It's certainly no joke that the super bowl is almost worthless without Janet Jackson's nipple.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pro-life Super Bowl Ad: Question for RF
- Thread starter Apex
- Start date
It's certainly no joke that the super bowl is almost worthless without Janet Jackson's nipple.
Amill
Apikoros
I just don't see the point in the ad. How is a 30 second commercial gonna change how people feel about the issue? I'm not really looking forward to it, will just cause awkward silence. Its not like many people want to discuss an emotional political issue while they're hanging out and having a good time with friends. But go Colts!
footprints
Well-Known Member
Lol, there are all kinds of commercials that promote things I dislike or don't care about. So what? If I don't like em, I change the channel
That is one of the reasons advertising doesn't have the effect it used to have. Once people only had one, maybe two stations to pick from. When television was new, people even hung off their chairs to watch commercials, now they go and make a coffee, get a beer, discuss the game, many things other than watch or pay attention to the commercials. Due to human intelligence, people have learned to ignore them.
Sometimes a commercial will catch a persons interest, in either a positive or negative sense, I could already tell you some people will watch this commercial just to get Pis*ed Off, to find another reason to hate.
One well viewed commercial in Australia was a beer ad. They called it the big beer ad, had heaps of people in it. Had well over a million hits on the internet, didn't increase beer sales, but boy, was that ad popular.
Smoke
Done here.
I don't even have to be doing anything else; I usually zone out during commercials even if I'm just sitting there looking directly at the television. Every once in a while I'll notice a clever commercial and point it out to my husband; he invariably rolls his eyes and tells me that commercial has been running for months.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I was waiting for that, despite it's lack of truth.
Here's the point: If a doctor suggests having an abortion due to the probable complications, a large majority of the time, having an abortion is the way to go. "High-risk" may be overused these days, and that's fine. But I'm not just talking about a doctor saying "Well, you're 40 and there might be some complications". I'm talking about a doctor saying "You have this serious problem, which will most likely cause either you or the baby to die or be severely harmed. Therefore, the best thing I can suggest is having an abortion". From what I've heard, that's basically what the doctor told Tebow's mother. My point was that I don't want girls or women getting the idea that when a doctor tells you that, that you should just go on with it since in this one particular case, it worked out fine. There are still many more cases where it didn't work out fine.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
What, specifically, do you know about Tebow's mother's pregnancy, and what's your source?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Articles and people I've talked to. I know that she was told she should strongly consider abortion because of the probable complications of her pregnancies, but she went through with it anyway.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Are pro-choicers really pro-CHOICE or pro-ABORTION? Tebow's mother CHOSE of her own free will to carry a high risk pregnancy to term - and the result is her exemplary son - a fine young man who volunteers every summer in impoverished countries, who obviously has great respect for women, who lives his faith by bettering the world around him - a young man that any mother would be proud to call her son.
From Sally Jenkins, pro-choice sports writer for the Washington Post:
Tebow's Super Bowl ad isn't intolerant; its critics are
I'll spit this out quick, before the armies of feminism try to gag me and strap electrodes to my forehead: Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time. I realize this stance won't endear me to the "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep," otherwise known as DOLL, but I'll try to pick up the shards of my shattered feminist credentials and go on.
As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow's pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We're always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.
I'm pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I've heard in the past week, I'll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time." For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.
Tebow's 30-second ad hasn't even run yet, but it already has provoked "The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us" to reveal something important about themselves: They aren't actually "pro-choice" so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.
Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn't be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn't.
Here's what we do need a lot more of: Tebows. Collegians who are selfless enough to choose not to spend summers poolside, but travel to impoverished countries to dispense medical care to children, as Tebow has every summer of his career. Athletes who believe in something other than themselves, and are willing to put their backbone where their mouth is. Celebrities who are self-possessed and self-controlled enough to use their wattage to advertise commitment over decadence.
You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren't embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions. See, the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not get the sperm in the egg and the egg implanted to begin with, and that is an issue for men, too -- and they should step up to that.
For the complete article:
washingtonpost.com
From Sally Jenkins, pro-choice sports writer for the Washington Post:
Tebow's Super Bowl ad isn't intolerant; its critics are
I'll spit this out quick, before the armies of feminism try to gag me and strap electrodes to my forehead: Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time. I realize this stance won't endear me to the "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep," otherwise known as DOLL, but I'll try to pick up the shards of my shattered feminist credentials and go on.
As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow's pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We're always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.
I'm pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I've heard in the past week, I'll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time." For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.
Tebow's 30-second ad hasn't even run yet, but it already has provoked "The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us" to reveal something important about themselves: They aren't actually "pro-choice" so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.
Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn't be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn't.
Here's what we do need a lot more of: Tebows. Collegians who are selfless enough to choose not to spend summers poolside, but travel to impoverished countries to dispense medical care to children, as Tebow has every summer of his career. Athletes who believe in something other than themselves, and are willing to put their backbone where their mouth is. Celebrities who are self-possessed and self-controlled enough to use their wattage to advertise commitment over decadence.
You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren't embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions. See, the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not get the sperm in the egg and the egg implanted to begin with, and that is an issue for men, too -- and they should step up to that.
For the complete article:
washingtonpost.com
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
That's quite a strawman. It's great that she made the decision she did and it worked out. No one wants to take that away from her.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Choice.
As mball said, this is just a strawman.
And so is this. We're not saying the ad is intolerant; we're saying CBS is being inconsitent in their "no political ads" policy, and it's wrong.
Hysteria does not impress me.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Try reading an article from another point of view.
The point is that CBS can run whatever ads it wants to run - and are we really saying that GOOD TASTE prevails when it comes to advertising on ANY network? My gosh, you'd think that suddenly everyone developed an intolerance for ads that might offend someone - and obviously that has never been the case and never will be.
Ads by their very nature are meant to attract attention - and apparently this one has worked very well even before it has debuted. Good job, whoever put this together - hope you get a raise, because you just earned it.
The point is that CBS can run whatever ads it wants to run - and are we really saying that GOOD TASTE prevails when it comes to advertising on ANY network? My gosh, you'd think that suddenly everyone developed an intolerance for ads that might offend someone - and obviously that has never been the case and never will be.
Ads by their very nature are meant to attract attention - and apparently this one has worked very well even before it has debuted. Good job, whoever put this together - hope you get a raise, because you just earned it.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I read it once to be polite, that was more than enough.
And yet another strawman. You're really on a roll.
Yet again, it's not that the ad is offensive. It's that the network is applying its own policy incosistently.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
What are you talking about? Since when did CBS enact a "no political ads" policy? In the last mid term elections, CBS stations brought in $160 million in political advertising. They've been embroiled in controversy over political ads in the past as well - they've aired anti-smoking rights ads (in spite of the many Americans who feel their rights to allow smoking in privately owned establishments should be protected), ads against drug use (in spite of some Americans' views that marijuana should be legalized), and CBS has also refused to run MoveOn.org ads in the past. CBS also asked YouTube to take down a McCain web ad during the last election, because it considered the ad "misleading," - and they didn't want their anchor Katie Couric to be associated with the ad.
Bottom line is - it's up to CBS to determine which ads it wants to accept and which it wants to turn down. The "rules" are not RULES - they are suggestions, guidelines - and management does not lose it's right or responsibility to choose ads that they believe they should run.
If I go into a local coffeeshop and they have a bulletin board there that the public can post on, and I want to put up a poster - I still have to ask the management. Management can determine whether or not they allow me to put up my poster. If I see a Planned Parenthood poster up, but they won't allow me to put up a poster about a Glenn Beck tour - well, it's their right to make that call, and it's my right to decide if I ever walk in that establishment again. It is my right to complain, to boycott, to organize a peaceful demonstration outside their establishment if I feel I should - but it's still their right to refuse to put up the poster - EVEN if they've said in the past that they try to stay out of divisive political issues.
The real irony with the Superbowl ad is that if pro abortion groups hadn't raised such a stink so far about the ad, it probably would have hardly been noticed. It's most likely no less "disturbing" or "threatening" than all those really cool and well done ads for, of all things, Scientology. Yeah, as a Christian who thinks Scientology is a bunch of bunk, wow, I'm so offended by those ads, and by any network who would run them...NOT. I couldn't care less - in fact, if anything, I'm FOR those ads, because I have to appreciate good art and I think they're well done, even if I don't agree with their message. So what - they don't change my mind, they don't threaten my position, they don't undermine my faith or unduly influence my childrens' minds. They're paid for ADS, for pete's sake - they're not of the devil! I'd much rather watch them than that stupid gecko ANY day.
Bottom line is - it's up to CBS to determine which ads it wants to accept and which it wants to turn down. The "rules" are not RULES - they are suggestions, guidelines - and management does not lose it's right or responsibility to choose ads that they believe they should run.
If I go into a local coffeeshop and they have a bulletin board there that the public can post on, and I want to put up a poster - I still have to ask the management. Management can determine whether or not they allow me to put up my poster. If I see a Planned Parenthood poster up, but they won't allow me to put up a poster about a Glenn Beck tour - well, it's their right to make that call, and it's my right to decide if I ever walk in that establishment again. It is my right to complain, to boycott, to organize a peaceful demonstration outside their establishment if I feel I should - but it's still their right to refuse to put up the poster - EVEN if they've said in the past that they try to stay out of divisive political issues.
The real irony with the Superbowl ad is that if pro abortion groups hadn't raised such a stink so far about the ad, it probably would have hardly been noticed. It's most likely no less "disturbing" or "threatening" than all those really cool and well done ads for, of all things, Scientology. Yeah, as a Christian who thinks Scientology is a bunch of bunk, wow, I'm so offended by those ads, and by any network who would run them...NOT. I couldn't care less - in fact, if anything, I'm FOR those ads, because I have to appreciate good art and I think they're well done, even if I don't agree with their message. So what - they don't change my mind, they don't threaten my position, they don't undermine my faith or unduly influence my childrens' minds. They're paid for ADS, for pete's sake - they're not of the devil! I'd much rather watch them than that stupid gecko ANY day.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
It's specific to the Superbowl. Or was, anyway. Searching for a source, I ran across this article, which says they've decided to ease off the policy. If that's the case, I have no further objection.
Smoke
Done here.
I really don't know why the armies of feminism keep doing that to Sally Jenkins. It's obviously not helping the situation.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Apparently, it's counterproductive.
Why don't you and I just pack it in on this argument and sit back with a big piece of King Cake and some chips and Velveeta dip and lots of cold beer and just enjoy the game?
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
Focus on the Family Tackles Super Bowl With Pre-Game Ad - Inside TV
go down and hit play..its planned parenthoods response ..
the rebuttal..
Love
Dallas
go down and hit play..its planned parenthoods response ..
the rebuttal..
Love
Dallas
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Who was making a big deal out of it?