects may happen because of a certain cause.

I never said talking politics freezes anyone. If we don't do things because bad things might happen we will freeze in our tracks.

So what's the danger of a toddler seeing the ad in the OP ?

 

[Wake]

I never said talking politics freezes anyone. If we don't do things because bad things might happen we will freeze in our tracks.

So what's the danger of a toddler seeing the ad in the OP ?

The very act of discussing politics is practically speculation. Much of the time you see people who—while discussing politics—also speculate and wonder over the results of actions and legislations, etc. People do not freeze in their tracks when they consider the ramifications of actions and events. It is not a slippery slope to be mindful.

To your last sentence, context is everything. If a toddler holds a firearm, one can reason that some bad things could happen. However, people who call things slippery slopes would likely call that person's worrying "slippery slope thinking." It is not a slippery slope to consider that a toddler with a gun could kill itself or someone else, nor is it a slippery slope to consider that moral decadence could lead to even more moral decadence. Keeping things in context, toddlers can rarely read nor understand things as adults can at their young ages. A toddler doesn't really have the mental faculties that an adult has. Adults can understand the decadence of the advertisement, but an infant can't.

 

[Pogo]

Wtf is this irrelevant tangent on spying??

The original comment was off topic trolling. Treat it like an advertisement.
It is after all the same thing -- getting your attention to sell you something you don't need.

Sometimes you just have to go