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

[Wake]

Good for them. People need to stop putting up with these oversexualized advertisements.

If you have to use sex to sell your product, it really doesn't speak much about your products.

Shouldn't that include the advertising that uses hyper-sexualized use of women and children too?

That sounds fair.

 

[Avatar4321]

Good for them. People need to stop putting up with these oversexualized advertisements.

If you have to use sex to sell your product, it really doesn't speak much about your products.

Shouldn't that include the advertising that uses hyper-sexualized use of women and children too?

Why wouldn't it?

 

[Kondor3]

It's a stupid beefcake ad and should be pulled - we don't need little kids seeing that $hit.

 

[Pogo]

It's a stupid beefcake ad and should be pulled - we don't need little kids seeing that $hit.

I think the question is -- "pulled" by who?


(tangent: what exactly would be the harm in little kids seeing that $hit? Considering that they're already seeing, say, violent video games and countless people getting 'shot' on TV, what's more disruptive to the infantile psyche?)

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Pulled by who, is right.

Who decides what we should see? IOW, who decides what part of the First Amendment we honor and fight for?

Besides, kids see a lot worse every day on TV.

Call me crazy but I believe murder and rape on prime time are worse than this ad.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Good for them. People need to stop putting up with these oversexualized advertisements.

If you have to use sex to sell your product, it really doesn't speak much about your products.

Shouldn't that include the advertising that uses hyper-sexualized use of women and children too?

Why wouldn't it?

It isn't now and I don't see any sign that will change any time soon.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Reminds me of an in-law who would send his kids out of the room during a kissing or sex scene but ignore Terminator breaking arms.

We have screwy priorities.

 

[Kondor3]

It's a stupid beefcake ad and should be pulled - we don't need little kids seeing that $hit.

(tangent: what exactly would be the harm in little kids seeing that $hit?...)

If you have to ask the question...

 

[Pogo]

It's a stupid beefcake ad and should be pulled - we don't need little kids seeing that $hit.

(tangent: what exactly would be the harm in little kids seeing that $hit?...)

If you have to ask the question...

.... go on...?

Actually it was two questions. Here they are again, in order:

It's a stupid beefcake ad and should be pulled - we don't need little kids seeing that $hit.

I think the question is -- "pulled" by who?


(tangent: what exactly would be the harm in little kids seeing that $hit? Considering that they're already seeing, say, violent video games and countless people getting 'shot' on TV, what's more disruptive to the infantile psyche?)

 

[tap4154]

Sure that's not aimed at gays? Ever heard the term "tossed salad".

 

[dilloduck]

Interesting.

However, considering the fact that we're amoral animals who create our own laws and morals, I will answer your question with a question:

"Which standard, law or set of morals do people use to denounce anything, including child rape?"

In other words----you don't have an answer or refuse to offer it.

I respect you, dillo, but I don't really agree with you philosophically. I think my question in response to your does suffice, because you ask me what law or set of morals I'm using to pronounce the downfall of man, when one has to wonder what those same things can be used for anything else.

My answer may not be the one you wished to hear, but it's an answer nonetheless. Any actons can be justified by cynically questioning the created laws and/or morals of those very same people.

No It's not an answer at all. It's an evasion. You have no problem judging others yet you refuse to disclose your source.