Pro-life Super Bowl Ad: Question for RF

[Muffled]

This is a question that is on On Faith which I thought would be an interesting discussion topic. I am wondering what all the RF members think about it.

I will post my thoughts latter after class as I also plan on possibly doing a blog post on all the comments I have been reading on atheist/skeptic blogs about Tim Tebow. For now my basic, and sarcastic, response is:

How dare CBS air a paid-for ad promoting ideas that are contrary to other peoples opinions!

Hell no! everyone knows TV must be dedicated to filth and degradation. Murdering children in the womb is good. It promotes a nice unhealthy approach to motherhood so that no mother will have any desire to raise her children.

 

[Magic Man]

That is because I do not have your belief patterns which misconstrue it.

That doesn't even make sense. :no:

 

[Kathryn]

Is this directed at me or mball? I'm Mr Spinkles. You know, the handsome one.

Oh my! That's right, you ARE the handsome and definitely more intelligent of the two. Please forgive me!

I'm at home with strep throat and all that Thera Flu makes me a little bit crazy.

 

[Kathryn]

IOW, when Focus on the Family itself tries to get media play before the Superbowl with an anti-abortion slant to "the Tebows' story" and puts out vaguely suggestive press releases saying that this story will be featured in the ad, people should stay silent, letting Focus on the Family have free reign to promote themselves and their views, right?

I think in this country we have a freedom called "freedom of speech." Certainly - anyone is free to open their mouth and say stupid things - and Focus on the Family is free to promote themselves and their views - especially when they pay a couple of million dollars for an ad.

Let freedom ring!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think in this country we have a freedom called "freedom of speech." Certainly - anyone is free to open their mouth and say stupid things - and Focus on the Family is free to promote themselves and their views - especially when they pay a couple of million dollars for an ad.

Let freedom ring!

I'm not talking about legality; I'm talking about prudence. You've suggested that the people who spoke out against the ad without seeing it were foolish or premature... IOW that they shouldn't have spoken out.

I'm saying that for the most part, they were just taking FOTF's word at face value when they talked about how the ad would fit into their larger campaign, and if they had stayed silent, then FOTF would have had free reign to present its views unchallenged.

They were duped by FOTF's bait-and-switch. I think if there's any blame to be placed here, most of it would go on FOTF.

 

[no-body]

I think in this country we have a freedom called "freedom of speech." Certainly - anyone is free to open their mouth and say stupid things - and Focus on the Family is free to promote themselves and their views - especially when they pay a couple of million dollars for an ad.

Let freedom ring!

But people that don't like what focus on family stands for have the freedom to protest and criticize them, freedom of speech is a two-way street. If CBS bowed down to the pressure that is CBS ultimate decision.

 

[Kathryn]

Well sure people have a right to protest what they don't believe is right, even if they are uninformed or misinformed. I never meant to imply otherwise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well sure people have a right to protest what they don't believe is right, even if they are uninformed or misinformed. I never meant to imply otherwise.

Nobody's saying you did. This whole question of legal rights is a red herring that you threw into the discussion.

 

[footprints]

That doesn't even make sense. :no:

That is okay, it wouldn't to you. :no: This is because of your belief patterns.

But others would understand it. :yes: People who didn't have to misconstrue anything, but base things on reality of what they really are.

 

[footprints]

Nobody's saying you did. This whole question of legal rights is a red herring that you threw into the discussion.

Yes Kathrine raised this point at the very beginning of this thread, it is up to CBS to determine which ads they show and what they don't. They also have to comply to federal laws otherwise people start complaining because there are too many ads.

As for a red herring, what a crock. It is the heart and soul of this debate. Pro-Choice people didn't like it, and it showed. Storm argued against Katherine and implied she was wrong, when all along according to Storms own evidence it was storm who was wrong. All that argument for nothing.

Katherine showed a lot of people up, now some are looking for payback and cannot let the subject drop.

 

[footprints]

Kathryn, nobody was upset by the ad. Only the policy, which was rescinded.

So in other words Storm there was no policy to argue against. Wouldn't you call that over reacting? Reacting to something which wasn't even real?

 

[footprints]

I'm not talking about legality; I'm talking about prudence. You've suggested that the people who spoke out against the ad without seeing it were foolish or premature... IOW that they shouldn't have spoken out.

No reasonable person would have made comment until they knew what they were talking about. Talk about believing in fairytales.

I'm saying that for the most part, they were just taking FOTF's word at face value when they talked about how the ad would fit into their larger campaign, and if they had stayed silent, then FOTF would have had free reign to present its views unchallenged.

Challenge reality certainly, but challenging a fantasy of their own creation....

They were duped by FOTF's bait-and-switch. I think if there's any blame to be placed here, most of it would go on FOTF.

Certainly couldn't blame prejudice on the Pro-Choice side now could we. Nobody told people what to think or believe, some people just decided this from their own imagination. These people were not duped by FOTF, they were duped by their own fantasies and jumping to false conclusions.

 

[footprints]

Katherine, if you happen to read this, Well done. While many opposed you, you did yourself and intelligence proud.

My personal belief, after reading through the entire thread again, many people owe you an apology.

 

[Magic Man]

That is okay, it wouldn't to you. :no: This is because of your belief patterns.

But others would understand it. :yes: People who didn't have to misconstrue anything, but base things on reality of what they really are.

Yeah, no, I get what you're trying to say. However, the fact remains that what you originally said was a miscontruing of the situation. Next time, try harder to understand what's going on.

 

[Kathryn]

Footprints - thanks for the kudos - and back atcha.

It's very obvious to me that there are many groups, and many individuals, who are so eager to demonize evangelical Christians that they will jump on their favorite bandwagon at the drop of a hat, regardless of whether or not their decisions or prejudices are based in reality or facts.

And yet these are the same groups and individuals who scream "Paranoia and prejudice!" at independents and conservatives at every turn.

I don't expect or even want an apology from anyone, but I do hope that inwardly, at least some of the more intelligent and honest participants on this forum will be able to see the irony in this string of events.

 

[Magic Man]

Ugh, never mind, footprints. Forget my last post. You're obviously way too far gone for me to bother trying to talk to.

 

[Storm]

OK, I'm going in.

So in other words Storm there was no policy to argue against. Wouldn't you call that over reacting? Reacting to something which wasn't even real?

No. The policy was very real when this was brought up. They loosened it in reaction to public outrage. IOW, all our "meaningless" opinions and "worthless" talk righted a wrong.

 

[Magic Man]

OK, I'm going in.

You're very brave, love.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes Kathrine raised this point at the very beginning of this thread, it is up to CBS to determine which ads they show and what they don't. They also have to comply to federal laws otherwise people start complaining because there are too many ads.

Looks like you're a few beats behind in the thread. Kathryn's most recent reference to freedom of speech (and the one I was referring to) was in the context of the comments made by people against FOTF's campaign before the ad ran, not CBS's decision to run the ad.

As for a red herring, what a crock. It is the heart and soul of this debate.

No, it's not. I asked Kathryn a question about whether it was prudent for other groups to respond to FOTF before the Superbowl. She replied by saying that it was legal for them to do so. It was a non-responsive answer - a red herring.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No reasonable person would have made comment until they knew what they were talking about. Talk about believing in fairytales.

Would that include FOTF, who commented on their own ad in misleading ways before the Superbowl?

Certainly couldn't blame prejudice on the Pro-Choice side now could we. Nobody told people what to think or believe, some people just decided this from their own imagination.

Imagination, FOTF PR campaign... potayto, potahto.