• 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!

"Religious Conservatives Lash Out at Kellogg’s Over 'Anti-Christian' Cereal"

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Why would I need to? The world is full of ex-gays and ex-heterosexuals
i think that you are very confused at best. Sexuality is a spectrum. Who people are attracted to may be almost all hetero to almost all homosexual. The fact that some may go either way does not make either an ex-gay or an ex-heterosexual. Personally I don't care what consenting adults do in this he privacy of their own home. But you might want to reconsider your position. The only people that I have heard ranting about homosexuality being a choice were rather strong homophobes. And there has been shown to be a link between homophobia and latent homosexuality. So for your own self interest it is best that you advocate for fair treatment of all. Who knows, you might give in to the "dark side".
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Are you saying Gay people have such a miserable life they turn to drugs?
"People with attitudes like yours make Gay people so miserable that they turn to drugs" is a far more accurate description of reality.

I grew up in the late 60s and 70s. The world had improved a great deal over the world that @Evangelicalhumanist grew up in. And the world has improved a great deal since my youth.

I am confident that you'll be an embarrassment to your grandchildren, the way virulent racists generally are today.
Tom
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
"People with attitudes like yours make Gay people so miserable that they turn to drugs" is a far more accurate description of reality.

I grew up in the late 60s and 70s. The world had improved a great deal over the world that @Evangelicalhumanist grew up in. And the world has improved a great deal since my youth.

I am confident that you'll be an embarrassment to your grandchildren, the way virulent racists generally are today.
Tom

Oh so nobody is allowed to disagree with your lifestyle, how very accepting of you
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I want a product to do what “it says on the tin.” I want a product to be good, reliable and trustworthy. If its good, I’ll buy it again and thats how companies should make money. I don’t want the emotional manipulation that could cover up a bad product. That’s all. I think the principle still stands.

I guess I want the world to be a bit simpler and not have an economy built on deception and manipulation, when you could make money making a perfectly good product.

Using cereal to sell LGBT rights is genuinely quite weird, but its also profoundly manipulative. They could do anything regarding workers rights, the environment or fair trade by improving their operation- but no, they picked LGBT rights because its popular and-probably- because its cheaper to buy the symbolism by donate to a charity than actually do good works.

The way we leave ourselves open to that worries me.



I would hope so. I have my bias and blindspots, but I support LGBT rights. My problem is not the issue itself, but that this crosses an unwritten line about where and when it is appropriate to bring it up. The sex side of it is pretty inappropriate, but politicising a box of cereal should be concerning as well.



I meant rigorous standards. To maintain the quality of educational material available to young people and adults.



Yes, it is a good standard. But what the hell has it got to do with a breakfast cereal?



Bullying is wrong. LGBT bullying and discrimination is wrong.I don’t deny that.

But why bring it up at the dinner table over breakfast? That’s bizarre. Thats weird. Even with the best of intentions. Kellogg's intentions are at least partly doing this for the money and the publicity, not just the fact its a good cause. So its a dubious exercise in manipulation here.

So what are your thoughts on advertising in general?

For me, if a tube of toothpaste or can of beans wants to remind me that it is okay to be myself, I have no problems with that.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Oh so nobody is allowed to disagree with your lifestyle, how very accepting of you
Disagreeing with a lifestyle means not engaging in it.

The rights of other people to be and express LGBTIQ stances is something else entirely. It is not a matter of agreement, but of basic civic respect.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
So what are your thoughts on advertising in general?

For me, if a tube of toothpaste or can of beans wants to remind me that it is okay to be myself, I have no problems with that.

I’m resigned to advertising as a part of a modern corporate economy, but personally I think it undermines the capacity for free thought but trying to manipulate individual behaviour and standardise human thoughts and feelings so they behave in a predictable way.

Whilst one product in isolation doesn’t mean much, the accumulation of psychological manipulation for sales techniques means we accept a much greater degree of control over our thoughts and feelings than we might otherwise be comfortable with. As each product and company competes for our attention, we all have less space for quiet reflection to get to know and be ourselves. The white noise of mass media drowns out the space to have genuinely original and independent thought. The pressure to sell easily translates in to a pressure to conform. (The social and psychological processes at work are now pretty blatant online).

The only silver lining was that advertising focused on economic goals (“buy this product”). It didn’t step in to the realm of being explicitly political propaganda. A broad separation between economics and politics keeps wider society free. Markets give us the space to make voluntary exchanges whilst the government uses the law to force people to behave one way or another. When “everything” becomes politicised, it begins to justify using state power to make political judgements. This is not a straight forward process, but the chipping away at the boundaries adds up in the end.

I find that using a cereal box as a propaganda/marketing tool for any political agenda is therefore pretty alarming (even if I support the cause), particularly if it becomes normal for inanimate household objects to be advertised based on their willingness to make political statements or support particular causes.

Although I appreciate the good intentions at work here, this is a very sharp departure from the standard capitalist economic practice where companies are doing things-explicitly- for the profit motive. I am very left-wing but for once, I’m going to agree with Milton Friedman and say I’d prefer companies stick to making money rather than use ideas of “corporate social responsibility” to disguise it. If a company makes a good product, the market should reward that and that principle is what helps the economy behave in a rational, utilitarian and efficient way.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Oh so nobody is allowed to disagree with your lifestyle, how very accepting of you
You don't know me very well, certainly not well enough to judge my lifestyle.

I grew up in a family where adults spent most of their free time and resources raising children. That was the model I knew.
I didn't have kids. So I put the bulk of my free time and resources into volunteer work and charity. From "adopting" a little girl in Haiti, to AIDS hospice, to the local art co-op, to the NAACP, you name it.
Once I came out of the closet and got my act together I found a compatible partner and got married. We've been married for about 25 years now.

I'm now at a stage of life where caring for elderly relatives uses up the bulk of my free time.

What, exactly, is it about my lifestyle that you disagree with?
Tom
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
Disagreeing with a lifestyle means not engaging in it.

The rights of other people to be and express LGBTIQ stances is something else entirely. It is not a matter of agreement, but of basic civic respect.

I don't engage in it,, but how is calling someone who disagreeing a bigot civil respect?
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
You don't know me very well, certainly not well enough to judge my lifestyle.

I grew up in a family where adults spent most of their free time and resources raising children. That was the model I knew.
I didn't have kids. So I put the bulk of my free time and resources into volunteer work and charity. From "adopting" a little girl in Haiti, to AIDS hospice, to the local art co-op, to the NAACP, you name it.
Once I came out of the closet and got my act together I found a compatible partner and got married. We've been married for about 25 years now.

I'm now at a stage of life where caring for elderly relatives uses up the bulk of my free time.

What, exactly, is it about my lifestyle that you disagree with?
Tom

Just the sexual aspect as I've clearly stated before
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I don't engage in it,, but how is calling someone who disagreeing a bigot civil respect?
You didn't just disagree. You called homosexuality a "lifestyle with increased drug use".

Since you are obviously ignorant of the reasons why homosexuals tend to have higher rates of drug use and mental illness, and of the fact that homosexuality is not a lifestyle, this statement was bigoted, since it is born out of small-minded fear of homosexuality and a desire to paint homosexuality as in some way morally deficient.

It's not just a case of you disagreeing. It's you deliberately spreading ignorance in order to denigrate homosexuals. Which is bigoted.
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
You didn't just disagree. You called homosexuality a "lifestyle with increased drug use".

Since you are obviously ignorant of the reasons why homosexuals tend to have higher rates of drug use and mental illness, and of the fact that homosexuality is not a lifestyle, this statement was bigoted, since it is born out of small-minded fear of homosexuality and a desire to paint homosexuality as in some way morally deficient.

It's not just a case of you disagreeing. It's you deliberately spreading ignorance in order to denigrate homosexuals. Which is bigoted.

So quoting very credible reasurch is spreading ignorance and denigration of Homosexuality and bigotry

Yep, good luck with that
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
So quoting very credible reasurch is spreading ignorance and denigration of Homosexuality and bigotry
Yes. Because you remove any nuance and simply connect homosexuality with drug use, when the actual causes are more complicated and do not cast homosexuality - but rather, people like yourself who denigrate it - as the cause.

If I presented a paper which showed that black people were more likely to be involved in crime than white people, and simply used it to indicate that black people were just "more evil" or "more criminal" than whites, what would you conclude about me?
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Nah...I tried it. Wasn't the case.
Really?
You found "gay is best" before "hell bound sinners"?

"Equal rights is best" I could believe. Or "Gay is best for me"
But not a simple "Gay is best", period. I just don't believe that came from anybody important enough to rank highly on Google.
Tom
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
Yes. Because you remove any nuance and simply connect homosexuality with drug use, when the actual causes are more complicated and do not cast homosexuality - but rather, people like yourself who denigrate it - as the cause.

If I presented a paper which showed that black people were more likely to be involved in crime than white people, and simply used it to indicate that black people were just "more evil" or "more criminal" than whites, what would you conclude about me?

How is stating the increased drug use within a community the same as saying the community causes drug use?
 
Top