Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Did you see the ad?
-
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
Did you see the ad?
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Sarcastic atheist(s) respond to Tim Tebow ad. Hilarity ensues. Trust me.
Here are some more people spouting off about what turned out to be probably one of the most benign and harmless ads ever run during the Superbowl. Of course, all this indignant and blustering verbiocity was BEFORE anyone posturing so defensively had even seen the ad in question.
I could go on and on posting more diatribe - but to be honest, I'm sort of bored with the whole topic. Tim Tebow and his mom seem like nice enough people. Tim does a TON of volunteer work during the off season, and seems to be a good role model for young men. No one's ever dug up any dirt on him, and his reputation both as a player and as a person is clean.
Aren't there more important issues to argue about than this?
Here are some more people spouting off about what turned out to be probably one of the most benign and harmless ads ever run during the Superbowl. Of course, all this indignant and blustering verbiocity was BEFORE anyone posturing so defensively had even seen the ad in question.
I could go on and on posting more diatribe - but to be honest, I'm sort of bored with the whole topic. Tim Tebow and his mom seem like nice enough people. Tim does a TON of volunteer work during the off season, and seems to be a good role model for young men. No one's ever dug up any dirt on him, and his reputation both as a player and as a person is clean.
Aren't there more important issues to argue about than this?
Last edited:
Evamorgana
Member
I wasn't refering to the original ad. I was discussing the idea of more adds presenting similarily one-sided views.
Evamorgana
Member
okay, you're right.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Depends what you're stance is i guess.To some people its as offensive and disgusting as posting an ad for porn during a childrens programme.
There's a time and a place for such things, Superbowl isn't the time or the place but hey, CBS isn't going to care who they get $3 million from.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Okay so at the enormous peril of going too far with this subject..... I agreed with Apex and Kathryn with some nagging doubts/reservations in the back of my mind. By hesitating to post specific examples.... and then when pressed, by posting Dawkins' "militant rant".... those doubts have become a little stronger.
Hear me out.
This is a pattern I've noticed in the past: "militant atheists" really means one guy: Richard Dawkins. Let's be frank, theists can't stand him the same reason liberals can't stand the most passionate and eloquent arch-conservatives. "Militant" doesn't really mean militant, it means he is not sufficiently polite to religious sensibilities. Conservative and liberal critics tear each other apart in the press (I'm not talking about the O'Reilly / Olberman types), they call each others' arguments "nonsense" and so forth all the time. No one cries militant. That's what happens in public debate, we're all grown-ups.
In my experience, the people who call Dawkins militant have rarely read much of what he has written or watched him debate his religious colleagues.
I don't know if that's what's happening here, but let me say this about Dawkins' response to the F on F ad .... just hear me out.
The Washington Post asked Dawkins the following question:
For starters, let's establish that Dawkins is not being militant or hysterical by writing a 700-word response to the question he was asked by the Post.
Now read what he wrote. To his credit, he did not react to the ad per se. Read what he wrote. He wasn't saying it would be wrong to run the ad or that it was too offensive. Instead, he answered the question constructively: by critiquing the abortion argument. He didn't assume or criticize anything about the ad itself except that (1) it was making an argument about abortion which in his opinion is fallacious, and (2) Tim Tebow was promoting this argument. These were perfectly unhysterical assumptions and they turned out to be true. The argument in the watered-down ad was subtle but clearly Focus on the Family was trying to say something about abortion. Dawkins has every right to take up that argument and explain why he disagrees.
What did *not* turn out to be correct is the idea that the ad itself was going to be *offensive* or should have been banned .... and that is precisely what Dawkins *did not* say. He concluded:
The only sort-of plausible criticism is that Dawkins should have left Tebow out of it. We all admire Tebow, and no argument was explicitly made in the ad that aired. OTOH if you take advantage of your celebrity to promote your opinion, however subtly, you have every right. But critics have the right to call it nonsense.
If you don't like Dawkins' arguments you should call them nonsense in return and be prepared to back it up. Instead, the impression I'm getting is that you aren't disagreeing with Dawkins' argument about the Beethoven fallacy, but rather the fact that he made a case at all ..... IOW Tebow is a nice guy, therefore don't make a point about the abortion issue while Tebow is appearing in an ad about the abortion issue. Ironically, that misdirected reaction seems to be precisely the error of the "militants" (whoever they were) who were angry the Tebow ad would be aired at all, the ones Apex and Kathryn are referring to but can't be bothered to name.
Hear me out.
This is a pattern I've noticed in the past: "militant atheists" really means one guy: Richard Dawkins. Let's be frank, theists can't stand him the same reason liberals can't stand the most passionate and eloquent arch-conservatives. "Militant" doesn't really mean militant, it means he is not sufficiently polite to religious sensibilities. Conservative and liberal critics tear each other apart in the press (I'm not talking about the O'Reilly / Olberman types), they call each others' arguments "nonsense" and so forth all the time. No one cries militant. That's what happens in public debate, we're all grown-ups.
In my experience, the people who call Dawkins militant have rarely read much of what he has written or watched him debate his religious colleagues.
I don't know if that's what's happening here, but let me say this about Dawkins' response to the F on F ad .... just hear me out.
The Washington Post asked Dawkins the following question:
For starters, let's establish that Dawkins is not being militant or hysterical by writing a 700-word response to the question he was asked by the Post.
Now read what he wrote. To his credit, he did not react to the ad per se. Read what he wrote. He wasn't saying it would be wrong to run the ad or that it was too offensive. Instead, he answered the question constructively: by critiquing the abortion argument. He didn't assume or criticize anything about the ad itself except that (1) it was making an argument about abortion which in his opinion is fallacious, and (2) Tim Tebow was promoting this argument. These were perfectly unhysterical assumptions and they turned out to be true. The argument in the watered-down ad was subtle but clearly Focus on the Family was trying to say something about abortion. Dawkins has every right to take up that argument and explain why he disagrees.
What did *not* turn out to be correct is the idea that the ad itself was going to be *offensive* or should have been banned .... and that is precisely what Dawkins *did not* say. He concluded:
The fact that the Tim Tebow advertisement is a load of unthought-through nonsense is no reason to ban it. That would infringe our valued principle of free speech. The best that the rest of us can do is point out, to anyone that will listen despite our lack of money to pay for such advertisements, that it is nonsense. As I have just done.
This is not a "militant rant" at all, it is a relatively brief but very frank response to a question about abortion, a controversial issue. I'm seriously trying to do the thought-experiment in my head right now ... if a pro-life person called the pro-choice argument "nonsense" and said a celebrity promoting pro-choice in a commercial was "not good at thinking", would I call that a militant rant? I don't think I would.
The only sort-of plausible criticism is that Dawkins should have left Tebow out of it. We all admire Tebow, and no argument was explicitly made in the ad that aired. OTOH if you take advantage of your celebrity to promote your opinion, however subtly, you have every right. But critics have the right to call it nonsense.
If you don't like Dawkins' arguments you should call them nonsense in return and be prepared to back it up. Instead, the impression I'm getting is that you aren't disagreeing with Dawkins' argument about the Beethoven fallacy, but rather the fact that he made a case at all ..... IOW Tebow is a nice guy, therefore don't make a point about the abortion issue while Tebow is appearing in an ad about the abortion issue. Ironically, that misdirected reaction seems to be precisely the error of the "militants" (whoever they were) who were angry the Tebow ad would be aired at all, the ones Apex and Kathryn are referring to but can't be bothered to name.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Oh brother - read the entire thread, mball. I've posted numerous quotes and sources from what I would call "militant" voices - and I didn't even bring Dawkins up. I was simply responding to the question of who said that Tebow isn't very bright (which is a cheap shot anyway - one that a supposed intellectual should be ashamed to publish).
Dawkins bores the hell out of me.
Dawkins bores the hell out of me.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Yes. If i was less respectful of what other people thought i'd be disgusted about how people think they can impose their morality on others, regardless of whether its superbowl or not.
I think there would have been more of a response if it was the other side doing it, pro-abortion seems to get Gods finest soldiers up in arms.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Actually this is word-for-word the exact same example of four atheist blogs that was cited by Apex. One of the four (Dawkins) barely talked about the ad, saying only that it shouldn't be banned, and spent the rest of his 700-word response to a direct question from a newspaper talking about abortion. Another one said the ad probably won't be a big deal. The author of the original blog post (the Friendly Atheist) said only that the ad probably won't make a big splash.
So that leaves us with two atheists who posted something on the internet .... and reading the exerpts and after seeing the ad, I mostly agree ... And that leaves us with Apex and Kathryn arguing militant atheists were being hysterical and making mountains out of molehills ... but arguably, and ironically, they themselves are making a mountain out of a molehill.
I totally agree. But let's be fair: did Dawkins or anyone else suggest Tibow and his mom aren't nice people?
Absolutely. It just struck me that in your criticism of the militant atheist over-reaction you yourself might have been overreacting.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Um... did you confuse me with Mr. Spinkles?
Man, you're getting bored pretty easily these days.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
That's how most people would feel after making 30 posts in a 170-post thread.Kathryn said:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Is this directed at me or mball? I'm Mr Spinkles. You know, the handsome one.
Now, you're really going to confuse her, if she's seen pictures of us.
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
Im SOOOO bored..
Thats why I keep posting..
Don't ya'll realize I have MANY important things to do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFH7wSMG8Hc&feature=related
Love
Dallas
Thats why I keep posting..
Don't ya'll realize I have MANY important things to do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFH7wSMG8Hc&feature=related
Love
Dallas
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
WELL TURN IT UP!!!!!
Love
Dallas
Love
Dallas
footprints
Well-Known Member
Hmmm...that's in interesting misconstruing of it.
That is because I do not have your belief patterns which misconstrue it.
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 agree. But the FOTF PR campaign beforehand suggested it would be something else. I strongly suspect that what's happened in this thread is what this group intended: use the fact of the upcoming ad to put out an anti-abortion message before the Superbowl, and then after the fact make themselves out as hard-done-by by all their enemies who unreasonably jumped to conclusions.
And BTW: it was a political ad. Focus on the Family is a political organization; any ad for them is a political ad. If the ad had been a blank screen for 30 seconds followed by the Focus on the Family URL, it would've been a political ad.